[0:01] It's about 12:30, 1:00. I just Hey, I

[0:06] better check because there's a lot on

[0:07] this thing.

[0:08] >> Well, we want to welcome you to our

[0:10] Hooper City Council work meeting. It is

[0:13] 5:35 and we're going to go ahead and get

[0:15] started. Before we do, someone dropped

[0:17] this off at the office that is to the

[0:19] mayor and city council. It's a concern.

[0:23] It's not on our agenda, so we can't

[0:25] discuss it, but I would like you to look

[0:27] through it. And I think we will end up

[0:30] putting this in our newsletter. It's a

[0:32] concern about youth that are late night

[0:35] door ditching and it is causing some

[0:39] concern with some older residents.

[0:42] So, um, look through this because I

[0:44] think this is something that we can,

[0:46] like I mentioned, put this on in our

[0:48] newsletter and if it is something that

[0:51] you feel like as a council, we just got

[0:53] this just not too long before the

[0:55] meeting and so it wasn't time to mail it

[0:57] out to you sooner, but see if you feel

[0:59] like if if this is something you feel

[1:01] like we should formally do something,

[1:04] then we'll put it on our next agenda and

[1:06] talk about it. So,

[1:07] >> this is one of those letters that I'll

[1:09] actually read and pay attention to. The

[1:12] that people don't sign.

[1:13] >> I never read them.

[1:15] >> Yeah. No, they they put their names on

[1:17] here, their email addresses

[1:19] >> of what they do. Um I saw a little bit

[1:22] about this on one of the social media

[1:24] posts.

[1:26] So, I think some education is always

[1:28] good, you know, and I'd already

[1:29] mentioned to Morgan about let's have

[1:32] this put on our

[1:34] >> Fair enough. Yeah. I Anybody that'll

[1:36] sign their name, I'll be happy to read

[1:37] their

[1:38] >> Yeah.

[1:38] >> comments and concerns.

[1:40] >> Okay. And then, like I say, if there's

[1:41] anything you want us to do further, then

[1:44] let me know and we'll put it on the

[1:45] agenda. So, our next agenda that is in

[1:48] August, our first one in August, I

[1:50] believe it's the 6th, August 6th. The

[1:52] only thing we can do at that meeting is

[1:53] our truth and taxation. So, we can't

[1:56] have any other business on that meeting

[1:58] at all. And so, the next time we will

[2:01] actually have a meeting that we can be

[2:02] discussing further city business will be

[2:05] on August 20th. So just know it would be

[2:08] till August 20th before we could move

[2:10] this to the agenda.

[2:11] >> Okay.

[2:11] >> So Okay.

[2:12] >> So Sherry,

[2:14] >> did you did everybody get the email from

[2:16] Weber County Fair?

[2:18] >> We fair.

[2:19] >> We county fairs that night also

[2:21] >> on August 6th.

[2:22] >> The night they are allowing us to go to

[2:25] the

[2:27] >> Oh, the fight monster truck.

[2:30] >> Oh yes.

[2:31] >> Yes, I did too get that.

[2:34] I I saw it and I think when I saw that

[2:37] it was the same date, I just figured we

[2:40] couldn't. We've had this date set and we

[2:42] need to do it or we won't be able to do

[2:43] the truth and taxation. And that's

[2:45] probably about the same time, too. Is it

[2:47] Ryan?

[2:47] >> 7:00.

[2:48] >> Well, maybe we'll be done. We It's a

[2:52] public hearing, so you don't know. We

[2:54] may have more residents that show up.

[2:56] You know, we'll certainly start

[2:57] advertising that here. So, are we voting

[3:00] on anything that night or just letting

[3:01] the residents come? And

[3:03] >> so, so the residents come and we have to

[3:06] it will actually be a vote. So, so far

[3:08] we only have the preliminary budget.

[3:10] That would have to be the night that we

[3:12] vote on a final budget after the truth

[3:14] and taxation.

[3:16] >> So, I think we're all in accord on that

[3:18] anyway, aren't we? I'm just saying,

[3:19] Ryan, if that's something you and your

[3:21] family's going to do that night, I

[3:23] >> I just didn't know how many of us

[3:24] actually got tickets.

[3:26] >> Well, I signed up for the tickets. Oh,

[3:28] did

[3:28] >> you have until July 31st to do it,

[3:31] >> but also I thought

[3:34] nothing else could be going on.

[3:37] >> Well, you can't have any other truth and

[3:39] taxation meetings that night. So, it had

[3:43] to be a separate meeting from like this

[3:45] the school districts doing one, the

[3:47] sewer board, the fire board.

[3:49] >> Okay. Weaver County, you cannot have two

[3:52] truth and taxation meetings on the same

[3:54] night because they don't want residents

[3:56] to feel like they're having to choose.

[3:58] >> But that's what I'm curious. Is this big

[3:59] enough because it's like Weaver County's

[4:01] biggest event. Is would this qualify as

[4:04] something that is happening that is

[4:06] preventing residents from attending the

[4:08] truth and taxation?

[4:10] >> It could,

[4:11] >> but we already had to establish this

[4:13] date a few months ago. So

[4:16] >> it came out after Yeah. But maybe we'd

[4:19] be done and residents could still go to

[4:21] that after. They have the dinner first

[4:23] and it usually takes a little while for

[4:25] them to serve everybody anyway.

[4:27] >> Well, they they changed it this time.

[4:28] They said, "Please come support our food

[4:30] truck vendors." I don't think

[4:31] >> Oh, that's right.

[4:33] >> But they're having

[4:35] >> monster.

[4:37] Yeah, that's right. Because that's what

[4:38] I saw and it said about the food truck.

[4:40] >> Yeah. Yeah. Okay.

[4:44] >> I text Ray. I'll bet anything starts at

[4:47] six

[4:47] >> probably. Okay, so we're going to go

[4:50] ahead and get started. So, we had a

[4:52] little longer work meeting because it

[4:54] never feels like we have time to get

[4:57] everything done that we need to. And so,

[5:00] you should all have had a copy in your

[5:01] package of the pressurized irrigation.

[5:04] This is our ordinance. One one thing

[5:06] that's pretty interesting about this was

[5:08] when we were looking this up, this

[5:11] ordinance actually falls it's in title

[5:13] six chapter 5 under health and

[5:16] sanitation.

[5:18] So I think when we are looking at this

[5:20] ordinance and if there's any changes we

[5:22] want to make because currently the way

[5:24] this sits this isn't even under a land

[5:26] use policy where I feel like if any

[5:30] changes are you know if we talk about

[5:32] this and think there needs to be that

[5:33] would be my suggestion is we end up

[5:35] moving it probably under our title 10

[5:39] what you feel like um so it is something

[5:41] that would go to planning commission for

[5:43] them to give some feedback and then come

[5:46] back to us but I always like to talk

[5:48] about things first in a work meeting so

[5:50] I you know can get a feel of a

[5:52] discussion whether this is something you

[5:54] feel like we should do or not. So I'll just give you a couple of

[5:58] suggestions or I've thought of um as

[6:01] I've gone I've gone through um so again

[6:04] that was one of my first ones. So, you

[6:06] know, no, this is title six, not under

[6:09] land use. And when we talk about this

[6:12] chapter under health and sanitation,

[6:14] then it's talking about inside and

[6:16] outside water, which makes sense, but

[6:18] I'm still not quite sure why this

[6:19] wouldn't be under I thought it would be

[6:21] under our subdivision ordinance,

[6:23] but it's but it's not. Um, some things I

[6:26] thought that we we should probably be

[6:28] looking at because there could be here

[6:31] in our future to have some commercial

[6:33] sites within the city of Hooper. And

[6:35] right now with this ordinance, we are

[6:37] requiring developers to install pressure

[6:39] irrig irrigation systems in all

[6:41] subdivisions and commercial sites. We

[6:44] could have some commercial sites that

[6:45] could come in that could possibly

[6:48] take a span of 25 acres and under

[6:51] curtain regulations it's one share per

[6:54] acre to turn in a secondary but they

[6:56] could possibly have five trees and six

[6:59] bushes

[7:00] >> just a half a share per acre though.

[7:02] >> Um well currently what theirs is up to

[7:05] an acre with the last they gave me was a

[7:07] share per acre but but we could verify

[7:10] that. Hello. Um anyway so our kids was

[7:14] uh uh could either turn where we've just

[7:18] done them. They could turn in a full

[7:20] share per acre like you're saying or

[7:22] they can turn in a half a share and pay

[7:25] is it $5,000?

[7:27] >> Yeah. If they if they're going to pay

[7:29] for the ask for the hookup fee.

[7:31] >> Okay. So So they they turn because the

[7:33] shares are so expensive they would they

[7:36] I gave half a share and then they paid

[7:38] the 9,000

[7:40] >> fee. Yeah. But so that was one area I

[7:43] thought. Hello Darren, happy to have you

[7:45] here. We're just talking about the first

[7:46] thing on our work agenda the as far as

[7:49] the pressurize. Anyway, that was one

[7:51] thing that we might want to look into

[7:52] that because we we might need to have a

[7:55] different standard in this ordinance for

[7:57] commercial developments versus

[7:58] residential because they really maybe

[8:01] won't be having irrigation. You know,

[8:03] you look, for example, like the holiday

[8:05] station up on the corner of 43 and 55

[8:08] and it's pretty much all rocks and a lot

[8:11] of the commercials are. And so, you

[8:13] know, I I thought that was one one.

[8:16] >> So, are you saying like for developers

[8:18] who might not want to use irrigation

[8:21] like that? Uh, it wouldn't What do we do

[8:25] currently if a developer doesn't want to

[8:27] use irrigation? Well, we haven't even

[8:30] >> they still have to they still have to

[8:31] turn in the share whether they're using

[8:32] it or not.

[8:33] >> Our code requires they have to they have

[8:35] to use irrigation

[8:37] >> even if they're doing zero escape and

[8:38] have nothing to wet. They just have to

[8:40] wet the rocks.

[8:42] >> They have to have a connection if it's

[8:44] available.

[8:45] >> Okay.

[8:46] >> They don't have to use it. I suppose

[8:47] they don't want to use it.

[8:48] >> Yeah. Because I mean last time we were

[8:50] talking about like the flip the strip

[8:51] thing and all of that stuff and

[8:53] conservation and I'm just curious if

[8:54] somebody chooses to build that way and

[8:56] builds with zerocape. Um, under our

[9:00] current ordinance, we'd still force them

[9:01] to hook up the water even if they're

[9:02] never spraying anything down.

[9:04] >> That's correct.

[9:05] >> Yes. They would need to connect the

[9:07] subdivision would need a secondary

[9:09] system which would likely be Yeah. would

[9:10] have connection each lot.

[9:12] >> Okay. So, there's no exception planning.

[9:14] >> No, that's why I'm thinking

[9:17] there's some changes that that we want

[9:19] to make because because the dialogue in

[9:21] this it'll say required. You know, this

[9:25] ordinance is to require.

[9:26] >> Yeah. I think the Your thought process

[9:29] just a step further

[9:30] >> would just be

[9:34] outside irrigation is typically provided

[9:38] through secondary water.

[9:41] >> The alternative would be culinary water,

[9:44] right?

[9:45] >> I understand there

[9:47] new,

[9:49] you know, landscaping methods that don't

[9:51] require any, but very few that don't

[9:53] require lease drip systems.

[9:55] >> So, an alternative would have to be

[9:58] I suppose so that would be something you

[10:00] know

[10:00] >> we could consider. Okay.

[10:02] >> So did I read in here I think that uh

[10:07] unless they uh like a farmer had

[10:11] irrigation water coming down then they

[10:13] would be exempt from that if they had

[10:15] the water coming down there. Is that

[10:18] true

[10:19] >> for to for like a development?

[10:22] >> Yeah. Or uh Yeah. I just thought I there

[10:26] was so much this uh week that I read

[10:29] through last night.

[10:30] >> Apply to owners who lawfully use water

[10:33] from a well or canal to property.

[10:36] >> So could we just add in there uh for

[10:40] culinary water?

[10:42] >> You're saying so instead of rewriting

[10:44] this thing, we would put it under the

[10:45] exception.

[10:48] >> That would be that' be an option that we

[10:50] could write it under the exception.

[10:51] >> Just throwing stuff out. Yeah.

[10:53] >> Yeah. Where is that?

[10:55] >> It's 656

[11:00] » so on the Hello on the 652 and these are

[11:05] just a couple of things that we are not

[11:07] we're not requiring them to do. So if

[11:08] we're not then we shouldn't have them in

[11:10] our ordinance. So it says that um if you

[11:12] go about halfway through that paragraph

[11:14] on 652 that it says the developer must

[11:17] ensure each lot is connected as part of

[11:20] their development agreement with the

[11:21] city. Well, not all developments have

[11:24] development agreements, and yet in our

[11:26] ordinance, we're requiring that as part

[11:28] of their development agreement. So,

[11:30] that's probably something that should be

[11:32] changed, too, because if we're not

[11:33] requiring a development agreement,

[11:36] we can't require them to do that if it's

[11:38] not even a development agreement, if

[11:40] that if that makes sense. So, I think

[11:42] this was verbiage that was put in that

[11:43] we don't always do. And then it talks

[11:46] about they must install a dry system,

[11:48] and we haven't required them to do that.

[11:51] So again, we need to look at that and if

[11:53] this is going to be our ordinance, we

[11:54] either make them do it or we take it

[11:56] out.

[11:57] >> Well, if we're not making them do it,

[11:59] then we need to take it out. Yeah.

[12:01] >> Yeah. Yeah. Um and so then, you know,

[12:04] again, down the next one, 65 are

[12:07] required to connect unless exempted by

[12:10] the city administrators for a minor

[12:12] subdivision, but we haven't been

[12:14] exempting anyone either. Even when

[12:16] someone's coming and putting in a

[12:18] subdivision and it's only a one lot

[12:20] subdivision, we have still been

[12:22] requiring them to either turn in their

[12:25] water like you did with your son, which

[12:27] would have been considered a minor

[12:29] subdivision, or turn in a half a share

[12:31] and pay the difference. So, so again, I

[12:35] think we have a lot of stuff in here

[12:37] that we're not doing.

[12:39] >> Anyway,

[12:40] >> no, I just trying to think of our city.

[12:43] Does anybody know a single person that

[12:45] doesn't use secondary water

[12:48] >> or or irrigation water?

[12:50] >> People who don't have it available?

[12:52] >> Yeah.

[12:53] >> Just West Hooper that doesn't have a

[12:56] pressurized system.

[12:59] >> Not some of them use culinary for their

[13:01] yards.

[13:01] >> They they use culinary.

[13:03] >> They have to get approval though from

[13:05] culinary for sure. Which is a broader

[13:08] application would be interesting

[13:09] >> for landscaping.

[13:11] >> Yeah. broader application than just one

[13:13] offs that don't have it would be an

[13:14] interesting discussion, right? I don't

[13:16] know how

[13:18] they would let us

[13:19] >> because we had that one lot that went in

[13:20] on 6700 that secondaries not available

[13:24] there that they still were required to

[13:27] turn in the share of water.

[13:28] >> Aren't minor subdivisions two lots or

[13:31] either one?

[13:32] >> It can be up to three.

[13:36] So, legal question, Darren. Uh, this

[13:40] exemption under 653 that says unless

[13:44] exempted by the city administrators

[13:47] uh for a minor subdivision. Um,

[13:51] that's an exception, right? So, it says

[13:54] unless accept.

[13:56] So, that's interesting. Unless exempted,

[14:01] which means that therefore that language

[14:03] would let us exempt.

[14:06] But they I know we're hearing no one has

[14:07] ever been exempted, but it's in our code

[14:09] that

[14:09] >> right

[14:09] >> we could

[14:12] >> Yeah, it's that's what our words say.

[14:14] And I think we could argue it that yes,

[14:15] that's what it's saying. Or is it saying

[14:18] >> unless exempted because of 656,

[14:24] but it doesn't say that specifically,

[14:25] >> right? It doesn't say that specifically.

[14:27] So I guess someone could argue both

[14:31] >> and and why this is under I I don't know

[14:34] Darren if you were here when I mentioned

[14:35] this beginning this is actually under

[14:37] title six under health and sanitation so

[14:40] it doesn't even fall under the a land

[14:43] use

[14:43] >> land use

[14:44] >> no so so probably it's never been

[14:46] exempted because this has never been

[14:48] brought up when it's came to a

[14:50] development because planning commission

[14:52] hasn't even had they've never they don't

[14:54] look at this I mean they do look at it

[14:56] but they shouldn't have because it

[14:57] doesn't even fall under one of their

[14:59] codes.

[14:59] >> I think this exemption is a little I

[15:02] think we're taking a little different

[15:03] direction than what this means. After it

[15:05] becomes available though, they're

[15:06] required to hook up within 30 days

[15:09] >> unless

[15:10] >> exempt.

[15:11] >> They've been exempted,

[15:12] >> right? That's what I'm saying.

[15:14] >> So, if I was reading this and I was

[15:15] building something and I read this code,

[15:17] I would say, well, it says unless

[15:18] exempted by the city administrators

[15:19] first. Who's the city administrator? Is

[15:21] that anybody that works at the front

[15:22] desk? And can they exempt me? And then

[15:26] I'd be trying to figure out how do I get

[15:27] the application for this exemption?

[15:29] >> What qualifies as the city

[15:30] administrator?

[15:33] >> Yeah, I

[15:34] >> the only thing that in here says that

[15:36] there would be an exception would be the

[15:38] 656.

[15:40] So

[15:43] >> yeah.

[15:46] >> I just think that this all yields to the

[15:47] fact that we probably got to clean this

[15:48] up.

[15:49] >> Yeah, we need we need to at least make

[15:51] it more clear. What? Another ordinance?

[15:54] >> Come on.

[15:54] >> No, me and Yeah, me and Nick are as we

[15:58] are working on things, we'll see them

[15:59] and we're starting to do that more.

[16:01] We're gonna

[16:02] >> Thank you.

[16:02] >> We're have lots of changes here coming

[16:04] up. So, this is just one. Let's do it.

[16:06] >> Okay.

[16:07] >> Well, and I had talked to um Hipper

[16:09] Water.

[16:10] >> Oh, go ahead. Ryan,

[16:11] >> he was saying, can we move this to the

[16:13] land use?

[16:14] >> Yeah, it should be.

[16:14] >> Our land use needs overhaul. Um it's

[16:19] very hard to

[16:21] make it through that code. So, I think

[16:24] that's something we're working on. So,

[16:26] we could be added in for sure.

[16:28] >> Well, we had a hard time even finding it

[16:29] because I'd asked Malcolm and he sent it

[16:31] to me and then when I looked I said,

[16:33] "Where even is this? I don't know why

[16:35] this was ever under health and

[16:36] sanitation.

[16:38] That that makes no sense to me." And

[16:42] then so then you go down to the next

[16:43] section which or section where it says

[16:45] 654 about developers required to escrow

[16:49] funds or the actual water shares. And I

[16:52] think that's what you were talking

[16:53] about. They either had to escrow the

[16:55] funds or but it also says in here they

[16:58] can do that the actual shares with the

[17:01] city or with the applicable water

[17:03] company. And we've never allowed them to

[17:05] do it with the city but in our ordinance

[17:07] they could have. So the so we could have

[17:10] been holding the watershed

[17:13] interest on that too. Correct.

[17:15] >> We should have

[17:16] >> if somebody escrows money to us, we're

[17:18] supposed to pay

[17:19] >> Yeah.

[17:19] >> 2% or something like that.

[17:22] >> Yeah.

[17:23] >> We shouldn't be holding their money for

[17:25] free. Neither should anybody else really

[17:26] for that, I don't think.

[17:29] >> Yeah. But some of these, you know, and

[17:32] um from talking to Cole Allen down at

[17:34] Hooker Culinary, he said they this

[17:37] culinary would really be fine if But for

[17:39] numbers like three, four, and five, if

[17:41] we referred them to the culinary rather

[17:44] than us requiring them to turn in that

[17:46] share because for example like

[17:48] commercial ore if it was a zeroscape or

[17:53] a patio home or something that they

[17:54] could provide the water to that should probably be a someone has to

[18:01] provide water. plain and simple, either

[18:03] culinary or secondary. Someone has to.

[18:06] But he, you know,

[18:07] >> but commercials use almost no secondary.

[18:11] In fact, you know, or largest potential

[18:14] commercial people have said, they're not

[18:16] putting any grass in anywhere and maybe

[18:18] a couple trees that would be almost

[18:22] ludicrous for them to turn in a whole

[18:24] bunch of water shares that they're never

[18:26] ever going to use.

[18:28] >> Yeah.

[18:30] Well, okay. So from going through this

[18:33] then do you this is just a discussion

[18:36] nothing that we can decide but I I felt

[18:39] like this is something we should discuss

[18:40] to see if and I feel like this is we

[18:42] need to do some revisions on this it has

[18:44] a lot of things that were not really

[18:49] >> I think the spirit of it underlying

[18:51] should be we and maybe even it was a

[18:54] stretch but I assume health and

[18:56] sanitation was likely for the appearance

[18:59] of the homes the you know, the actual

[19:02] functionality of the lawn, the

[19:04] vegetation, the look, dust, etc. But if

[19:07] you don't have water, obviously they're

[19:09] problems. So the spirit of this should

[19:11] be in maybe like the water shares for

[19:13] instance, if someone has to provide

[19:14] water and that has to be verified for

[19:19] outside to the extent that people can

[19:21] build a home that looks good. Well, I

[19:24] know there was Yeah, I know there was a

[19:25] health and sanitation consideration on

[19:27] my spot because the box was designed to

[19:30] where you could switch from secondary to

[19:32] culinary, but was asked to be removed

[19:35] because it could like

[19:36] >> cross.

[19:38] >> Yeah. And it could contaminate the

[19:39] internal house. So, when I asked when I

[19:42] bought the house, hey, can I use

[19:43] culinary for this? It was, well, we

[19:46] intended to build it that way, but we

[19:47] were told we had to remove that out

[19:49] because of sanitation, because of

[19:50] health. And so I wonder if that had some

[19:52] component probably.

[19:53] >> I mean, my house was built in like the

[19:55] early 2000s when we became a city. So

[19:57] maybe it was around the time where we

[19:58] started thinking like if people are

[20:00] using culinary irrigation, we need to

[20:01] kind of set up a a spec, you know,

[20:04] specific route.

[20:05] >> They make a uh

[20:07] >> check valve.

[20:07] >> Yeah. For that. But they have to be uh

[20:10] because we have one in Ogden

[20:13] >> and uh a backflow type thing.

[20:15] >> Yeah, that's what it is. We have to have

[20:17] backflow test inspected month, right?

[20:21] That would make sense,

[20:22] >> then send it in.

[20:23] >> Mine was just apparently told take it

[20:25] out because we didn't want to take the

[20:26] risk, which is fine. It was before I

[20:27] bought the house. But um I just want I

[20:29] mean that's the only thing I could think

[20:31] in anecdotally that crossed over health

[20:33] and sanitation was

[20:35] comingling those waters.

[20:38] And I believe and I we also have in our

[20:41] one of our part of our develop or our

[20:43] subdivisions they have salon to do

[20:45] landscaping but if we don't like this

[20:47] year if we don't really have water and

[20:50] we are in a drought I think there's

[20:52] things we need to look at because we

[20:54] always say we're in a drought this year

[20:56] well we may be in one next year.

[20:59] >> I mean we hope not but I think we need

[21:02] to make sure our ordinances are up to

[21:04] date that they are fitting what needs to

[21:06] be done. So, like, you know, I mentioned

[21:08] we don't want a commercial to come and

[21:09] then say, "Oh, this is taking 25 acres,

[21:12] give us 25 shares of water." And the

[21:15] commercial development says, like, you

[21:16] know, we're going to have a drip system

[21:18] to Well, I don't know. Holiday up there

[21:20] maybe has 15 bushes, maybe. I don't

[21:23] know.

[21:24] >> Easily could do that off a culinary,

[21:26] wouldn't you?

[21:26] >> Yes, they could. Wouldn't even affect

[21:27] it.

[21:28] >> Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Well, maybe if

[21:31] you have any

[21:33] what what would be best, Darren, to send

[21:35] you any suggestions? You want just some

[21:37] chance to look through this and we'll

[21:38] address this then in a meeting when you

[21:40] have something?

[21:42] >> We should probably work with Malcolm and

[21:44] moving it over to 10. Um, we would want

[21:46] to know really what you guys want. I can

[21:49] do a proposal, but

[21:54] I'm not you guys. So,

[21:55] >> can we tell you what we want in a work

[21:56] meeting or do you need to hear that on

[21:57] an agenda in

[21:58] >> You can say it in a work meeting. You

[21:59] can say it right now. you want, what

[22:01] changes you would want on it.

[22:03] >> So, let me ask you this question. When

[22:05] you make these changes like this one

[22:07] here, we just says Darren, go take care

[22:10] of it. Do you go pull up your favorite

[22:12] city and

[22:16] >> favorite cities? Yeah.

[22:18] >> I I mean, my suggestion would be, okay,

[22:21] go ahead and

[22:22] >> see what I come see what I come back

[22:23] with.

[22:24] >> See what you come back with.

[22:26] >> You kind of know where we're headed up

[22:28] here. basically

[22:29] >> is where you're kind of heading and I

[22:30] summarize it. Is it that you would like

[22:32] to add optionality? People could use

[22:34] culinary if it's approved. Is that the

[22:36] idea?

[22:36] >> People could use secondary or culinary

[22:38] as long as they had a will serve letter

[22:40] prior to approval.

[22:42] >> Is there a reason why we wouldn't want

[22:43] to do that?

[22:45] >> Was there a reason? Do you know

[22:46] historically why we didn't want to offer

[22:48] a culinary option?

[22:50] >> I don't I don't know even today that the

[22:51] culinary water district is is willing to

[22:54] do that yet today. So they got to have

[22:58] >> a say in it.

[22:59] >> A say in this.

[23:00] >> We would need for sure. We need

[23:03] insurance.

[23:04] >> I think some cities

[23:06] >> push for it because they've let culinary

[23:09] >> Mhm.

[23:10] >> and then there's complaints that it's

[23:11] too expensive. I think I've said that to

[23:12] you guys in the past. That was something

[23:14] that happened in another city I was

[23:15] covering.

[23:16] >> Yeah, it's expensive.

[23:17] >> So then they were like, well, we just

[23:19] want irrigation to the city like it was

[23:21] our fault. Like we need to give them the

[23:23] opportunity.

[23:25] >> Yeah.

[23:25] >> So that was a big And it really wasn't

[23:28] it wasn't wasn't the city's fault.

[23:30] >> Sure.

[23:31] >> Well, I mean with this two day a week

[23:32] restriction, I I called culinary and

[23:34] said, "Can I spot water?" And they were

[23:36] like, "We have more than enough water."

[23:37] They were like, "You'll pay for it." But

[23:39] >> meeting with them a while back and they

[23:40] told us

[23:41] >> So I just hooked it to the house with

[23:42] the hose, right?

[23:43] >> 20% of their available water right now.

[23:46] >> Yeah.

[23:47] >> But

[23:50] >> I don't know. That's just what they told

[23:52] you.

[23:54] I would guess planning for the future. I don't know.

[23:58] >> Yeah. I don't know. That's just

[23:59] anecdotal. Like they just I just called

[24:01] him and said, "Hey, can I spot water off

[24:04] the house?" And would that be an issue?

[24:06] And they said, "We got plenty of water

[24:08] to

[24:08] >> Well, I don't think cost effective. It's

[24:10] going to be realistic for anybody that

[24:12] has a large yard. It's not going to be

[24:14] cost effective."

[24:15] >> No.

[24:16] >> Secondary water is going to be a way

[24:18] better deal for them in that situation.

[24:20] Even at two days a week, it's still

[24:22] going to be a better deal than hooking

[24:24] up the culinary. And there are a lot of

[24:27] people out here, and I talked to people

[24:28] in the culinary district that are

[24:30] smoking $500 a month to water their

[24:33] lawns off of culinary, which blew my

[24:36] mind. But there are a lot

[24:39] now. Does that make sense? No. But it's

[24:42] their money, so I don't care.

[24:43] >> So that's my question. Like, why would

[24:44] it have like does it need to be an

[24:46] ordinance? I mean, I don't need the

[24:48] government to tell me how I can spend my

[24:49] money, right? So, does it need to be an

[24:51] ordinance that says, "Well, I want to

[24:52] save you money, so you're forced to not

[24:54] have the option."

[24:55] >> Like, is that's why I'm wondering, is

[24:56] there anything that prohibited us from

[24:59] giving people the option and then they

[25:00] got to deal with culinary on it?

[25:02] >> No. And if they decide to do that, I

[25:04] think we owe it to them to just say, you

[25:06] know, be prepared.

[25:10] >> Oh, I was just going to say we did, you

[25:11] know, some fast estimates. By the time

[25:13] you take what you pay for a buying a

[25:15] share, you pay the connection fee. They

[25:18] figured it's about 25 years of paying

[25:21] for culinary to water an acre before

[25:23] you'd ever break even.

[25:25] >> So again, that would rotate on how much

[25:27] you watered. For instance, the guy that

[25:28] used to live on the corner west of me

[25:31] watered every day.

[25:32] >> Yeah.

[25:33] >> But he didn't care. I mean, his lawn was

[25:35] actually swampy.

[25:37] >> The guy that bought the house recently

[25:39] took out half the lawn put in gravel and

[25:40] said, "This is crazy. I

[25:43] Yeah, but I think like you said David,

[25:45] it probably should be an option.

[25:46] >> I think only maybe broader potential

[25:48] risk like I know Bonavista and I don't

[25:50] you can't compare bonavista and water.

[25:52] So I'm not trying to make that direct

[25:54] comparison. They're similar. They have a

[25:57] resolution you gave them zero ir zero

[25:59] irrigation nothing no drip nothing. So

[26:02] they won't permit it at all. So if you

[26:04] had homes right and I think it's more

[26:06] likely that water would have a

[26:08] resolution like that than irrigation

[26:10] whose sole purpose is to provide

[26:13] irrigation.

[26:13] >> That's fair. Yeah.

[26:14] >> So if at some point you had permitted

[26:16] culinary and then by no decision of

[26:18] yours a separate entity for water

[26:20] resolution no more culinary use then you

[26:23] would have homes that could have

[26:24] effectively no green.

[26:26] >> It wouldn't be like grandfathered or

[26:29] something. I would expect it would be

[26:31] >> anyway. I don't know. But that's a risk

[26:33] potentially. That's pretty, you know,

[26:34] long term. I don't I don't know if

[26:36] they'd ever cut people off entirely, but

[26:38] one of this for future. That's a fair

[26:41] point. It is for it was in like 2021 was

[26:44] their resolution. So, anything beyond

[26:45] that?

[26:46] >> Yeah, I think it'd have to be

[26:47] grandfathered if you have it.

[26:48] >> That's fair. That's probably

[26:49] >> there's no way to go take them back. I

[26:50] don't think

[26:51] >> Yeah, that's a fair point. That's a fair

[26:52] point. They should They wouldn't be able

[26:54] to prohibit people who are currently

[26:56] doing it like

[26:56] >> No, but they stop.

[26:58] >> Just a thought. So

[26:59] >> yeah, I'm open to I mean I know we're

[27:00] not making decisions on adopting an

[27:02] ordinance, but if it's directionally I'm

[27:04] open to the language speaking direction

[27:06] around allowing

[27:07] >> a lot of sense.

[27:08] >> Yeah. And probably some standards with

[27:10] commercial and residential since we've

[27:13] never really had commercial there. I

[27:14] feel like there needs to maybe be some

[27:16] different

[27:17] >> need

[27:17] >> or or even like with the zeroscaping.

[27:19] There's a house in the subdivision

[27:21] behind ours, a second house in and their

[27:23] whole front is zeroscaped, but I know

[27:25] they turned in a, you know, they didn't

[27:28] the developer half a share of water and

[27:30] I don't

[27:30] >> Well, and I think you're going to find a

[27:31] lot of people maybe zero front yard and

[27:34] put a little bit of grass in the back.

[27:35] >> Yeah.

[27:36] >> Still might be a lot more economical for

[27:38] them because you know the value of a

[27:39] water share now is $30,000. Basically,

[27:41] that's a lot of money you'd be

[27:42] converting to

[27:44] >> water a you know 400 foot piece of grass

[27:46] or something like that. Darren,

[27:47] additionally, I think we should clarify

[27:49] if you you hadn't already taken the note

[27:50] of this, but we should clarify the

[27:51] exemption process if there is one at all

[27:53] to be had. It should be specified and

[27:56] understood who has the authority and

[27:58] what that looks like,

[27:59] >> which I think is what you're want to

[28:02] have the option to choose between the

[28:03] two.

[28:03] >> Yeah, I'd want them to have the option

[28:05] to choose, but is there ever a scenario

[28:06] where there is a completely exempt

[28:09] buildout that says you don't need you're

[28:12] not watering anything?

[28:14] >> You know what I mean? And so what should

[28:15] that exemption be?

[28:16] >> Well, like I said too, from a well, our

[28:18] ones are exceptions already. Some people

[28:20] do have wells.

[28:21] >> Mhm.

[28:22] >> Or they do irrigate, you know, from

[28:24] >> Well, I have a well I water my lawn off

[28:26] of, but I use culinary for it because I

[28:28] don't have a lot of grass and it's

[28:30] cheaper for me to use culinary to water

[28:32] the lawn than it is to pump the well.

[28:34] it's less not necessarily cheaper,

[28:37] but it's more dependable. I don't run a

[28:39] pump all the time to pump the wells.

[28:41] Well, and I just think we need to clear

[28:42] up some of these things that we don't do

[28:44] anyway. If we're not requiring them to

[28:46] install a dry system, then we shouldn't

[28:48] have that in our ordinance that we are.

[28:50] Or if we're saying that they has to be

[28:52] part of their development agreement, but

[28:54] they don't have a development agreement,

[28:55] then how do we both of those are in the

[28:58] 652? But anyway,

[29:00] >> okay.

[29:05] Well, I feel like it's always better to

[29:07] be on top of things and get things going

[29:09] before

[29:10] >> proactive instead of reactive. Okay.

[29:12] >> Yeah, that's what I think too.

[29:14] >> I want to fix things before they end up

[29:15] being a pain in the butt.

[29:17] >> Okay. Any other suggestions for Darren

[29:20] or comments on this before?

[29:22] >> You can reach out to me after too.

[29:24] >> Just escrow. I think they ought to be

[29:27] able to put us somewhere, but we need to

[29:28] realize as a city if you can escrow

[29:30] those, we probably ought to be paying

[29:33] some interest. And it's not much, but

[29:35] I'm pretty sure if you check around, you

[29:38] will find out if a city escort

[29:52] money in. Is it five years, 10 years?

[29:55] indefinitely because we have some places

[29:57] that probably will never have secondary

[29:59] and

[30:00] >> well that kind of goes back to curb the

[30:02] other sidewalk

[30:04] down the road is not going to happen

[30:05] down the road.

[30:06] >> Larry, did you look like you have a

[30:08] thought?

[30:08] >> Well, I I just uh you know these escros

[30:11] uh you know we've had issues out here

[30:13] with them and uh not me personally. Um,

[30:17] I'm just thinking in my mind, can we

[30:19] sign a contract

[30:22] and put something in the contract that

[30:24] if they decide they're not going to

[30:27] honor or that then a lean gets put on

[30:30] their house that they can never sell

[30:32] their house until that's taken care of.

[30:33] And I know you have to renew those I

[30:35] think every so often, but would that be

[30:38] easier than taking escrow and having to

[30:40] deal with interest and who put money in,

[30:44] who didn't? They're just throwing it

[30:46] out. I don't know.

[30:48] >> Well, if this gets moved over to the

[30:50] land where it used where it should be,

[30:52] then that could probably have something

[30:54] to do with the Yesh, which needs to be

[30:56] revised anyway. You know, I think this

[30:58] should be something that planning

[30:59] commission should be reviewing as well.

[31:02] >> Okay.

[31:02] >> So,

[31:03] >> I think we have the capable attorney of

[31:05] putting something like that together and

[31:06] bringing it back and saying, "Do you

[31:08] like this?"

[31:10] >> Okay.

[31:12] >> Well, if we're good with that, then

[31:13] we're going to move on. We have Cody

[31:15] Deer here with us today who is going to

[31:17] do a CRA presentation. And so we want to

[31:20] have enough time at our work meeting

[31:22] that you can ask all the questions.

[31:24] Cody, if you want to move up.

[31:25] >> Sorry, Cody. We didn't give you a chair.

[31:29] >> The ones before we already approved the

[31:31] policy. And so again, trying to always

[31:34] plan ahead. We always feel like it's

[31:36] better to plan and see if this is even

[31:39] something we want to do rather than

[31:41] waiting until it's But anyway, I'll just

[31:42] turn the time over to you, Cody, and

[31:44] thank you for

[31:44] >> always grateful to be with you good

[31:46] folks. So, the creation of a CRA has has

[31:51] two major components. The first is you

[31:53] need to create a community reinvestment

[31:55] agency

[31:57] that is a sister entity to the city. So

[32:00] that's the first step and that's what's

[32:02] on your agenda tonight is an ordinance

[32:04] by the city to create a separate

[32:08] community reinvestment agency and then

[32:10] that agency has certain powers and

[32:12] authorities that it can exercise that

[32:14] are different from the city and one of

[32:16] those is that you can create a project

[32:19] area which is a geographic

[32:22] portion of your city where you can

[32:25] designate the sum of that tax additional

[32:29] that's generated in that area can be

[32:31] used for specific purposes and that's

[32:33] outlined in your economic development

[32:35] policy that was adopted. So the first

[32:37] action tonight is that you would

[32:39] consider that ordinance to create the

[32:41] agency and then there are certain

[32:43] actions that need to be required to set

[32:45] that up. So we have to file a notice of

[32:48] impending boundary action governor's

[32:51] office. So that's that's a part of the

[32:53] ordinance that will be approved tonight

[32:55] if that's what you choose to do as a as

[32:57] a council that will need to be filed and

[32:59] then they have 10 days

[33:02] governor's office has 10 days to to make

[33:04] sure that that's created correctly.

[33:06] >> So quick question the CRA would cover

[33:09] the whole city if we can create an

[33:10] agency.

[33:11] >> That's correct.

[33:11] >> And we would specifically if we decide

[33:14] to do something

[33:15] >> Y

[33:16] >> put it to that specific place.

[33:18] >> That's correct. And if we create one and

[33:20] we never decide to use it, we don't have

[33:23] to. Right.

[33:23] >> That's right. Yeah. If you create it

[33:25] tonight and you ultimately say

[33:27] >> we don't like it,

[33:28] >> then it just sits there.

[33:29] >> No, no big deal. No cost to the city.

[33:31] No,

[33:32] >> not really. Other than filing.

[33:34] >> Other than filing. Yeah. Pretty much.

[33:36] >> Okay.

[33:38] >> But if we need it, then we already have

[33:40] it done.

[33:41] >> We have it's easy to do. So it's

[33:43] probably not fairly

[33:46] >> because we're probably have some changes

[33:47] out here in the future regardless of

[33:49] what happens immediately. I'm sure we're

[33:51] have some changes.

[33:52] >> That's true. Yes.

[33:54] So once that's created then once you

[33:57] have that certification from the

[33:58] lieutenant governor's office that you

[34:00] are you have a legal entity called the

[34:02] Cobber uh community reinvestment agency

[34:05] then you can take action under the the

[34:07] powers of that statute. And one of those

[34:09] is that you could create a project area

[34:11] to generate tax increment. So this the

[34:14] calendar that you have in front of you

[34:15] suggests that by August 6th you would

[34:19] have that at that meeting you would the

[34:21] agency would be officially created

[34:24] submitted to the lieutenant governor's

[34:25] office and received a certific

[34:27] certification of creation and you u

[34:30] recorded that with the county reporter

[34:34] uh at that meeting then you could take

[34:35] action anything you wanted to do that

[34:37] the agency has authority to do and what

[34:39] we were suggesting at this meeting on

[34:41] the on August 6 would be adopting what's

[34:44] called a survey resolution.

[34:46] >> Does it have to be done that date or can

[34:47] we?

[34:48] >> You can do it anytime you want after

[34:50] that.

[34:50] >> Yeah. The sixth that we have our truth

[34:52] and taxation

[34:54] >> and we can't do anything else by it.

[34:58] » Scratch that.

[34:59] >> But to make sure I understand, so

[35:02] we'd be creating this agency without the

[35:06] implied intent that we're going to use

[35:07] the agency. It doesn't bind us to using

[35:09] the agency. It doesn't require any

[35:11] builder that comes in and says, "I want

[35:12] to use a CRA." That that we are since we

[35:15] have one are forced to use it,

[35:19] >> but obviously not the sixth, but in a

[35:21] date to follow around that time, we

[35:24] we're being asked to consider to create

[35:27] a project area, which then would imply

[35:29] that we plan to use a CRA.

[35:31] >> Yes.

[35:32] >> Okay.

[35:32] >> Yes. So, let's say that you decide to

[35:35] create it today. Ultimately down the

[35:36] road, you decide not to create a project

[35:39] area. That's up to you. That's your discretion.

[35:42] >> So, is this just saying that's the

[35:43] soonest date we could do it?

[35:44] >> Yes.

[35:45] >> But it's not binding us to this date to

[35:47] say we're going to do it.

[35:47] >> No.

[35:48] >> Okay.

[35:48] >> Yeah. This is this is for information.

[35:51] >> Okay.

[35:51] >> Purposes.

[35:52] >> I just wanted to understand that

[35:53] >> clarification. Who runs the CRA?

[35:56] >> You are. You are the board members of

[35:59] the CR the agency.

[36:01] >> City council mayor. Who?

[36:04] >> So, you would be the board of directors.

[36:06] >> Okay. and the mayor would be the

[36:08] executive director of the

[36:11] >> So when we acted on behalf of the CRA,

[36:13] we would literally just be like, "Here's

[36:15] this hat of CRA and take off our city."

[36:18] I mean, it would it could be in the same

[36:19] meeting. We just flip from one meeting

[36:21] to another.

[36:22] >> You have to have a separate agenda. So,

[36:23] you'd have a a redevelopment agency

[36:25] agenda that' be separate from yours.

[36:27] You'd say, "Okay, now we're reconvening

[36:28] that redevelopment agency or the the

[36:31] community reinvestment agency

[36:34] council." Now, the ordinance talks about

[36:36] the powers that that body would have,

[36:39] those powers are limited and subject to

[36:42] the council's powers, right?

[36:45] >> Uh they

[36:48] so uh if you want to create a project

[36:51] area, the city council still has to take

[36:53] action.

[36:54] >> You have to approve that as a city

[36:56] council as well. So there are certain

[36:58] authorities that the agency has that are

[37:00] simply by the agency and there are

[37:02] certain things that the agency can't do

[37:04] without the approval of the city.

[37:06] >> So but there are they're they're

[37:08] outlined in the in the statute what you

[37:10] can do and what you can't do.

[37:11] >> But hypothetically

[37:13] the mayor not acting as mayor but acting

[37:15] as the chair of a CRA couldn't do

[37:18] something that would supersede her

[37:19] powers over council

[37:21] not acting as the CRA, right? like we're

[37:23] we don't run into a situation where like

[37:25] the mayor could go be like, I'm going to

[37:26] designate this as the chair and do this

[37:28] thing and the council's like, "Oh, well,

[37:30] we don't have the power to stop that."

[37:32] >> Yeah. Because you as a board would be

[37:34] the decision.

[37:37] >> Yeah.

[37:37] >> Well, I vote same as

[37:40] same

[37:41] >> and I probably don't have a vote either

[37:43] then.

[37:44] >> Do you? I don't I don't know because now

[37:46] I only get a tie vote. Is that the

[37:48] similar with the seat?

[37:52] I think it would be

[37:54] decide that

[37:55] >> I think you can

[37:58] » go check your cities and see

[38:01] >> I think that would be a choice.

[38:03] >> I think you're right.

[38:06] >> So then the process assuming you want to

[38:08] create a project area you would come

[38:10] back as early as the 20th 6 you want to

[38:13] hold a special meeting which I assume

[38:15] you would not want to do. uh that at

[38:17] that meeting you create a survey

[38:18] resolution and this is basically saying

[38:21] here are the geographic boundaries we're

[38:23] thinking of creating a project area

[38:25] again that action doesn't bind you to do

[38:27] anything it just says we are

[38:29] contemplating that this area this

[38:31] geography here this boundary we may do

[38:34] tax increment so please prepare a

[38:36] project area plan that describes what it

[38:38] is you're going to do in there and then

[38:40] that will ultimately have to have a

[38:42] public hearing before the board uh to

[38:46] approve that public hearing, excuse me,

[38:48] approve that draft project area plan.

[38:52] That's that's shown on uh the date of

[38:54] 917 on the calendar that you have.

[38:56] Obviously, that have to move uh since

[38:59] we're kind of pushing everything out a

[39:00] little bit. Uh there's a 30-day notice

[39:03] period before you could hold a public

[39:05] hearing. So, before 9:17, you'd have to

[39:09] have a 30-day notice. So, that's going

[39:10] to push that obviously into your like an

[39:13] October meeting for that So the the

[39:16] major steps are a survey resolution that

[39:18] says let's create a project area plan to

[39:21] describe what's going to happen. Then

[39:23] you have a noticing for the public

[39:24] hearing for that plan. Uh and then once

[39:27] you hold that public hearing, you can

[39:29] then take action and adopt that project

[39:32] area plan. And then city council also

[39:35] has to adopt an ordinance that approves

[39:36] that plan. Then once you have that in

[39:39] place, then you have something to act on

[39:41] and you can go to the different taxing

[39:43] entities and say, "Hey, we want to

[39:45] solicit your involvement. We want to

[39:47] solicit that you will provide tax

[39:50] increment to this project and you have

[39:52] to negotiate individually with each of

[39:54] the taxes,

[39:55] >> but they don't have to be the same. They

[39:58] can pick

[39:59] >> they can pick their percentage and a

[40:01] different length of time." The plan will

[40:03] say, "Hey, we're contemplating a 20 year

[40:05] project area." So that would kind of set

[40:08] the outer boundary, but they could come

[40:09] back and say, "Hey, we only want to do

[40:10] five years or we want to do all the way

[40:12] to 20 or whatever that

[40:14] >> and everybody inside of that has to

[40:16] agree to it, right?"

[40:18] >> So you'd have individual interlocal

[40:20] agreements with each of those taxing

[40:22] entities. So with the city, you know,

[40:24] the agency to the city, agency to the

[40:26] school district to the county to

[40:28] mosquito abatement district to fire

[40:31] water.

[40:32] >> What's the average cost to a city to to

[40:34] just even set this up? Because I mean

[40:36] that's all a lot of work. Somebody's

[40:37] gonna have to draft this.

[40:38] >> Yes.

[40:39] >> For I just barely sent the mayor a scope

[40:42] of work and it's 29,500.

[40:45] Okay.

[40:45] >> To do all all that.

[40:47] >> That's every in our local agreement that

[40:48] covers all of it. Anything we do. So I

[40:50] have another question. Um the city the

[40:53] taxpayers pay for us to do what we're

[40:55] doing right now and they pay per

[40:57] meeting. You know they like you're paid

[40:58] if you don't show up for a meeting

[40:59] you're not paid for that meeting. That

[41:00] type of thing. So, are are they paying

[41:03] us as board members separately? Are they

[41:06] using city funds that they're paying for

[41:08] city council members to pay board

[41:09] members or is it an additional meeting?

[41:12] Like, how does that work?

[41:13] >> Right now, there's no you don't have you

[41:15] don't have a policy that says anything

[41:16] because you haven't created the agency.

[41:19] >> So, that would be up to us basically.

[41:20] I'm just curious if the taxpayers are

[41:22] going to foot a bill for us to do a

[41:23] different action and wear a different

[41:24] hat um in an additional meeting or any

[41:27] meetings that we're taking for this if

[41:30] they were in addition to what we do as

[41:31] city council members.

[41:32] >> You could choose that.

[41:33] >> Yeah.

[41:34] >> So,

[41:35] >> that's going to cost 29,500.

[41:38] Yes. And we haven't uh I mean we just

[41:41] did our budget. We didn't put anything

[41:43] in there.

[41:44] >> That's just what I was going to ask. But

[41:46] we can include this in with the costs

[41:49] for the CRA as far as I understand that

[41:52] can be an expense. So if we create this

[41:55] CRA board and the taxing entities say

[41:58] they will then that can be an expense

[42:00] that is included. So this wouldn't be a

[42:02] budget item per se. It would come out of

[42:06] the CRA.

[42:07] >> What if one way you have to

[42:09] >> so out of the increment?

[42:10] >> Yes. Out of the increment that

[42:12] >> yes

[42:13] >> but what if we don't create the CRA? I

[42:17] mean you still have to do the work.

[42:19] Well, if you don't create the CRA, then

[42:20] the scope of work stops.

[42:22] >> Yeah. We wouldn't charge

[42:24] >> then then we're we we pay it. I think it

[42:26] was

[42:30] » if you just if you like tonight, let's

[42:32] say you adopt it. We're not going to

[42:34] charge you 29,500. If you say that's the

[42:37] only thing we're going to do, we just

[42:38] say it took us a couple hours.

[42:40] >> We have donuts out.

[42:42] >> If there's chocolate milk, then probably

[42:43] we'd be all right. If not, then I'm

[42:45] going to send you a kid. You know, one

[42:47] thing I was going to mention, I thought

[42:48] of when you was saying that, you know,

[42:49] you talk about the different entities. I

[42:51] know, for example, Weaver Sewer District

[42:53] said they will only approve to partner

[42:55] with the CRA if either the school

[42:57] district buys in or the um Weber County

[43:03] and so that and I don't know, you were

[43:05] involved with the fire district when

[43:07] they did some were they similar to that?

[43:08] They wanted

[43:09] >> very very restrictive on what they're

[43:11] going to approve in the future.

[43:14] >> The fire rush project the possibly one.

[43:18] >> So,

[43:19] >> how big was that?

[43:20] >> Uh, it was a 20 year

[43:26] 75%

[43:27] >> it was it was a large one. I can't

[43:29] remember how many million I said it but

[43:33] one

[43:35] bar.

[43:37] So I think it would have to be you know

[43:39] we decide if we even want to do this or

[43:42] not and then we then we go to those

[43:44] entities and then it's up to them and if

[43:46] any of the entities say no or at least

[43:49] not the school district or the you know

[43:51] we county

[43:53] >> then yeah because

[43:54] >> the county and the school district are

[43:55] the two biggie

[43:56] >> biggies

[43:57] >> but I'll give you like for example when

[43:59] they are just doing that big America

[44:00] first project with Riverdale I can't

[44:03] remember now which one did they were

[44:04] surprised they didn't get both of them

[44:06] But one of them did and one of them that

[44:08] did the other one didn't.

[44:09] >> So what they do?

[44:11] >> Well, they're still moving forward, but

[44:13] they have they have a little more sales

[44:15] tax base in River City than

[44:18] >> we do here in a little bit.

[44:21] >> Yeah. You don't have to have every

[44:22] entity approved. which means that if you

[44:24] don't have it then

[44:27] you're limited on what?

[44:28] >> So why do we want

[44:31] >> I I've heard us have the discussion like

[44:32] when Terara Strada came around. Uh but

[44:35] they had said like they would kind of go

[44:37] do this and it would be like the project

[44:38] based type thing. Why do we want to do

[44:41] this ahead of time? I know. I know we've

[44:45] been pretty split as a city on whether

[44:46] or not we even want to use this type of

[44:49] thing if we want to strap people to

[44:51] this. Um because it's going to be the

[44:53] future home builders and the people who

[44:54] are going to own this land that kind of

[44:56] foot the bill for this, right?

[44:58] >> They'll pay the same property tax

[45:00] they've always paid. It'll just be it'll

[45:01] divert the tax effect.

[45:03] >> That's what I'm saying. Yeah.

[45:04] >> So, it's not like they're

[45:06] >> they're not getting an increase, but the

[45:08] future tax revenue is going to go to

[45:09] this. It's going to go to to this type

[45:11] of development thing. But it's talking

[45:12] future development. It's the boundary we

[45:15] create

[45:16] >> in that area.

[45:16] >> Yeah. All the the future earnings of

[45:18] that. Yeah.

[45:19] >> Yeah. So you create the boundary and

[45:21] those people in that boundary start

[45:23] diverting their tax money into the C.

[45:25] >> Yeah.

[45:26] >> So all of them so whoever buys up on it,

[45:28] whether it's the fire, the school, the

[45:31] county, whatever, all of that property

[45:33] tax revenue gets diverted into this.

[45:35] >> But it's above.

[45:38] >> It's the incremental increase. is the is

[45:40] the increase.

[45:42] >> It's not current. If we if there wasn't

[45:43] an increase then

[45:44] >> there wouldn't be any

[45:45] >> there would be no increment there.

[45:47] >> Right. I guess my question is like I

[45:50] understood the the discussion around

[45:53] tying it to a specific project that we

[45:56] might want.

[45:56] >> Yes.

[45:57] >> But why just do it to do it if we don't

[45:59] have a project that we want to tie it

[46:01] to?

[46:02] >> So this this assumes that you are

[46:04] contemplating like a terrorist.

[46:07] >> Yeah. If you're if you're as a city

[46:08] saying, "Look, we're not doing that

[46:10] project," then you can create this. You

[46:12] can create the agency if you'd like, but

[46:13] then it's just going to sit there

[46:16] >> until we need it

[46:16] >> until you need.

[46:17] >> And I'm not saying we're not considering

[46:18] the project. I just don't know that

[46:19] we've made a determinative

[46:22] decision that we would entertain that

[46:25] one of I mean, it's been up for

[46:26] discussion on whether or not we want to

[46:28] send them to find other alternatives, on

[46:30] whether or not we even agree. You know

[46:32] what I'm saying? So I I'm just curious

[46:34] of I feel like this is kind of cart

[46:35] before the horse and so I'm curious of

[46:37] like is there advisement on why a city

[46:39] would do this ahead of time if we're not

[46:41] even sure we haven't decided as a group

[46:42] that this is something we want to do in

[46:44] the first place.

[46:44] >> Yeah. So I would say the first step of

[46:46] creating the agency is is fairly benign

[46:49] and so I'd recommend that you do that

[46:51] but in terms of hey do we want to move

[46:53] forward with the proposal from terrorist

[46:56] that's what this is I mean this isn't a

[46:58] vacuum that's for

[46:59] >> yeah I want to call it what it is

[47:00] >> that's assuming that's what it's for

[47:03] then you know you can wait until you say

[47:05] we are now ready

[47:07] >> and as a city to

[47:10] form that specific project area and once

[47:13] you do that the other thing I would

[47:14] suggest

[47:15] So this business aside is that you say

[47:17] to them part of your development

[47:19] agreement is going to be that you're

[47:20] going to pay this cost upfront to create

[47:22] the agency and then you'll get

[47:24] reimbursed through tax increment over

[47:26] time. That way it's them putting forward

[47:28] their money to create this and it gives

[47:31] them an incentive to

[47:33] >> to help you get it done. They mean they

[47:35] already have incentive because it's they

[47:36] want to get that relief.

[47:38] >> I just wanted to clarify I was getting

[47:40] familiar with the code. So this boundary

[47:42] right here, this isn't the project

[47:43] boundary.

[47:45] >> When I saw that, I was just I was I was

[47:47] the whole city.

[47:48] >> I was curious to see what reason you

[47:51] would do that. So

[47:52] >> almost

[47:54] halfway supposed to be coin with the

[47:57] receipt.

[47:58] >> Got it.

[47:58] >> So help me understand the 295 again. If

[48:02] we adopt it tonight and approve it,

[48:06] >> we're not going to pay that 295.

[48:08] >> No. Right away. We're just paying what?

[48:11] >> But we'll just pay an hourly for coming

[48:14] here.

[48:15] >> And then if I'm just throwing out terra

[48:18] then if we do something with them, then

[48:22] that's when we uh need to worry about

[48:24] paying that 295 and then we get them to

[48:27] help pay or whatever.

[48:28] >> We can build that into the project.

[48:30] >> Okay. All right. That's that's what I

[48:32] >> Yes.

[48:32] >> Uh I don't see spending 295 right now.

[48:35] It's just gonna

[48:38] All right. Okay. I just wanted to be

[48:40] clear.

[48:40] >> Yeah. And I and I would very much say to

[48:42] Terra, hey, we're ready to go fight the

[48:44] battle with you. So, here's the first

[48:46] thing you do. You know, cover our costs

[48:48] to create this. You'll get reimbursed if

[48:51] it goes through. If

[48:52] >> it doesn't go through, they pay it.

[48:54] Typical language.

[48:55] >> Yes. Absolutely. They would still pay

[48:57] it. It's part of their

[48:59] >> their risk.

[49:00] >> Yeah. Because it benefits you, but it

[49:03] really benefits them directly, right? It

[49:05] benefits the city because you provide

[49:08] goods and services that the community

[49:10] needs. But

[49:10] >> so there's not a ton of risk to get that

[49:13] put together to the city.

[49:15] >> No, if you can just ask them to Okay.

[49:19] >> Well, just a little clarification too

[49:20] because we've been talking about this

[49:22] just so everyone understands. People

[49:24] say, "Oh, this is going to cost so

[49:25] much." But like Darren said, no, it's

[49:27] the increase. So if you the property tax

[49:30] on that now that land that's in green

[49:32] belt and maybe they pay just to make

[49:34] even numbers 2,000 maybe the value of it

[49:38] >> by the time no but then by the time if

[49:40] you have this a development there could

[49:42] be 200,000

[49:45] >> so so they're only taxing on that

[49:48] >> difference because if we don't do

[49:49] anything at all was what is why the

[49:51] school board weap county everybody buys

[49:53] into it because they know ultimately

[49:55] they're going to get a lot more money

[49:57] because if that sits like it is, they

[49:59] get hardly any. If it develops into

[50:01] this, they

[50:02] >> That's their incentive basically. That's

[50:04] their incentive. The school board, the

[50:05] fire board, all those districts

[50:07] immediately start providing services in

[50:10] that area. And if we divert this money

[50:12] for 10 years or 20 years or 30 years,

[50:14] they don't get a dime of that until that

[50:16] contract is over with. So, they're

[50:18] already providing services. The school's

[50:20] paying for kids to go to their schools,

[50:22] but they're not getting the money

[50:24] immediately for it until

[50:25] >> Well, they still do. They still get 50%.

[50:28] Yeah. Most most of them won't do any

[50:30] more than

[50:31] >> increase or

[50:32] >> they would be getting

[50:33] >> beginning of the percentage of the

[50:34] split.

[50:34] >> Small percentage of the split.

[50:36] >> It's like 50. Most of them now won't do

[50:38] any less than 50%. So they're still

[50:40] getting every bit of tax they had on

[50:42] that 2,000 to begin with. Now all of a

[50:44] sudden they're getting 50% of that

[50:47] 180,000.

[50:49] >> Providing full services to do it. So, if

[50:53] they're willing to do it,

[50:56] because I don't know a ton about this

[50:58] stuff, be honest with you. I don't know

[51:00] a ton, but I do believe that if they're

[51:04] willing to do it, their people know that

[51:08] they're going to get the money because

[51:09] there is no way they would do it if they

[51:12] weren't going to get paid back.

[51:15] I mean they don't get paid back

[51:19] percentage now and then full percentage

[51:20] in 20 or 30 years whenever the contract

[51:22] is roll back for it.

[51:26] >> No, but they're going to come further

[51:27] ahead

[51:29] in the future if they didn't do it at

[51:32] all.

[51:32] >> Somebody's still got to provide for

[51:33] current services. You know, schools cost

[51:36] 100% on day one. They don't cost 50% on

[51:39] day one. So somebody's still got to make

[51:41] up for that lack of 50%. Yeah.

[51:43] >> But they should have gotten without the

[51:44] CRA,

[51:46] >> right? So that's where does that money

[51:48] come?

[51:48] >> That's my thing that I I have a hard

[51:49] time wrapping my head around with these

[51:51] is just specific. I mean it it feels

[51:53] like a fake thing. It feels like we're

[51:55] making up a way to print money to serve

[51:57] a process. And so this is where I have

[52:00] the hard time.

[52:02] It's like like paying a girl to go on a

[52:07] date with you. It's like begging her,

[52:09] right? Like we're like why am I begging

[52:11] Smiths to come out here and let us spend

[52:13] our money with them? Why am I begging a

[52:16] developer to come build houses out here?

[52:18] Like don't do they not want to you know

[52:20] what I mean? So why are we giving them

[52:21] half of our future earnings uh to be

[52:24] able to make financing easier for them

[52:26] to come out here? And so that's kind of

[52:28] my question on this whole thing.

[52:29] >> Created the rule to do so because

[52:32] >> yeah I know they can do it but my

[52:33] question is like

[52:35] is is you know am I that ugly? you don't

[52:38] want to come out here. You know what I'm

[52:39] saying? Like why you don't want to come

[52:40] do business with us on your own dime?

[52:42] >> Well, I think if if you look at the

[52:43] policy that you guys that we created

[52:45] with you, we're very specific that you

[52:48] need to have a but for argument, right?

[52:50] Which is

[52:51] >> but for us providing this increment, you

[52:54] won't come.

[52:54] >> Yeah.

[52:55] >> And in this case, what is that but for

[52:57] argument? I think it is this it's the

[52:59] sewer lift station.

[53:00] >> That's what I'm wondering. Have they

[53:02] satisfied an answer to that?

[53:04] >> That's that's what we've heard so far. I

[53:05] mean, we we clearly know that they that

[53:07] needed in order for a development like

[53:10] that to happen. Whether it's them or

[53:12] it's somebody else, someone's going to

[53:14] have to provide that real estation.

[53:17] Is it the city? Is it going to be on the

[53:18] back of the developer? It's

[53:20] >> who's it going to be? And so when you

[53:22] ask that question, it's a very valid

[53:24] question, but for that sewer station

[53:27] going in,

[53:28] >> probably not going to get a Smith or

[53:30] anything like it until that problem is

[53:32] solved. So, this is a way for you as a

[53:35] city to say, "Hey, we'd love to see that

[53:37] development. We'd love for you for that

[53:39] girl to ask you out instead of you

[53:40] asking her, right?" But

[53:42] >> until that happens, we're probably not

[53:44] going to see anything like that. And,

[53:46] you know, it's it's a meaningful sales

[53:47] tax generator, which is very beneficial

[53:50] to you.

[53:50] >> Yeah.

[53:51] >> Um, but that's probably how I would

[53:53] answer that.

[53:54] >> And we can use anything that comes from

[53:57] the CRA to anything that benefits like

[54:00] we've got a fourth main we've got to

[54:02] It's a million dollars and we could

[54:04] divert some of that CRA money to pay for

[54:06] that as well.

[54:07] >> If it benefits the project, it's got to

[54:10] go. We're going to do the project.

[54:13] >> So, even little businesses over there,

[54:17] >> you know, right now we don't have a way

[54:19] to even accommodate them. There's no way

[54:21] we're going to get any commercial in

[54:22] that unless we do something, right?

[54:24] >> That's correct. But have we heard

[54:25] definitively that Terara Strata will not

[54:27] come if we if that if we don't put in a

[54:30] fix the lure uh the sewer lift station

[54:33] conversation because that's the other

[54:34] thing I remember when they were not here

[54:36] long ago and they actually were leaning

[54:39] a little more towards kicking in on that

[54:41] sewer lift station. And so it's like are

[54:43] we at the point where we've negotiated

[54:45] enough that we understand that they are

[54:47] saying we will not entertain this if you

[54:49] don't do that. That's my question too.

[54:51] like I don't want to just be so thirsty

[54:53] and assumptive that I need them so bad

[54:56] that I'm willing to do this.

[54:57] >> It's in the developers agreement from

[54:59] the planning commission.

[55:00] >> They they basically said Cooper City

[55:02] will provide the infrastructure

[55:05] >> to do the development. They're not

[55:06] buying anymore.

[55:08] >> And it's a lot more than just a lift

[55:10] station. It's a lot more than just a

[55:11] lift station.

[55:12] >> They want infrastructure provided by the

[55:13] city or

[55:16] >> I mean we can't afford to put an air

[55:17] conditioner.

[55:17] >> That wasn't the initial DA was there.

[55:21] any clarity on that?

[55:23] >> They they felt like they wanted to leave

[55:25] it broad so that you could have

[55:26] discussion about what you would or

[55:28] wouldn't include. They didn't want to

[55:30] >> they didn't want us

[55:33] to get some contributions.

[55:35] >> That is what they have said though for a

[55:37] while for at least the last little while

[55:39] that they're

[55:40] >> so they want us to provide the

[55:41] infrastructure.

[55:42] >> So a little bit with you're probably all

[55:43] aware of this when developments do come

[55:45] to cities one thing is CRA can only play

[55:47] for commercial. So we are having if we

[55:50] do this we are having other taxing

[55:52] entities other in Weber County helping

[55:55] pay for infrastructure for something for

[55:57] Hooper that we aren't putting on the

[55:59] backs of our residents. If not if this

[56:02] was all completely houses the developer

[56:04] and when we say a developer pays that's

[56:06] just coming out of one side of the mouth

[56:08] because the money is coming out of the

[56:10] residents

[56:11] >> they're the ones that are paying no one

[56:13] is paying it's going to be the

[56:14] residents. A lot of times when they go

[56:17] to cities too is cities give up a lot.

[56:20] They give up a lot of sales tax base.

[56:22] They have a lot of incentives for

[56:23] businesses to come. Hooper, we have no

[56:27] we we don't have anything to give.

[56:30] >> We we we don't have money we can give. I

[56:32] don't feel like we should be giving up

[56:34] sales tax because I feel like we need

[56:37] every bit of sales tax that we are going

[56:39] to get. So my thinking was this is why

[56:42] don't why don't we try? Yes. Well, we we

[56:45] don't know if the school district is

[56:46] going to buy in. We don't know if Wever

[56:48] County is going to. But if we just sit

[56:50] back and do nothing, we will never ever

[56:52] know. That's true.

[56:52] >> If you don't ever call that girl, you'll

[56:54] never know if she thinks you're the

[56:55] cutest guy or she doesn't want to go out

[56:57] with you.

[56:58] >> So, my thinking was

[56:59] >> my analogy.

[57:00] >> If the first step is we just decide,

[57:03] okay, let let's create this district.

[57:05] >> Let's go explore it. And and my thinking

[57:08] with this is and without knowing exactly

[57:10] what the terrorist strata group is

[57:12] thinking, I think that for sure the lift

[57:15] station should be in the CRA and the

[57:18] force main because those are $3 million

[57:21] plus of expenses that Hooper City has.

[57:24] And all along we've said, well, it's

[57:26] okay. It's okay. Someone else come and

[57:28] pay for this lift station. But we've had

[57:30] residents along 4700 that have been

[57:32] paying for a sewer now for a couple of

[57:34] decades and it has never ever came.

[57:37] >> So when is it finally the city's

[57:39] responsibility?

[57:40] >> 20 years. The sewer's been here 20 years

[57:43] in Hooern now and they've been paying

[57:45] that because they hooked up to the fee

[57:47] when they did because they said if you

[57:48] hook up now it's going to be less

[57:50] expensive and it and it is but they've

[57:52] still been paying for 20 years. So, when

[57:55] as a city do we finally say, "Okay, wait

[57:57] a minute. We are a city." I mean, we

[57:59] have a couple of of things we're going

[58:01] to talk about tonight that we need money

[58:03] for that we don't have. So, when are we

[58:06] going to finally look at the overall

[58:07] picture and say we have got to start

[58:09] having some commercial businesses here

[58:11] in Her or we are not going to stay

[58:13] solvent as a city. And if we could try

[58:16] this, I don't know if we will or not.

[58:18] I've sat in those um sewer district

[58:20] meetings. I've now sat in the fire

[58:22] district meetings. I've listened to

[58:24] them. I don't know if they will or not,

[58:25] but I can absolutely tell you they won't

[58:27] do it if we don't even go to them and

[58:29] ask.

[58:29] >> That's true.

[58:30] >> We we we won't even know.

[58:31] >> So, we don't have anything to lose till

[58:32] we go to

[58:32] >> That's what I think. We don't have

[58:34] anything to lose, especially if we

[58:35] >> If they say no, then we go back to the

[58:38] developer and say, "Look, we've tried."

[58:40] I I'm I have never been and these could

[58:43] be fine. I get a little bit anxious when

[58:45] we do additional tax just onto the homes

[58:47] that are being built in there. I I feel

[58:50] more uncomfortable with that than I do

[58:52] with CRA when we can get some of these

[58:54] other taxing entities that will help.

[58:57] >> So, I mean, there's other developers

[58:58] that are going to benefit from this lift

[59:00] station on 4700 West. Doug Hamlin is

[59:04] sitting there chomping at the bit,

[59:06] waiting for us to pay for a lift station

[59:08] so we can take advantage of it. It's

[59:10] like, why don't we go to these

[59:11] developers and say, you know what, you

[59:13] need to buy in, you need to buy in, and

[59:14] you need to buy in so we can build this

[59:16] and then you'll benefit from it. us

[59:19] paying for it and then they get the

[59:21] benefits.

[59:22] >> But but we wouldn't be paying for it

[59:23] with the CRA other than our 50%

[59:26] increment if and I think that's in our

[59:27] policy what we said. But but if Doug

[59:30] Hamlin builds those houses who pays so

[59:33] if his lot now instead of 350,000 for

[59:36] the lot is 390,000 to pay for that lift

[59:39] station. Who pays? Our residents. and we

[59:42] are here saying we want you to come

[59:43] because we need some young families or

[59:46] we're trying to do moderate income

[59:47] housing but you also have to pay this $3

[59:50] million right off the top before you

[59:53] ever do other and there's lots of other

[59:55] infrastructure too but I don't know that

[59:57] I would be agreeable that

[59:58] >> so who's who's paid for all of this in

[1:00:00] the past if you think of all the

[1:00:02] developers that's come in who has paid

[1:00:04] >> all our residents

[1:00:06] >> but they what the developer did is he

[1:00:09] sold an improved lot right And if you

[1:00:12] could afford the improved lot,

[1:00:14] >> then you bought it.

[1:00:16] >> So So to that point, that's my question.

[1:00:19] Like Terra Strada project isn't just

[1:00:21] commercial. It's commercial with a bunch

[1:00:24] of houses.

[1:00:24] >> Yeah.

[1:00:25] And

[1:00:27] it's requirement to have certain amount

[1:00:28] of housing.

[1:00:29] >> No, no, I understand that. But I'm

[1:00:30] saying like the the company is going to

[1:00:33] benefit

[1:00:34] >> from selling all those houses. They're

[1:00:35] going to make money on that, right? And

[1:00:37] so this sewer lift station, like we

[1:00:40] can't do a CRA unless there's a comm

[1:00:41] commercial benefit, but it's kind of

[1:00:44] disingenuous because this commercial

[1:00:45] isn't the only one using the sewer lift

[1:00:47] station. All those new houses are going

[1:00:48] to use the sewer lift station and all

[1:00:49] those new houses are going to be

[1:00:50] improved lots and all those new houses

[1:00:53] are going to offset. So it's like we'll

[1:00:56] pay for the residents will pay for the

[1:00:59] sewer lift station that will allow you

[1:01:00] to build a bunch of houses you're going

[1:01:01] to sell and make millions of dollars on.

[1:01:03] And yes, there's a grocery store

[1:01:05] connected to it. We're using that as the

[1:01:07] avenue to this divert this future thing,

[1:01:10] right? So, so I understand the whole

[1:01:13] like we need commercial growth, but it's

[1:01:16] like let's take out of this guy's pocket

[1:01:18] to line it over to this guy's pocket.

[1:01:20] And that's what I don't understand like

[1:01:22] why that's the answer. If it it was just

[1:01:24] a grocery store, if we were going, hey,

[1:01:25] we want a grocery store here. um the and

[1:01:28] we have to do this and the grocery

[1:01:30] store's future earnings are going to

[1:01:31] help offset the cost of this and it's

[1:01:32] going to pay for it. But we're also

[1:01:34] selling hundreds of houses behind that are going to use that sewer lift

[1:01:38] station that are going to put the burden

[1:01:39] on the system in the first place that

[1:01:41] need it. So I don't understand why can

[1:01:44] do we have the ability to say well yeah

[1:01:48] we have to have a commercial entity to

[1:01:50] do a CRA. So therefore the commercial

[1:01:53] entity is the only one that can benefit

[1:01:55] from the sewer impact and you need to

[1:01:58] carry your portion on the houses.

[1:01:59] >> The houses have an impact to is that

[1:02:01] what you're saying

[1:02:02] >> something I mean some offset some

[1:02:04] contribution have an impact.

[1:02:06] >> Yeah. It's just to me it seems like it's

[1:02:09] like we're saying one thing and maybe

[1:02:10] it's my lack of understanding on the

[1:02:12] process, but it seems like we're saying

[1:02:13] one thing, but we're also finding a way

[1:02:16] to divert future earnings that would

[1:02:18] belong to the city to pay for a sewer

[1:02:20] system that's supposedly to get a

[1:02:22] grocery store, but it also gets somebody

[1:02:23] to be able to build hundreds of houses.

[1:02:25] Like there's inadvertently a benefit to

[1:02:27] the houses.

[1:02:28] >> Ultimately, you're diverting public

[1:02:30] money to pay for private development.

[1:02:31] >> Yeah.

[1:02:32] And that I have a like I I have a

[1:02:35] categorical problem with that. But

[1:02:36] again, it's Weaver County. Sorry, it's

[1:02:38] Weaver County res. I mean, it's not just

[1:02:40] Hooper. Yeah.

[1:02:41] >> So, it will be additional because how

[1:02:43] many of you work at and will work at the

[1:02:45] America First is being built on

[1:02:47] Riverdale Road.

[1:02:48] >> Yeah.

[1:02:48] >> Maybe none of you.

[1:02:49] >> Well, it's almost similar to fire

[1:02:51] station. We're getting a fire station

[1:02:52] built in Hooper, but the whole county is

[1:02:54] paying for the fire station, not just

[1:02:56] Hooker Road.

[1:02:56] >> Yeah. But to that argument, I mean, the

[1:02:58] government does tons of things that I

[1:02:59] disagree with. It doesn't mean therefore

[1:03:01] I should also agree to do it.

[1:03:02] >> Yeah. I mean, the other thing we

[1:03:04] proposed originally to terra was that

[1:03:06] they form a pit and put it on their own

[1:03:08] backs which is have an assessment of

[1:03:10] bond or or an additional tax that is

[1:03:13] only on their property. Um and you know

[1:03:17] Stuart was kind of like no I'm not doing

[1:03:18] that.

[1:03:19] >> Sure.

[1:03:19] >> Which which is fine but it's like

[1:03:21] >> wouldn't want to do that.

[1:03:22] >> Yeah. But it's almost like what I would

[1:03:24] rather have is for all the citizens of

[1:03:26] the county and the school district and

[1:03:27] the city to give us their tax money

[1:03:29] rather than us putting on our backs. I

[1:03:31] don't I don't appreciate that comment

[1:03:33] because I think it's a little bit

[1:03:34] disingenuous. Because you know like if

[1:03:37] you really want to come here then you

[1:03:39] should be willing to

[1:03:40] >> that's what I think it would also be all

[1:03:42] those residents too though all those

[1:03:44] houses with the pit each one of them end

[1:03:46] up getting that added on to them

[1:03:48] >> and I don't feel good about adding that

[1:03:50] additional onto all those residents.

[1:03:53] >> The other comment I would make there is

[1:03:54] that housing is market driven. So, you

[1:03:57] know, if I live outside of the P and I

[1:04:01] my neighborhood is inside of it, you

[1:04:03] can't sell those lots for different

[1:04:05] amounts.

[1:04:06] >> Like, you could you could try.

[1:04:08] >> Yeah.

[1:04:09] >> But like

[1:04:09] >> the comparative analysis,

[1:04:10] >> but they're going to be like that one's

[1:04:12] 30,000 more than this one across the

[1:04:14] street. I think I'll buy this one across

[1:04:16] the street. Right. Like there's no

[1:04:18] difference. The same lot size, the same

[1:04:20] like amenities, right? So, what that

[1:04:22] means is that the developer has to

[1:04:24] reduce his profit margin and he's

[1:04:27] unwilling to do that.

[1:04:28] >> How many how many residents do we have

[1:04:30] right now that are tied into West

[1:04:31] Haven's line that West Haven wants us

[1:04:33] off?

[1:04:33] >> Oh, you know what? I I actually brought

[1:04:35] all that information because I was going

[1:04:36] to talk about it when we get to that on

[1:04:38] the agenda tonight.

[1:04:40] >> We can go later.

[1:04:41] >> So, we but we can talk about it now. I'm

[1:04:43] happy to give you all that information

[1:04:45] because I actually brought it because I

[1:04:48] thought that's something that we would

[1:04:50] need to know. So the nine the there

[1:04:54] currently well this is the last time we

[1:04:56] counted so there could have been some

[1:04:58] more houses that have gone on since then

[1:05:01] but it it was originally signed in O2

[1:05:04] and we were allotted to have 300 homes

[1:05:06] that connected to it. Then in 2004

[1:05:10] they let us and we had a 600 home cap.

[1:05:15] Well the last billing that they had

[1:05:17] actually done an exact accounting that

[1:05:19] we did we gave to them. It said we had

[1:05:22] 975 homes and that was in 2023.

[1:05:27] So there could possibly be and I but I

[1:05:30] can only think a handful that have been

[1:05:32] built.

[1:05:32] >> There hasn't been a lot of buildings.

[1:05:33] >> No. So that went from a cap of 600 in

[1:05:37] 2004 and along with that we were

[1:05:40] supposed to have been paying a hookup

[1:05:41] fee every single time and right on this

[1:05:45] schedule that was made um with our

[1:05:47] previous financial um person. They had

[1:05:51] zero homes was paying that connection

[1:05:53] fee and we were supposed to have been

[1:05:56] paying maintenance and we have paid zero

[1:05:58] maintenance.

[1:05:58] >> Yeah. How much? Any idea how much that

[1:06:00] connection would have?

[1:06:01] >> Didn't we pay? I thought we were paying

[1:06:03] >> a wheeling fee.

[1:06:05] >> We We have been paying a wheeling fee,

[1:06:07] which is $3 a house. So, so every

[1:06:12] quarter um Well,

[1:06:14] >> what was it engineered for? See,

[1:06:15] initially we were told it was actually

[1:06:17] engineered to take care of that many

[1:06:19] homes.

[1:06:20] >> Well, well, well, no, not not with West

[1:06:22] Havens. We're talking about just that

[1:06:24] force main is all that

[1:06:25] >> on 5100. 5100 and it was just a matter

[1:06:28] of West Haven allowing us to hook into

[1:06:31] that

[1:06:32] >> temporarily.

[1:06:34] >> Well, yeah, they thought they they never

[1:06:35] ever agreed to let us have 975 homes,

[1:06:39] but but we need to get and that's on the

[1:06:41] agenda tonight because we need to talk

[1:06:43] about that. So,

[1:06:48] >> anyway, that's something we need to get

[1:06:49] done.

[1:06:49] >> Follow a similar process. the same

[1:06:51] agency issue a pit.

[1:06:53] >> So the a pit is created by the city. So

[1:06:56] you'd have be a similar process where

[1:06:58] the the city council says we want to

[1:07:01] create a a public infrastructure

[1:07:03] district that would have a separate

[1:07:05] board but that board doesn't have to be

[1:07:07] this group. Usually it's the developer

[1:07:09] and they are separate board. They once

[1:07:11] you create it that's the end of it. Now,

[1:07:14] is it true and maybe

[1:07:16] if anybody can speak to this, didn't

[1:07:18] legislature just pass some things around

[1:07:21] grants that said that cities who if not

[1:07:24] for fixing this infrastructure issue

[1:07:27] would impede their ability to have

[1:07:28] whatever growth or whatever, you know,

[1:07:30] development they need. And so there's

[1:07:32] grant money that was attached. The last

[1:07:34] legislature session offered something. I attended the wake

[1:07:38] >> that I attended the WHOG meeting. They

[1:07:41] were talking about that uh that

[1:07:43] >> it's called the ship.

[1:07:44] >> Yeah.

[1:07:44] >> And they it it is for infrastructure and

[1:07:46] it's a low interest loan and it's a

[1:07:48] hund00 million that cities can apply

[1:07:50] for. Is that what you're talking about?

[1:07:52] >> Yeah. Essentially, there was funding

[1:07:53] that was supposed to be directed to

[1:07:54] allow cities to develop what they need

[1:07:56] to develop and with infrastructure and

[1:07:58] if there was something on infrastructure

[1:07:59] that was impeding that ability then they

[1:08:02] could say

[1:08:02] >> have we looked into that.

[1:08:04] >> But that's what I'm cur so in my mind

[1:08:05] hasn't came out yet

[1:08:06] >> and the reason why I'm thinking of this

[1:08:07] is I'm just

[1:08:08] >> straw to do that thing. I mean, I I

[1:08:10] don't know if they could. I think cities

[1:08:11] have to apply for it. But but my bigger

[1:08:13] question is

[1:08:16] >> if I fix the car or the tire on my car,

[1:08:18] maybe the girls goes on a date with me,

[1:08:20] right? Like if I can get the sewage

[1:08:22] thing fixed myself, if we can get state

[1:08:25] funding or grants or or things to fix it

[1:08:27] ourselves, is Stuart still willing to

[1:08:29] come have the conversation about Terara

[1:08:31] Strada? Because that's what I'm curious

[1:08:32] of. Like, is it only contingent upon us

[1:08:35] finding a way to strap other people with

[1:08:37] this? Because if we can fix that sewer

[1:08:39] oursel or hey, we've been talking about

[1:08:42] it. Are we going to always use this

[1:08:44] sewer system? Maybe we got to consider

[1:08:46] getting out of this anyway because we're

[1:08:48] going to end up spending 10 million over

[1:08:49] the next couple years to keep this thing

[1:08:51] up and running and to continue to have

[1:08:53] this direction.

[1:08:53] >> Well, David, that to me that's a perfect

[1:08:57] catalyst to apply for this money in the

[1:08:59] first place because we have a sewer

[1:09:01] system, this vacuum system that's so

[1:09:04] wonderful, it's literally falling apart.

[1:09:07] Now,

[1:09:08] >> could you say that in good context?

[1:09:09] >> Absolutely.

[1:09:10] >> Yeah.

[1:09:11] >> It's creating a health hazard, right?

[1:09:14] Some future point it falls apart, it'll

[1:09:17] be a health hazard beyond imagination.

[1:09:18] >> I've got Silver Saddle residents telling

[1:09:20] me that it's backing up in their

[1:09:21] basement.

[1:09:24] >> So, one thing you need to know though

[1:09:26] about this regional lift station and

[1:09:28] that force main, they don't go through

[1:09:30] the the vacuum system.

[1:09:32] >> So, they are a gravity fed with a lift

[1:09:34] station. and they go down the force man

[1:09:36] that connects right into they call it

[1:09:37] the hooper but it's two different

[1:09:40] things. So that money that it's not free

[1:09:42] money it's low interest loans which yes

[1:09:45] when the time comes we will apply and

[1:09:48] see if we can get some money with that.

[1:09:50] And one thing along these lines too is

[1:09:52] we we have received we haven't received

[1:09:54] it yet. We've received notification on

[1:09:55] that grant money from Blake Moore that

[1:09:57] is 1.5 million which certainly could be

[1:10:00] our contribution I feel like to add to

[1:10:03] this. So, one thing and again I'm

[1:10:06] thinking if we could get but I'm I like

[1:10:08] to get money that's why I write we'll

[1:10:10] write grants but I'm thinking maybe that

[1:10:12] could be our contribution rather than us

[1:10:14] giving up our 50% for 20 years as we say

[1:10:18] okay let's apply for the CRA

[1:10:20] >> and then let you know these other

[1:10:22] entities and then we'll give our portion

[1:10:25] of that money from and it is free money

[1:10:27] I mean

[1:10:28] >> that would be more interesting though

[1:10:29] yeah if we if we had the ability to use

[1:10:31] >> money 5100 west forest maintenance if

[1:10:33] it's for sure or why not apply it to

[1:10:35] >> it. It would it would be the whole

[1:10:37] thing. So if we have we know we have

[1:10:40] $3.2 million dollar worth of expenses

[1:10:43] right now with the regional lift station

[1:10:45] in the force main. So if we said okay

[1:10:48] let us apply for this CRA we'll give the

[1:10:51] 1.5 which would end up being our portion

[1:10:54] then Her never gives up any of their

[1:10:56] property. So, can we build a legally can

[1:10:59] we do that contingent? Like, can we say,

[1:11:01] "Okay, we'll we'll create a a CRA agency

[1:11:05] and if we were to ever to entertain

[1:11:07] enter into a CRA, it would have to be

[1:11:09] contingent upon us using the grant funds

[1:11:11] that would not allow us to have to lose

[1:11:13] the future earnings

[1:11:18] » you could certainly do that. It would

[1:11:19] just be a matter of like so, you know,

[1:11:21] let's say the school district says,

[1:11:22] "Yeah, as long as you get that money,

[1:11:24] then we're in."

[1:11:24] >> Yeah,

[1:11:25] >> they may say that. Uh then you just have

[1:11:28] to wait and see.

[1:11:29] >> Wh who's whose 50% are you talking

[1:11:30] about? Ours

[1:11:32] >> no ours just took our cities.

[1:11:35] >> And that's what I'm saying. One of the

[1:11:36] biggest objections that I hear at least

[1:11:38] from the residents who talked to me

[1:11:40] about this is they don't want us giving

[1:11:42] our future earnings away. And so if we

[1:11:45] had an ability to use grant money to

[1:11:46] offset that, then that argument is kind

[1:11:48] of moot and it's not a big issue because

[1:11:50] now we're not taking from our f future

[1:11:51] earnings. We're saying we got a grant

[1:11:53] money that we wouldn't have had and it

[1:11:55] allowed us to enter into this. It still

[1:11:57] gets us the commercial attraction. It

[1:11:59] still gets us the process for that, but

[1:12:01] then our residents aren't strapped with

[1:12:03] I and I understand it's hard to realize

[1:12:06] its future earnings, but it still is

[1:12:09] it's semantical. You know what I mean?

[1:12:11] Like it's still money that isn't coming

[1:12:13] to us for a period of time.

[1:12:14] >> And I guess if you think about it this

[1:12:16] way, too, that if you have to do the

[1:12:18] sewer anyway,

[1:12:19] >> Yeah. and no one else is going to help

[1:12:20] you,

[1:12:22] the only way to do it is either grant

[1:12:24] money or you're have to raise your sewer

[1:12:26] rates or your general property tax to

[1:12:29] pay for it. Like, so the nice thing

[1:12:30] about a CRA is like, well, at least

[1:12:32] we're getting money from outside the

[1:12:34] city to help us.

[1:12:35] >> Fair.

[1:12:35] >> Because otherwise,

[1:12:37] >> we get other people around the county to

[1:12:38] help us pay

[1:12:39] >> otherwise it's all you.

[1:12:41] >> In order to use a CR, you have to have a

[1:12:43] commercial development.

[1:12:44] >> You don't have to have a commercial

[1:12:45] development. Um, but that's what we're

[1:12:47] focusing on here. I mean that's what our

[1:12:49] policy is shaped around

[1:12:51] >> and you know you can't create a CRA just

[1:12:53] for retail that's why you have to have

[1:12:55] certain amount of households in there as

[1:12:58] well it's like a certain amount per

[1:13:00] thousand square feet of commercial is a

[1:13:02] certain amount of homes so have to have

[1:13:04] both

[1:13:04] >> like you can't create a CRA just to fix

[1:13:06] our solar system you got to have

[1:13:08] >> you could do that but no one would

[1:13:09] approve you the only one

[1:13:11] >> you have their own go

[1:13:13] >> yeah you have to do exactly

[1:13:15] >> and there are my understanding we have

[1:13:18] multiple developers waiting to

[1:13:21] potentially start something up in the

[1:13:23] area. Malcolm, if we get to where we can

[1:13:25] handle additional sewer,

[1:13:28] >> like several

[1:13:29] >> three

[1:13:31] >> and even commercial across the street on

[1:13:32] 55 if we decided to incorporate this in.

[1:13:35] >> If we get a place for commercial to

[1:13:37] come, they're going to come. We just

[1:13:39] don't have anywhere.

[1:13:39] >> But to Ryan's point, then why aren't

[1:13:41] they also offering to help us

[1:13:43] >> like that? I I agree. It's like you fix

[1:13:45] it first and we'll come. But the process

[1:13:46] is also like, well, you want to invest

[1:13:48] in the community, the people. I mean,

[1:13:50] these are these are working people's tax

[1:13:52] dollars. This the money's come where's

[1:13:54] the money come from? It's coming from

[1:13:56] people. It's coming from our residents.

[1:13:58] And so, at the end of the day, we're

[1:13:59] like I mean, I would love for people to

[1:14:01] invest in my personal private business,

[1:14:03] but how am I I can do a CRA to get

[1:14:04] everybody in the community to pay for

[1:14:06] my, you know, business. So, that's what

[1:14:08] I'm saying. Like I mean I'm all for the

[1:14:10] benefit of the city, the commercial

[1:14:12] growth not ending up insolvent, but I

[1:14:15] want to be honest about what we're

[1:14:16] asking from people and I want to be

[1:14:18] honest about what it is. So if there's

[1:14:20] ways to offset it, I I just have a hard

[1:14:23] time even on principle people saying,

[1:14:26] "Hey, I'll come do business with you

[1:14:27] once you polish it up and make it all

[1:14:28] look nice." But we're not investing

[1:14:30] anything in it. Well, there's still a

[1:14:32] lot of investment though because and I I

[1:14:34] don't dare state a number because I I

[1:14:36] don't remember, but the target it was

[1:14:39] it's a it was a lot of money. Inf the

[1:14:41] sewer is one piece of the

[1:14:42] infrastructure. So, it's not that

[1:14:44] they're not paying for a lot of

[1:14:45] infrastructure. You still have all the

[1:14:47] water, the roads, everything else. So if

[1:14:50] we just say we would do the CRA for

[1:14:52] sewer, that's a small part of what? So

[1:14:55] to have them say they're not paying it,

[1:14:56] they're still paying a lot to do.

[1:14:58] >> I thought you were saying that the

[1:15:00] development agreement was broader than

[1:15:01] just the sewer.

[1:15:02] >> That's pretty

[1:15:05] you haven't approved that. So

[1:15:07] >> we haven't approved it. So that's

[1:15:09] something that would be up for

[1:15:10] discussion.

[1:15:11] >> But here's your development agreement.

[1:15:14] >> There's no negotiation. Well, we don't

[1:15:16] know.

[1:15:16] >> We haven't asked them.

[1:15:18] >> I suppose they'll budge.

[1:15:20] >> Yes.

[1:15:21] >> They'll budge, too.

[1:15:22] >> And they will sit down and have a

[1:15:23] workable conversation.

[1:15:26] >> I mean, you have another option, which

[1:15:28] is if you really want to fix the sewer,

[1:15:30] you can you can issue a bond and you can

[1:15:32] raise everyone's sewer rates, including

[1:15:34] the new development. No, it's not very,

[1:15:37] but just know that there are other

[1:15:38] options and they will pay like they'll

[1:15:40] have to pay an impact fee that will be

[1:15:41] higher as a commercial entity and all

[1:15:44] the new homes will have to pay it. So,

[1:15:46] it's not as if there's not a way to do

[1:15:48] it. It's just an uncomfortable way of

[1:15:49] doing it.

[1:15:50] >> Taylor

[1:15:52] said that this is the east area lift

[1:15:55] station and it services 186 acres

[1:16:02] serviceable area.

[1:16:04] >> So, you imp fees from everyone in that

[1:16:07] 186 acres over time.

[1:16:08] >> Yeah,

[1:16:09] >> it would pay back.

[1:16:10] >> Current building code 186 homes.

[1:16:16] » And I'm looking at the code and just

[1:16:17] kind of verifying we could

[1:16:20] >> one size does not fit all. Cas

[1:16:24] » maybe the actually goes to paying off

[1:16:27] what we paid. There's there's things

[1:16:30] >> all sorts of things.

[1:16:31] >> It could pay for your debt service on a super bond if you wanted to.

[1:16:36] >> Yeah. We want we want as much paper

[1:16:39] outside here as we can get.

[1:16:40] >> Absolutely.

[1:16:41] >> But again, we never ever dec

[1:16:50] and I don't really see the risk. And

[1:16:53] again, I don't really see the risk with

[1:16:54] going and asking. And if they say no,

[1:16:56] then we go back and say, "Look, we

[1:16:58] tried.

[1:16:58] >> We tried to get a CRA." But if we don't

[1:17:01] ever even try, we we don't know.

[1:17:03] >> I can't say risk.

[1:17:05] >> And I think you put a lot of that like

[1:17:06] when I say we're your partner, they

[1:17:08] should be standing next to us. It should

[1:17:10] be the mayor and and and Terara Strada

[1:17:14] together talking to Weieber County. You

[1:17:16] know, we'll be there to support, but our

[1:17:18] voice isn't

[1:17:20] voice, but

[1:17:21] >> you know, you together. And if they say

[1:17:23] no, then it's like

[1:17:25] Hey, you were standing right next to us

[1:17:27] trying to push this through and everyone

[1:17:28] said no.

[1:17:30] >> Now what are you going to do? Like now

[1:17:32] you're going to have to do a pit or

[1:17:33] you're gonna

[1:17:35] >> like something's not going to have to

[1:17:36] change.

[1:17:37] >> So Mr. Der, what is the risk?

[1:17:39] >> Mayor Cry doesn't see a risk. A lot of

[1:17:41] people don't see a risk. What is the

[1:17:43] risk of a CRA?

[1:17:44] >> There are risks.

[1:17:44] >> Yeah, there are. I mean, there have to

[1:17:46] be, right,

[1:17:46] >> of a CRA? Yeah. Uh

[1:17:49] there is there's reputational risk

[1:17:51] obviously going and asking for money.

[1:17:53] That's not a very big risk.

[1:17:54] >> Sure.

[1:17:55] >> Because you know how many C how many

[1:17:57] RDAs or CRAAS are there in Weber County?

[1:17:59] >> A lot.

[1:18:00] >> Every city in Salt Lake every

[1:18:04] >> Yeah. So that's not a very big risk.

[1:18:06] Is there a risk that they don't develop

[1:18:08] after you create a CRA?

[1:18:12] >> Yeah. But that's a risk that's here now.

[1:18:15] >> But we would know that if we don't get

[1:18:18] it blah blah blah. Yeah. Yes.

[1:18:20] >> But if they don't develop and we've

[1:18:21] strapped ourselves to the cost of the

[1:18:23] sewer,

[1:18:24] >> no.

[1:18:25] >> Okay.

[1:18:25] >> You have no obligation to

[1:18:27] >> So that's the the the key the key to

[1:18:31] who's doing the sewer is what's going to

[1:18:33] happen if you create a CRA or not. Who's

[1:18:35] going to

[1:18:36] >> pay for actually going to

[1:18:37] >> because someone's going to have to pay

[1:18:39] for it up front, right?

[1:18:40] >> Like you're going to have to pay

[1:18:41] whatever that is. Is it going to be the

[1:18:43] developer? Right now the development

[1:18:44] agreement says no, it's going to be you

[1:18:45] city.

[1:18:46] >> Yeah.

[1:18:46] >> It doesn't say anyone else.

[1:18:48] It's kind of important to kind of put in

[1:18:50] perspective well because this was a

[1:18:51] comment.

[1:18:52] >> All of the increment is going to go to

[1:18:54] paying off this infrastructure. I mean

[1:18:56] there's I mean there could possibly be

[1:18:57] leftover money to be doing it with

[1:18:59] something else but

[1:18:59] >> not likely.

[1:19:00] >> Not based on the amount of revenue

[1:19:02] they're generating.

[1:19:03] >> It's going to be all there going to be a

[1:19:04] bond that probably you know will pay up

[1:19:09] front and then the increment will go to

[1:19:11] paying that off. All of the increment

[1:19:13] would go to that probably.

[1:19:15] >> So not 50% of it would come. No, no, no.

[1:19:18] Like all of the increment that we

[1:19:20] >> into the CRA would probably go towards

[1:19:22] paying off.

[1:19:23] >> Okay. I see

[1:19:24] >> the bond either a bond that we issue or

[1:19:26] a bond that Terrada issues or or a loan

[1:19:30] that they

[1:19:31] >> how they put their capital stack

[1:19:32] together.

[1:19:33] >> Someone's going to have to put a paper

[1:19:35] up front.

[1:19:35] >> So what's the risk? I still have

[1:19:38] >> I mean how should you structure it? You

[1:19:40] should put all the risk to terrorist

[1:19:41] strrada or anyone else to pay for that

[1:19:44] upfront infrastructure

[1:19:46] >> legally. I the risk that you already

[1:19:48] aware of. You're just not gaining the

[1:19:52] just the tax the tax situation, right?

[1:19:55] Like the fact that you're not gaining

[1:19:56] all the tax that it's

[1:19:59] >> potential.

[1:19:59] >> Yeah, it's a big risk

[1:20:01] >> the increase.

[1:20:01] >> There was a u it's not the same program,

[1:20:04] but there was a similar program used in

[1:20:06] the state of California that they banned

[1:20:08] because in the borrowed so much of their

[1:20:10] future earnings that they ended up

[1:20:11] running into real issues when they

[1:20:12] needed to call up on those earnings,

[1:20:14] they couldn't do it. and it was part of

[1:20:15] the whole bankruptcy thing that

[1:20:16] California went through. Um, and I know

[1:20:18] that we have more protections than that

[1:20:20] and Utah's provisions for CRAAS, but I

[1:20:22] mean it does walk down a similar road of

[1:20:25] we're borrowing for the future and we

[1:20:26] have no idea what's going to come. And

[1:20:28] so if we need access to those funds,

[1:20:30] they're tied up for 30 years.

[1:20:31] >> There are cities I just will say that

[1:20:33] there I'm aware these were used. This is

[1:20:36] a valid thing.

[1:20:38] >> Yeah.

[1:20:38] >> So there are other cities if I mean if

[1:20:40] you want to talk to them. Well, I

[1:20:42] actually believe CRAAS were first

[1:20:44] created in some research I've done back

[1:20:46] in the 70s.

[1:20:47] >> Yeah, they've been around for a long

[1:20:48] time.

[1:20:48] >> Some things that you see that are

[1:20:50] familiar with that have done CRA the

[1:20:52] Delta Center, uh, Real Stadium, Shields,

[1:20:56] Proctor and Gamble and other county.

[1:21:00] That's just a handful that come to mind.

[1:21:02] The Maverick Center's

[1:21:07] » shopping centers all across the state.

[1:21:09] These are you had on that failed.

[1:21:12] >> That was a golf course.

[1:21:13] >> That was

[1:21:14] >> It was a big housing and golf course.

[1:21:17] >> It was a golf course and they wanted to

[1:21:18] drive my property. I was very aware of

[1:21:20] that

[1:21:20] >> and I knew that was going to fail before

[1:21:22] it started.

[1:21:22] >> Yeah. That was that was your property.

[1:21:25] >> They wanted to use our property as

[1:21:27] another entrance to the property. They

[1:21:29] didn't have another way out,

[1:21:31] >> but not a CR.

[1:21:32] >> But the city holding back, right?

[1:21:33] >> No, not right now.

[1:21:35] >> No. Well, the city

[1:21:36] >> the pit is not the pit is not actually

[1:21:37] failed. It's still been paid. It's still

[1:21:40] current. the the developer has gone

[1:21:42] bankrupt

[1:21:42] >> bankrupt but the owner original owner

[1:21:44] went bankrupt has been bought out by

[1:21:46] somebody else

[1:21:47] >> and it's I mean genu

[1:21:49] move forward much is

[1:21:50] >> so has one failed do you know of one

[1:21:52] that has failed

[1:21:53] >> CRAAS can't really fail

[1:21:56] >> okay

[1:21:57] >> because

[1:21:59] uh I should say it's very challenging

[1:22:01] for a CRA to fail

[1:22:02] >> you know that fail

[1:22:05] >> no because a CRA is like if you if you

[1:22:09] build

[1:22:10] then comes.

[1:22:11] >> The only way you could get in trouble is

[1:22:13] if you were to say

[1:22:16] >> you issued a bond against that tax

[1:22:18] increment and you pledge something else

[1:22:20] to that bond. You said look

[1:22:22] >> like Larry's house

[1:22:24] >> like like sales tax. You said we're

[1:22:25] going to issue a sales tax bond that

[1:22:27] back stops the the increment like the

[1:22:31] security is both increment and sales tax

[1:22:33] and then increment doesn't come.

[1:22:35] >> Yeah. Then you could be in trouble and

[1:22:36] that that has that has happened. We

[1:22:38] don't want to do that.

[1:22:39] >> I would never recommend to you to do

[1:22:40] that. Like you should issue if you were

[1:22:43] ever to issue a tax increment bond, you

[1:22:45] would do it and say, "Hey, if this money

[1:22:47] is available, then you can have it

[1:22:48] investors. But if it's not,

[1:22:50] >> I like

[1:22:51] >> you take the risk." Um, even better,

[1:22:53] Terrada, you get figure out how you're

[1:22:56] going to pay for this. We don't even

[1:22:57] care. Go get a bond. Go pull money from

[1:23:00] gold reserves you have. I don't care

[1:23:02] where you get it. But if the tax

[1:23:03] increment doesn't show up, it just

[1:23:06] doesn't show up. And that's That's your

[1:23:08] fault

[1:23:09] >> to make you more comfortable.

[1:23:10] >> But you're not going to take a risk.

[1:23:13] >> We probably need to move on.

[1:23:14] >> Yes, we do. Okay. Just something just

[1:23:16] real quick. Rick with Winnette on our

[1:23:18] agenda talked about um city council

[1:23:20] reports and we won't discuss this

[1:23:22] because it's not specific, but I will be

[1:23:24] calling you. We know that the ban

[1:23:26] expired for the fireworks. There will be

[1:23:28] a new one that we could impose for July

[1:23:30] 24th. Um and so I will be calling you to

[1:23:34] get your opinion on that. Again, it will

[1:23:35] be last time the governor did that and

[1:23:38] said that the mayor and the fire chief

[1:23:40] could talk about that and also the stage

[1:23:43] two fire restrictions. So, just take

[1:23:45] some time and look through those stage

[1:23:47] two fire restrictions because again,

[1:23:49] that's something we just can adopt

[1:23:51] those.

[1:23:51] >> They're pretty much stable.

[1:23:53] >> Yes. But anyway, um but I'll be calling.

[1:23:56] >> Nothing has changed.

[1:23:58] >> It's more dry than it was.

[1:23:59] >> Everything else is dry.

[1:24:00] >> Hey, thank you.

[1:24:02] >> Yeah. Do you want to? I think I'd be

[1:24:03] good. Well, they might have some

[1:24:06] question if you if you're okay to stay.

[1:24:08] >> I'm happy to stay.

[1:24:10] >> Yes.

[1:24:14] that would be good.

[1:24:16] >> September.

[1:24:35] We can make

[1:24:39] » station.

[1:25:08] Morgan, don't start yawning. Starting

[1:25:17] » yawn when you see someone.

[1:25:25] » Good to see you again.

[1:25:31] doing great.

[1:25:32] >> Is it?

[1:25:36] » The other day.

[1:26:07] No, I think it's

[1:26:37] Tell us.

[1:27:15] Recording in progress.

[1:27:22] We would like to welcome you to the Her

[1:27:24] City Council meeting. Today is July

[1:27:26] 16th, 2026. I'm Mayor Sher Bingham and I

[1:27:30] will be conducting this meeting. We are

[1:27:32] going to go ahead and have a pledge of

[1:27:34] allegiance by council member Rapto and

[1:27:36] then a reverence by council member.

[1:27:41] » Please repeat after me. I aliance to the

[1:27:45] flag of the United States of America and

[1:27:49] to the republic for which it stands. One

[1:27:53] nation under God, indivisible, with

[1:27:57] liberty and justice for all.

[1:28:04] » Heavenly Father, we thank you so much

[1:28:06] for the opportunity to serve the people

[1:28:08] of this city. We ask Lord God that you

[1:28:11] be with us through our decision making.

[1:28:14] We pray Lord God that you watch over the

[1:28:16] people of this city, those who serve

[1:28:18] this city, those who live here, that you

[1:28:21] continue to shine your blessings upon

[1:28:23] this community. We ask Lord God that you

[1:28:26] guide the decisions of this meeting, of

[1:28:28] the individuals up here. Your Holy

[1:28:31] Spirit give us discernment in the

[1:28:33] matters that we have to make decisions

[1:28:35] on. We pray Lord God that you comfort

[1:28:37] the hearts in tough decisions and give

[1:28:40] us an opportunity to while making these

[1:28:42] tough decisions to use the discernment

[1:28:44] you've given us and the problem solving

[1:28:47] skills that you've given us. We thank

[1:28:48] you so much for the opportunity to serve

[1:28:52] and we know Lord God that all authority

[1:28:53] comes from you and so we thank you for

[1:28:56] the ability to operate in that authority

[1:28:58] and we pray these things in Jesus name.

[1:28:59] Amen.

[1:29:00] >> Amen.

[1:29:02] >> Thank you both of you. Um just some

[1:29:04] upcoming events. We know it's not right

[1:29:06] away, but it is coming quickly. It's our

[1:29:08] Herford tomato release day. So hopefully

[1:29:10] you'll be checking our website with all

[1:29:12] of those events coming up. One of our

[1:29:14] first things will be our junior queen

[1:29:16] contest and then we'll have our rodeo

[1:29:18] cleaning contest and then events. So um

[1:29:20] we'll be having more information with

[1:29:22] that as far as everything that um you

[1:29:25] need to know. So the first thing on our

[1:29:28] consent items, excuse me, before that we

[1:29:30] have public comments. So there is that

[1:29:33] would like to come up and make a public comment. If you will come up to

[1:29:37] the microphone, state your name, and you

[1:29:39] have three minutes. The council does not

[1:29:42] um dialogue back and forth giving you

[1:29:44] decisions on your comments, and you'll

[1:29:47] watch Morgan, our city recorder. She

[1:29:49] will tell you when your three minute

[1:29:51] time is up. Do we have anyone tonight?

[1:29:57] Okay, see no public comments. Then, our

[1:30:00] first consent item is a motion app. the

[1:30:03] minutes that are dated June 18th, 2026.

[1:30:08] Is everyone have a chance to look

[1:30:10] through those minutes?

[1:30:19] If you have, is there any corrections to

[1:30:22] the minutes?

[1:30:27] Okay, there's no corrections. Then I

[1:30:28] would entertain a motion to approve the

[1:30:30] minutes.

[1:30:32] I'll make a motion to approve the

[1:30:35] amendments dated June 18, 2026.

[1:30:39] >> Second.

[1:30:40] >> The motion was made by council member

[1:30:42] Rapalto. It was seconded by council

[1:30:44] member Hancock. All in favor?

[1:30:47] >> Any opposed?

[1:30:49] Okay, that motion carries. So, the first

[1:30:52] thing we have then tonight is a

[1:30:54] presentation from Nicole Blanch. She is

[1:30:57] the director at the Western Weaver CTC.

[1:31:01] And when a meeting a little bit ago, we

[1:31:03] talked about um our redesation if

[1:31:06] Herbert wanted to do that as far as our

[1:31:08] guilt get healthy community. And I had

[1:31:11] some conversation with Nicole because

[1:31:13] they already have this CTC in place

[1:31:16] because when you do this healthy

[1:31:17] designation, then you're supposed to

[1:31:20] partner with a coalition. And so she's

[1:31:22] going to do a little presentation, give

[1:31:24] it some thought about whether we want

[1:31:27] to, it's not on our agenda as an agenda

[1:31:29] item tonight to do this or not, but

[1:31:31] listen to her comments and then we'll

[1:31:33] put it on another agenda in the future.

[1:31:36] Um, we we do need to decide if we're

[1:31:39] going to do that. We want to be redo

[1:31:42] that redesignation. So, thank you,

[1:31:43] Nicole. If you want to come up, we'll

[1:31:45] turn the time to you.

[1:31:51] When I saw I was number six, I thought I

[1:31:52] got time to sit. Number six went really

[1:31:54] fast. Um, so

[1:31:57] Oh, that's the end.

[1:32:00] >> I I can be done. Oh, okay. I'll start.

[1:32:02] Okay. So, like Sherry introduced, I'm

[1:32:06] Nicole Blanch. I'm with the I'm the

[1:32:07] coordinator for the Western Weaver

[1:32:09] Communities that Care Coalition. Um, if

[1:32:11] you want to go to the next, I'll just

[1:32:13] keep Do I just tell you?

[1:32:14] >> Yeah, but I gave you this.

[1:32:15] >> Okay, that'd be great. Um, so in talking

[1:32:18] I've been in this role for a little bit

[1:32:19] now and gotten to know Sher and we've

[1:32:21] kind of been talking about um, you know,

[1:32:25] supporting Thank you.

[1:32:27] Okay. Um, how we can support the

[1:32:29] community better and um, this

[1:32:32] opportunity has kind of presented itself

[1:32:34] where you guys for the last three years

[1:32:35] have had the healthy communities

[1:32:37] designation. Um, and so and it's up for

[1:32:41] re renewal if you wanted to do that. And

[1:32:43] so we we she kind of had brought up with

[1:32:46] the coalition, maybe help support that.

[1:32:47] So Sherry's not running it by herself or

[1:32:50] kind of spearheading that that role. And

[1:32:52] as she mentioned, part of the

[1:32:53] application process, you'd need to be

[1:32:55] associated with a coalition or have one

[1:32:58] designated within your community. And we

[1:33:00] do a lot of that work already with

[1:33:02] healthy communities and prevention. And

[1:33:04] so it would be a natural fit to be able

[1:33:06] to just align together with our goals.

[1:33:08] And so that's kind of what I'm going to

[1:33:09] talk a little bit about. Um that you

[1:33:11] guys have had that. and it's just

[1:33:13] there's very few up here in the in our

[1:33:15] area that have that and so I applaud you

[1:33:17] for doing that for the last couple of

[1:33:18] years. Um and so I'm just going to kind

[1:33:20] of talk about how we can support that

[1:33:22] and then what that partnership might

[1:33:23] look like with the coalition. Oh, I

[1:33:25] pushed the wrong button. Anyway, so the

[1:33:27] healthy community designation, it really

[1:33:29] does as you can see like on the diagram,

[1:33:31] health is at the center of everything

[1:33:32] that we do, right? We it it if if we

[1:33:36] have a healthy community then we have

[1:33:38] you know good recreation, we have good

[1:33:40] schools, family public health. All the

[1:33:42] things that are listed there go along

[1:33:44] with having a healthy community and um

[1:33:48] the there are some key impacts that go

[1:33:50] along with that. And

[1:33:53] the improving quality of life that means

[1:33:56] you've got safe neighborhoods, access to

[1:33:57] recreation, mental well-being, family

[1:33:59] connection, people feel like they belong

[1:34:01] to the community. Um it can strengthen

[1:34:03] the long-term community outcomes, uh

[1:34:06] physical health, mental health, youth

[1:34:07] development, um attract growth in um

[1:34:10] investment. So where that you I mean

[1:34:13] this community has grown so much. I met

[1:34:15] with uh comm or city councilman Roado

[1:34:18] earlier today and it's I grew up in

[1:34:20] Westber so not very far from you guys.

[1:34:22] So I've lived here my whole life me and

[1:34:24] my husband and so just the growth that

[1:34:26] I've seen since I was just little to

[1:34:28] even just over the last few years as

[1:34:30] I've raised my family. Um it's it's it

[1:34:33] this area is attracting more and more

[1:34:35] people and we want it to be represented

[1:34:37] not just in Hoover but in all the areas

[1:34:39] on this western end as a good community

[1:34:43] to grow up in to raise our families in

[1:34:45] good schools, good good um parks and

[1:34:47] recreation and all the public safety

[1:34:49] that we have so that it can attract

[1:34:50] families and businesses and developers

[1:34:52] and we want to create a shared

[1:34:54] responsibility. It's not just Cooper's

[1:34:56] job to have a healthy community. It's

[1:34:57] all of our jobs, right?

[1:34:59] my job as a coalition coordinator. It's

[1:35:01] the schools, it's the businesses that

[1:35:03] are out here and so the city leaders and

[1:35:06] we want to make sure that we're ensuring

[1:35:08] that that responsibility falls on all of

[1:35:10] us and not just one. Um so with that, so

[1:35:15] just a little bit about who we are too

[1:35:16] in case you're like what is the

[1:35:18] coalition? So we are long time ago, a

[1:35:22] few years ago, it was just called

[1:35:23] Fremont 5. So if any of you remember

[1:35:25] that, that was when Fremont was the only

[1:35:26] high school and then they built

[1:35:28] Westfield. We took that in under our

[1:35:29] coalition as well. So we have two high

[1:35:32] schools that I um work with, Westville

[1:35:35] and Fremont community. So our borders

[1:35:37] for our coalition are bigger than any of

[1:35:39] the other coalitions that we have with

[1:35:40] the other high schools. Uh we go right

[1:35:43] to the end of far west up there all the

[1:35:45] way down to you guys. So I cover quite a

[1:35:46] few uh schools and communities and we

[1:35:50] focus prevention is at the heart of

[1:35:52] everything that we do. Evidence-based

[1:35:54] research programming for our families

[1:35:56] and our students. We want to make sure

[1:35:58] that we're ensuring that we offer

[1:36:01] good healthy alternatives for our kids

[1:36:03] so that they can be able to grow up

[1:36:06] with,

[1:36:08] you know, just all the opportunities

[1:36:10] that they need to thrive. And a lot of I

[1:36:14] think since I've come into this role, we deal a lot with substance use and try

[1:36:19] to, you know, the education around that,

[1:36:21] alcohol, mental health. And it's it's

[1:36:24] interesting to see and I I saw this just

[1:36:27] before I even joined any of the health

[1:36:29] department or this role. I grew up here.

[1:36:31] So, I thought nothing out here. There's

[1:36:33] nothing there's nothing wrong out here.

[1:36:34] We live in like the best place ever. And

[1:36:36] we still do, but there are those

[1:36:38] lingering things that are out there that

[1:36:39] not a lot of people know about that are

[1:36:41] affecting our kids. And so, we want to

[1:36:43] bring that awareness and that education.

[1:36:44] And so, that's what we do a lot. We work

[1:36:46] with our schools. We work with the

[1:36:47] communities to be able to educate them

[1:36:49] on the issues that are surrounding our

[1:36:51] kids and the obstacles that they face

[1:36:53] because they need that support. They

[1:36:54] need that family and community

[1:36:56] connection. And so we try to provide um

[1:36:58] education around that. But um a lot of

[1:37:01] the things that we do overlap with the

[1:37:03] things that the communities are doing.

[1:37:05] And so where that overlap happens is

[1:37:08] when you guys um first were designated

[1:37:10] as a healthy community, the goals that

[1:37:11] you had looked at um meeting were

[1:37:15] developing athletic infrastructure,

[1:37:17] healthy eating messaging campaigns, and

[1:37:19] community events that promote social

[1:37:21] connection. And all of those things in

[1:37:23] some ways overlap with the things that

[1:37:25] we're trying to provide. So a lot of the

[1:37:27] things that the coalition looks at is

[1:37:29] risk and protective factors within our

[1:37:31] community. We get that from a lot of

[1:37:33] data sources. The sharp survey is one

[1:37:36] that we look at a lot that is offered

[1:37:37] into the school. So we get direct um

[1:37:40] survey information and data from our

[1:37:41] students currently. And so when we're

[1:37:44] looking at those, the goals that we have

[1:37:46] set for our coalition is to look at risk

[1:37:49] protectors such as depression and

[1:37:50] anxiety, um, alcohol use, substance use,

[1:37:53] vaping, nicotine, those nicotine pouches

[1:37:55] that are out there right now. And we

[1:37:57] want to try to reduce the risk factors,

[1:37:59] but also increase our protective

[1:38:01] factors. And that's what every one of

[1:38:03] your goals that you set on your healthy

[1:38:05] community designation was to build those

[1:38:07] protective factors. So the way that the

[1:38:10] coalition can come into those things to

[1:38:12] provide that support is even though we

[1:38:15] don't focus on maybe promoting or

[1:38:18] building like a pickle ball court. I

[1:38:19] mean my kids would love that if I put

[1:38:20] that in my backyard but we that kind of

[1:38:23] thing can we can turn that into by by

[1:38:26] participating and promoting the parks

[1:38:29] and recreation we're encouraging that

[1:38:31] pro-social involvement healthy behaviors

[1:38:33] and positive peer relationships. And

[1:38:36] then same thing with the healthy eating.

[1:38:37] We don't really focus on nutrition per

[1:38:39] se as a as a coalition, but when you put

[1:38:44] the spin on it as hey, let's have family

[1:38:46] dinners. Let's have and that increases

[1:38:48] that family bonding. It builds a healthy

[1:38:50] routine and then those lifelong wellness

[1:38:51] habits. And same thing with the

[1:38:53] community connection, the social

[1:38:54] connection. That's what we want to

[1:38:56] increase that attachment to their

[1:38:57] community, the belonging, and then those

[1:38:59] opportunities those kids can have to

[1:39:01] serve in a youth council or you know a

[1:39:04] community initiative. So, um, just some

[1:39:08] things that we can look at to that we

[1:39:10] promote that you guys also are doing

[1:39:12] that we could collaborate on and and

[1:39:15] looking at your redesignation if you go

[1:39:17] forward with that as a healthy

[1:39:19] community. These are ways that we can

[1:39:20] support you. We don't want to we're not

[1:39:23] asking you to do anything for the

[1:39:25] coalition other than just letting us

[1:39:27] help you. How can we support you and

[1:39:29] enhance your uh wellness in your

[1:39:32] community and your community members

[1:39:34] participation in these things? So, we

[1:39:35] can partner with healthy community

[1:39:37] events. We already do that a little bit

[1:39:39] with you guys in tomato days. Our youth,

[1:39:41] we have a youth council um that meets

[1:39:43] with us regularly. We have quite a few

[1:39:45] kids from we have about 15 to 20 kids

[1:39:47] that just go to Westville alone that are

[1:39:49] on our youth council and they work

[1:39:51] within that group with their peers. We

[1:39:53] have quite a few from Fremont that work

[1:39:55] in that cone area. But we we encourage

[1:39:58] the kids to lead out on these things to

[1:40:00] give them those leadership skills and

[1:40:01] that opportunity. So when they come and

[1:40:03] help with tomato days and they do the

[1:40:05] volleyball like they did last year or

[1:40:06] they provide the breakfast or they march

[1:40:09] in the parades, it's giving them that

[1:40:10] opportunity to have those um pro-social

[1:40:13] events and relationship with their

[1:40:15] peers. And at those same events, we can

[1:40:17] promote education and give them that

[1:40:19] prevention awareness that they might not

[1:40:21] have or had gotten previously. Um, we

[1:40:24] can also send out messaging um that

[1:40:28] talks about why it's important to have

[1:40:30] family dinners, why it's important to be

[1:40:32] with your families a couple of nights a

[1:40:34] week if you can. Kids are pulled in so

[1:40:36] many different directions. I'm already

[1:40:37] looking at the schedule from my family

[1:40:39] when school starts and I'm thinking,

[1:40:40] "Okay, I'll see this one this day, that

[1:40:42] one this day." And it's hard to make it

[1:40:44] all work, but if you can if we can

[1:40:46] cement in the reason why it does promote

[1:40:49] those healthy relationships, it does

[1:40:51] make a huge difference in the families.

[1:40:53] And again, we have our youth leadership

[1:40:55] council, but we also get a lot of data

[1:40:57] and so do you guys. You have to measure

[1:40:58] your impact on how the things that you

[1:41:01] promote in your community are going to

[1:41:02] impact your community members. And we

[1:41:04] have to do that as well. Our coalition

[1:41:06] is funded through grants and I have to

[1:41:08] report to all of those funders how we've

[1:41:10] used that money, that money. and what

[1:41:13] were our outcomes. What was the data

[1:41:14] that we received from that to show that

[1:41:16] we're making an impact in the

[1:41:17] communities and it's not just Hooker,

[1:41:18] it's West Haven, Far West, Plain City,

[1:41:21] the unincorporated area where I live in

[1:41:23] West Weber. So, we have to by sharing

[1:41:25] that data, it can impact what you guys

[1:41:27] do if you apply for future funding and

[1:41:29] also impacts what we do as well. And

[1:41:31] then also leveraging that grant funding

[1:41:33] and community partnerships or resources.

[1:41:35] we're able to give suggestions on things

[1:41:37] that we find because I we are very tuned

[1:41:40] in with the funding that's offered for

[1:41:41] prevention in the state. If there's

[1:41:43] something that aligns with you guys, we

[1:41:44] can offer that to you, help write the

[1:41:46] grant and vice versa. So, that would be

[1:41:48] a way that we could work together to

[1:41:50] promote that healthy designation within

[1:41:52] the community and just have a greater

[1:41:55] impact on everybody as a whole. Um, I

[1:41:58] don't want to take up a ton of time, but

[1:41:59] you guys, um, as you think about doing

[1:42:02] that, um, I know brought up that they

[1:42:05] don't want somebody just one person

[1:42:06] alone to run it. And that's where the

[1:42:08] coalition could come in and help promote

[1:42:10] that and also help with the planning

[1:42:12] sitting on the committee taking some of

[1:42:13] that responsibility off the council

[1:42:15] members or one individual if that was

[1:42:17] what was determined. So, thank you for

[1:42:19] your time. I appreciate it. If you guys

[1:42:21] have any questions, um oh, this is what

[1:42:23] the partnership would look like. I

[1:42:24] thought I was done, but you guys can

[1:42:26] kind of read through that really fast.

[1:42:27] We don't ask for anything more than just

[1:42:30] you guys that let us promote our

[1:42:32] coalition through the community. um

[1:42:35] collaborate on events, uh promote our

[1:42:38] messaging with city communication

[1:42:40] channels, and then that's what we give

[1:42:41] back. Prevention, education, data,

[1:42:43] evidence-based programs, support, and

[1:42:45] then resource coordination. So, anyway,

[1:42:47] now I'm done. But if you guys have any

[1:42:49] questions, Sher has my information. So,

[1:42:50] if you ever have any questions or need,

[1:42:53] um I'd love to talk about it. I get a

[1:42:55] little nervous and it's intimidating up

[1:42:57] here, but I appreciate your time and um

[1:43:00] I hope that we can collaborate more in

[1:43:02] the future. Thank you. Does anybody have

[1:43:04] any questions for Nicole?

[1:43:07] >> I have a question. One, your last slide

[1:43:08] there said that one of the things you

[1:43:10] would need from us is a meeting space

[1:43:12] and I know we've had discussion in the

[1:43:13] past about allowing um community

[1:43:15] centered uh events using our meeting

[1:43:18] space and and I'm just curious what you

[1:43:20] would need for us um for a meeting space

[1:43:23] if we were to commit to that.

[1:43:24] >> Yeah. So, we've already actually

[1:43:25] collaborated with you guys on that in

[1:43:27] the past. We've offered some parenting

[1:43:28] classes and we did that um not this last

[1:43:32] year but the spring I think of 20 25

[1:43:35] when I was first hired we did a fiveweek

[1:43:37] class it's called guiding good choices

[1:43:39] and we invite our parents to come in and

[1:43:41] then they are able to get that and it's

[1:43:43] all about family bonding how to talk to

[1:43:45] your kids about issues that are

[1:43:47] affecting them in school or in daily

[1:43:48] life and how to create those connections

[1:43:50] and so really that's what it is it's can

[1:43:52] we hold a class here for your community

[1:43:54] can we um maybe hold a meeting here

[1:43:57] We've held a few um community board

[1:43:59] meetings and things. So, it would be

[1:44:01] nothing more than just that kind of

[1:44:02] thing. Then we would, you know, if we

[1:44:04] come and do a booth at one of your

[1:44:06] events, that type of stuff. It wouldn't

[1:44:07] be the meeting space.

[1:44:08] >> That leads me to one more question

[1:44:09] because I didn't know the answer was

[1:44:10] going to say that. I guess it's more of

[1:44:12] a question for you, Darren. Do we run

[1:44:14] any risk um uh partnering with an

[1:44:17] organization like this knowing that they

[1:44:18] would be teaching something to our

[1:44:20] citizens? Do we have any liability what

[1:44:22] they teach, what that curriculum looks

[1:44:23] like? Are we outwardly saying as a city

[1:44:25] that we support the message that's given

[1:44:28] things like that

[1:44:29] >> if we partner with them. Yes.

[1:44:31] >> Okay.

[1:44:33] >> So, so currently we already are her

[1:44:35] first city is one of the communities um

[1:44:38] within our budget every year. We

[1:44:39] actually do give money to the coalition

[1:44:42] and then the coalition in return ends up

[1:44:44] supporting our events. So, we have

[1:44:47] actually partnered with the coalition

[1:44:49] back when it was Fremont 5 when it was

[1:44:51] first being originated. And if I had to

[1:44:53] guess how many years ago, I would say

[1:44:55] probably 10. How many years have we had

[1:44:58] >> at least 2018?

[1:45:00] >> Yeah. So, and

[1:45:01] >> again, I'm not implying I disagree. I

[1:45:03] don't even know the curriculum. I'm just

[1:45:04] curious. Anytime I hear uh I have an

[1:45:07] educational background. Anytime I hear

[1:45:08] that we're going to educate people on

[1:45:09] things, then we have to be making

[1:45:10] statements and taking stances on things.

[1:45:12] And so, from as a political entity and

[1:45:14] as a city, governmental entity, are we

[1:45:16] saying we also agree with those things?

[1:45:18] >> Yes. And I should have pointed out too

[1:45:20] just along with that, we are um our

[1:45:22] fiscal agent is through human services.

[1:45:24] So any of the curriculum that we teach

[1:45:26] has been vetted through them and the

[1:45:28] state. So, but we're happy to provide

[1:45:30] anything ahead of time that you can

[1:45:32] review if that's something that you

[1:45:33] would like to do. Again, we've taught

[1:45:34] those classes before. Not saying that, you know, is not something going

[1:45:37] forward, but we'd be happy to provide

[1:45:39] curriculum, answer any questions or

[1:45:41] refer you to the um coordinator for that we have at Wever Human Services and

[1:45:46] they would be able to answer any of

[1:45:47] those questions for sure.

[1:45:49] >> That's really

[1:45:50] a question. Do you have a partnership

[1:45:52] agreement that would be sent out and

[1:45:53] signed by the city?

[1:45:55] >> We would definitely we have we're

[1:45:56] actually drafting like anou type thing.

[1:45:59] We I'm just waiting for the directors at

[1:46:01] the recruitment services to and their attorneys and stuff to finalize

[1:46:05] that so that the coalitions because

[1:46:07] there's a Bonavville, a Roy, a Weaver

[1:46:09] and us and Ogden City coalitions and

[1:46:11] they all want to try to do that same

[1:46:12] kind of partnership with their cities

[1:46:14] that they represent and work with. So

[1:46:16] that's something that we're definitely

[1:46:17] working on.

[1:46:18] >> So I deal it would be low liability. I

[1:46:20] deal with this all the time in my job.

[1:46:21] So the liability would be handled in

[1:46:23] that partnership agreement. So I would

[1:46:25] just want to see that.

[1:46:26] >> Yes, for sure. Yeah. When and I we u

[1:46:28] that draft is being sent through our

[1:46:30] directors there human services. Once we

[1:46:32] have that, happy to share that with you

[1:46:33] guys. You can review it and see what you

[1:46:35] think. And then if there's any changes

[1:46:36] uh to that agreement, we'd be happy to

[1:46:39] that as well.

[1:46:39] >> Maybe the mayor knows if we have one of

[1:46:41] those in the future or in the past

[1:46:44] sign.

[1:46:46] >> I don't I don't think we've ever had any

[1:46:49] kind of assigned.

[1:46:51] >> I don't think as I've checked with past

[1:46:53] coordinators, that's not been something

[1:46:54] that's something that I don't know that

[1:46:56] any of the other coalitions have had

[1:46:57] with the city. We have one with the

[1:46:59] school district so that we can go into

[1:47:00] the schools, teach those same classes.

[1:47:03] So, we have like last year we partnered

[1:47:04] with Mountain View Junior High and did a

[1:47:07] strengthening families class. And so, we

[1:47:09] have the same type ofou in place for

[1:47:11] them. But offering it with the cities,

[1:47:12] that's something new that we're all

[1:47:13] exploring as coordinators.

[1:47:17] I think it would be beneficial to both

[1:47:19] coalition and the cities for all of

[1:47:20] that. So, I'm hoping that that goes

[1:47:22] through. Yeah.

[1:47:23] >> Well, that's I might do mention before

[1:47:24] in one of our meetings, but when I went

[1:47:26] to the healthy communities seminar that

[1:47:28] they had, they have coalition directors

[1:47:30] there. And that's when I called Nicole

[1:47:32] and said, "Why aren't we partnering? Why

[1:47:34] are we both doing this exact same thing?

[1:47:37] Why do we have a coalition in the city?

[1:47:39] We already have the one with Western

[1:47:41] Weber." So, that's why we thought this

[1:47:43] would be a really good partnership. And

[1:47:45] also mentioned um on one of her slides

[1:47:47] about helping us with grants and

[1:47:49] applying. And so she already told me

[1:47:50] about one possible grant that I have

[1:47:53] completed ready to submit if we decide

[1:47:56] we want to do this and it is through

[1:47:58] Weaver Human Services and it's a 25 or

[1:48:00] excuse me the Department of Health and

[1:48:02] Human Services with the state. That's a

[1:48:04] $2,500 grant that again would be

[1:48:07] helping. I put in here about the

[1:48:09] possibility of being able then to pay a

[1:48:11] Weaver State University intern. So I had

[1:48:13] a stipend with some program materials,

[1:48:16] advertising, some participant

[1:48:18] incentives, some surveys, evaluations.

[1:48:20] We could do po, you know, pre and post

[1:48:23] to see the benefits. And so, again, I I

[1:48:26] feel like this is something we did it

[1:48:28] before. I don't know that we did it

[1:48:30] maybe as effectively as we could have in

[1:48:31] a city, but I I would like to see us

[1:48:34] continue to do this if you're interested

[1:48:36] in having this designation.

[1:48:40] >> Thank you. Any other questions?

[1:48:43] Thank you.

[1:48:45] >> I I do have to make one comment though.

[1:48:47] Wow. You are very well prepared to

[1:48:50] answer every question and you talk fast.

[1:48:52] >> I do. I'm sorry.

[1:48:54] >> When I get nervous, I get that's why

[1:48:56] when he said talk fast, I was like done.

[1:48:59] I got it.

[1:48:59] >> Well, thank you.

[1:49:01] >> Thank you,

[1:49:03] >> Mayor. Would you be opposed? Our consult

[1:49:05] is here. Um our code right now for the

[1:49:08] change requires us to do a vote to

[1:49:11] change the agenda. Would you guys be

[1:49:13] willing to do the CRA right now handle

[1:49:15] that issue?

[1:49:17] >> Yes, I'm I'm fine with that.

[1:49:18] >> There would have to be a majority vote

[1:49:20] of the council to move that in the

[1:49:21] agenda according to our code. But

[1:49:23] >> what's the reason?

[1:49:24] >> I just the consult here. It's

[1:49:26] >> for the CR.

[1:49:29] >> You don't have to. It's just an idea. If

[1:49:31] you would want to move that up, change

[1:49:33] the agenda to move up the it is the our

[1:49:38] first let's see the possible motion to

[1:49:41] consider. It's B under action items.

[1:49:44] Move that up. Talking about the

[1:49:46] community reinvestment agency while is

[1:49:48] here moving that up in the agenda.

[1:49:51] >> Is there anybody?

[1:49:52] >> So you can go.

[1:49:54] >> Yes.

[1:49:54] So if someone would like to make

[1:49:56] that motion,

[1:49:57] >> would that supersede

[1:49:59] the conversation on a lease agreement?

[1:50:01] >> That's what I'm That's what I was

[1:50:02] proposing, but it would be your

[1:50:04] decision.

[1:50:06] >> I mean, I don't want to be disrespectful

[1:50:07] to the fact you're wait. Are you ready

[1:50:08] to go home? Are you ready?

[1:50:10] >> Whatever you guys want to do

[1:50:12] or

[1:50:15] the least conversation is going to take.

[1:50:18] >> I don't know. There's a couple of things

[1:50:20] I I someone would like to make that

[1:50:22] motion to move that up. I make a motion

[1:50:25] to move up the conversation of of

[1:50:28] ordinance number

[1:50:30] 206-24

[1:50:33] creating a CR to bump it up in front of

[1:50:38] appro ordinance number 22603.

[1:50:42] >> So in front of the trail lease

[1:50:44] agreements having it next.

[1:50:45] >> Yes.

[1:50:46] >> Okay. That motion was made by council

[1:50:48] member Hancock. Is there a second?

[1:50:56] If it helps out

[1:51:00] by council member and all in favor

[1:51:04] discussion

[1:51:04] >> did yes discussion on it. Do you want

[1:51:06] >> I have a question? It's under an action

[1:51:08] item. We're moving it up under a

[1:51:10] discussion item.

[1:51:11] >> That's my question also.

[1:51:12] >> We'd be moving the entire action item.

[1:51:15] >> Okay. So we would go into action back to

[1:51:18] discussion back to action.

[1:51:20] I mean, is that is that allowed?

[1:51:22] >> Yes.

[1:51:22] >> Okay.

[1:51:24] >> I'm just I'm just asking for order

[1:51:28] sticking to agendas and all that stuff.

[1:51:30] That's the only discussion question I

[1:51:32] have.

[1:51:34] >> Okay. If no other discussion then all in

[1:51:36] favor

[1:51:38] >> I I

[1:51:39] >> Any opposed?

[1:51:50] You have to cast the voter abstain,

[1:51:52] right?

[1:51:53] >> Does he have to cast it?

[1:51:55] >> Okay.

[1:51:56] >> What about you, Council Member F? I

[1:51:58] didn't hear you. You said I Okay. Thank

[1:52:00] you. Okay. Okay. Thank you, Nicole, for

[1:52:03] coming. We We appreciate that. Yes. Yes,

[1:52:05] you can go. So, thank you. And I didn't

[1:52:07] put it on the agenda for us to vote

[1:52:08] tonight. We do need to get our

[1:52:10] reapplication done, but what but because

[1:52:13] if that's not an action item on our

[1:52:14] agenda, we'll have to do that next time

[1:52:16] and we'll I'll be working on that and

[1:52:18] then you be thinking about if you want

[1:52:19] to do the redesination. Okay. So then

[1:52:22] we've moved up a possible motion to

[1:52:25] consider ordinance number 202604, an

[1:52:28] ordinance creating the Hooper City

[1:52:30] Community Reinvestment Agency and

[1:52:32] authority and authorizing the mayor to

[1:52:34] create to execute a notice of impending

[1:52:37] boundary action. So we had a discussion

[1:52:39] on this for an hour in work meeting

[1:52:43] again. What questions do you have about

[1:52:45] this? Any questions that Cody can answer

[1:52:48] for us and then let's we can discuss

[1:52:50] this.

[1:52:59] » I think you explained it fairly well.

[1:53:02] I don't have any questions.

[1:53:05] So there's not any questions. Then I

[1:53:08] would entertain a motion then to

[1:53:11] consider this ordinance and all that it

[1:53:13] entails. So is there a motion?

[1:53:22] » I'll entertain a motion to consider the

[1:53:24] ordinance 2026

[1:53:26] to create a CR.

[1:53:28] >> The motion was made by council member

[1:53:30] Hancock. Is there a second?

[1:53:33] and then we're going to have a

[1:53:34] discussion after.

[1:53:36] >> I'll second the motion.

[1:53:38] >> Second was made by council member

[1:53:40] Rapalto. Any discussion on the motion?

[1:53:45] » So, this is uh Oops. This is the way uh

[1:53:49] in fact, yeah, maybe I do have a

[1:53:51] question. Will you uh maybe explain to

[1:53:54] all the residents that we're just

[1:53:56] adopting this the if that's if I

[1:53:58] understood it right, we're just adopting

[1:54:00] this, but we do not have to act on it

[1:54:04] unless we want to. Is that correct,

[1:54:06] >> sir? Could you explain that to our

[1:54:09] residents?

[1:54:09] >> Yes, I will. The action that you're

[1:54:11] taking now is to create a separate

[1:54:13] entity, legal entity called the the

[1:54:16] community reinvestment agency of city.

[1:54:19] So you'll have a separate entity that

[1:54:21] can in the future act uh under the

[1:54:23] powers of of 17c which allows you to

[1:54:26] create a project area and uh and and

[1:54:30] other

[1:54:33] powers that are granted under 17C. Those

[1:54:36] could be exercised at any time in the

[1:54:37] future or not exercised, but you can't

[1:54:40] exercise any of those to for example

[1:54:42] provide a tax increment incentive unless

[1:54:45] this agency is created. So right now

[1:54:47] you're that agency so you can do have a

[1:54:50] future action if you choose to do so

[1:54:53] under under that agency's powers.

[1:54:55] >> So I I asked this in the morning I ask

[1:54:58] it again. This agency is taking action

[1:55:01] and operating effectively as a different

[1:55:04] body even though it's the same people

[1:55:05] >> and I know it's semantical but it does

[1:55:07] have material implication. Are we asking

[1:55:09] the taxpayers to pay the individuals up

[1:55:12] here differently or additionally because

[1:55:16] they are doing different tasks operating

[1:55:19] separate meetings even though they're at

[1:55:20] the same time? Um because currently the

[1:55:23] taxpayers are paying us to do what we

[1:55:25] do. And so I I want to be clear that if

[1:55:28] we're creating an agency that we

[1:55:29] understand how we're paying the people

[1:55:31] that are part of that. Not saying I need

[1:55:33] to be paid to do it. I just want to be

[1:55:35] clear what we're asking the taxpayers to

[1:55:37] do with that because we would

[1:55:38] effectively be saying you're not

[1:55:40] operating as a city council member.

[1:55:41] You're now attending this CRA meeting

[1:55:44] and you're acting as a CRA board member.

[1:55:46] And so I don't know what other cities

[1:55:48] do. Are we supposed to just volunteer

[1:55:51] that time? Is that what we're expecting

[1:55:54] uh of individuals? And then

[1:55:56] additionally, does that put an

[1:55:58] obligation? I know based on the sit the

[1:56:00] uh attendance of meetings um we pay

[1:56:03] council members if they attend or don't

[1:56:05] attend you know based on that so if

[1:56:07] they're now attending an additional

[1:56:09] meeting are we giving a task for like

[1:56:11] our recorder or something to have to go

[1:56:13] say they were in two meetings on the

[1:56:15] same day I just want to be clear on that

[1:56:18] before we create an agency we're making

[1:56:20] people pay double double it for whatever

[1:56:23] >> council

[1:56:26] >> he's looking I'm looking that up, but I

[1:56:29] think it's something that we would

[1:56:30] decide. We have to put in our bylaws.

[1:56:32] So, if you're concerned with having some

[1:56:34] kind of understanding of what you want

[1:56:36] there, I think that would be your guys

[1:56:37] choice.

[1:56:38] >> Can we effectively create an agency that

[1:56:40] we don't know how we're paying for it or

[1:56:42] what? I mean, will we need to put it in

[1:56:44] our bylaws before we create this agency?

[1:56:49] » I'm I'm searching for it right now for

[1:56:50] that issue.

[1:56:54] Did you say just to clarify it can be

[1:56:58] done in the same meeting with the

[1:57:00] exception of it has to have a separate

[1:57:02] agenda. So say for instance tonight if

[1:57:04] we have if we had already created this

[1:57:06] board and we get done with this agenda

[1:57:08] and we're done at 7:50 for example then

[1:57:12] we adjourn that meeting and then we say

[1:57:14] we are now we're going to commence our

[1:57:17] >> yes

[1:57:18] >> CRA board meeting correct

[1:57:20] >> so it wouldn't necessarily but I I agree

[1:57:23] we need to have all that in writing but

[1:57:25] it wouldn't necessarily have to be a

[1:57:26] separate meeting that we're calling for

[1:57:28] additional staff to come we could do

[1:57:30] them if I understand at the same That's

[1:57:32] how I've seen it every single time. It's

[1:57:34] just done on the same meeting,

[1:57:36] >> same night.

[1:57:37] >> But you was like say in your profession,

[1:57:40] if you're dealing with me as a client,

[1:57:42] but then you switch hats and start

[1:57:43] dealing with Larry, you're dealing with

[1:57:45] both of us, right? And so effectively

[1:57:49] the way that we're set up to be, you

[1:57:52] know, compensating our council members,

[1:57:55] we're effectively doing a different job.

[1:57:56] And I just want to make sure I'm if we

[1:57:59] want to all agree that like we're not

[1:58:00] going to take payment work we do on the

[1:58:02] CRA. I'm I'm fine that's a different

[1:58:04] issue. I just want to make sure before

[1:58:06] we go creating agencies that we're

[1:58:08] telling the taxpayers how they're going

[1:58:09] for that.

[1:58:10] >> As staff,

[1:58:12] >> I'll say from other other entities

[1:58:15] you once the C the agencies created you

[1:58:18] then create bylaws

[1:58:21] and that is something that you can

[1:58:23] describe all that information. You can

[1:58:25] have a bylaw that says we will not be

[1:58:27] compensated or we will be if there's

[1:58:29] increment available or you can just

[1:58:32] describe what it is you want but right

[1:58:33] now just by creating it there are no

[1:58:36] bylaws yet you can't create them yet

[1:58:40] till the agency's created you can

[1:58:42] >> so there wouldn't be a compensation

[1:58:43] until the agency were created

[1:58:45] >> that makes sense that's fair

[1:58:49] question

[1:58:49] >> yeah answers my question I just want to

[1:58:51] be sure I mean I just there's clearly a

[1:58:54] need for us to separate legal entity.

[1:58:56] And so if there's a need for a separate

[1:58:57] legal entity, it probably has all kinds

[1:58:59] of governance that we need to be aware

[1:59:00] of. And I want to make sure that if

[1:59:02] we're just making something, we're not

[1:59:03] just making some thing. You know what I

[1:59:05] mean? I want to be clear what we're

[1:59:06] agreeing to build here before we build

[1:59:08] it.

[1:59:09] >> Fair enough.

[1:59:13] Any other discussion, questions?

[1:59:16] Okay. So, we've had a motion made, a

[1:59:19] second was made because this is an

[1:59:21] ordinance and we need to do a roll call

[1:59:24] vote. So, I will start with council

[1:59:26] member Hill.

[1:59:27] >> Nay.

[1:59:28] >> Council member Rapto.

[1:59:30] >> I.

[1:59:31] >> Council member Hancock.

[1:59:32] >> Hi.

[1:59:33] >> Council member Craig.

[1:59:35] >> Hi.

[1:59:36] >> Council member Bowers.

[1:59:37] >> Nay.

[1:59:38] >> Okay, that carries. Thank you.

[1:59:44] Okay, so now we will go back to our our

[1:59:48] previous agenda which is on trail lease

[1:59:50] agreements and this was going to be on a

[1:59:53] work meeting that we never had time to

[1:59:55] do. Thank you for coming. And so we

[1:59:57] thought tonight So we talked once about

[2:00:00] doing

[2:00:03] a little field trip and then we decided

[2:00:06] that was a little bit um problematic

[2:00:08] trying to get carts or something to take

[2:00:11] them and so we went along and I just

[2:00:13] took pictures and so I started Because

[2:00:16] with this lease agreement, there's some

[2:00:19] things in it that we again we talked

[2:00:21] about that maybe there's some changes we

[2:00:23] need to make because it talked about

[2:00:24] whether there could be animals, not

[2:00:26] animals, how many feet away it had to be

[2:00:28] from the sleuth bank. And so if you go

[2:00:31] into these pictures and I started on the

[2:00:33] very north end of Hipper Landings and so

[2:00:37] Malcolm can pull these up and you'll see

[2:00:39] that I just went along the Her Landing

[2:00:42] Slooh. Then I went across the street and

[2:00:45] went over to the Slooh that is there in

[2:00:48] Eli's subdivision I believe and then

[2:00:50] went down across 5900. So it connects to

[2:00:54] the cemetery. And also the last three

[2:00:56] slides, we have three properties that

[2:01:00] currently people are using our property,

[2:01:02] but we do not have a lease agreement

[2:01:04] for, which I'm I'm not saying I'm

[2:01:07] against them using it, but I feel like

[2:01:09] we should talk about that and have

[2:01:10] something in place because if ever that

[2:01:12] property was sold, and you know, those

[2:01:14] will be fairly evident on the pictures

[2:01:17] when they show. So, okay, Malcolm, are

[2:01:19] you

[2:01:21] have those? So, Like I said, you know,

[2:01:24] we just went along and started taking

[2:01:26] pictures. And if you're familiar with

[2:01:28] the back of her landings, the city owned

[2:01:30] quite a large piece and several years

[2:01:33] ago, they decided, and this again was

[2:01:36] probably about eight or 10 years ago,

[2:01:37] they would lease these properties so

[2:01:39] they would take care of it. And so you Oh, you're

[2:01:47] Thank you. I'm just going to go through

[2:01:49] these fairly quickly. I'm assuming

[2:01:52] >> the down Okay. So, you can just see as

[2:01:55] we go. Oops. No.

[2:02:00] » Okay. But so you can see, and this is

[2:02:02] just an example of where they've moved

[2:02:04] their fences back, which we've allowed

[2:02:05] them, and I feel like they take really

[2:02:07] good care of these properties. So, as

[2:02:10] you go along, you can see some people

[2:02:12] that have done it, some people haven't.

[2:02:16] Anyway, I'll just keep

[2:02:18] >> So, these fences are on city property.

[2:02:22] Uhu. And according to our lease

[2:02:24] agreement, we allow them to do that.

[2:02:27] No team know that, you know, they own

[2:02:28] the fans, but and at any time, the city

[2:02:31] can take back this property. And it's a

[2:02:34] 50-year lease. We charge them a dollar a

[2:02:36] year to be able to do that. And again, I

[2:02:39] feel like it's been very advantageous to

[2:02:42] the because you see how nice they look

[2:02:45] where you look on the other side, the

[2:02:48] right hand side is where the Her city's

[2:02:50] responsible for mowing and it just is a

[2:02:53] lot of time and effort. So again, you

[2:02:56] can just see as you go along. They're

[2:02:58] not all even. Some people have leased

[2:03:00] property, some haven't. And that's that

[2:03:03] standard portion that would be nice

[2:03:05] sometime for the city to be able to

[2:03:07] >> in the event that something catastrophic

[2:03:10] happened that we had to reclaim that

[2:03:12] property. From what I've read into this,

[2:03:14] we also would take possession of

[2:03:18] anything that was on that property. Not

[2:03:20] that I'm ever anticipating doing that,

[2:03:23] but we wouldn't have to um that the pro

[2:03:26] the fences and stuff that are on there

[2:03:27] would be

[2:03:29] >> Yes. And I think that should be

[2:03:32] something we look at because I I I

[2:03:35] don't know.

[2:03:36] >> I don't want their fence. I'm sorry.

[2:03:38] >> No, take it down.

[2:03:40] >> And the residents have paid money for

[2:03:42] their fences. So, I don't know

[2:03:43] necessarily, but that is something

[2:03:45] that's in our current lease that we

[2:03:47] probably we probably should

[2:03:49] >> I would like to cuz if they put it up,

[2:03:52] but I can't imagine what we'd ever have

[2:03:54] taken down for, but if we did, I would

[2:03:56] rather they had the option to remove it

[2:03:58] rather than it becoming kind of our

[2:04:00] property. And that's kind of what I read

[2:04:02] into this was it became our animal.

[2:04:05] >> I I agree with that. You go along here

[2:04:07] and there are animals and one thing in

[2:04:09] our lease agreement it says that they

[2:04:10] can't. And you know one thing I just

[2:04:12] wanted to show to you I'll go back one.

[2:04:14] Not not all of these agreements are the

[2:04:16] same because you see here they maybe

[2:04:18] gained a few feet. Then you go further

[2:04:21] and I'm headed south on the trail. They

[2:04:23] gained a large portion of land enough

[2:04:25] that they can and again and I'm not

[2:04:28] saying we want to change it but it's

[2:04:30] spend a dollar a year whether they ended

[2:04:32] up with 10 feet, five feet or an acre.

[2:04:37] >> But it just saves us just us maintaining

[2:04:40] that property.

[2:04:41] >> Yes. Yes.

[2:04:41] >> And and I do I will tell you one thing

[2:04:43] that I have observed and it was just

[2:04:45] last couple days. Um they are not

[2:04:48] supposed to have a gate on the back of

[2:04:49] their property wide enough to

[2:04:50] accommodate driving through but we have

[2:04:52] a horse trailer parked on the property

[2:04:54] that we own and that's got to get

[2:04:58] >> I saw that. about the side of the gate.

[2:05:01] Okay. Anyway, there's pigs, cows,

[2:05:05] horses, chickens, which again, we I

[2:05:09] think we just need to be consistent. If

[2:05:11] we're going to have that in our base

[2:05:12] agreement, then we just need to change

[2:05:14] that because again, I don't know why we

[2:05:17] have things then we don't you'll see

[2:05:19] this is still going along and now we're

[2:05:21] almost to 5100

[2:05:25] and it I feel like it helps the city out

[2:05:28] because then we're not

[2:05:30] having to take care of it. Okay, now

[2:05:31] we've just Now, now we've jumped across

[2:05:33] the street and this is 5100 behind where

[2:05:36] Eli is and there's that road that goes

[2:05:39] through. This is in the back of the

[2:05:40] Hubard's property and they they take

[2:05:43] really nice care of that. And we've had

[2:05:45] other residents that have asked along

[2:05:47] here, like here for example, no one is,

[2:05:49] but they have asked if they could the

[2:05:52] possibility of perhaps having a horse or

[2:05:55] something along there to help

[2:05:58] that and we haven't allowed them to. But

[2:06:01] again, there's, you know, quite a

[2:06:03] distance here. And these are all those

[2:06:06] properties behind that people have asked

[2:06:08] and some we've leased it to and some we

[2:06:12] haven't.

[2:06:15] Okay. Now, this now we're across the

[2:06:16] bridge. If everyone can follow where we

[2:06:19] are on that same trail and then you see

[2:06:21] this is someone that we gave the lease

[2:06:22] agreement to that they've put a fence up

[2:06:25] next to it and rock and you know it's

[2:06:28] really wellmaintained and that's a

[2:06:29] property then the city isn't having to

[2:06:32] mow or take care of it because we don't

[2:06:34] really have water access there. They

[2:06:36] have an access because they can take it

[2:06:39] from their property run sprinklers if

[2:06:41] we're trying to do something and this is

[2:06:43] rocks. Some of the others are planting

[2:06:44] grass. Are

[2:06:45] >> they too close?

[2:06:47] There's supposed to be a 3ft set back

[2:06:49] before they do anything.

[2:06:51] >> And and we're also supposed to be 35 ft

[2:06:53] from the

[2:06:55] >> So again,

[2:06:58] all of these are not created equal.

[2:07:00] That's why I'm saying I felt like we

[2:07:02] needed to look at this and decide what

[2:07:04] we want to do. And then this is the

[2:07:05] cemetery trail where you start going

[2:07:08] down and you can see ones that have

[2:07:09] maintained it. It looks really nice.

[2:07:11] They've mowed. They put some trees along

[2:07:14] there.

[2:07:16] 35 from the edge probably not taking

[2:07:19] their stances that according to our

[2:07:21] lease agreement we would now own which I

[2:07:24] don't know if that's something

[2:07:29] is everyone familiar I'm probably just

[2:07:30] showing you pictures you're already

[2:07:32] familiar with has everyone walked along

[2:07:33] these trails and

[2:07:35] >> never have

[2:07:36] >> okay

[2:07:37] >> I drive along on the road and look in

[2:07:40] >> you know this is on behind where it runs

[2:07:43] into the cemetery to

[2:07:49] So, yeah.

[2:07:52] >> What is What is city staff? They're not

[2:07:54] really excited about trying to maintain

[2:07:56] this trail, are they?

[2:07:58] >> Well, they're not. And we've been a

[2:08:01] little bit short staffed because of some

[2:08:03] health concerns this summer. And so, so

[2:08:05] I can tell you

[2:08:07] we we take care of what absolutely has

[2:08:10] to be done. And I, and probably one of

[2:08:12] the last things on the list would be to mow the trails

[2:08:17] if they have to be mowing the parks or

[2:08:19] making sure that there's the sewers

[2:08:21] being maintained. This would probably

[2:08:23] and the one that usually mows our trails

[2:08:25] is one that has not been able to do that

[2:08:28] this summer. So, but but again, we need

[2:08:30] to decide what we want to do because

[2:08:32] then when we have come in and say,

[2:08:33] "Well, I want a horse." And we say, "You

[2:08:35] can't have a horse." And they say,

[2:08:36] "Well, other people have a horse." Then

[2:08:39] I think we need to

[2:08:41] >> I feel like I have a hard time

[2:08:44] We need to manage the standards of other

[2:08:45] people. We can't cut our own grass. You

[2:08:47] know what I mean? We should be managing

[2:08:49] the standards that we should do. I

[2:08:51] definitely agree with consistency, but

[2:08:53] what does enforcement look like on that?

[2:08:54] Is that a code enforcement thing? Is

[2:08:56] that um something? And then how do we

[2:08:59] like you said, do we go back and look at

[2:09:01] every single lease that we've done? And

[2:09:03] have we ever talked to any of these

[2:09:04] people? I mean, that rock that's on

[2:09:07] there with the the the fence on top of

[2:09:10] it, if they're in violation, what is our

[2:09:12] plan? Are we going to make a move it? I

[2:09:14] mean, that's a big that's a big

[2:09:15] undertaking, right?

[2:09:17] >> And so, I mean, what do we plan to do?

[2:09:20] What would it cost us to enforce this?

[2:09:22] You know, are we going to have to take

[2:09:23] people to court? I mean, what does that

[2:09:24] look like? I mean, it's the, you know,

[2:09:27] Matthew 7. Let's get the spec out of our

[2:09:28] own, you know, plank out of our own

[2:09:30] before we look at the speck in our

[2:09:32] neighbors. So, I'm just curious if we

[2:09:35] need to cut our grass first.

[2:09:38] >> And that has been a concern that people

[2:09:39] have said. I I don't think we do any

[2:09:41] enforcing as far as I know along here.

[2:09:44] It is up to they come in and sign the

[2:09:46] lease agreement and it's like an honor

[2:09:48] system. Okay. We believe that you're

[2:09:51] going to take care of it. My thinking is

[2:09:53] we just need to decide what we want this

[2:09:56] to be. and any that are already

[2:09:58] grandfathered in February. We have these

[2:10:00] agreements, but going forward, are we

[2:10:01] allowing horses? We're not allowing

[2:10:03] horses. Do we still want to do the

[2:10:05] dollar a year? Maybe change some things.

[2:10:08] So, we don't own someone's fence. Is it

[2:10:11] 35 ft?

[2:10:13] >> Dar, I have a question for you. Does I

[2:10:14] don't know how this applies in this type

[2:10:16] of thing. Does this past practice

[2:10:18] supersede code? I mean, we say we don't

[2:10:21] allow horses, but we got pigs and horses

[2:10:22] somewhere.

[2:10:23] >> I I see no reason why we couldn't. I

[2:10:26] mean, these are

[2:10:27] This is our property. We can decide if

[2:10:30] we want to have animals on this piece of

[2:10:32] property and we don't want them on this

[2:10:34] piece of property. That's that's your

[2:10:36] decision ultimately. Um I wanted to talk

[2:10:39] about enforcement though. You look at

[2:10:40] the language of them.

[2:10:42] The the reason that I've looked at we

[2:10:44] can revoke them at any time. So

[2:10:47] enforcement we can evade. We can revoke

[2:10:51] them. We can remove everything off the

[2:10:52] property.

[2:10:54] We can

[2:10:56] proper they don't we can

[2:11:00] » correct if they don't remove it so we

[2:11:04] can there's enforcement mechanisms I

[2:11:06] think the biggest one is that we can

[2:11:08] revoke this at any time

[2:11:12] >> okay just going down the road anyway

[2:11:16] >> along those lines sounds like they have

[2:11:18] to have a oneear notice

[2:11:23] that I don't I've seen I'll have to look

[2:11:26] at them because I've seen some that

[2:11:28] didn't that we didn't have a a year-long

[2:11:31] notice. So, is that in the majority

[2:11:35] then?

[2:11:35] >> It just says the city retains the right

[2:11:37] at any time with a one-year notice to

[2:11:39] the leasey to cancel this lease.

[2:11:41] >> Oh, okay.

[2:11:42] >> So, item two.

[2:11:43] >> That seems a little excessive

[2:11:45] in there.

[2:11:47] >> I mean, we couldn't go change

[2:11:48] proactively.

[2:11:49] >> No, there was several that I saw.

[2:11:51] >> That's true. That's right. earlier this

[2:11:53] year when I was looking through them for

[2:11:55] different purposes that didn't have

[2:11:56] that. So that's not consistent.

[2:11:59] >> That was pretty lenient, I think.

[2:12:05] » Okay. Well, we'll just keep Okay.

[2:12:09] >> So, so those are those lease agreements.

[2:12:11] So, now we're on to

[2:12:14] three properties that again, I'm not

[2:12:16] saying we should lease them, but we

[2:12:17] probably need to do something. So, if

[2:12:19] you look at this picture on the right is

[2:12:21] the church that's up there by Freedom

[2:12:23] Elementary. So, you see the um school and then you

[2:12:30] see the house that's to the very far to

[2:12:32] the left. Well, you see where the

[2:12:34] different color of the grass is

[2:12:36] currently the home. So, it is the 4696

[2:12:41] has their fence line back to where the

[2:12:43] green grass starts and is using that

[2:12:45] portion of the city's property,

[2:12:49] which I'm not We own that property. So

[2:12:52] the Lash church owns it on the right.

[2:12:53] The city owns the property on the left.

[2:12:56] And so our property goes to where that

[2:12:58] line is. You can see that's even across

[2:13:00] the back with the other properties, but

[2:13:02] the property owner has planted trees.

[2:13:05] They're using the property up to where

[2:13:06] the green is. So I think somewhere we

[2:13:09] probably need to establish a lease

[2:13:11] agreement as well because if ever they

[2:13:12] sell their property, the new property

[2:13:15] owners probably think they own that but

[2:13:18] they don't.

[2:13:18] >> How big is that parcel? You know, I

[2:13:22] >> Well, if you look at these are half

[2:13:23] acre. No, these I think are even maybe

[2:13:26] quarter acre.

[2:13:29] >> So maybe an eighth of an acre. I'm I'm

[2:13:31] not sure. Right. I don't have those.

[2:13:34] >> I'm I'm just guessing because I've seen

[2:13:35] that property before. It's probably

[2:13:38] around a third of an acre that they are

[2:13:40] using.

[2:13:44] » Okay. So that is one that I thought that

[2:13:47] has been brought to our attention that

[2:13:49] and I'm not I don't know when and why

[2:13:52] that occurred but but it has. Okay. So

[2:13:55] now you have the next one. So now we're

[2:13:57] down by the state cultural hall down

[2:14:00] across the street from the park. So you

[2:14:02] see the building where the LDS church is

[2:14:04] where the cultural hall is and you see

[2:14:06] that little narrow piece that's right to

[2:14:09] the left hand side of the cultural hall.

[2:14:10] That's also owned by the church. Then

[2:14:12] you see that place that says 6200 West

[2:14:16] that is owned by the city. So again, you

[2:14:19] go to 6184

[2:14:21] and you'll see the house of it is using

[2:14:24] not all but about 34 of our width going

[2:14:27] through there. And that is like that's

[2:14:30] supposed to be a road and Herbert days

[2:14:32] they do allow people to go back and

[2:14:34] forth. And so again when I asked why did

[2:14:37] we do this and they said well we just we

[2:14:39] just did well. If we're going to just do

[2:14:43] something, I feel like we still should

[2:14:44] have some kind of a lease agreement

[2:14:46] because what if they ever move and

[2:14:48] you'll see they have corrals, you know,

[2:14:51] other buildings they built and that and

[2:14:54] that belongs to the city. So somehow we

[2:14:57] probably need to get some kind of a

[2:14:58] lease agreement which could be different

[2:15:00] than our trail lease agreements but

[2:15:02] something just so they are aware and I don't know that they are or not.

[2:15:08] Is this property? This is separate from

[2:15:09] the trail lease agreement though, right?

[2:15:11] >> We we have no lease agreements for this.

[2:15:13] >> So, we just got somebody who's built on

[2:15:14] our property

[2:15:16] >> a long time ago and it's just been

[2:15:17] rolling that way.

[2:15:18] >> Any idea whose water is being used to

[2:15:22] water these properties is

[2:15:24] >> I I don't know that that's a good

[2:15:26] question. I don't know.

[2:15:27] >> I thought it was an excellent question.

[2:15:30] >> Okay. And then the third and these are

[2:15:32] only three that I'm aware of and we

[2:15:34] could have lots more than this in

[2:15:36] Herbert. Did you have a question,

[2:15:37] Darren, before we go to the next one?

[2:15:40] >> I just I'm just getting familiar looking

[2:15:42] at that provision about the

[2:15:45] one-year lease. I've given the idea to

[2:15:48] the council for these types of

[2:15:49] properties that we can do what's called

[2:15:51] a license agreement.

[2:15:53] Separate specific agreement for each of

[2:15:55] these properties um where we would have

[2:15:58] the ability to take back our property

[2:15:59] when we wanted our decision.

[2:16:03] It might be a little safer. This one

[2:16:05] year lease language does make me a

[2:16:07] little nervous.

[2:16:09] >> Yeah, it's one year and it only says

[2:16:11] that an emergency can supersede it and

[2:16:13] then it says if there's a dispute that

[2:16:15] we have to go to mediation.

[2:16:16] >> Correct. I just saw that. So

[2:16:20] I've I've hinted that I've given that an

[2:16:22] idea. I've used that several times with

[2:16:24] in different cities. It acts the same

[2:16:27] way. They can use the property for

[2:16:30] specific things how

[2:16:33] But we have the right to go in and take

[2:16:35] the property. We give a more reasonable

[2:16:37] notice like 30 days or 60 days something

[2:16:40] would be more reasonable.

[2:16:42] >> But your legal recommendation would be

[2:16:44] not to proceed with it the way it sits.

[2:16:46] >> The way it sits. No.

[2:16:47] >> Well, I I agree. It's in our court. If

[2:16:52] uh we put that up front and say we can

[2:16:55] take it any time, then they have the

[2:16:57] decision. Well, maybe I don't want to

[2:17:00] lease this. And put all this stuff on

[2:17:03] there if you can do that. So I think we

[2:17:06] put it to benefit us.

[2:17:09] >> The whole point we want them to take

[2:17:11] care of the property that actually gets

[2:17:14] taken care of. I think that'll be the

[2:17:16] whole point of us doing this in the

[2:17:17] first place. So

[2:17:20] >> with this one specifically, there was an

[2:17:22] incident that came up that there was an

[2:17:23] injured horse because kids were riding

[2:17:25] motorcycles and scared the horse and

[2:17:28] then they came into the city. Well, then

[2:17:30] come to find out their wasn't on their

[2:17:32] property. It was on city property

[2:17:34] because they had their whole corral and

[2:17:36] everything. So that got me thinking,

[2:17:39] okay, legally we probably need to be

[2:17:40] making sure we are doing something to

[2:17:42] cover us

[2:17:44] because it was and understandably it's

[2:17:47] never a good thing when an animal is

[2:17:49] injured. And so but again, we don't have

[2:17:51] anything other than anyway.

[2:17:54] >> So just to be clear on this particular

[2:17:56] property, there's no agreement at all.

[2:17:59] Like they're just using our and having

[2:18:01] their horse on. They built buildings on

[2:18:03] our property that we haven't authorized.

[2:18:05] We don't have any lease agreement. Is

[2:18:06] there any action of enforcement on that

[2:18:09] >> at this point?

[2:18:10] >> We can remove it whenever we want. It's

[2:18:13] property.

[2:18:13] >> I mean, but at the point we're aware

[2:18:15] there's an issue with the horse. Are we

[2:18:19] liable? It's on our land and we know that it's a

[2:18:24] problem.

[2:18:26] >> So, I'm not going to discuss that in

[2:18:28] this um I don't need to.

[2:18:31] that privately for legal advice, but

[2:18:35] it's our property. We can have them get

[2:18:37] off. We can give them a notice. We and

[2:18:40] if they don't within a certain amount of

[2:18:41] time, we can remove it. There's no

[2:18:44] they're not taking they don't have a

[2:18:45] right to the property. There's nothing

[2:18:47] sort person does not have legal taking

[2:18:50] for city own property. For the liability

[2:18:53] question, I think we should be concerned

[2:18:55] about what's happening on our property.

[2:18:57] Um that's where we agreement.

[2:19:00] >> If we had a lease, it would relieve us

[2:19:03] of some of that liability.

[2:19:04] >> Make sure that we have, you know,

[2:19:06] >> it was stated properly.

[2:19:07] >> It would us.

[2:19:12] » Well, with with Upper tomato days, then

[2:19:15] there isn't the ability for trucks and horse traders to be able to pull in

[2:19:19] from the road on the other side, which

[2:19:21] would be I believe it's 57 5800 south,

[2:19:26] then go through. But it is a little bit

[2:19:28] obstructed to get through there. Anyway,

[2:19:31] we need to do something, I feel. Okay,

[2:19:33] let's go. There's just one more. So,

[2:19:35] this is the property that is on 6300

[2:19:39] West that is right next to our this um

[2:19:43] the low sewer. It's one of our our

[2:19:46] vacuum stations. So again, if you look

[2:19:49] to where the property line is, you can

[2:19:51] see that well Her city when they put up

[2:19:54] their fence around the sewer, you can

[2:19:56] see where they put the fence up. But

[2:19:58] again, we have this person now that is

[2:20:00] using where the green is, where the tree

[2:20:04] is, where the brown, the white that is

[2:20:06] on Her City property and they came in

[2:20:08] and wanted to purchase it and I don't

[2:20:10] remember if that was this year or last

[2:20:12] year and the council said no. But again,

[2:20:14] we've never signed a license with them

[2:20:17] or lease agreement. Again, we just have

[2:20:20] a large piece and we really don't want

[2:20:22] to sell this because if ever we needed

[2:20:24] to do something with that list or with

[2:20:26] the vacuum station, we want to maintain

[2:20:28] that property. Like I said, these are

[2:20:30] only three that I'm aware of that have

[2:20:32] been brought to my attention. But I

[2:20:34] think we should have something in place

[2:20:36] so we can at least have some legality

[2:20:40] here for our property.

[2:20:43] So, I would recommend taking the advice

[2:20:46] of legal counsel to create a license for

[2:20:48] these properties that Sher just talked

[2:20:50] about. Um, and then have a different um

[2:20:54] agreement with our trails or trail

[2:20:57] property leases. So, I would I guess ask

[2:21:01] legal to create a license agreement and

[2:21:05] also a trail less,

[2:21:09] two different things. So is the license

[2:21:11] specific to these

[2:21:13] >> to to properties that are not adjacent

[2:21:15] to a trail?

[2:21:16] >> Not all not adjacent. So we continue

[2:21:18] with the lease along the slooh or the

[2:21:20] trail.

[2:21:20] >> I would think so.

[2:21:21] >> But a modified version of that lease

[2:21:23] have like the year and all. Yeah.

[2:21:25] Something that's a little better.

[2:21:26] >> I actually received a list of all the

[2:21:29] properties that were owned in city a

[2:21:31] little while back. I haven't had a time

[2:21:33] to review that real carefully, but we

[2:21:35] have quite a few. There might be more

[2:21:36] than we are even dealing with that would

[2:21:40] come under this in kind of a blanket

[2:21:42] policy that are not by the trail

[2:21:44] specifically and these are I'm trying to

[2:21:47] see the term like 50 years or something

[2:21:52] >> on the trail.

[2:21:55] >> So they would come up in that time frame

[2:21:58] but um that's long for these type of

[2:22:01] leases. I don't think we want a 50year

[2:22:03] lease on these. So, so how long is the

[2:22:05] license? Generally,

[2:22:06] >> the license we can have it for

[2:22:08] >> 10 years.

[2:22:09] >> Yeah. 10 years, 30 years, something like

[2:22:11] that. We could just be different.

[2:22:16] » You could have it be that way.

[2:22:23] >> Seems to me a whole different list of

[2:22:25] rules for license versus the trails.

[2:22:27] >> They kind of they kind of are

[2:22:30] Yes, they you can do the same with them

[2:22:32] that we're trying to

[2:22:34] Um the one thing to point out according

[2:22:36] to our code each of those will have to

[2:22:38] come before the council and be approved

[2:22:40] if it is a lease.

[2:22:42] >> So just so

[2:22:44] >> well if it's all licenses it would have

[2:22:46] to be

[2:22:47] >> not necessarily

[2:22:50] that

[2:22:51] >> that's not in the lease that's not in

[2:22:52] the the code. So

[2:22:55] >> should we include that?

[2:22:56] >> We could if you want that to come before

[2:22:58] the council or if you want staff to kind

[2:23:00] of handle that type of issue they can.

[2:23:03] Well, that was one of my questions on

[2:23:04] the lease agreement with trails is

[2:23:06] number 10. Lease property should not be

[2:23:09] for the keeping of animals unless

[2:23:10] approved by the city and events. Who's

[2:23:13] the city? Is that staff? Is that

[2:23:16] council? Is that mayor?

[2:23:17] >> I think if we're discussing I think

[2:23:19] we're discussing leases and according to

[2:23:20] our code changes, it would be the

[2:23:22] council.

[2:23:22] >> So, I think we need to be more clear on

[2:23:24] that as well.

[2:23:26] >> So, to be clear on that, would you want

[2:23:28] that to be like staff or would you want

[2:23:30] that to be the council?

[2:23:35] I agree. It just needs to be more clear

[2:23:36] and I and I don't and then that could

[2:23:38] maybe have some language like you had

[2:23:40] mentioned we could determine whether we

[2:23:42] want animals or not because right now it

[2:23:43] just says no animals 35 ft. Well, we

[2:23:47] know we're not doing that or like the

[2:23:49] fence beyond said of the city. So, I

[2:23:51] think we need to have something language

[2:23:53] in there more that it can come to so

[2:23:55] someone could come and say, "Look, I

[2:23:56] have this extra acre. Can I put two

[2:23:59] horses?" That would be

[2:24:02] Dale, did you have a concern with um

[2:24:06] license versus lease in

[2:24:09] making sure that they are because you

[2:24:11] said you could do a license for each one

[2:24:13] differently. Can we do a lease for each

[2:24:14] one differently?

[2:24:15] >> Yeah.

[2:24:15] >> Okay. So, that that wasn't a concern.

[2:24:17] License to lease based on the ability to

[2:24:19] make them different.

[2:24:20] >> I'd have to go look at our code

[2:24:21] language. I know that there's there was

[2:24:23] discussion initially for leases that

[2:24:27] they had to be fair market value or the

[2:24:28] best interest of the city. So there

[2:24:31] would have to be a consistency of what

[2:24:32] these things are charged and I think

[2:24:34] that would come up that would be your

[2:24:36] that would be the council's decision

[2:24:38] according to our code.

[2:24:39] >> But if it was like the standard like $1

[2:24:41] per year like we've done but maybe it's

[2:24:42] not 50 years or whatever that is then we

[2:24:44] wouldn't fall into that. I'm just

[2:24:46] curious if like specifically we know

[2:24:48] that we've got somebody on lease

[2:24:50] property who's got horses or pigs or

[2:24:52] whatever and somebody came before the

[2:24:54] council to request the use animals and

[2:24:56] it was approved by the city uh council.

[2:25:00] um or not approved. Do we have an issue

[2:25:02] there?

[2:25:03] >> I there would be an issue politically

[2:25:06] but legally

[2:25:08] >> arbitrarian capric legally there's no

[2:25:11] issue.

[2:25:12] >> I don't think there's an issue.

[2:25:14] >> So with these trail leases I don't know

[2:25:17] you guys's opinion but I'm thinking that

[2:25:20] ones that don't their houses don't go to

[2:25:23] the slew I don't have a problem with

[2:25:26] them having horses pigs you know they

[2:25:29] take care of them. But the ones that the

[2:25:32] houses uh have to go down to the SLO, we

[2:25:35] got to take into consideration

[2:25:38] uh probably animals that's going to

[2:25:40] start sloughing off into the slooh and

[2:25:43] then we've got a big problem.

[2:25:46] >> I do have a little um issue with the 35

[2:25:49] foot from the Slooh bank. I know we need

[2:25:51] to keep it away, but that's a long way.

[2:25:53] It's like over on 5500

[2:25:56] down here where that property is. If we

[2:25:57] take 35 Slooh bank they have a whole lot

[2:26:00] of ground in between there. I just I

[2:26:03] think that could be moderated a little

[2:26:05] bit without any danger to the SLO

[2:26:08] banking

[2:26:09] off there.

[2:26:11] >> Is that our determination or is that

[2:26:12] number set by like the core of engineers

[2:26:14] or something like who who decides what

[2:26:16] >> we did and we decided that there's no

[2:26:19] >> Was there a reason? Was it just an

[2:26:20] archery number we picked? I'm sure it is

[2:26:23] because they have an ement down the

[2:26:25] slooh but it ain't 35 ft.

[2:26:28] It's like maybe 10.

[2:26:32] >> And I thought that number came from the

[2:26:34] center of the tot mark. But this is kind

[2:26:38] of alluding to the fact that from the

[2:26:40] bank to the 35t mark.

[2:26:44] >> So it was from the center.

[2:26:46] >> 35 is not that bad.

[2:26:47] >> No from the center wouldn't be that bad.

[2:26:50] I misunderstood.

[2:26:51] >> I mean, I'm just thinking of a football

[2:26:53] field, the 10 yard line. That's not a

[2:26:56] lot of

[2:26:58] >> No, if it's from the center,

[2:26:59] >> but it's it's on the non trail.

[2:27:01] >> Yeah. But our language doesn't say that.

[2:27:02] So, if we want it to be 35 ft from the

[2:27:05] center, then we need to say that because

[2:27:07] ours says

[2:27:08] >> from the nonra.

[2:27:11] » Yeah. So, we need to do that from center

[2:27:13] if we're going to do that 35 ft. If not,

[2:27:16] we need to modify that.

[2:27:21] just discuss just a discussion. So we'll

[2:27:24] just leave it up to legal counsel to

[2:27:26] come up with something that we'll come

[2:27:27] back and talk about this then

[2:27:31] >> you need more direction.

[2:27:33] >> I'll reach out.

[2:27:43] » Okay. If no further discussion on that,

[2:27:45] then we're going to go in now to action

[2:27:47] items A. That is the approval of the

[2:27:50] ordinance 20263

[2:27:52] that has to do with amending chapter

[2:27:55] one, relocating some things with

[2:27:58] electronic messaging, excuse me,

[2:28:01] electronic meetings. We talked about

[2:28:03] this in a work meeting prior and so our

[2:28:06] legal council has worked on this, moved

[2:28:08] some things around. We had some things

[2:28:11] already that were in our existing as far

[2:28:13] as putting newspaper notices out when

[2:28:16] we're having meetings that don't really

[2:28:17] even apply anymore. So like Darren did a

[2:28:19] great job I feel like consolidating this

[2:28:22] into the pertinent information that we

[2:28:24] need. So hopefully all of you have had a

[2:28:26] chance to read through this and we can

[2:28:29] discuss this or then if not discussion

[2:28:31] we can have a motion to approve this.

[2:28:35] >> So my only discussion would be that I

[2:28:37] would I don't know it seems to me like

[2:28:39] we have something in there. I didn't

[2:28:42] actually read that to where there was no

[2:28:44] conversation with outside sources during

[2:28:47] that meeting. I couldn't specifically

[2:28:49] find where somebody couldn't be on their

[2:28:51] cell phone listening to somebody else

[2:28:53] while they were talking to us. And I

[2:28:56] guess we have sort of trust them because

[2:28:58] they would be able to call us on a Zoom

[2:29:00] meeting and let us know what's going on.

[2:29:02] I just don't know how we would ever

[2:29:04] regulate somebody having somebody mut.

[2:29:08] So they would according to how it's

[2:29:10] written they can it would be the mayor's

[2:29:11] discretion if there's issues. I think

[2:29:13] it's under that number six. Sorry it's

[2:29:15] been a minute since I've worked on this.

[2:29:16] I sent this to each of you individually.

[2:29:19] Um now that would be for six. Six would

[2:29:21] be for the closed meeting issues. Um but

[2:29:23] the technical disqualifications would be

[2:29:25] for four. That would be under four. Um

[2:29:28] and it's determined by the chair that

[2:29:30] the remote member of the public body

[2:29:31] cannot be clearly heard or the remote

[2:29:33] member cannot clearly hear the meeting

[2:29:35] proceeding that the member shall be

[2:29:36] restricted. further participating or

[2:29:38] voting in the meeting until the

[2:29:40] technical issue resolved um as well.

[2:29:45] >> I just don't see anything in there that

[2:29:47] stops them from you know and it'd be

[2:29:50] really difficult to tell because they

[2:29:52] may need to contact us but I don't want

[2:29:54] somebody being coached during a meeting

[2:29:57] if they you know

[2:29:58] >> aren't there already any ordinances that

[2:30:00] cover that? I mean we're not supposed to

[2:30:02] be texting people outside of our meeting

[2:30:04] right now in public.

[2:30:05] >> Correct. There's there's the issue of

[2:30:07] public meetings. Um if we're texting

[2:30:10] other people and there's potential

[2:30:12] grandma issues um that those would

[2:30:15] become record or become a city record um

[2:30:19] during a public meeting like that but I

[2:30:22] know I thought I had that. Let me look

[2:30:23] through it real quickly. Sorry.

[2:30:27] >> One thing here that was I felt like

[2:30:28] we've talked about which was really good

[2:30:30] is it does talk about when with the

[2:30:33] video that you have to be able to you

[2:30:35] know the members video Even in the past,

[2:30:37] we've had meetings where there was no

[2:30:39] video feed and so that I mean still

[2:30:42] you're right council member we couldn't

[2:30:44] really see texting but

[2:30:46] >> so 3A the member should be located and

[2:30:49] setting free from unauthorized third

[2:30:50] party disruptions background noise or

[2:30:53] visual distractions I think the cell

[2:30:54] phone issue is something that's

[2:30:57] existence everywhere on the D and

[2:31:01] virtual as well

[2:31:03] >> so just have trust they're doing it Any

[2:31:11] other discussion, questions on this

[2:31:14] ordinance?

[2:31:15] >> Question 114

[2:31:18] B1.

[2:31:20] Such regular meetings the city council

[2:31:21] shall schedule regular meetings at least

[2:31:24] once monthly. Was was that changed from

[2:31:27] twice?

[2:31:28] >> That was changed from twice in our code.

[2:31:31] So state code requires one. So then

[2:31:35] It proceeds to say that it should be

[2:31:36] every um first and third Thursday

[2:31:41] um which would be according to how we

[2:31:43] adopt when we have meetings at the

[2:31:45] beginning of the year but the state code

[2:31:48] only requires once

[2:31:49] >> so that's from state code

[2:31:50] >> correct or still says twice our local

[2:31:52] code

[2:31:52] >> our local code right now says twice

[2:31:54] >> yeah we already talked about that and I

[2:31:56] think we were all pretty much in tune

[2:31:57] with the fact that we should be

[2:31:59] scheduled twice

[2:32:00] >> well and one thing to have this in our

[2:32:02] code was even like last time was July

[2:32:04] 4th

[2:32:05] Then it ended up being we were under

[2:32:07] that Thursday because there was no city

[2:32:09] staff here because it was and so then we

[2:32:12] need to have something in our code that

[2:32:14] allows us. For example, if it was the

[2:32:16] same week of Thanksgiving that we can

[2:32:18] cancel a meeting and currently in our

[2:32:21] code we we really should not be doing

[2:32:23] that unless if we allow it notice. I

[2:32:26] think that was a justification for the

[2:32:27] one

[2:32:28] >> for for the one um the meetings that

[2:32:31] that's what me and Nick are going to be

[2:32:32] doing is we start looking these. Our

[2:32:36] code really just needs help everywhere.

[2:32:39] This had so much information that didn't

[2:32:41] need to be there at all. Um so this just

[2:32:44] got taken back down um to where it needs

[2:32:48] to be. The state code really talks about

[2:32:50] noticing and everything needs to happen

[2:32:52] there. Um this we're just trying to

[2:32:55] simplify it for everyone.

[2:33:01] Any other questions, discussion on this

[2:33:03] ordinance?

[2:33:04] >> Just as a matter of uh conflict because

[2:33:06] I don't know who's used it at this

[2:33:07] point, but since all of us it's

[2:33:08] susceptible to everyone, is there a

[2:33:10] conflict here? Do I need to disclose

[2:33:12] that as somebody who's used it regularly

[2:33:14] on my vote?

[2:33:15] >> No, this is not a conflict of interest.

[2:33:16] >> All right.

[2:33:18] >> Okay. If there's no other discussion,

[2:33:20] then would someone like to make an

[2:33:22] motion to approve ordinance number

[2:33:24] 202603?

[2:33:28] I'll make a motion to approve ordinance

[2:33:30] number 2026-03.

[2:33:34] » Do you want him to read that entire

[2:33:36] paragraph?

[2:33:38] >> That's okay.

[2:33:39] >> Okay.

[2:33:39] >> I'll second the motion.

[2:33:40] >> Okay. The motion was made by council

[2:33:42] member Hancock. It was seconded by

[2:33:44] council member Hill. Any discussion

[2:33:47] >> on the motion?

[2:33:49] Okay. Because this is an ordinance, we

[2:33:51] are going to do it by roll call vote.

[2:33:53] This time we'll start with council

[2:33:54] member Bowers. Hi,

[2:33:56] >> Council Member Craig.

[2:33:57] >> Hi,

[2:33:58] >> Council Member Hancock.

[2:33:59] >> Hi,

[2:34:00] >> Council Member Rapalto.

[2:34:02] >> Hi,

[2:34:02] >> Council Member Hill.

[2:34:03] >> Hi.

[2:34:04] >> Okay, that ordinance passes. Okay, thank

[2:34:06] you. Okay, so the next thing on our

[2:34:09] agenda is an action item and it is C,

[2:34:13] approval of awarding bid to ENT sheet

[2:34:15] metal for the HVAC upgrades. These are

[2:34:18] for our sewer vacuum stations at the

[2:34:22] north, north, low, and town station. So

[2:34:25] I don't know if we have a presentation

[2:34:27] on this prior to just the council asking

[2:34:32] having a discussion.

[2:34:34] >> No,

[2:34:35] >> I mean I can talk about it for

[2:34:38] >> Okay. Well, we'll just

[2:34:40] >> I have some prep uh some comments on

[2:34:43] this and uh uh I apologize there's an

[2:34:47] awful lot here. Uh this is the condensed

[2:34:50] version. Uh you know this started months ago when

[2:34:55] uh uh we went down and looked at the uh sewer system and the building and

[2:35:05] um

[2:35:07] actually I'm just going to back up and

[2:35:08] go through each item. I think it covers

[2:35:10] everything. Otherwise I'm going to skip

[2:35:12] over some of this stuff that's uh very

[2:35:15] important and uh and then I'll I'll

[2:35:20] concluded at the end. Um, so part of

[2:35:24] this is, and I guess we ought to start

[2:35:26] out the uh bid for this was $534,000

[2:35:31] for this. In our discussion in

[2:35:36] uh our budget meeting, we were thinking

[2:35:39] around $160 to $180,000.

[2:35:43] I can't remember exactly what got

[2:35:45] budgeted, but since that time, a whole

[2:35:48] lot more has been added to this bid that

[2:35:53] was and I don't did JUB do it or did I

[2:35:56] just heard today maybe somebody else

[2:35:58] actually brought that up as he engineer?

[2:36:01] >> Do you mind coming up to the microphone

[2:36:04] if not our residents can't hear?

[2:36:06] >> Yeah, we hired as a sub engineer

[2:36:08] something as he engineer to do the HVAC

[2:36:11] and electrical design. Well, and uh you

[2:36:14] know, if they listen to this, they're

[2:36:15] going to be offended by what I say

[2:36:17] because I don't believe anything that

[2:36:20] they not anything, but uh uh let me just

[2:36:24] give you some real evidence from uh

[2:36:27] proof of uh these air conditioners.

[2:36:31] Uh and part of uh all these comments is

[2:36:34] I'm representing the 9,000 plus

[2:36:37] residents here trying to save them

[2:36:39] $350,000.

[2:36:42] uh that uh I think's in excess of what

[2:36:45] this should have been. U I'm going

[2:36:49] to go back to a building in Ogden where

[2:36:52] I worked. Uh we had retail space of uh

[2:36:56] about 4,000 square ft, one air

[2:36:58] conditioned for the office and swamp

[2:37:02] cooler for uh the retail. We didn't like

[2:37:04] it. We had an engineer uh company come

[2:37:08] in, put all this ducting in, put this AC

[2:37:11] in. Three years later, it's still not

[2:37:15] what we wanted. And so uh that's when I

[2:37:19] got introduced to uh uh Brooklyn and he

[2:37:23] come out and looked at he's the one that

[2:37:25] come out and looked at the one in Hopper

[2:37:27] that we never did get a give him the

[2:37:31] opportunity to bid on, but uh

[2:37:35] First thing he come in and said was,

[2:37:37] "Uh, all that ducting needs to be

[2:37:40] removed. You're restricting the airflow

[2:37:43] in this 4,000 square ft."

[2:37:47] And he says, "Let's just put a uh 10 ton

[2:37:51] air conditioner

[2:37:52] uh through the wall that blows in and

[2:37:56] there's a vent that sucks it out." And

[2:37:58] this is covering 4,000 square ft.

[2:38:03] We can keep that uh at 70 degrees 72 uh

[2:38:08] degrees without any problem in the very

[2:38:11] hottest

[2:38:12] uh days of the month.

[2:38:15] And our secretaries that work there,

[2:38:18] they'll come to us like a long sweaters

[2:38:21] and everything cuz it's too cold for

[2:38:23] them. And these pump houses down here, I

[2:38:27] walked it off. I don't know the exact

[2:38:29] square footage, but just walking it off.

[2:38:31] uh come up to 288

[2:38:34] square ft. So, a lot smaller.

[2:38:37] Uh this worked great. So, these same

[2:38:40] units, we have a shop that's 8,000

[2:38:43] square ft, 16 ft tall. We've got uh 64x

[2:38:50] 20 doors on there that are opening uh

[2:38:52] every day, all day. And the asphalt

[2:38:56] that's outside of there on the hot day

[2:38:58] is 130°. So, there's a lot of uh hot air

[2:39:02] coming in. And this and these two units

[2:39:06] uh are installed the same way. No

[2:39:08] ducting uh whatsoever.

[2:39:12] And we can uh we set it at 72 or 74 out

[2:39:16] in the shop there. Again, uh I went in

[2:39:19] there yesterday. I went to Idaho,

[2:39:21] stopped in there to drop off a trailer,

[2:39:23] walked in there, it was 72°.

[2:39:27] Uh, no ducting.

[2:39:30] Um, Berkeland has installed the same

[2:39:34] exact units for Pine View and they

[2:39:38] started the dam and they followed the

[2:39:39] river down at all their different pump

[2:39:41] houses. Haven't had any problem, no

[2:39:44] ducting in there. U,

[2:39:49] the u, you know, they've got a five ton

[2:39:52] unit in there right now and we're going

[2:39:55] to switch it up to

[2:39:57] two 10 two 10 ton uh units. So if one

[2:40:04] goes out, we've got the other one there

[2:40:06] and is okay with that. You know, they

[2:40:09] was originally going to do it uh a 22

[2:40:12] ton. Brooklyn told us we only needed 20

[2:40:14] and I see that's what went out on the

[2:40:16] bid was a 20 ton.

[2:40:18] Um the duct work the ducting that's uh

[2:40:22] in these three buildings. Uh now this is

[2:40:26] all just odd numbers but he's

[2:40:30] calculating if he would have bid that

[2:40:32] probably $130 $160,000

[2:40:36] in ducting on this and then it calls for

[2:40:41] the townhouse uh station that they've

[2:40:46] got to remove lights and that to get the

[2:40:48] ducting in there and they want to hook

[2:40:50] it up to the is it an ERV circulating

[2:40:54] system.

[2:40:56] >> I'm not sure that that's what it is, but

[2:40:58] >> yeah. And so they want to hook it up to

[2:41:00] that. And Brooklyn says that's just uh I

[2:41:04] won't use the words that he he used. Uh

[2:41:07] just not good. And he says it's for like

[2:41:10] a TJ Maxx store. That would be a good

[2:41:13] idea for a sewer uh pump station and

[2:41:17] that there's so much air going through

[2:41:20] there that it's not going to make a

[2:41:24] and that it's going to suck all them

[2:41:26] that smell and that through the filters

[2:41:29] and that and uh take care of that. This

[2:41:33] is stuff that's been proven. I mean,

[2:41:36] we're increasing at four times the

[2:41:39] amount that we have right now.

[2:41:42] And u

[2:41:45] uh you know uh and then the other thing

[2:41:48] is they want to change this to a 600 amp

[2:41:53] service there. Is that correct?

[2:41:55] >> Yeah,

[2:41:56] >> that's what that's what he uh told me.

[2:41:58] Our shop, we are 13,500

[2:42:02] square ft. Three of these units in

[2:42:05] there. We have welders, we have brakes,

[2:42:08] shears, all this equipment that we're

[2:42:11] using there. And we have a 400 amp

[2:42:15] service

[2:42:16] in there. Uh, I don't understand why

[2:42:20] they want a 600 amp service. And maybe

[2:42:23] you'll be able to explain that when I

[2:42:25] get done. Uh, why can't they just uh uh

[2:42:29] these uh I went over today and looked uh

[2:42:32] they take a 60 amp per acre. So 60 amps

[2:42:36] uh is what these furnaces or air

[2:42:39] conditioners

[2:42:41] uh take.

[2:42:43] And why can't you just come off the main

[2:42:45] line? into that building and put a 150

[2:42:49] amp service in there, which is going to

[2:42:52] be a whole lot cheaper than a 400 amp

[2:42:54] service or a 600 amp service. I mean,

[2:42:57] once you start going up in amps on these

[2:43:00] services, they get expensive. And uh I'm

[2:43:04] thinking that's why we're up at that

[2:43:06] $534,000

[2:43:08] that uh and the other thing that kind of

[2:43:12] bothers me is uh we never even allowed

[2:43:15] him to we never even told this guy that

[2:43:18] spent his own time to come out that he

[2:43:21] could even bid on it until I found out.

[2:43:24] I asked Jared one day I says, "Hey,

[2:43:27] when's uh JV going to have this ready to

[2:43:30] send out on bid?" He told me it went out

[2:43:33] a month before that and uh and I

[2:43:37] understood that you guys were going to

[2:43:39] contact him and send him a bit and I

[2:43:42] called him and Jared said you guys did

[2:43:44] but I called Brooklyn yesterday and he

[2:43:47] to verify it and he says he'd never

[2:43:49] received anything.

[2:43:52] Uh my other some questions I have for

[2:43:55] you. Uh are the backup generators uh big

[2:43:58] enough to handle uh these new AC units

[2:44:02] going in there?

[2:44:04] >> Yeah. Yeah. Okay. That's good. Um

[2:44:10] let's see. I talked about a couple of

[2:44:12] those things.

[2:44:15] Do you know how big the uh panels are

[2:44:18] right now that we have in those?

[2:44:21] >> No, I don't.

[2:44:22] >> I I thought Jared was going to be here

[2:44:24] tonight, so I I didn't call him today. I

[2:44:26] assumed he would uh know. Uh and do they

[2:44:31] really need to be upgraded? And my thing

[2:44:33] is,

[2:44:35] uh when I used to get these government

[2:44:37] bids and that uh uh we would we would go

[2:44:41] ahead and the way they were sent to us

[2:44:44] and uh you know we didn't call them and

[2:44:47] tell them hey this is stupid or that we

[2:44:49] just figured you know we got to bid it

[2:44:51] the way it come it came to us so I'm not

[2:44:55] blaming the people that bid it uh

[2:44:58] 534,000

[2:45:00] because uh all that ducting and that 600

[2:45:03] amp service

[2:45:06] uh I'm almost done um

[2:45:11] you know and And uh we seen

[2:45:15] or uh we saw before our budget meeting

[2:45:18] the estimated cost I think done by you

[2:45:21] guys that was was in the $5 $600,000.

[2:45:25] That was the whole reason I brought

[2:45:26] Brooklyn out because I knew what we paid

[2:45:29] for our two air conditioning units uh at

[2:45:33] our shop. This is in 2024. uh they were

[2:45:36] about 48,000 and we spent another 30 I

[2:45:39] went over and looked today another 3,800

[2:45:41] for the electrician to come hook them up

[2:45:45] and so we were basing all this and

[2:45:49] uh we come up Brooklyn just a rough

[2:45:52] figure 160 180,000 plus a little for

[2:45:56] electrical

[2:45:58] you know so we budget that uh I mean we

[2:46:01] just finished that budget and then this

[2:46:03] bid comes in at 534,000

[2:46:06] and then Jared tells me that they

[2:46:09] accepted it and uh I I just we can't do

[2:46:13] that to the residents of Ober. We can't

[2:46:16] uh come up with $350,000

[2:46:19] more. U you know uh these pump houses

[2:46:25] aren't that big. Uh

[2:46:28] and that uh

[2:46:33] so I I've been talking to Brooklyn on

[2:46:36] the phone. He's in Alaska uh doing a job

[2:46:39] up there. And so, uh we forward him the

[2:46:44] bid that I got, uh that you sent Morgan

[2:46:48] yesterday. And he rough looked at it, uh

[2:46:51] 288 pages, but uh it just kind of blew

[2:46:55] me away when I started looking at it.

[2:46:57] But he told me, he says, "No, this is

[2:46:59] common for cities to send this out. I

[2:47:01] know right where to look." and his

[2:47:04] initial thing was uh you don't need the

[2:47:07] ducting. That's a waste of money and

[2:47:10] that it's a restriction. You don't need

[2:47:13] to tie it into uh uh those ERVs over

[2:47:17] that town station. He said uh unless

[2:47:20] somebody was working uh he says if you

[2:47:23] got uh somebody that's in there all day

[2:47:25] every day, he says okay maybe

[2:47:28] uh you know this is a guy that this is

[2:47:31] what he's done for 31 years. I trust him

[2:47:34] more than uh the engineer that uh

[2:47:38] probably learned it in a book or

[2:47:40] something. But uh I know you don't like

[2:47:43] to hear that, but I'm here for the book

[2:47:46] of residents and it's too much and I

[2:47:50] cannot I will not uh approve it. The the

[2:47:54] budget amendment I mean we'd have to

[2:47:56] amend our budget and we don't have the

[2:47:58] money.

[2:48:00] Can I get clarifying the budget amount?

[2:48:03] So that 534 is for all three.

[2:48:05] >> Yes.

[2:48:06] >> Are we budgeting 160 for all three of

[2:48:08] those? So

[2:48:08] >> yes.

[2:48:09] >> So 160 divided by three

[2:48:13] 50,000 for each one

[2:48:16] >> is what $50,000 for each of those

[2:48:19] stations is.

[2:48:21] >> Mhm. Yeah. And that's with no ducting.

[2:48:23] And that's what we were about three

[2:48:26] years ago. that uh I think it was 48,000

[2:48:31] and you're saying about 50,000 for each

[2:48:34] one. I mean, the reality of it, plus the

[2:48:37] electrical, the reality of it is you cut

[2:48:41] two holes in there. Uh the one hole uh

[2:48:46] is uh about I'm just rough guessing 2

[2:48:50] foot by 3 foot that the air's blowing

[2:48:53] in. And then you've got a return coming

[2:48:56] back into it that's going vertical

[2:48:58] that's uh about the same size. Uh you

[2:49:02] build a stand, you mount it on there.

[2:49:05] You got some cement work under the stand

[2:49:07] and then the electrician comes in and

[2:49:09] hooks it up, you know, and uh and since

[2:49:14] all this uh took place, if we had done

[2:49:18] this back when it he first come out and

[2:49:21] whether he did it or somebody else done

[2:49:23] it, now there's been tariffs uh on all

[2:49:26] these air conditioners and heaters

[2:49:28] coming in uh from China and uh

[2:49:31] everywhere. And so there's been a seven

[2:49:33] eight% increase and uh you know and so

[2:49:38] now he's looking you're probably for the

[2:49:41] three of them uh he just threw out a

[2:49:43] wild figure. I mean he's this is all

[2:49:46] quick you know that it shouldn't be more

[2:49:49] than 200 250,000

[2:49:51] depending on what you what the

[2:49:54] electrical is going to be because we

[2:49:56] don't know what the panels are now. Did

[2:49:59] he have any do any thoughts on if he'd

[2:50:02] need a 600 ample?

[2:50:05] >> Uh yeah. Uh

[2:50:06] >> and did he factor in the heat generated

[2:50:09] by the pump? I guess it's similar to the

[2:50:10] ones that probably system use.

[2:50:12] >> That's what we don't know what those how

[2:50:14] many amps those uh I mean if we went

[2:50:16] down and looked I thought Jared would be

[2:50:18] here but uh each one of those pumps I'm

[2:50:21] assuming is probably on its own breaker

[2:50:24] and I don't know if it's

[2:50:26] uh you know a 20 30

[2:50:30] Uh I I don't that's the thing. We we

[2:50:33] don't know what the average

[2:50:34] >> not likely more than a

[2:50:36] >> but he did tell me worst case scenario

[2:50:40] if we had to go in and put in a uh 600

[2:50:44] amp service in there. He says uh he

[2:50:49] couldn't imagine it being more than

[2:50:50] 350,000

[2:50:52] without the duct work.

[2:50:55] >> Oh the duck work too. But he said he he

[2:50:59] did tell me he says with the ducting

[2:51:01] that you've got he says 130 to 160,000

[2:51:05] for ducting

[2:51:07] and uh he just said that was asinine to

[2:51:11] even put that ducting in there

[2:51:14] >> and you did mention that he has 30 years

[2:51:16] experience was that

[2:51:18] >> 31 years experience but I know the

[2:51:20] circulation that we get in a 4,000

[2:51:23] square foot uh my brother sits in the

[2:51:26] corner of this and it's blowing this

[2:51:29] way. He's had to put up a wall because

[2:51:32] that air circulates so well through

[2:51:35] there and uh and he threw out something

[2:51:38] like that. Air circulates every 10

[2:51:41] seconds or something. I don't know what

[2:51:42] he meant by that for sure, but because

[2:51:44] I'm not a heating conditioning guy,

[2:51:48] but it just concerns me why

[2:51:53] $350,000

[2:51:55] more. I got a problem with it.

[2:51:58] >> So, Taylor, maybe could you just briefly

[2:52:00] explain because I know we've talked

[2:52:02] about before what these air conditioning

[2:52:05] units are for. Maybe just to give us a

[2:52:07] little background of why we need these

[2:52:09] because residents listening might think

[2:52:11] is it to keep our employees what is the

[2:52:14] functionality of all of this? If you

[2:52:17] would just maybe

[2:52:19] >> Yeah. So, this is this is an issue that

[2:52:21] we've been having for a while.

[2:52:24] It starts when um they get an alarm in

[2:52:27] the middle of the night or whatever

[2:52:28] saying that the pumps are overheating.

[2:52:32] When that happens, the pump shut down.

[2:52:35] And so Darren usually gets out there and

[2:52:38] tries to get he has called in some

[2:52:42] temporary cooling to come in to cool the

[2:52:44] place down paying for that to just keep

[2:52:47] the system up and running. So, this has

[2:52:50] happened before. And so, then

[2:52:53] the solution that we kind of Well, first

[2:52:55] what we've done is uh Jared's called

[2:52:58] some local H5 guys and say, "Hey, we

[2:53:00] come look at this." They say, "Yeah,

[2:53:02] tell me how much you need, what you

[2:53:05] need." Like that. Like they're they're

[2:53:07] more of we install it, tell us what we

[2:53:09] need. And we couldn't tell them what we

[2:53:11] need. We're not experts in the subject.

[2:53:13] So, we hired Heath engineers to do a

[2:53:15] study for us. They came out here and

[2:53:18] looked at all of our equipment, the

[2:53:20] whole thing. They did a study. Um, and

[2:53:23] it gave us the recommendation that we

[2:53:25] need that well, they first told us that

[2:53:27] we had 5 tons of cooling in this

[2:53:29] building and that we need at least 20

[2:53:32] tons of cooling in this building. Um, so

[2:53:35] we were 25% of what the building

[2:53:38] requires and that's why things were

[2:53:40] often overheating and shutting down. Um

[2:53:44] so we got that recommendation from Heath

[2:53:47] and then we also said to them will you

[2:53:49] design it? Um this isn't a JB design

[2:53:52] that's not expertise. We went out got

[2:53:55] these mechanical electrical engineers to

[2:53:58] design it for us and they gave us back

[2:54:01] the bid and well they gave us back the

[2:54:04] plan drawings and the specs and that's

[2:54:07] when I got that's when I just put it out

[2:54:10] for public bid. We posted it

[2:54:14] um public bid site. Um we didn't get a

[2:54:18] lot of interest in it. Um so then we

[2:54:20] started reaching out to a lot of people.

[2:54:22] Um I thought I'm not sure who Brooklyn

[2:54:26] is.

[2:54:26] >> Bridgerland uh heating and air

[2:54:29] conditioning and uh

[2:54:32] yeah I got an email for someone

[2:54:34] different. I thought it was like Mike or

[2:54:36] something. I can't remember what the

[2:54:37] name of their company was. I sent it to

[2:54:39] that person

[2:54:41] and where I got that from. I'm not sure

[2:54:43] why that was that one, but yeah, I did

[2:54:46] get one from Brooklyn, but to say that

[2:54:47] you didn't get it, I mean, all public,

[2:54:51] all these public projects are always

[2:54:52] posted and so there is the opportunity

[2:54:55] to get it. Um, just like every other

[2:54:58] project we do, it's always out there for

[2:54:59] anyone in the public. Um, but so then we

[2:55:03] got um biders interested. We actually we

[2:55:06] were planning on getting four um and we

[2:55:09] ended up only getting two So, we have

[2:55:12] two bids. Um, and then,

[2:55:16] um, this is what they came back with is

[2:55:19] 16 $178,000

[2:55:22] for each one. Um, that includes,

[2:55:26] um, the four different trades that are

[2:55:28] in there. There's mechanical, plumbing,

[2:55:30] there's H, there's sheet metal, HVAC,

[2:55:33] uh, and then there's the electrical, and

[2:55:35] there's concrete trades that are all

[2:55:37] going into there.

[2:55:40] That's one concerned me about this

[2:55:42] discussion we've had so far is it's one

[2:55:45] tradesman.

[2:55:46] It actually is a fullon project upgrade.

[2:55:51] Um requires a general contractor

[2:55:54] and

[2:55:57] way the public procurement happens is

[2:55:59] with bid bonds and insuranceances and

[2:56:04] securities.

[2:56:05] Um which kind of leads me to the next

[2:56:08] subject about these These lift stations,

[2:56:11] they're vacuum lift stations. So they create the vacuum. Normal pumps

[2:56:16] create heat, but the water flows through

[2:56:19] them, cools it down substantially. They

[2:56:21] don't usually come across these

[2:56:23] problems. We have a pretty unique

[2:56:26] problem and that we have a lot of vacuum

[2:56:28] pumps. We have five with room for one

[2:56:31] more, so six. Um, and they just create

[2:56:34] the they create vacuum through the air

[2:56:36] so there's nothing that's cooling it

[2:56:37] down. So they are they such

[2:56:40] substantially higher heat than normal uh

[2:56:44] pumps do. So um

[2:56:49] in the case I mean the worry that public

[2:56:52] works has is that these overheating

[2:56:55] pumps happen again and it shuts down and

[2:56:58] in the case of that

[2:57:01] a little bit of color actually telling

[2:57:04] me the guys just had one shut down from

[2:57:06] a thermal overload. So I I don't know

[2:57:09] what that means. They're hoping it'll

[2:57:11] kick back once it cools off. If

[2:57:12] something happened today, they're hoping

[2:57:15] it'll kick back once it cools off, but

[2:57:18] you know, if they get permanent damage,

[2:57:19] etc. And I don't care more than me. I

[2:57:21] don't know what our backup situations

[2:57:23] are like, you

[2:57:26] just having some problems.

[2:57:28] >> Yeah. When

[2:57:31] backup pumps, I mean,

[2:57:34] it's not generators, pumps are down. So,

[2:57:36] it takes months if they're permanently

[2:57:38] damaged. But, uh, the consequences of

[2:57:41] that are those 9,000 residents that we

[2:57:44] represent can no longer flush toilets,

[2:57:46] can no longer use any water. Um, and it

[2:57:50] could I mean, it's just catastrophic. It

[2:57:52] can be catastrophic. Um, public health,

[2:57:56] public safety is paramount in this for

[2:57:59] this. So, that's I mean, if anyone takes

[2:58:02] on that, the person that stamped these

[2:58:04] plans

[2:58:06] Heath engineers that samp those plans,

[2:58:08] they know that they're taking on

[2:58:09] liability if that thing fails. And so,

[2:58:13] yeah, if what fails

[2:58:15] >> if the pump if the heat cooling system

[2:58:17] doesn't um achieve the purpose of

[2:58:20] keeping the pumps running?

[2:58:22] >> But I mean, if five tons been uh getting

[2:58:25] them by for how many years? So, and

[2:58:29] we're increasing that by four and the

[2:58:33] airflow is just an incredible amount.

[2:58:36] So,

[2:58:37] >> for a lot of the years there's been

[2:58:39] thermal injection pumps um where we

[2:58:42] pumped up the ground water run it across

[2:58:45] the heating um coils I think and then it

[2:58:49] goes back into the ground. Um those were

[2:58:51] abandoned several years ago. I'm not

[2:58:54] that was before my time they were

[2:58:55] abandoned because there's a lot of it pump when there's

[2:59:00] materials and water quality issues when

[2:59:02] you're pumping that over it, this

[2:59:03] creates erosion or corrosion and

[2:59:07] sedimentation. So, it became a

[2:59:10] maintenance problem that we couldn't

[2:59:11] handle and so those have been abandoned.

[2:59:14] So, that's why we're seeing a five five

[2:59:17] tons of cooling. Um, but that was never

[2:59:20] the intention. It was we intended to be

[2:59:23] able to provide well 20 tons of cooling,

[2:59:27] not

[2:59:28] But with the cooling injection to be

[2:59:30] able to satisi

[2:59:37] hasn't been working.

[2:59:43] » Did Did Jared by chance mention which

[2:59:45] station I and I I I know that the

[2:59:49] >> who you said it was the low station

[2:59:51] they're going to be working on. Okay.

[2:59:52] >> The low station had a pump had a thermal

[2:59:54] issue. just kind of wanted to relay that

[2:59:57] as perspective of the need but not

[2:59:59] weighing in on this discussion as it

[3:00:01] relates to the bid etc just just to

[3:00:03] relive

[3:00:06] council and everything but you know we

[3:00:08] do have a need here

[3:00:11] soon but hopefully healthy discussion

[3:00:14] forward

[3:00:15] >> so when it comes to the bid I mean we

[3:00:18] did bid it out in a way where we have a

[3:00:20] priority which is that north south north

[3:00:22] station we can award in one project, two

[3:00:26] projects or three al together depending

[3:00:28] on our budget. Um there's definitely

[3:00:31] ways to do value engineering to go back

[3:00:34] work with the engineers and say we need

[3:00:37] these costs to come down. What are we

[3:00:39] comfortable with? What are we not

[3:00:40] comfortable with? Um and we save money,

[3:00:46] but

[3:00:47] don't I don't think we're going to get

[3:00:50] as low as what has been said out here.

[3:00:53] But that includes I mean the duck work

[3:00:56] he's saying is something that city wants

[3:00:58] to take it out.

[3:01:00] It's not my call. It's not my staff

[3:01:02] that's going on. But

[3:01:05] that's that's the real question right

[3:01:08] there is

[3:01:10] who's who's going to be liable if this

[3:01:12] doesn't get done correctly?

[3:01:15] And

[3:01:17] that's a good answer from an engineer

[3:01:20] company. I I get it. you're saying I

[3:01:24] mean things are I mean yeah engineers

[3:01:28] we go we put safety factors on things um

[3:01:33] and at the same time we try to get

[3:01:37] there's this one saying when they're

[3:01:39] building a building you know it's like

[3:01:41] we're not trying to make this building

[3:01:42] last forever trying to make it barely

[3:01:45] stand up like barely standing up is the

[3:01:49] >> there's a lot of things that are way

[3:01:52] over engineered

[3:01:54] uh in this country.

[3:01:58] » So I guess my question is why wasn't

[3:02:00] Bridger and other than other than not

[3:02:04] having the vehicle to be able to bid on it? Did

[3:02:09] they not know it was on the public

[3:02:10] website to bid on were they not allowed

[3:02:13] to bid on it? Why why did they

[3:02:15] >> Nobody ever told Nobody ever told us

[3:02:18] that. Uh you know his thing is He's got

[3:02:22] so much work, he really doesn't care if

[3:02:24] he gets this job or not. I mean, he just

[3:02:27] flat out told me. It's not a big deal to

[3:02:29] me. But the problem I have with Jared

[3:02:34] and Juv is uh I asked this guy to come

[3:02:38] out here as a favor. You know, will you

[3:02:41] come out and look at this and give us

[3:02:43] your assessment? And then we don't have

[3:02:45] the courtesy to uh contact him and say,

[3:02:49] "Hey, this is going bid, come check our

[3:02:53] website uh and uh come bid on it. Nobody

[3:02:58] contacted me nor him. And I that that's

[3:03:02] also

[3:03:03] >> I just Yeah, I have a curiosity question

[3:03:05] regarding that. You had to go actually

[3:03:08] solicit people to get bids. Why this

[3:03:10] company was not one of the ones that was

[3:03:12] solicited?

[3:03:14] >> That's a good point, too.

[3:03:16] I don't know why he went looking for

[3:03:18] something. He'd already expressed

[3:03:20] interest why he wasn't included in that.

[3:03:22] >> And that being said, is it too late to

[3:03:23] get a bid from this company?

[3:03:25] >> Um, it is okay to

[3:03:29] um take these bid. I mean, we haven't

[3:03:32] awarded anything. That's what we were

[3:03:33] trying to do today is see if we want to

[3:03:36] award this or not. Um, so nothing's been

[3:03:38] awarded. We can close the bid, say no

[3:03:40] one was a successful bidder. Um, and we

[3:03:43] can go out. Well, we I think the

[3:03:45] reasoning would say that we don't have

[3:03:46] three competitive bids. It's kind of the

[3:03:48] standard. We only got two. Um send it

[3:03:51] out for kind of a rebid process.

[3:03:54] >> How long would that take?

[3:03:56] >> Um

[3:03:59] it would take

[3:04:01] at least three weeks of like having the

[3:04:04] bid open. That's kind of the standard is

[3:04:07] advertise for it. Let three weeks. So I

[3:04:10] mean I guess three weeks.

[3:04:13] Um that's asking for these guys to um do

[3:04:17] more bid to do another bid bonds securities insurance process

[3:04:24] going through that whole thing again.

[3:04:25] But

[3:04:26] >> is it beyond the scope that ask Heath

[3:04:29] company um to re-evaluate the assessment

[3:04:31] of the duct work based on feedback? Like

[3:04:34] is it I mean we're not going to go back

[3:04:35] and say re-engineer this but um could we

[3:04:38] explain the position and say you know we

[3:04:40] have conflicting feedback that maybe

[3:04:42] this is it overkill? Like get like a you know

[3:04:46] recommendation.

[3:04:47] >> We can go about the process of giving

[3:04:50] this award to ANK sheet metal and then

[3:04:54] saying we want to work with you on value

[3:04:56] engineering get youth engineering to

[3:04:58] input make some change orders work with

[3:05:01] the contractor and get um see what they

[3:05:04] can reduce in price by doing stuff like

[3:05:06] that

[3:05:07] >> but only if we award it. We couldn't go

[3:05:09] back to them ahead of time prior.

[3:05:11] I can re we can do a redesign

[3:05:15] which wouldn't be a lot because it would

[3:05:17] be taking things out but doing redesign

[3:05:20] like that new package and then sending

[3:05:22] that package out would take two weeks I

[3:05:25] guess

[3:05:26] workability

[3:05:33] » well this whole situation is is a hard

[3:05:37] one I feel like and I'm sure council

[3:05:39] feels the because I know they've came in

[3:05:42] several times and said our pumps are

[3:05:44] overheating. We're going to Walmart to

[3:05:46] buy the biggest fan that they have.

[3:05:48] They've opened up doors I've driven by,

[3:05:49] which has been a concern to me when I

[3:05:51] see the doors open. So, we have that

[3:05:54] concern. We want something fixed. It's a

[3:05:56] more of a nothing as permanent, but more

[3:05:58] of a long-term fix than it has been in

[3:06:01] the past. On the other hand, I also

[3:06:03] understand we are the stewards of

[3:06:06] taxpayer money, and this is a lot of

[3:06:09] money. Just one clarification, it would

[3:06:11] not be a budget amendment because we

[3:06:13] haven't approved a final budget yet. So,

[3:06:16] we would have to, you know, change our

[3:06:17] budget and that would be something that

[3:06:19] we would be voting on. If we do go back

[3:06:21] to Heath, I think that could be a

[3:06:24] reasonable question. Is the duct work

[3:06:26] necessary? But then I guess my question

[3:06:30] is then then who do we trust? Who who

[3:06:34] can we say? You know, none of us sitting

[3:06:36] up here are engineers. We do have to

[3:06:39] rely on that. But if Heath comes back

[3:06:41] and says, "Yes, you need to have duct

[3:06:43] work, then is that something as a

[3:06:45] council we feel again justifying or or

[3:06:49] how do we how do we know?" Because not one of us sitting here

[3:06:54] and I think you've even said this isn't

[3:06:56] Jub's expertise. they and I would and

[3:06:59] Jared would even tell you this isn't his

[3:07:02] expertise as far as an air conditioning

[3:07:05] or an you know as far as the power

[3:07:07] upgrade. So I guess I'm not sure how we

[3:07:10] up here come to some kind of a consensus

[3:07:14] of what should be done to make sure that

[3:07:17] what we're getting is the very best for

[3:07:19] the city but also the most reasonably

[3:07:22] priced.

[3:07:24] >> You know what's what's been explained

[3:07:26] isn't really comparing apples to apples.

[3:07:28] So that that's the problem. I mean what

[3:07:30] you're explaining

[3:07:32] uh Larry is different than what these

[3:07:35] other engineers have said is needed. So

[3:07:38] the question we have is

[3:07:41] what is really needed and who would put

[3:07:44] their stamp on that saying if this fails

[3:07:47] I am responsible for this and

[3:07:51] >> yes so the study that was done was by

[3:07:53] Heath Engineering the design was done by

[3:07:55] Heath Engineering. So there's no

[3:07:59] verification on that. I mean you can go

[3:08:01] pay for another engineering firm to

[3:08:04] review it. Um that's money spent by the

[3:08:08] taxpayer and I in my engineering

[3:08:12] practice it's very hard to go on top of

[3:08:14] another engineer overrule what they're

[3:08:17] saying then for how much like if you

[3:08:20] paid me $20,000 now I'm taking on the

[3:08:23] liabil

[3:08:26] So, so can they uh can you ask them why

[3:08:31] the ducting? Why do we need the ducting?

[3:08:33] Uh I mean

[3:08:36] uh you know I haven't seen the drawing

[3:08:38] of uh I mean what was it 288 pages? I I mean I'm on my phone. You just don't

[3:08:46] find that. Uh I mean how have you I

[3:08:50] guess you've seen the ducting. I mean is

[3:08:52] it coming through the wall and down on

[3:08:54] top of each pump.

[3:08:56] >> No, it's not doing that. Um,

[3:08:59] >> well, if it's not doing that, then the

[3:09:01] others is going to have so much flow

[3:09:04] anyway.

[3:09:06] >> So,

[3:09:08] that's what to say right there.

[3:09:10] >> But we get Heath on the phone and start

[3:09:12] talking.

[3:09:13] >> I mean, is it something that can pull up

[3:09:16] and put on that screen what the ducting

[3:09:18] looks like?

[3:09:19] >> I mean, I can pull it up on my computer

[3:09:21] if you want to.

[3:09:23] >> Yeah.

[3:09:27] I mean

[3:09:30] air conditioning people. So basically an

[3:09:32] engineer has recommended a design right

[3:09:36] that design

[3:09:38] right here. Here's the specs that need

[3:09:40] to be bid on. We've had two companies

[3:09:42] bid on it. Bridger then wasn't aware

[3:09:44] that they were able to bid on it in this

[3:09:48] time frame. So why don't we just say

[3:09:50] let's reopen it for bid because we

[3:09:52] didn't get three bids and all bid again

[3:09:54] on it and see what we get. You know,

[3:09:57] here's the specs, here's what needs to

[3:09:58] be bid on. We can't change the ducting.

[3:10:00] We're council. We're not engineers, you

[3:10:03] know. So, our decision is do we go with

[3:10:06] these bids or do we rebid it? That's our

[3:10:09] decision.

[3:10:10] >> Right.

[3:10:12] >> And I think there was one other company

[3:10:13] that then didn't turn in their bid or

[3:10:16] submit it. I thought I had heard there

[3:10:18] were three originally.

[3:10:19] >> Um there was supposed to be four and

[3:10:23] Well, four possibly, but three we were

[3:10:24] counting on and the third one didn't get

[3:10:27] a bit in time.

[3:10:30] The problem that we've had with bidding

[3:10:32] is um this kind of process takes a

[3:10:36] general general contractor to do it um

[3:10:39] where there's four different trades

[3:10:42] going on and for most general

[3:10:45] contractors it wasn't um worthwhile for

[3:10:48] them to go after this kind of project.

[3:10:51] Um, and but the HVAC guys that were

[3:10:55] willing to do it were not willing to

[3:10:57] take on other trades kind of thing. So,

[3:11:00] it was hard to get interest on it. Um,

[3:11:05] but it does seem that we have another

[3:11:07] company that is potentially interested

[3:11:09] at this time, just hasn't had the

[3:11:12] opportunity to submit a bit. Would that

[3:11:16] be reasonable?

[3:11:17] >> I would say the opportunity is there. if

[3:11:20] they are working through public.

[3:11:24] >> But you actually already said that you

[3:11:26] didn't you know you had to go solicit

[3:11:28] bids. So soliciting three bids instead

[3:11:31] of two bids seems like

[3:11:34] >> especially with this much money wouldn't

[3:11:36] be a bad thing for the city. I just

[3:11:39] >> I'm just wondering Darren maybe it's a

[3:11:41] question for you. So now that these

[3:11:43] numbers are out there,

[3:11:46] so Larry, your friend comes in and visit

[3:11:49] for $10 less.

[3:11:51] >> Do you know what I mean? How do you

[3:11:52] handle that? How do we

[3:11:54] >> Let those numbers out there.

[3:11:56] >> And I I hear you what you're saying.

[3:11:58] >> Look, can I ask you one question real

[3:12:00] fast? Yeah.

[3:12:02] >> Can I go call Brooklyn and see if he

[3:12:04] even has interest in uh bidding up with

[3:12:09] uh

[3:12:10] duck work and uh all this other stuff?

[3:12:14] He may not even want to uh uh just from

[3:12:17] his comments about what he said about

[3:12:19] the duck work and all that. And if he

[3:12:22] has no interest in doing it that way,

[3:12:24] then maybe

[3:12:27] all everything else is

[3:12:30] then we had to decide whether we're

[3:12:31] gonna

[3:12:32] >> so I'll answer first. Um start with

[3:12:34] Four. Council member Fowers. Um I mean

[3:12:39] legally we can do what has been proposed

[3:12:42] that we can close them and reopen them.

[3:12:44] We can we can say no. We can say no to

[3:12:46] these. Does it I understand what you're

[3:12:50] saying because now it's not closed. It's

[3:12:52] open. So but we are giving each of these

[3:12:55] biders the opportunity to go and

[3:12:58] readest. They are getting the opport the

[3:13:01] same opportunity that a new person

[3:13:03] bidding would get as well. So I get what

[3:13:06] you're saying how it looks

[3:13:09] they're concerned about legally we can

[3:13:10] do that

[3:13:13] >> if uh there's a change

[3:13:16] now your question

[3:13:18] >> yeah do you want to take time to go

[3:13:21] >> let me just see if

[3:13:25] » I would say if there's significant

[3:13:27] changes in the design

[3:13:30] So, it would be fine.

[3:13:31] >> I don't know if you want to take a

[3:13:32] recess or do you want to just have

[3:13:35] >> Well, I would like to I mean, I just

[3:13:38] want to make the call, but I guess I

[3:13:39] just like to say that I don't think that

[3:13:42] a particular company's interest and

[3:13:45] whether or not they're going to bid is

[3:13:47] going to inform my decision

[3:13:49] on whether or not it makes sense for the

[3:13:52] city's financial situation. You know

[3:13:53] what I mean? I wonder is that that seems

[3:13:56] too conflicting, right? Like one

[3:13:59] specific company we're relying on there

[3:14:01] what whether they're interested or not

[3:14:03] doesn't change the fact that it's

[3:14:05] 535,000 sitting on the table that we

[3:14:07] would still I mean we either have to

[3:14:09] agree that we that's what the direction

[3:14:11] we want to go or we don't right and we

[3:14:13] have to agree whether or not we want to

[3:14:15] ask Keith to go reevaluate the duck work

[3:14:18] like council member Hill said do we want

[3:14:21] to take the position that as council

[3:14:24] members we have the experience that

[3:14:25] we're trying to say we think you should

[3:14:28] get rid of that work like are we taking

[3:14:29] on that stamp and then additionally I

[3:14:32] mean I I I think of it for any other

[3:14:34] thing that we would be bidding

[3:14:36] um if my buddy wanted to do a job for us

[3:14:40] I wouldn't I don't think I could expect

[3:14:42] us to make a decision as a council just

[3:14:45] to give them an opportunity to have a

[3:14:46] consideration of this is all I'm saying.

[3:14:48] So I know that this company is somebody

[3:14:50] Larry knows and somebody that's bringing

[3:14:52] him a different perspective but I I'm

[3:14:54] cur I'm interested because I'm surprised

[3:14:56] you said he could

[3:14:58] take that call to help us make this

[3:15:00] decision because I would figure we would

[3:15:02] need to well can I call five other HVAC

[3:15:04] companies and see if they can help us

[3:15:05] make this decision.

[3:15:06] >> That's curious.

[3:15:07] >> I would say I mean we follow procurement

[3:15:10] policy

[3:15:11] >> the way that it was supposed to be done.

[3:15:13] >> Absolutely. And

[3:15:17] I am a little way the conversation has

[3:15:19] gone is a little bit against that policy

[3:15:22] of finding

[3:15:24] someone that you know.

[3:15:25] >> Y

[3:15:26] >> but I think a good recommendation I mean

[3:15:30] the recommendation of taking out duct

[3:15:32] work. I don't know what that

[3:15:33] consequences are but I think it's

[3:15:35] totally reasonable to say within this

[3:15:37] contract now there's no duct work. Let's

[3:15:39] renegotiate the price.

[3:15:41] >> Yeah. I think that's fair. The direction

[3:15:43] I think we should go is say David's had

[3:15:46] some um you know

[3:15:50] I don't know if they call it

[3:15:51] professional but some some

[3:15:54] >> red

[3:15:57] » just some concerns come up about maybe

[3:15:59] the ducking was excessive or whatever

[3:16:01] you know can we go to heath and say can

[3:16:03] we revise this under your best

[3:16:06] professional opinion and rebid it.

[3:16:09] >> Yeah. And so then I mean they're going

[3:16:10] to when they say that they're all right

[3:16:12] yeah there's certain level of comfort

[3:16:14] that you're comfortable with. Are you

[3:16:16] comfortable with 400 amp breaker because

[3:16:19] probably does work are you willing to

[3:16:21] take that risk and so someone who's

[3:16:24] going to take that decision

[3:16:26] but

[3:16:26] >> but can we ask them and if they say no

[3:16:29] we're not I mean they could come back

[3:16:30] and go look we're not comfortable this

[3:16:32] is how we say it should be engineered

[3:16:34] >> and what and what they'll do is they'll

[3:16:36] say they'll keep a stamp on it but

[3:16:38] documented that saying the city assumed

[3:16:41] this risk if there is a risk then

[3:16:43] >> and if that happens I think we need to

[3:16:44] take legal advice on that do we want to

[3:16:46] make that assumption about risk

[3:16:48] >> and who would want I don't think Hooker

[3:16:50] city wants to take that risk that's my

[3:16:52] whole point I don't think we want to

[3:16:54] take the risk of you know awarding a bid

[3:16:57] for something that we knew that right to

[3:16:59] begin with

[3:17:00] >> well you you had mentioned earlier that

[3:17:02] if the city had concerns with the price

[3:17:04] that you could go back to the engineer

[3:17:06] whoever said where can we cut? You know,

[3:17:09] we need to lower this price a little

[3:17:10] bit. So, that's that's kind of what

[3:17:12] we're doing here, right?

[3:17:13] >> Yeah.

[3:17:14] >> So, I'll go talk to the engineering

[3:17:17] tomorrow and tell them about the work

[3:17:19] probably breakers and see if there's

[3:17:23] that we can see any reduction in cost.

[3:17:28] We're not asking to uh uh do anything uh

[3:17:33] that they shouldn't,

[3:17:35] >> but my concern is uh do we really need a

[3:17:40] 600 amp uh if uh we're only going to be

[3:17:44] using 400 amps? I mean, I would think if

[3:17:48] you've got a 600 amp service that uh uh

[3:17:53] you know, 540 amps, that's an awful lot.

[3:17:57] When the air conditioner is only taking

[3:17:59] 120 amps. You know, where's uh

[3:18:04] I I guess I just don't get why

[3:18:08] uh I mean it's a lot of what else is

[3:18:10] going on in the building, right? Pumps.

[3:18:12] There's a lot of different pumps there.

[3:18:17] >> So, this is a standing motion. Do we

[3:18:20] just need to table this um while uh

[3:18:25] Taylor goes back and asks questions and

[3:18:28] then bring it back or do we need to vote

[3:18:30] on this as it stands?

[3:18:32] >> That that would be an option. You can

[3:18:33] table it.

[3:18:36] >> I move to table the motion on the

[3:18:38] approval of awarding bid tot sheet metal

[3:18:41] inc for HVAC upgrades north low and town

[3:18:44] station pending uh JB's um conversation

[3:18:49] with Heath Engineering on seeing if we

[3:18:50] can modify and resubmit for bid.

[3:18:53] >> Do you want to do a date certain?

[3:18:55] it comes on next council member.

[3:18:58] >> Uh the next council agenda is that the

[3:19:01] >> that won't be until August 20th. And I'm

[3:19:03] wondering if that so we're a ways out or

[3:19:07] if we want to then call a special

[3:19:10] >> meeting. I think

[3:19:12] >> yeah I think it' be necessary

[3:19:13] >> that would be prudent at this point in

[3:19:15] time. We need to get this we need to get

[3:19:16] this deal.

[3:19:17] >> Yeah.

[3:19:17] >> We do have one advantage. The

[3:19:19] temperature back off a little bit.

[3:19:21] So I probably can't pick a date because

[3:19:23] the special meeting will be notified at

[3:19:25] that time. Right.

[3:19:25] >> Right.

[3:19:26] >> Okay. So can it stand as I I said it?

[3:19:28] >> Yeah.

[3:19:28] >> Okay.

[3:19:30] So we had a motion made by council

[3:19:33] member Craig and I'll second that

[3:19:34] motion.

[3:19:35] >> Second made by council member heel. Did

[3:19:37] we get all of that Morgan so we know

[3:19:40] what that will be?

[3:19:41] >> Can I get that clear? We're talking to

[3:19:43] them about finding uh value engineering

[3:19:48] or are we talking to them about

[3:19:50] redesigning and going out for another?

[3:19:52] >> Uh we're talking to them about both.

[3:19:56] Right. So they're they're looking at

[3:19:58] value engineering and or re you know

[3:20:02] redesigning taking the D out going for

[3:20:03] another bit. So what you're what you're

[3:20:06] asking and if they come back with some

[3:20:07] value engineer, you would like to go

[3:20:10] back out to bid and let other companies

[3:20:12] bid it or you're saying you want to go

[3:20:14] back to this lowest bidder and see what

[3:20:16] they would bid it for if we took that

[3:20:18] out.

[3:20:19] >> Yeah, I would like it to I would like it

[3:20:21] to go back out to public open bid

[3:20:24] because we didn't get the three anyway.

[3:20:25] We only got two. So it' be I'd like it

[3:20:28] to go back out to to open bid.

[3:20:30] >> And I'd like to put the pedal in the

[3:20:32] mail because we need to get those

[3:20:34] And right, are you seconding that motion

[3:20:36] for it to go out to bid? I just want to

[3:20:38] clarify this. So we Okay.

[3:20:41] So if uh they come back and they

[3:20:44] re-engineer this and this is it or

[3:20:48] whoever the sheet metal company uh if

[3:20:52] they come back and say well yeah uh we

[3:20:55] can cut out uh 150,000 if we don't need

[3:20:59] all that ducting if we don't need uh

[3:21:02] that much electrical uh do we want to

[3:21:06] accept that bid or or still go out We're

[3:21:09] doing that out to open bidding there

[3:21:11] because we still the part of the issue

[3:21:12] was we still didn't get three bids. So I

[3:21:16] mean it would it would be outside of

[3:21:17] normal procurement process anyway. So we

[3:21:20] would want

[3:21:21] >> that I don't think that's in our policy.

[3:21:23] It's

[3:21:24] >> quality. So I think we'd still be okay

[3:21:27] if it came back.

[3:21:28] >> Yeah. I don't think that's other

[3:21:30] entities hold to that but that's not

[3:21:33] ours.

[3:21:34] >> Well then I guess that's up for

[3:21:35] discussion. Like do we want it to go

[3:21:37] back to companies to I think that we we

[3:21:40] should

[3:21:41] be able to give like ant say, "Hey,

[3:21:43] look, the bid is changed." You get a

[3:21:45] chance to rebid this and stack them

[3:21:48] against other people, but do we just

[3:21:49] keep that to the two that already

[3:21:50] submitted a bid with the redesign or do

[3:21:53] we give it open to public?

[3:21:54] >> So, I got to hold up and he says with

[3:21:58] 600 amp service and with all that

[3:22:00] ducting, he says it's not needed, he

[3:22:03] doesn't want to bid on it,

[3:22:05] >> right? But if it changed, would he want

[3:22:07] to?

[3:22:07] >> Uh, yeah. if it changed then yeah it

[3:22:10] didn't have all that ducting and that he doesn't think's necessary. I

[3:22:15] don't even know if he he just told me no

[3:22:17] that he doesn't want to bid on it. So I

[3:22:20] think he's a little frustrated but uh

[3:22:23] and his pride was hurt that he come out

[3:22:26] to Hooper and uh did that initial and uh

[3:22:30] I think that's a little bit of him

[3:22:32] saying no now is that

[3:22:37] you treated me bad.

[3:22:39] >> Well, I just I just think the residents

[3:22:41] hope we owe a little bit to look into

[3:22:43] this. We're talking a couple hundred

[3:22:44] thousand.

[3:22:46] I don't think we should take that

[3:22:48] lightly and we have some options that we

[3:22:50] might be able to reduce that a little

[3:22:52] through them re-evaluating some things.

[3:22:56] >> I would like to see one thing I mean the

[3:22:58] process that we if we were to set this

[3:23:00] we'd say notice award contract and then

[3:23:02] notice to proceed. Um, so and we're not

[3:23:07] looking to contract our notice to

[3:23:08] proceed, but we issued a notice of

[3:23:11] award. Um,

[3:23:13] we're not going out for rebid, but that

[3:23:16] that's really when is going to be

[3:23:18] comfortable like working with this

[3:23:20] knowing that they have the award on any

[3:23:23] value engineering. Um, that might save

[3:23:26] us time is what I would like to see.

[3:23:30] at this point and see that

[3:23:35] >> I appreciate at this point I made the

[3:23:36] motion so we need to vote on it as it

[3:23:38] stands I think um and then if we want to

[3:23:40] change that but I mean I'm I'm still the

[3:23:44] motion still stands as made that we

[3:23:46] would have you go back and talk to

[3:23:47] engineer

[3:23:49] so

[3:23:50] >> and that's where we're at is um I think

[3:23:54] we proceed with the value of engineering

[3:23:56] see where we're at pause and then decide

[3:23:59] at that point we're going to remain

[3:24:04] like Larry said and we just move on with

[3:24:07] the bids that we have.

[3:24:09] >> So the motion that was made by council

[3:24:11] member Craig was for it to go out to bid

[3:24:13] when you seconded it council member

[3:24:16] here. Were you seconding it for it to go

[3:24:17] out to bid and now are you how do we do

[3:24:21] that?

[3:24:22] >> The motion was made to table this

[3:24:23] motion. Then we just table this motion

[3:24:26] table and come back with the information

[3:24:27] that we gather from the engineer to make

[3:24:29] a decision on the motion.

[3:24:31] >> The motion just stands as tableing of

[3:24:33] this motion. I don't think we're taking

[3:24:34] any other action.

[3:24:35] >> Okay. Just tableabling the motion. We're

[3:24:36] not adding any kind of

[3:24:38] >> we're asking our engineer to go and do

[3:24:40] those things. Will you go do those

[3:24:42] things? I

[3:24:45] >> Okay. So the motion then has been table.

[3:24:47] I mean motion for table and seconded.

[3:24:49] There's been discussion. Any further

[3:24:51] discussion before we vote? So if we need

[3:24:54] to call a special meeting, we'll do it

[3:24:55] at that point once we get the

[3:24:57] information back.

[3:24:58] >> Yes.

[3:24:59] >> Because I'm I'm in agreement. We need to

[3:25:01] >> move. Yes.

[3:25:03] >> Okay. So all in favor of that motion and

[3:25:06] second.

[3:25:08] >> Any opposed? Okay. Thank you. Thank you

[3:25:11] for your work on this.

[3:25:12] >> The next one too.

[3:25:14] >> Yes. Okay. So yes, if you'll explain

[3:25:16] this.

[3:25:19] >> Okay. Yeah, I'll explain this just a

[3:25:20] little bit. So um

[3:25:23] This is part of a need of our sewer that

[3:25:26] we need to construct a force made on

[3:25:28] 5100 west. Um because right now we

[3:25:31] currently get it into West Haven goes

[3:25:33] through their system but they us get out

[3:25:35] of it. So we got to keep our home system

[3:25:38] um on 5100 west get the sewer from the

[3:25:40] east area up to 400 south where it can

[3:25:44] be combined with the other four we have.

[3:25:47] So we've been uh we've been designing

[3:25:50] this um simultaneously to that it's been

[3:25:54] going on as the constru

[3:25:58] and you been out there you see a lot

[3:26:00] going on and now they've said like this

[3:26:04] could save a lot of time money and just

[3:26:07] qual overall quality of the product if

[3:26:09] we did this in conjunction with that

[3:26:11] road project. Um we agree with that. Um

[3:26:15] what we want to do is portion of the

[3:26:17] force man that would get out of that

[3:26:19] intersection

[3:26:21] um and then about 200 feet out of that

[3:26:23] intersection

[3:26:25] pause the project there and wait for the

[3:26:27] rest of the project um funding to go. So

[3:26:30] what we're doing right now is asking for

[3:26:34] partial funding for that small portion

[3:26:36] that can be done in conjunction with the

[3:26:38] roadway project.

[3:26:42] So you make sure I understand you right.

[3:26:45] This would be from 4,000 north.

[3:26:47] >> 4,000 south.

[3:26:50] >> In the intersection of 4,000 South is

[3:26:52] where we have to do some of the projects

[3:26:56] and get out right away. And then we're

[3:26:58] going to build 200 ft out basically to

[3:27:03] >> to stay out of the of what's going on in

[3:27:06] that project.

[3:27:08] But the whole length of the project is

[3:27:13] or something.

[3:27:14] >> And you ultimately anticipate this would

[3:27:16] save the city some money to do this

[3:27:18] portion right now rather than redoing it

[3:27:20] down the road.

[3:27:22] >> It will save money um as in the fact

[3:27:25] that we got the contractor already

[3:27:27] mobilized part of that project. Um and

[3:27:31] one good thing about is the quality of

[3:27:33] road that's being reconstructed. We

[3:27:35] don't want to make a really nice road

[3:27:37] and come back in a year.

[3:27:42] Sounds like a great idea.

[3:27:44] >> Um, so the total cost of that project at

[3:27:47] first estimated to be about a million

[3:27:50] dollars. Um, so this small portion of

[3:27:52] it, which is the hardest part of it, is

[3:27:55] I estimated to be about $350,000

[3:27:59] or I think 388 38.

[3:28:03] Um, so that's kind of what we need

[3:28:05] immediately to get that going. So that

[3:28:08] 388 would be deducted off of that

[3:28:10] initial portion and it wouldn't exceed

[3:28:12] it.

[3:28:13] >> Yeah.

[3:28:15] >> But we do have to I mean that was my

[3:28:17] estimate. We just want to work with

[3:28:19] staker give them our design and they

[3:28:21] have to give us the cost. That would be

[3:28:25] >> did I understand right that we have a

[3:28:27] grant for that?

[3:28:29] >> Yes that's part of this that we're

[3:28:31] hoping that you know could go along with

[3:28:32] this and also that regional lift station

[3:28:35] but I think meeting with

[3:28:38] which I did this week. They're just just

[3:28:39] like mentioned. Why do we want it for

[3:28:41] the road then come within and then and

[3:28:44] then dig it back out. And again, Cammy

[3:28:46] said that if we approve this, we do not

[3:28:49] have to do amended a budget. They would

[3:28:51] just she could do that when we do our

[3:28:53] final budget, which would be

[3:28:56] >> So, we actually I'm a little confused

[3:28:58] there. So, we actually have a grant or

[3:29:00] this would be part of the CRA grant that

[3:29:03] you're talking about.

[3:29:04] >> So,

[3:29:06] two different things that could be

[3:29:07] related. So, we we received grant money

[3:29:10] from Blake Moore's office for 1.5

[3:29:13] million that we haven't specifically

[3:29:15] designated for anything yet. It could be

[3:29:18] used for this. It also could be used

[3:29:20] because this could be part of the CRA

[3:29:23] because in order to have that regional

[3:29:25] lift station, that sewage, it will hook

[3:29:27] into this force name.

[3:29:29] >> But, but again, this could be

[3:29:31] independent of the CR.

[3:29:33] >> Yes. We could use part of that money for

[3:29:36] this.

[3:29:36] >> Sure. We can just use a million dollars

[3:29:38] and pay for this.

[3:29:40] >> Or like we mentioned, if we do end up

[3:29:43] doing the CRA, we could put that million

[3:29:45] dollar towards our portion rather than

[3:29:48] us

[3:29:50] >> and you are fairly confident the grants

[3:29:52] going to come through.

[3:29:54] >> So the only hold up so it's going to the

[3:29:57] federal government for appropriations.

[3:29:59] They have to meet to approve a budget.

[3:30:03] If the budget doesn't get approved,

[3:30:05] which has happened, then that might be

[3:30:07] one that they acts out, but approved

[3:30:10] budget, that's the final amount that

[3:30:12] we're getting that parted.

[3:30:15] >> How soon do you have to know?

[3:30:18] >> Um,

[3:30:20] we hope to get this done. Half states

[3:30:23] are doing it in a month from now. So,

[3:30:27] >> so if we don't have the grant yet, then

[3:30:29] we're just paying out the budget is the

[3:30:31] idea, right? It's just the reality of

[3:30:33] city either way.

[3:30:35] >> S doesn't get approved. We're going to

[3:30:37] pay out of the budget we have today. So,

[3:30:38] it's going to come out of

[3:30:40] >> our project.

[3:30:42] >> It could capital a capital um project

[3:30:45] because this is something like we talked

[3:30:47] about in that does have to be done. We

[3:30:50] are way over capacity what we should be.

[3:30:53] The only thing and when I met with them

[3:30:55] this week, they said they should be to

[3:30:58] 4,000. They're hoping by August. I think

[3:31:00] it was fourth, fifth, and sixth. So, we

[3:31:02] really do only have till a few weeks.

[3:31:05] They want they want to know because

[3:31:07] we're they're holding when they get to

[3:31:09] that point, they will hold up the

[3:31:10] project if we are going to do this. If

[3:31:13] not, then they move on and then we end

[3:31:15] up taking out the Derek, can I ask you a

[3:31:18] question? He said that West said, "We

[3:31:20] got to get out of there, Stewart."

[3:31:21] >> What's that actually mean? West said,

[3:31:23] "We got to get out of there, Stewart."

[3:31:24] >> What if we say no? I mean literally like

[3:31:27] what would be what have they said to us?

[3:31:29] What are we legally obligated to do?

[3:31:31] What is the time frame in which we have

[3:31:33] to do that? Is it just at this point a

[3:31:34] friendly hey will you get out of our

[3:31:36] sewer or is there an actual action that

[3:31:38] is forcing us to

[3:31:39] >> I would have to take some time to

[3:31:41] research that specifically. But

[3:31:44] >> I think we ought to charge I think this

[3:31:46] pipe's on city property. It's on our

[3:31:48] side of the border.

[3:31:49] >> It's their property. Um they have rights

[3:31:52] their property. a right to exclude

[3:31:55] people off their property, but I would

[3:31:58] have to look to see if we have any we

[3:32:01] have an agreement that was made a long

[3:32:03] time ago and I was told that we've tried

[3:32:06] we're doing that and they've always kind

[3:32:08] of said we're good. Don't worry about

[3:32:10] it. So, they're actually there's an

[3:32:13] expired agreement what I'm understand.

[3:32:17] » Yeah, I'm just curious of our actual

[3:32:19] obligation to this. I mean not

[3:32:21] speculating or anything just like what

[3:32:22] do what do we have to do what time frame

[3:32:24] because that might pressure this project

[3:32:26] or it might relax it.

[3:32:28] >> So the last interlocal agreement we have

[3:32:30] signed was signed on June 3rd 2004

[3:32:34] and we have not done a current one since

[3:32:36] then and at that time we signed up at

[3:32:38] the 600 homes cap and as I mentioned

[3:32:41] we're down to 975.

[3:32:43] So we currently we do not have a legal

[3:32:46] agreement with West Haven to even allow

[3:32:48] us to be there. We paying a leaving fee.

[3:32:51] >> But do we have like a cease and desist

[3:32:53] or do we have like an order by then?

[3:32:54] >> No. No. Because they're a community

[3:32:57] that's right next to us.

[3:32:59] >> Yeah.

[3:33:00] >> I'm just wondering legally obligation.

[3:33:01] Like what do we We're imposing We're

[3:33:03] saying like, "Hey, let's go add $300,000

[3:33:05] to our budget to do this right now. Uh

[3:33:07] we may or may not get a grant to pay for

[3:33:09] this. We're going to go ask taxpayers

[3:33:10] for more money." Um but we may not even

[3:33:12] have a pressure if it's a perceived

[3:33:13] pressure like Yeah. And we're a

[3:33:15] community next to them. So I think that

[3:33:16] that's also cuts both ways. say, "Hey

[3:33:19] guys, we're a community next to you. We

[3:33:20] don't really have this money. Um, so are

[3:33:22] we doing this because it's like, you

[3:33:24] know, we're being nice or is it

[3:33:25] something we really need to do?"

[3:33:27] >> What can you explain again what the

[3:33:29] perceived pressure is? What are they

[3:33:31] saying to

[3:33:32] >> um give a time frame? Did they

[3:33:37] » So, I first became aware of this two

[3:33:40] years ago when we received this weaving

[3:33:42] field fee bill, which we didn't have any

[3:33:44] idea what it was. So then when I went

[3:33:47] and asked what is this bill because I

[3:33:49] was asked what is this bill and it was

[3:33:52] we were supposed to pay this check and

[3:33:54] we hadn't paid the last one we had paid

[3:33:57] was back in June of 2023 and then we

[3:34:00] received a bill that was probably July

[3:34:03] or excuse me June of 2024 that showed

[3:34:06] Leo this amount that was over $33,000

[3:34:09] which we didn't know. That's what I went

[3:34:12] and asked. Um the engineer over there at

[3:34:14] that time said, "Yes, you need to get

[3:34:16] out." Their public works directors over

[3:34:18] the sewer said, "Well, we'll we'll work

[3:34:20] with you, Hooper." We talked about it in

[3:34:23] the budget season of 2024. They were

[3:34:26] aware the council was this needs to be

[3:34:28] done. We didn't have the money. Let's

[3:34:30] put it off to a 2005 came back budget.

[3:34:33] Let's talk about it. Same was similar

[3:34:35] this year. So, it's something that we

[3:34:37] have known now. So when we say urgent,

[3:34:40] what is urgent? Two years, five years,

[3:34:43] 10 years, I don't know. But it is

[3:34:44] something that we know that does need to

[3:34:46] be done. And then we didn't put it in

[3:34:48] the budget this year because then we

[3:34:49] talked about, well, if we get this

[3:34:50] grant, we could use that. If we do a

[3:34:52] CRA, we could use that money.

[3:34:56] >> I'd agree with what she said. And then I

[3:34:59] mean, once the Smith and the East area,

[3:35:02] all those homes get tied into here, I

[3:35:06] think that's when things are

[3:35:09] there's not going to be capacity for

[3:35:11] those many additions.

[3:35:13] >> Yeah, but that's a lot of assumptions,

[3:35:15] right? That's assuming this fence is

[3:35:16] going to happen. That's assuming I mean

[3:35:18] that's assuming we're getting a grant.

[3:35:20] So, what I'm saying is I'm I'm trying to

[3:35:22] measure in realities here and the

[3:35:24] reality is we have known for a long time

[3:35:26] that we're in West Haven sewage. Yes, we

[3:35:28] probably should get out of that. Do we

[3:35:31] put a $300,000 obligation to our budget

[3:35:34] to make sure we do that right now? Um is

[3:35:36] West Haven asking I get an engineer or

[3:35:39] an employee or somebody said it as West

[3:35:41] Haven city council has an attorney has

[3:35:43] anybody legally

[3:35:45] >> if that is a liability if they decide

[3:35:48] tomorrow that they want to exclude us

[3:35:50] from us from it then that is

[3:35:53] >> they can't exclude us I just would want

[3:35:56] to look at the agreement on how soon

[3:35:58] they can do it

[3:35:59] >> if there's anything there so

[3:36:01] >> the reason

[3:36:03] >> oh I was just going to say the reason

[3:36:04] for the urgency now is because of the

[3:36:06] blacking of the

[3:36:07] We we probably would have we we would

[3:36:10] have probably waited, you know, um

[3:36:13] Taylor, they've been working on getting

[3:36:14] this engineered. I think we thought we

[3:36:17] probably had more time. We could have

[3:36:19] waited to see if we get the grant if we

[3:36:21] do the CRA, but now they are to this

[3:36:23] project. And if you look down 5100,

[3:36:25] you're going to see where they have

[3:36:26] stopped with the curved gutter and

[3:36:27] sidewalk because they said, "We need to

[3:36:29] know what we're doing at 4,000." If

[3:36:32] you're going to come in and put in, and

[3:36:34] I don't remember now, you would know,

[3:36:35] but whatever. not a T, it's some kind of

[3:36:37] a valve. We need to know if you're doing

[3:36:40] that now, then we'll hold up. We'll give

[3:36:42] you a chance to put that in. If you're

[3:36:43] not going, they're not saying we have to

[3:36:45] do this right now. We're saying we want

[3:36:48] to do it before they pour the road, then

[3:36:51] we redig up the road for us to do it if

[3:36:53] that is 6 to9 months down the road.

[3:36:55] >> Sure. And mayor, with all due respect,

[3:36:57] this is all connected to a reality that

[3:37:00] we have a sewage system that is aging,

[3:37:02] that is horrible, that we shouldn't be

[3:37:03] in in the first place, but we are in it.

[3:37:05] And it connects to the CRA discussion.

[3:37:07] It connects to these pump house

[3:37:08] discussions. It connects to um this

[3:37:10] tearing up the road discussion because

[3:37:12] of the type of system because of what we

[3:37:14] have because of the infrastructure

[3:37:15] failing. And and I 100% agree. We got to

[3:37:18] fix it. I just don't believe it's a

[3:37:20] convenient discussion for us to continue

[3:37:22] to go to the citizens of Hooker and say,

[3:37:23] "Look, reach in your pocket and spend

[3:37:25] more money." We continue to do that. I

[3:37:26] mean, it's like we're going to raise

[3:37:28] your taxes for the sheriff. We

[3:37:30] appreciate the sheriff. We got to raise

[3:37:31] the taxes for that. We don't want to

[3:37:33] have to do that. We're going to raise

[3:37:34] your taxes for this, for that. I mean,

[3:37:36] it's just continuously asking our

[3:37:38] citizens to hand more money out of their

[3:37:41] pocket. And look, every time I go to the

[3:37:43] store, my daughter says, "Hey, I want

[3:37:44] that." And I say, "What money are you

[3:37:46] going to spend it with?" And she points

[3:37:47] at me and says, "With my money." So, I

[3:37:49] understand asking somebody else to spend

[3:37:51] the money for you. I just don't think

[3:37:54] that we can continue to do this to the

[3:37:55] citizens over and over. We've talked

[3:37:57] about it three times across three

[3:37:59] separate things tonight. Um, and our

[3:38:01] budget isn't even finalized. So what's

[3:38:03] it going to look like by the time we

[3:38:04] finalize it?

[3:38:05] >> Just so you understand too when we

[3:38:06] brought the second word meaning this is

[3:38:08] separate than the vacuum stations. This

[3:38:10] is has to do with the lift station the

[3:38:12] gravity none of these go through those

[3:38:14] >> but it's still like I'm just saying

[3:38:16] infrastructure like we recognize that we

[3:38:18] have a failing infrastructure system

[3:38:20] that we got to attend to. And so I don't

[3:38:24] know when I go to somebody and I say,

[3:38:25] "Hey, this is going to cost this much

[3:38:26] money and we're going to ask you for

[3:38:27] this much money." And then two months

[3:38:29] later I go back to them and say, "Hey,

[3:38:30] just kidding. It's going to cost you

[3:38:32] 300,000 more." "Hey, by the way, just

[3:38:34] kidding. It's going to cost you 300,000

[3:38:35] more." I feel like it's hard for me to

[3:38:37] look our citizens in the eye and tell

[3:38:39] them that we're done spending their

[3:38:41] money.

[3:38:42] >> So, one thing you need to understand is

[3:38:44] we are a city. We have been a city now

[3:38:46] for almost 26 years. The health

[3:38:49] department came and told us we had to

[3:38:50] hook into a sewer and so we did. Maybe

[3:38:53] the time is we need to look at as a city

[3:38:55] what are we going to do then to start

[3:38:56] alleviating some of these revenue

[3:38:58] shortfalls that we have. We are going to

[3:39:00] have sewer. We are going to have water.

[3:39:03] We have to that's just part of being a

[3:39:05] city is having infrastructure costs.

[3:39:08] >> Yeah. And I don't need to understand

[3:39:09] that. I do understand that we're a city

[3:39:10] but I also understand that I've got

[3:39:12] people that are citizens who elected me

[3:39:14] that are sitting in the Silver Saddle

[3:39:16] subdivision telling me that their

[3:39:18] basement are flooding with sewer because

[3:39:19] of our infrastructure. Decisions that

[3:39:22] we've made as a city, we need to

[3:39:24] continue. But it's easy to go say we're

[3:39:27] going to make a law or we're going to

[3:39:28] charge you money for it because none of

[3:39:30] us are reaching in our own pocket. We're

[3:39:32] reaching in the pocket of the people who

[3:39:33] elected us. And I don't take it lightly.

[3:39:35] And I think we need to be very clear of

[3:39:37] our plan of doing that.

[3:39:39] >> Well, just you know, a little

[3:39:40] clarification with this too of some

[3:39:42] little pre-planning would have been

[3:39:43] done. Like I mentioned, we were supposed

[3:39:45] to have been paying $250 a sewer impact

[3:39:48] fee to even connect, which we have not.

[3:39:51] If there would have been some

[3:39:52] pre-planning and every time one of these

[3:39:54] houses hooked into this force main, we

[3:39:57] would have. So, we have 975 homes. If we

[3:40:01] would have each charged them the amount

[3:40:03] we should have, we could have that

[3:40:04] pocket of money sitting there to pay for

[3:40:06] this. Well, we didn't. So, now we're in

[3:40:08] a situation. and what this is tonight.

[3:40:10] Do you want to approve this to do this

[3:40:13] now or we don't and then we just wait

[3:40:16] down 9 months? It could even possibly be

[3:40:18] a year and then we dig up a newly paved

[3:40:20] road. That's that's what our decision

[3:40:22] needs to be tonight. If you want this

[3:40:24] done now, then this needs to be approved

[3:40:26] or we wait and do it later and still

[3:40:29] have to do it. But we then we're digging

[3:40:31] up the road.

[3:40:32] >> It sort of have to be done either way,

[3:40:34] right?

[3:40:36] So, let me throw another assumption into

[3:40:38] your assumptions is that we're assuming

[3:40:41] that when SR 177 comes through this

[3:40:45] corridor that they're not going to

[3:40:46] totally tear up the entire thing and

[3:40:48] throw it all away and redo it, you know,

[3:40:51] where where how is that going to affect

[3:40:53] our infrastructure and our sewer system

[3:40:55] and all those other questions about a

[3:40:57] major freeway coming through? We don't

[3:40:59] know. We have no idea right now. Um, and

[3:41:02] so I'm kind of with David on this

[3:41:05] obligation to West Haven. You know,

[3:41:08] we've been told one thing and told

[3:41:10] another thing and legally, what is our

[3:41:13] legal obligation to West Haven with this

[3:41:17] contract, with this wheeling fee, with

[3:41:19] all these things are we supposed to get

[3:41:21] out tomorrow in 5 years? Do we have to

[3:41:24] stay in? Nobody knows what's really is

[3:41:27] the deal with this trunk line going down

[3:41:29] 5100 West. We've been sharing it. Yes,

[3:41:32] we've been paying a wheeling fee, then

[3:41:34] we haven't been paying the wheeling fee.

[3:41:36] Do we get to stay? You see what I'm

[3:41:39] saying? There are so many questions

[3:41:41] legally with this sewer line.

[3:41:44] >> There is to spend 300,000 with all these

[3:41:48] unanswered questions.

[3:41:49] >> Right. Right. And you know, in years

[3:41:52] past, this never came up. The wheeling

[3:41:54] fee was paid and this was never brought

[3:41:56] to us brought to our attention. and all

[3:41:58] of a sudden we missed paying the the fee

[3:42:01] and now we've got to get out. That's the

[3:42:04] part from here to now you've got to get

[3:42:07] out. That in between part is the part I

[3:42:10] don't get. I don't understand how we got

[3:42:13] to where we are today when

[3:42:16] that wasn't the case just a couple years

[3:42:17] ago.

[3:42:18] >> Have we ever paid the connection fees?

[3:42:20] >> Have what?

[3:42:21] >> Have we ever paid the connection fees to

[3:42:23] us?

[3:42:23] >> Do I think it was required was that we

[3:42:26] fee? I don't know if that is true though

[3:42:28] because this is one and I had another

[3:42:30] copy that was actually Dell you had

[3:42:32] signed and it shows about the 250 and

[3:42:35] goes through the homes. So I think you

[3:42:37] were aware of this

[3:42:40] >> at the weaving fee and the connection

[3:42:42] and if anybody would have ever looked.

[3:42:44] So so I can't I can't really use I don't

[3:42:47] think we should be able to use the

[3:42:48] excuse that said we didn't know because

[3:42:51] we have this interlocal agreement that

[3:42:53] was signed. So someone should I'm not

[3:42:56] saying we didn't know,

[3:42:58] but it was never it was never discussion

[3:43:01] because the fees were paid that

[3:43:04] >> partial partial pay, but none of the

[3:43:07] maintenance fees were paid. The

[3:43:09] connection fee wasn't paid and from what

[3:43:11] I was told, every time that asked, there

[3:43:14] was someone that worked to us and said,

[3:43:15] "Oh, we can worry about this later."

[3:43:18] Well, but again, we are a sitting there

[3:43:20] has to be legal things. Then then maybe

[3:43:23] you don't want

[3:43:25] main we will never be able to put

[3:43:27] anything else into it. So there can't be

[3:43:29] any further development along East

[3:43:32] Hooper or 5500 because West Haven has

[3:43:35] said they're not going to let us

[3:43:37] continue to hook into this where we're

[3:43:39] already 375 homes.

[3:43:41] >> When and how did they say that when you

[3:43:43] say West Haven like their council did

[3:43:45] their attorney when

[3:43:48] their public so we can we can go back to

[3:43:51] them if you want to and see if they're

[3:43:54] willing to an interlocal agreement with

[3:43:56] this. Again,

[3:43:57] >> I wouldn't recommend us proactively

[3:43:59] going back and stirring up the file on

[3:44:00] anything. And I think that we I think

[3:44:02] that we need to see if West Haven is

[3:44:05] coming to us to ask us something if

[3:44:07] we're paying the willing fees. They're

[3:44:08] accepting the payments and we're moving

[3:44:10] forward. Uh I feel like the contract's

[3:44:11] enforced. I mean, I'm not a lawyer, but

[3:44:13] I I don't feel like we've gotten any

[3:44:15] notice that we need to get out of this.

[3:44:17] >> But there I I I just want to say that I

[3:44:20] agree. I don't think we've been told to

[3:44:22] leave, but I it from what it sounds

[3:44:25] like, there's not an agreement that

[3:44:28] stops them from telling us to leave.

[3:44:30] >> Sure.

[3:44:30] >> So, that is my concern.

[3:44:35] >> So, how were we told to leave is the

[3:44:37] question legally? Does there something

[3:44:40] in writing saying we're you have 30 days

[3:44:42] to get out? You know,

[3:44:44] >> I would have to What was the I mean, it

[3:44:47] doesn't sound like we

[3:44:49] there wasn't legal thing. It was a

[3:44:51] matter of their engineer and their

[3:44:52] public works saying, "Mayor, we are

[3:44:54] willing to work with you. We will give

[3:44:56] you some time to work on this. We're not

[3:44:58] going to tell you to get out in this in

[3:44:59] a month." But but it's been two years

[3:45:02] now that they have said that we're

[3:45:04] willing to work with you.

[3:45:05] >> So, it sounds like they're being good

[3:45:07] neighbors,

[3:45:08] but I'm just letting you know that if

[3:45:10] there's not agreement in place, I'm

[3:45:12] concerned that they can't

[3:45:14] they could potentially.

[3:45:16] >> Sure, they could. And I think we've

[3:45:19] discussed this in several council

[3:45:21] meetings about how to do this. This

[3:45:23] isn't a brand new topic. We are talking

[3:45:25] about doing this force main on 5100. The

[3:45:28] thing that is brand new is do we want to

[3:45:31] do this small section to get us out of

[3:45:34] the rightway

[3:45:36] or we don't have to. They're going to pave that road whether

[3:45:40] we do this now or not. Just then we will

[3:45:43] later on if we do this then we will be

[3:45:46] digging up a new road. Taylor, can I ask

[3:45:49] you another question?

[3:45:50] >> Yeah.

[3:45:50] >> Um, so you say it will save us a little

[3:45:54] bit of money. What's a little bit? I

[3:45:56] mean, we're talking hundreds of

[3:45:58] thousands tonight. And so,

[3:46:00] >> yeah, we're calling we're saying

[3:46:02] mobilization.

[3:46:07] » Mobilization,

[3:46:09] which is arguable because they either

[3:46:12] mobilize now or they're mobilized later.

[3:46:14] So there's probably $20,000

[3:46:18] that could be saved potentially.

[3:46:21] >> What about re the asphalt too?

[3:46:23] >> But yeah, then some asphalt about only

[3:46:27] 200 ft.

[3:46:29] That would be about another 10 or 20.

[3:46:33] I'd say 40 grand.

[3:46:36] >> And we really don't know if it's going

[3:46:38] to be six or nine months or the way

[3:46:40] things work in the world nowadays.

[3:46:43] two years.

[3:46:45] >> Well, we know it's been 22 years, right?

[3:46:48] It was 2004 on the agreement sign. It's

[3:46:50] been 22 years. So,

[3:46:52] >> but I would really worry against the

[3:46:55] assumption about what's going to connect

[3:46:56] on in the east area because that's

[3:47:00] within one or two years there's going to

[3:47:02] be a capacity issue. There's going to be

[3:47:03] se

[3:47:12] What's your recommendation?

[3:47:15] >> Um,

[3:47:19] I

[3:47:23] do it. I guess I feel I feel confident

[3:47:27] that there's funding. Well, I guess my

[3:47:30] recommendation is you're going to get

[3:47:31] $1.5 million. What are you going to do

[3:47:33] with it? If this is the priority, I put

[3:47:37] it into this. I confident that that's a

[3:47:40] month away, two months away maybe being

[3:47:44] 100% and then what are you going to do

[3:47:45] with it then

[3:47:47] >> if we had $1.5 million I would agree

[3:47:49] with you we don't have that well because

[3:47:52] if and the federal government has shown

[3:47:53] over and over that they don't pass

[3:47:55] budgets and then they cut things and

[3:47:58] they go back and forth on what's private

[3:48:00] land and public land I mean we see this

[3:48:01] change especially what this

[3:48:03] administration things can change back

[3:48:04] and forth every day and so I think that

[3:48:07] it's important that I don't know. I'm

[3:48:09] not I will I I would confidently say to

[3:48:11] you that if you were a citizen of Brown

[3:48:13] would not reach into your pocket on

[3:48:14] something that I couldn't guarantee.

[3:48:18] >> So I guess the question is you're

[3:48:20] thinking this is a project we don't ever

[3:48:21] do because we have discussed this as a

[3:48:23] city council.

[3:48:24] >> I think that's probably extreme. I think

[3:48:26] that it is something that we should do

[3:48:29] when we have the money to do things. I

[3:48:30] think that it's uh very reasonable thing

[3:48:33] to say that we will do the things we can

[3:48:35] do when we have the money to do them and

[3:48:37] we'll try to economic opportunity for us

[3:48:39] to grow and be able to afford to do more

[3:48:41] things as a city,

[3:48:42] >> but this was planned as part of the

[3:48:44] budget later,

[3:48:46] right? It's not you're asking for money

[3:48:48] sooner.

[3:48:49] >> I was asking, do you have $300,000 in

[3:48:51] project budget? I mean, it would take it

[3:48:54] from somewhere else, but is there money

[3:48:56] in there to do it?

[3:48:58] >> So, they took they took um fund balance

[3:49:01] and moved money over. So, she said there

[3:49:04] is money that we can use

[3:49:07] Then when we got that money, then we

[3:49:09] would just put that back into the

[3:49:10] capital projects fund

[3:49:14] or or we can wait and like you said till

[3:49:16] we have the guaranteed money. I And then

[3:49:19] another thing we probably should be

[3:49:21] doing legally in the meantime then is we

[3:49:22] probably need to get some legal

[3:49:24] documents drawn up with West Haven and

[3:49:27] see if they are willing to even let us.

[3:49:30] I suspect them being good neighbors,

[3:49:32] they'll say yes, but how much time are

[3:49:34] they going to give us? two years, three

[3:49:36] years. But we do know if we do any

[3:49:39] growth at all in East or any, this has

[3:49:41] to be done first. So this is just a

[3:49:44] matter of do we want to do it before

[3:49:45] they pave the road or we pave the road

[3:49:47] and then hit the road.

[3:49:48] >> And if we got in, maybe it's an option

[3:49:51] for us to have development agreement

[3:49:53] with somebody who's doing the growth to

[3:49:54] say help us fix this.

[3:50:01] » Well, with that, does someone want to

[3:50:03] make a motion then? There's a motion on

[3:50:05] to approve the partial funding for the

[3:50:10] sewer force main portion included in the

[3:50:12] 5100 West project.

[3:50:16] I'll make a motion to table um the 5100

[3:50:20] West sewer

[3:50:22] project pending

[3:50:24] um more information on the $1.5 million

[3:50:27] grant.

[3:50:30] >> So just a clarification then that you just need to not vote this because

[3:50:35] they have to know by August 15th and we

[3:50:38] probably won't know by August 15th.

[3:50:40] >> Okay, I'll change my motion. I'll make a

[3:50:42] motion to deny um funding the 388,000

[3:50:47] for 51 project.

[3:50:49] >> Okay, the motion was made by council

[3:50:51] member Hill. Is there a second?

[3:50:53] >> I'll second it.

[3:50:54] >> Count second was made by council member

[3:50:56] Powers. All in favor?

[3:50:58] >> I

[3:50:59] >> Any opposed?

[3:51:01] Did everybody vote?

[3:51:03] Okay. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Then we

[3:51:07] will let S and Parsons know and they'll

[3:51:09] just go ahead and complete their

[3:51:11] project. Um the last thing then we do

[3:51:14] not need to have a possible closed door

[3:51:16] meeting. We had some things that we have

[3:51:18] not received yet. So we won't be doing

[3:51:21] that. And so then the last thing would

[3:51:23] be just a motion to adjourn.

[3:51:26] Can I ask one more question to Taylor

[3:51:28] about can we go back and

[3:51:32] talk about that uh those pumps you said

[3:51:37] that uh if we go with this issue

[3:51:39] >> you want to just recall the issue again

[3:51:42] it up even though

[3:51:45] >> okay so we are going to recall an issue

[3:51:49] that was tabled as far as the HVAC

[3:51:53] system for our sewer stations. Do I need

[3:51:56] to have a motion to do that?

[3:51:58] >> No.

[3:51:59] >> Okay.

[3:52:00] >> So, you made the comment uh these guys

[3:52:03] will guarantee

[3:52:05] uh so if a pump goes out, they're going

[3:52:08] to replace it. A $20,000 pump.

[3:52:12] Um

[3:52:14] guarantees a weird word to say, I think,

[3:52:16] but they do hold liability

[3:52:20] for

[3:52:22] If their design is not adequate, it's

[3:52:25] pretty hard.

[3:52:26] >> So you can't you can't prove that that

[3:52:29] it wasn't adequate.

[3:52:30] >> It's going to be pretty hard to do.

[3:52:32] >> So basically, it's really no guarantee.

[3:52:36] Um

[3:52:39] guarantee it's not

[3:52:41] >> okay.

[3:52:42] stamp on it isility

[3:52:46] and there becomes loss of life or

[3:52:49] property damage and maybe that's when

[3:52:51] you get lawsuits in place.

[3:52:54] >> So really it's okay to be a lawuit.

[3:52:58] >> So if I understand maybe

[3:53:01] so if they stamp this and say according

[3:53:04] to our standards you need to have x

[3:53:06] amount of units to keep this cool then

[3:53:09] we put in that amount and it's not

[3:53:11] enough and one of our pump overheats

[3:53:14] causes damage which causes that pump to

[3:53:16] fail. We have sewer damage in residents,

[3:53:19] they would be liable if we if we did it

[3:53:21] just like they told us to do and we

[3:53:23] still had pumps that overheated.

[3:53:25] They would be liable. There could be

[3:53:27] other things that certainly could make a

[3:53:28] pump fail. But if it was due to

[3:53:30] overheating, due to lack of air

[3:53:32] conditioning, that's I would think was

[3:53:34] where they would their liability would

[3:53:36] lie. They still take long to go battle

[3:53:40] because they follow processes that are

[3:53:43] standard.

[3:53:44] >> Well, and they're they're dealing with

[3:53:46] really used pumps, too. So, I'm not sure

[3:53:49] how much they're going to want to back

[3:53:50] those suckers that are already got

[3:53:52] issues.

[3:53:53] >> So, bottom line is there's really no

[3:53:55] guarantee. But, okay, that answered my

[3:53:57] question. Thank you.

[3:53:59] >> Okay. Now, is there a motion to adjurnn?

[3:54:01] >> Do we need a motion to retro?

[3:54:04] Okay. I move be

[3:54:07] >> okay. Motion rest made by council member

[3:54:09] Craig. Is there a second?

[3:54:10] >> Second.

[3:54:11] made by council member Hancock.

[3:54:13] All in favor?

[3:54:14] >> Okay. Thank you. Meeting adjourned

[3:54:17] recording.

July 16 2026 City Council Meeting

Transcript