[0:10] Okay.

[0:11] Welcome [clears throat and snorts] to

[0:12] Santaquin City Council's work session.

[0:14] It's uh

[0:16] 5:30.

[0:18] Glad to have you all here. So,

[0:20] uh

[0:21] >> I have an echo.

[0:22] >> All are present, so we'll dispense with

[0:24] roll call, and I would ask if anyone

[0:27] would like to lead us in the Pledge of

[0:29] Allegiance.

[0:32] >> I'll do it.

[0:35] >> [clears throat]

[0:37] » Please repeat after me. I pledge

[0:39] >> allegiance to the flag of the United

[0:42] States of America, and to the republic

[0:45] for which it stands, one nation under

[0:48] God, indivisible, with liberty and

[0:51] justice for all.

[0:54] » Thank you. I'd like to ask if anyone

[0:56] would like to offer an invocation or

[0:59] leave us with an inspirational thought.

[1:03] >> I can do that.

[1:04] >> [clears throat]

[1:04] >> Okay.

[1:06] >> Our Father in heaven, we're thankful for

[1:08] this beautiful day, for

[1:10] the opportunity we have to be here in

[1:11] City Council. We're thankful for our

[1:13] country and the freedoms that we enjoy

[1:15] here, for those that help protect it. We

[1:18] pray for leaders of nations that we can

[1:21] continue to have as much peace as

[1:23] possible.

[1:25] Father, we pray for more moisture

[1:28] that we can have the needed amount for

[1:30] crops and our use. We pray, Father, that

[1:33] we can be inspired to know the things

[1:35] that we should do and say,

[1:37] that we will be able to do our best for

[1:38] the citizens of this community. These

[1:40] things we pray for in the name of Jesus

[1:42] Christ. Amen.

[1:43] >> Amen. [snorts]

[1:44] >> Thanks, Lynn. Appreciate it.

[1:46] Uh

[1:48] we go right into our discussion items.

[1:50] Uh first one is the

[1:52] discussion

[1:53] regarding the deferral agreements.

[1:57] » Yeah, Mayor and Council. Uh

[1:59] Norma's pulling up a presentation I

[2:01] prepared. Uh this really is coming about

[2:03] because we've had some recent deferral

[2:06] agreements that have been passed and I

[2:08] spent some time with our city engineer,

[2:09] John Lundell, and and

[2:11] uh we both spent some time talking with

[2:13] our our legal counsel, Brett Rich. Uh

[2:16] I kind of told John,

[2:18] you know, when when I first started

[2:19] working for the city and and deferral

[2:21] agreements happened, there was something

[2:22] that just didn't feel quite right about

[2:24] them and I think with each one I've

[2:27] exponentially kind of had uh concerns

[2:30] about what development uh what deferral

[2:33] agreements mean for the city. Um

[2:36] the potential impacts of of doing

[2:41] deferral agreements and and really what

[2:43] other options we might have. And so,

[2:45] wanted to [clears throat] to bring this

[2:47] discussion to the council to to talk

[2:49] about uh

[2:50] how we got to where we do deferral

[2:52] agreements and and uh and kind of talk

[2:56] high-level about the kind of the

[2:58] philosophy behind it and what other

[2:59] options are out there.

[3:01] So, really, this isn't necessarily

[3:03] presentation about about deferral

[3:05] agreements, but it's really how do we

[3:07] strategically approach and and how do we

[3:10] adjust the timing for infrastructure

[3:12] improvements. And a lot of this

[3:13] discussion really centers around the

[3:15] core area of town where we don't have

[3:17] infrastructure and where where

[3:20] these uh

[3:22] you know, these neighborhoods existed

[3:23] before we even had a requirement to

[3:25] provide infrastructure improvements as

[3:27] part of a subdivision. So, um

[3:30] you know, I think I think sometimes, you

[3:32] know, a deferral agreement option, which

[3:34] is kind of how we we approach things

[3:36] right now, uh could apply outside of the

[3:38] core area, but I but I think generally

[3:40] speaking, it's the core area where we we

[3:43] uh do these because of, you know, the

[3:45] reasons we'll talk about here shortly.

[3:46] So,

[3:48] uh options that we have to to address

[3:51] subdivision improvements Really

[3:53] you know, there's really three main

[3:55] options that I see. Deferral agreements,

[3:57] which we'll talk more about exactly what

[3:59] that is. That's our current approach.

[4:02] Um, an assessment in lieu of

[4:04] construction, which is essentially

[4:06] receiving a payment for the amount that

[4:09] it would take to do those construction

[4:11] improvements. Uh, and then really

[4:14] constructing those improvements now.

[4:17] Um,

[4:18] so all that I've really prepared for

[4:19] this discussion and and really these are the things that came to my

[4:23] mind and and and John Lundell's mind as the pros and cons.

[4:27] Uh, there might be more and and we would

[4:29] love to hear what you think are the pros

[4:31] and cons of these different approaches,

[4:33] but we wanted to provide you this

[4:34] information so that maybe you can

[4:36] reevaluate the approach that we take

[4:38] when uh, a subdivision is happening and they're required to to do those

[4:43] improvements.

[4:45] So the deferral [clears throat]

[4:46] agreement, that's currently

[4:48] the approach that we take. And I I

[4:50] should say for clarification, we don't

[4:52] force a deferral agreement upon people.

[4:55] Uh, they could build the construction

[4:57] they could build the infrastructure

[4:58] improvements. Um,

[5:01] but I think at the time when when we

[5:04] started doing deferral agreements, there

[5:05] was some uncertainty about how that

[5:08] should be constructed, what the design

[5:09] should be, how it would how it would

[5:11] work. And I think that was probably

[5:13] around 2015 or so when when previous

[5:18] city council kind of took the approach

[5:20] of we should do deferral agreements.

[5:22] Uh, and I think just a

[5:24] few years before that was when the city

[5:26] actually started requiring

[5:28] infrastructure improvements with any

[5:30] subdivision. Uh, I always kind of think

[5:33] if you think of uh, Centennial Park,

[5:35] there's those those townhomes that are

[5:37] just to the east of the park. There's no

[5:39] curb, gutter, sidewalk. I think that was

[5:41] the last project that was done in in

[5:43] Santaquin City

[5:45] um,

[5:45] >> [clears throat]

[5:46] >> before there was any sort of a

[5:47] subdivision improvement requirement or infrastructure improvement

[5:50] requirement for a new subdivision. So,

[5:53] uh that's kind of the history of where we've got to where we are now. Uh

[5:57] but again,

[5:59] a deferral agreement, and I'll break it

[6:01] down, uh think of deferral as

[6:04] you know, one of your retirement

[6:05] accounts. It's tax deferred. You pay

[6:08] taxes on it way down the road in

[6:10] retirement, and and you pay taxes on the uh

[6:15] you know, the situation that that you're

[6:17] in at that time. You're not going to get

[6:19] all the the

[6:21] um benefits of of children and stuff

[6:23] when you pay those taxes. Those taxes

[6:24] are deferred. Same thing here. Uh

[6:28] the requirement and the obligation to do

[6:31] infrastructure improvements is deferred

[6:33] to a point in the future, and and the

[6:35] conditions at that point in the future

[6:37] are what's going to apply to the

[6:40] requirement to do those those uh

[6:42] improvements. And then I emphasize the

[6:44] word agreement. Again, this is not

[6:46] something that we we require or force

[6:48] down anybody's throat. It's something

[6:50] that they willingly agree to, and they

[6:51] do in a uh in a contract, in an

[6:54] agreement that they sign that is

[6:56] recorded. And so, uh

[6:58] when they sign that agreement, they are are agreeing to the terms of that

[7:02] agreement, and and we expect that they

[7:04] will live up to that agreement uh

[7:06] whenever, you know, that agreement is is

[7:09] needing to be satisfied.

[7:11] So, what are the pros of a deferral

[7:13] agreement?

[7:14] Uh fair value of money in the future. I

[7:16] think that is the main driving reason

[7:18] why the previous council and why a

[7:21] deferral agreement is is is is the way

[7:24] that we've done things. What I mean by

[7:26] that is is if somebody defers the

[7:29] infrastructure improvements they're

[7:30] required to do uh to the future,

[7:33] whatever the cost of those improvements

[7:35] are in the future when we decide to

[7:37] execute that agreement, that's what's

[7:39] going to apply at that point. So, if

[7:42] they if they decide to enter into a

[7:44] deferral agreement now and the

[7:45] infrastructure costs were $20,000,

[7:48] sometime in the future that might be

[7:50] more like 30 or 40,000 dollars and

[7:52] that's that's kind of a risk that

[7:53] they're taking of of you know uh

[7:57] kicking that can down the road if you

[7:58] will.

[7:59] Um

[8:01] Other pros, less expensive for

[8:03] development and redevelopment. I put an

[8:05] asterisk next to that one because it's

[8:07] that one's a little bit more in the eye

[8:08] of of of whoever's looking at it. I

[8:11] think generally [clears throat] speaking

[8:12] for the property owner, it's a pro

[8:14] because it's it's less expensive for

[8:16] them to do their development. I know the

[8:18] state would see that as a pro because

[8:19] it's it's

[8:21] you know, less expensive for someone to build and and have housing

[8:26] opportunities.

[8:27] Um

[8:28] But again, some people might see that

[8:30] not as a pro because

[8:32] they don't want to see development

[8:33] happen or they you know, uh

[8:36] have have kind of their own feelings on seeing growth.

[8:40] >> [clears throat]

[8:42] >> System constructed uniformly. Again, an

[8:44] asterisk next to that. Now, I'll talk a

[8:46] little bit more about that with the

[8:47] cons.

[8:49] Um

[8:50] I think the the intent is is if people

[8:53] defer their improvements and we have a

[8:55] large number of deferral agreements and

[8:57] when we're ready to build the

[8:58] infrastructure in the core area town,

[9:00] then we'll build it all at the same time

[9:02] and we'll have a system that's all built

[9:03] uniformly and it all works and connects

[9:05] together at that time. I think that's

[9:07] maybe a little bit wishful thinking cuz

[9:09] I think it's kind of having the stars

[9:11] aligned and you know, take one block in

[9:13] the core area, you know, you'd have to

[9:15] have all the deferral agreements and and

[9:18] all the properties there would would uh

[9:20] have some sort of a subdivision where

[9:22] they enter into a deferral agreement to

[9:24] have that all happen at once. So, I

[9:26] think I think the intent is good there,

[9:28] but I think the reality is that it may

[9:30] not happen all uniformly. It still may

[9:32] happen in segments.

[9:34] Um cons of deferral agreements. I think

[9:37] a lot of people that that I communicate

[9:39] with that that enter into a deferral

[9:41] agreement, they perceive it as a waiver.

[9:44] I don't have to pay for infrastructure

[9:45] right now. And And they don't really

[9:47] think about

[9:49] 15, 20, 30 years down the road uh

[9:52] that the city might show up and and uh

[9:55] and say, "Hey, it's time for you to to

[9:57] live up to your part of the agreement

[9:58] and pay for the infrastructure

[9:59] improvements." Now, I guess I said 30

[10:01] years there.

[10:02] Uh I I'll get to that in a second. It

[10:04] may not be that long uh because of the

[10:06] third bullet item. But But like I say, a

[10:08] lot of people I don't think they truly

[10:09] understand what a deferral agreement is.

[10:11] That's why

[10:12] I broke it down of what a defer, you

[10:14] know, what to defer

[10:16] uh cost means and and and it being

[10:18] agreement where they've agreed to it and signed. But I think there's

[10:21] certainly a perception from a lot of

[10:23] people that it's I'll kick that can on

[10:25] the road. I don't need to pay for it

[10:26] now. And and I'm not going to worry about it. Uh

[10:31] No expectation of cost. I don't think

[10:33] people understand what [clears throat]

[10:35] those infrastructure improvements

[10:36] actually would cost

[10:38] uh

[10:39] or what they will cost in the future. Uh

[10:41] again, if it's 10 years down the road,

[10:44] the market might be very much different

[10:45] where those costs are going to be a lot

[10:47] more than what they would have paid now

[10:48] in order to do those infrastructure

[10:50] improvements. So, not understanding what

[10:52] those costs will be makes it harder for

[10:55] uh a given property owner who enters

[10:57] into a deferral agreement to plan for

[10:58] that. Um and

[11:01] back to the the first bullet point. I

[11:02] don't think a lot of people who enter

[11:04] into these are are uh you know, putting

[11:06] aside money and they have a you know, a

[11:09] fund where they know that that they're

[11:11] going to have an obligation to fulfill

[11:13] uh a deferral agreement and pay for

[11:14] infrastructure costs on the frontage of

[11:16] their their uh subdivision.

[11:19] Uh agreement sunset.

[11:21] I use the example 30 years down the

[11:23] road.

[11:24] That would never happen because these

[11:26] deferral agreements that we've generally

[11:28] done over the past

[11:30] 15 or so years, uh

[11:32] they have a sunset on them anywhere

[11:33] between 10 20 years.

[11:36] >> 10 years is what we typically

[11:38] >> 10 years is right now what we we've got

[11:40] typically in the template that we provide people,

[11:43] but uh

[11:44] yeah, if if the agreement sunsets, then

[11:47] there is no obligation for for any sort

[11:49] of of payment or construction of those

[11:52] infrastructure improvements.

[11:54] >> So, then the first two bullets are true.

[11:56] After 10 years.

[11:57] >> Yeah.

[11:58] They could be, yep. So,

[12:00] >> So, that's a pro if you're building a

[12:02] house.

[12:03] >> It's for the individual, but for the

[12:05] community where we're we're we're uh you

[12:08] know, trying to address future

[12:09] stormwater issues and and uh you know,

[12:12] when the city

[12:13] gets designation as an MS4 where where

[12:16] we're required to to look at stormwater

[12:18] and monitor and and handle stormwater a

[12:20] lot more, uh that'll that'll be uh uh a

[12:23] huge undertaking for the city to to live

[12:25] up to those expectations.

[12:27] >> Wait, uh how far away from MS4 are we

[12:30] right now? We don't know. Hopefully, a

[12:32] long ways.

[12:33] >> Right. It's [clears throat] it's

[12:35] dependent on on kind of proximity,

[12:37] dependent on your size of your city.

[12:38] Obviously, we're we're on the edge of of uh

[12:42] of

[12:43] you know, the metropolitan area, but uh

[12:45] I think with with the way our our

[12:47] community is growing, I I would you

[12:48] would think that the state would

[12:49] probably sooner than later uh have us in

[12:52] that MS4 designation where stormwater

[12:54] becomes a

[12:55] uh

[12:56] an obligation that we need to meet. But

[12:59] like Norm says, we don't know. Uh it's

[13:00] just waiting for for that to happen and

[13:03] it could happen tomorrow, could happen

[13:04] next year, could be another 10 years. We

[13:06] don't know.

[13:07] >> I I just want to give you my thoughts on

[13:10] this whole thing and and

[13:12] you know, I'll look around and

[13:15] yep, sure enough, nobody's lived here

[13:17] longer than me, but

[13:19] >> [laughter]

[13:20] >> you know, uh

[13:21] >> [cough]

[13:22] [clears throat]

[13:22] >> I see some of the most silliest things

[13:25] in the world with

[13:27] taking pieces of property and putting

[13:30] curb, gutter, and sidewalk, you know,

[13:34] and then this is the end of the

[13:35] sidewalk.

[13:37] And it's 120 ft in total length and it's

[13:41] good. We've we've solved that problem,

[13:44] but it's a 4-ft jump off the end of it

[13:47] if you miss that sign. And the other end

[13:49] of one on on Center Street,

[13:53] on the other side of that sign it is a

[13:55] cabin that was built in 1860 something

[14:00] that's still lived in.

[14:01] And and you think, oh my goodness, what

[14:04] are we creating here? And it seems like

[14:07] it's such a

[14:09] can of worms

[14:11] that you don't really know the best way

[14:12] to do it. This doesn't affect

[14:16] the majority of town that live in

[14:18] subdivisions cuz they've already paid

[14:20] for curb, gutter, sidewalk when they

[14:23] built their house.

[14:24] And and yet,

[14:26] you know, we see, we understand the need

[14:29] for it and it certainly will fit within

[14:31] a

[14:32] uh master um

[14:36] plan for for,

[14:38] you know, our waste water,

[14:41] but when you're building sidewalks like

[14:43] up in

[14:44] uh

[14:46] Elk Ridge and the end of the sidewalk

[14:48] has a sign, this is the end of the

[14:50] sidewalk, and it's a brick wall.

[14:53] You know, and I can show you right where

[14:54] it is cuz it's straight up from your

[14:56] house.

[14:57] >> Right.

[14:57] >> But uh it just seems like

[15:01] some of the things that we would try to

[15:03] do with this without a master plan might

[15:06] be killing us.

[15:07] >> Yeah.

[15:07] >> Is there a better way to do it than just

[15:10] defer it? Is there a way that maybe you

[15:12] should do something and invest it?

[15:14] >> And that's the whole proper purpose of

[15:15] this presentation. And I guess let me

[15:16] finish the presentation cuz we'll get to

[15:19] that exact topic and and it's already

[15:21] been kind of talked about and and the

[15:22] pro of a deferral agreement being that

[15:24] you construct the system uniformly, that

[15:26] you don't have dead-end sidewalks and

[15:28] stuff, that it's all constructed and it

[15:30] works as a system, not just storm water,

[15:32] but curb, gutter, sidewalk, and and all

[15:34] those those other things.

[15:35] >> But the problem is right up front, you

[15:37] really don't see the full picture as we

[15:39] talk about this because 4 and 1/2, 5

[15:42] years ago, I looked at the whole thing

[15:45] and we had a brand new estimation of

[15:48] what it would take to

[15:50] do the core area of town. That was just

[15:52] short of $200 million.

[15:55] Right.

[15:56] You know, that's a little above my

[15:57] spending limit.

[15:59] >> It is and it's going to be a huge

[16:00] undertaking when that [clears throat]

[16:01] time comes, but again, right now we have

[16:04] development and infill development that

[16:05] happens that how do we address the

[16:07] subdivision improvements? Do

[16:09] So, we'll we'll continue to talk about

[16:11] that and we'll address that. Final The

[16:13] last con for deferral agreements is

[16:15] future political challenges. This is one

[16:17] that I kind of jokingly say gives me

[16:19] nightmares because you know, we have

[16:21] these deferral agreements and uh

[16:25] again, at some point in the future, if we we uh you know, per the the

[16:30] deferral agreement, we give people

[16:31] notice that we're ready to build this

[16:33] infrastructure,

[16:34] are they going to have the money to do

[16:36] that? Uh

[16:37] are we going to hear, you know, every

[16:39] excuse, every sad story of why they

[16:41] can't fulfill that agreement? Are they

[16:43] going to say, "I didn't understand what I signed up for by signing that

[16:47] deferral agreement?" Are they going to

[16:49] get Gephardt? Are they You know what I

[16:51] mean? Like And then on top of all that,

[16:54] it's it's it's just

[16:56] you know, it

[16:59] Councils have kicked the can down the

[17:00] road enough that there's going to be a

[17:02] council at some point in the future,

[17:04] whether it be this council or another

[17:05] council, that's going to have to to deal

[17:07] with all that. And and it's going to be

[17:09] painful. And and uh

[17:12] you know, again, these aren't all

[17:13] development companies that have done

[17:15] these new These are your typical

[17:16] residents that did it to to get an an

[17:19] additional lot for their grandchild to

[17:21] build a house or their kid to build a

[17:23] house.

[17:24] You know, they might be on a fixed

[17:25] income or they might have to do

[17:27] something to to live up to their side of

[17:28] the agreement. Now,

[17:30] they agreed to it and they signed it and

[17:32] I think we we should expect that they're

[17:34] going to live up to the end their end of

[17:35] the agreement, but there's a lot that

[17:37] can happen in 10 years. People who

[17:39] signed this might be 6 ft under and it

[17:41] might be somebody who inherited the

[17:43] property that that now they're

[17:45] inheriting a deferral agreement with 10, 20, 30 thousand dollars of

[17:50] infrastructure that they didn't know

[17:51] that that, you know, they had an

[17:53] encumbrance to worry about.

[17:56] So,

[17:57] that's another thing with deferral

[17:58] agreements that that I think is is a con

[18:00] and and a concern. Let's move to the

[18:02] next one, Norm.

[18:04] Assessment in in lieu of construction.

[18:07] Uh pros,

[18:09] it's money in the bank. It's And then

[18:11] basically what I mean by assessment in

[18:13] lieu of construction is instead of

[18:14] constructing the improvements and

[18:16] instead of agreeing that they will pay

[18:18] for those improvements sometime down the

[18:20] road, they basically pay the amount to

[18:23] put that infrastructure in and the

[18:26] infrastructure is not constructed and we

[18:27] have money set aside for that. Now,

[18:31] again, it's money in the bank. It's it's

[18:33] something that we have that that

[18:36] to the second bullet point, there's no

[18:37] sunset. There's no agreement. Uh

[18:40] the expectation is up front of what the

[18:42] cost will be in order for them to to

[18:44] fulfill the the subdivision

[18:46] requirements.

[18:48] Uh and then, you know, system is

[18:50] constructed uniformly. Again, I put an

[18:51] asterisk next to that one because

[18:54] I think it it can can work, but I'll get

[18:57] to that a little bit in the cons.

[18:59] For the cons, the biggest con is is if

[19:02] you get the money, the cost for it now,

[19:05] in 10 years that the cost for that

[19:06] infrastructure's probably going to be

[19:08] more expensive. So, the money you get

[19:10] today will be a little bit lower value

[19:12] of money in the future.

[19:14] It may discourage development and

[19:16] redevelopment. Again, an asterisk.

[19:18] Depends on how you look at that, but I

[19:20] think generally speaking for Santaquin

[19:22] and and there's a lot of development

[19:25] strategies we have in our code for

[19:26] infill development. At one time we had

[19:29] and we allowed for flag lots. I think

[19:31] there's been a desire to see

[19:32] redevelopment in the core area of town

[19:34] to put money into to you know, the core

[19:37] area to to redevelop it and see it and

[19:41] uh

[19:42] you know,

[19:43] uh have money put into it to to make it

[19:46] better and nicer.

[19:48] Uh and then legal questions.

[19:50] There's a lot with this one that we

[19:52] don't fully understand and I we've

[19:53] talked a little bit about this with

[19:55] Brett and we're not going to be able to

[19:56] really get granular on on how exactly

[19:59] this works. Uh

[20:01] but I think there's there's some legal

[20:02] questions of if we get the money in lieu

[20:05] of up front, are we obligated to spend

[20:07] that money on the front edge of that

[20:09] subdivision or can we pool it with with

[20:12] other uh

[20:14] assessments in lieu of and and start on

[20:17] the you know, the bottom part of the the

[20:18] whole system so that it makes sense as

[20:21] we construct it. Not exactly sure if how

[20:24] that works, but that's something that

[20:25] there's a little uncertainty because

[20:27] this is something that that would be new

[20:29] and something we're not quite as

[20:30] familiar with.

[20:32] Finally, the last option is basically

[20:34] just requiring the construction of those

[20:37] subdivision improvements. Pros.

[20:40] Again, the ex- expectation is up front.

[20:42] They need to build it. It's a

[20:43] requirement and and they would build it

[20:44] up front. Uh the improvements are

[20:47] actually constructed. Instead of it

[20:49] being something that happens in the

[20:51] future, they're built now and we have

[20:53] the infrastructure there. Uh and I think

[20:55] there's a less chance for future

[20:57] disputes uh with a deferral agreement

[20:59] and kind of the political challenges I

[21:01] referenced before or or uh you know,

[21:04] maybe some of the the legal debates of where it should apply and how it

[21:09] should be applied

[21:10] uh

[21:11] with the the the money in lieu of

[21:13] option.

[21:14] Uh the assessment in lieu of option.

[21:16] You know,

[21:17] I don't think there's any of that with it just being construct and

[21:20] constructed up front with with the

[21:22] subdivision uh and the improvements that

[21:24] need to happen before any

[21:26] homes are built.

[21:28] Cons,

[21:29] uh there could be potential design

[21:31] challenges.

[21:32] You know, anytime that that you have

[21:34] kind of you know,

[21:35] um

[21:37] segmented or or or uh

[21:41] you know, incremental construction, it uh

[21:45] it creates disconnects. It creates the

[21:47] situations the mayor talked about where

[21:48] you have sidewalks that end and and

[21:51] uh you know, you don't have that system

[21:53] that's that's put put together.

[21:55] Um

[21:57] incremental construction, I talked about

[21:58] that already of of of the challenges

[22:00] with that. And then just a lack of

[22:02] system and and varying maintenance

[22:04] schedule. If you have

[22:06] sidewalk and and storm water pipe that's

[22:08] built one year and then you have another

[22:10] segment right next to it that's built 10

[22:12] years later, they're going to be on

[22:13] different maintenance schedules and you

[22:15] might have pipe that goes out of

[22:17] uh you know, that needs to be replaced

[22:19] and you know, but but you have some pipe

[22:21] that's newer. It just makes makes a

[22:22] disconnect with with how all the

[22:24] maintenance and and how all of the, you

[22:26] know, the age of that infrastructure uh

[22:28] looks.

[22:30] So, those those are really the three

[22:31] options that I see and some of the pros

[22:33] and cons. Uh

[22:34] Let me just go up to to the construction

[22:36] [clears throat] option.

[22:38] Um

[22:39] let me give you my recommendation and

[22:41] you know, I've talked with John, I've

[22:42] talked with Norm. There's there's really

[22:44] so many different ways to look at this.

[22:46] There's maybe not necessarily a right or

[22:48] wrong way.

[22:49] But my personal feeling and and my

[22:51] experience in working with the deferral

[22:53] agreements and thinking about what they

[22:55] mean for the city and and what impacts

[22:57] they'll create and what challenges

[22:59] they'll present,

[23:02] I think we're to a point now uh where we

[23:04] weren't 15 years ago. And that is that

[23:06] we do have some general design of what

[23:08] the infrastructure would look would look

[23:09] like. What I mean by that is in our

[23:11] master plan, we have a cross-section for

[23:14] what the core area of town

[23:15] infrastructure needs to be. Uh

[23:18] is that a complete design? No, I think

[23:21] each individual subdivision will need to

[23:23] have more specific designs to make it

[23:24] all work. But I think we have enough of

[23:27] a design that I think we should we

[23:28] should start to require it and just see

[23:30] the infrastructure built. Again, it does

[23:33] create some challenges. It does create

[23:34] some concerns of you know, uh

[23:37] infrastructure that's not connected. But

[23:39] uh an example of that is is on Center

[23:41] Street across from the cemetery, there

[23:44] is a couple town homes there that have

[23:46] the infrastructure in front of them.

[23:49] It's not ideal, but but it still works.

[23:51] And and we have that infrastructure in

[23:52] and we don't need to worry about trying

[23:55] to to recover those costs in in a

[23:58] deferral agreement or or you know, money

[24:01] in assessment in lieu of that that might

[24:03] not uh equal the actual cost of putting

[24:05] in that infrastructure.

[24:07] But on top of that recommendation of of

[24:09] taking this approach

[24:11] uh from now on with with any uh

[24:14] development that's proposed in the core

[24:16] area of town,

[24:18] it's my recommendation. I think over the

[24:20] next 5 to 10 years, I think roughly we

[24:22] have

[24:23] and I I don't know for sure, but we have

[24:26] I don't know, 15 to 20 or so deferral

[24:28] agreements right now that have happened

[24:29] over the past 15 years.

[24:31] I think since we're to a point where the

[24:32] infrastructure is a little bit better

[24:35] understanding of what the design of that

[24:36] should look like, I think we should

[24:38] start um fulfilling those deferral

[24:41] agreements and do two or three starting

[24:43] with the oldest ones before they sunset.

[24:45] And I think we start getting that those

[24:47] infrastructure improvements built. One,

[24:49] we're not going to, you know, see those

[24:51] agreements sunset and and not be able to you know, have the the obligations

[24:57] that were on on these these people that

[24:59] develop property just disappear into

[25:01] thin air. Uh but two, I think it'll

[25:04] start to to slowly build the

[25:06] infrastructure in the core area that we

[25:08] need in order to to meet those eventual

[25:11] obligations that the state will will put

[25:13] on us for storm water. Um

[25:17] in summary, I don't think there's an

[25:18] ideal option here. I think the other way

[25:21] I'd sum this up is I think deferral

[25:23] agreements are not the way to go. And

[25:25] the more they happen, the more

[25:28] uh challenges I see and the more um

[25:31] the more that I think that deferral

[25:33] agreements are not the best way to

[25:34] continue moving forward. Uh

[25:36] we still have deferral agreements out

[25:38] there and I think we start to to see

[25:40] those those worked on and build and like

[25:42] I say, we do two or three a year and that way they

[25:45] won't we won't see them sunset. Uh

[25:48] and and we start to see some

[25:49] construction happen, but those are my

[25:51] thoughts. These Again, these are things

[25:53] that I wanted to bring before you to

[25:54] help you understand kind of the bigger

[25:57] um

[25:57] philosophy behind why the city has done

[25:59] deferral agreements and and what some of

[26:01] the pros and cons are for for deferral

[26:03] agreements and for other options. So, uh

[26:07] I bring that to you for your discussion

[26:08] and you know, I don't expect any

[26:10] decision's going to be made tonight or

[26:11] maybe maybe there will be, but uh we

[26:14] wanted to bring this for you before you

[26:16] so you could be,

[26:17] you know, better understand it and be

[26:19] thinking about how you think the city

[26:21] should move forward on this particular

[26:22] topic as we continue to get subdivision

[26:25] proposals in the core area of town.

[26:29] >> [clears throat]

[26:29] >> I have a

[26:30] >> I I do want to say that we've got three

[26:33] or four other items that we want to talk

[26:34] about in this meeting. If we spend too

[26:37] much time going over it, we're going to

[26:39] be inundated with a a massive amount of

[26:42] business in our work set or in our

[26:45] regular session.

[26:46] I I would suggest maybe that uh

[26:50] the seeds have been planted

[26:53] And I would like to push it, you know, a

[26:56] month or two down the road. Give us a

[26:59] chance to look at it. In the meantime,

[27:01] we're going to be starting the new

[27:04] updated wastewater plan.

[27:07] >> Stormwater.

[27:07] plan, yeah.

[27:10] That's all wastewater in there.

[27:14] But

[27:15] the good thing about that is that that

[27:17] rolls right into this and and the need

[27:20] to develop basins or capture areas or to

[27:24] be able to disperse the water to the

[27:27] aquifer or whatever we do with that

[27:29] plan.

[27:30] But it's going to make more sense and

[27:33] it'll help us to

[27:36] look at where some of these best areas

[27:39] might be and I think if we go

[27:43] two months on it, maybe that's going to

[27:45] give us a chance to come back and say

[27:48] if if you really want to do this, here's

[27:50] where we want to look. In the meanwhile,

[27:52] we'll still be looking at deferral

[27:54] agreements until we have a better

[27:56] method, but if we're tying this down or

[28:00] into something, I think

[28:02] rather than try to answer it tonight,

[28:04] this may be the best way to do it.

[28:07] Not that I want to kick it down the

[28:09] road, but I want to kick it down the

[28:10] road.

[28:13] I just I don't think this is opportune.

[28:16] >> You want to defer the conversation?

[28:18] >> [laughter]

[28:19] >> Yes, please.

[28:20] >> Well,

[28:21] do you feel different?

[28:24] >> No, I had some questions, but I can just

[28:25] talk with Jason afterward and and that

[28:27] way it gives us time to think about

[28:28] this. So, I think it's fine. I don't

[28:30] think we need to have a discussion right

[28:32] now.

[28:32] >> I think it's something that's really

[28:33] going to take some time and

[28:36] we're going to have to figure out how to

[28:38] arm ourselves because you think

[28:42] balancing the budget's tough.

[28:44] Figure that 200 million in here and how

[28:46] we're going to come up with it. So,

[28:49] who knows?

[28:51] Maybe we'll find a way, but

[28:54] is that all right?

[28:55] >> You're leading the meeting, Mayor.

[28:56] >> You bet. Thank you, Jason. I appreciate

[28:59] it. And yes, we need to look at it and

[29:03] we'll take it to the next level, okay?

[29:06] Let's move on to the discussion on the

[29:09] rec buildings' uses and schedules.

[29:12] >> Yeah, so Mayor and Council, we have our

[29:15] community services director here. She

[29:16] and I have been working, mostly she

[29:18] has been working on this for the last

[29:20] couple of weeks since we talked about it

[29:21] before and we now present to you a new

[29:24] and improved,

[29:25] hopefully, schedule that we can look at

[29:27] and kind of take a look at and see where

[29:29] we're going.

[29:30] Um Cammie, if you want to come up and

[29:32] just lead the discussion, we we I I do

[29:34] want to say that we we heard the

[29:37] concerns of the council that were

[29:39] expressed a couple of them in the last

[29:40] meeting and went back to the drawing board and uh tried to to do a couple of

[29:45] things, nail things down of where things

[29:47] are actually at and what's being used

[29:49] and kind of the the current programs that we have and

[29:53] how we can expand and what we can add

[29:56] and all that kind of stuff. So,

[29:57] please.

[29:58] >> Well, you kind of summed it up. Norm

[30:00] won't have much to say after that. But

[30:01] per um Mayor's direction, we came back

[30:04] and had some more discussions um

[30:06] regarding the schedule that was proposed

[30:08] uh a couple weeks ago. Um I talked to um

[30:12] Councilman Del Rosario and so did Norm

[30:14] and Norm and I have been talking. I've

[30:15] talked with our staff and our

[30:16] instructors and our contractors um about

[30:20] programming that um can be moved and

[30:23] adjusted. Our contractors have been very

[30:25] accommodating, which I've appreciated.

[30:27] Um they freed up a few

[30:29] um hours in of their schedules to

[30:32] accommodate each other, which um worked

[30:34] out really well. So, as of right now,

[30:37] the the section, the kind of purple

[30:40] section, that's the current recreation

[30:42] building um where we had a lot of

[30:44] programming still happening in that

[30:45] building a couple weeks ago. We've now

[30:47] freed up a lot of that space

[30:50] to be used in the future for some

[30:54] open kind of workout

[30:56] opportunities for the community

[30:59] and have moved majority of our

[31:01] programming over to the new recreation

[31:03] building.

[31:04] Um

[31:05] our what couple of our main concerns

[31:08] that I discussed a couple weeks ago were

[31:11] that we were having a lot of fitness

[31:12] classes still here at City Hall which we

[31:14] were trying to minimize that and put

[31:17] them into a building where the child

[31:19] care was um

[31:21] given or

[31:23] where we hold our child care facility.

[31:25] So we were able to free up the majority

[31:27] of our fitness classes from City Hall

[31:30] with this proposed schedule except for

[31:33] our senior fitness classes which they

[31:35] like to have here at City Hall. Um

[31:38] they're here for their senior

[31:40] activities on Tuesdays and Thursdays

[31:41] anyway and this is an appropriate place

[31:45] for those classes to be held. So

[31:48] currently right now

[31:50] as you can see in the purple section we

[31:52] have just a handful of fitness classes

[31:54] that need to remain or currently need to

[31:56] remain in the old building. They

[31:59] conflict with schedules with our

[32:01] contractors as well as other fitness

[32:03] classes that they can't really be held

[32:05] side by side. For example, you can't

[32:07] have Zumba on one side of the building

[32:09] while you're having yoga on the other.

[32:11] They just don't really coincide with

[32:12] each other.

[32:13] >> [clears throat]

[32:14] >> Um so those fitness classes

[32:17] are currently still planned to be held in the old

[32:21] recreation building but

[32:23] we have freed up quite a bit of time in

[32:26] the morning

[32:27] for what we could propose in the future

[32:29] for some open workout um

[32:32] time for the community

[32:34] and some evening time as well. That

[32:36] middle section that looks like a

[32:38] checkerboard,

[32:39] I kind of did as far as um

[32:43] there's a potential there to to not only

[32:45] have open workout time, but also

[32:48] scheduled instruction

[32:50] um classes scheduled where you have a an

[32:53] actual fitness instructor on-site

[32:56] helping people to use the equipment

[32:57] properly, um

[32:59] having classes around the equipment. For

[33:01] example, like a workout of the day which

[33:03] for those of you who are familiar with

[33:04] CrossFit, but that's kind of a CrossFit

[33:06] type class that's not affiliated with

[33:08] CrossFit. Um

[33:10] but also some weight training classes,

[33:12] some circuit training classes that would

[33:14] use the equipment that we're hoping to

[33:16] purchase and put in that facility, but

[33:18] have an instructor there on-site to help

[33:20] monitor and keep things safe and secure.

[33:23] Um

[33:25] Anyway, so that's kind of what we're

[33:27] proposing. It looks like there is some

[33:29] potential there. Our main drawback, of

[33:31] course, is that we don't really have the

[33:32] appropriate staff to man that facility,

[33:35] especially from 5:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.

[33:38] every day. So, that's our biggest hurdle

[33:40] and that will come hopefully in the near

[33:42] to

[33:44] hopefully not very far out that we'll

[33:46] have the staff we need that are

[33:48] certified and um

[33:50] ready to to help run a a workout type

[33:53] facility. Um

[33:56] that's what I have to say. Do you have

[33:57] any questions I can I can walk through

[34:00] some of that with you. You can't really

[34:02] see the rest of it, but um

[34:04] it does accommodate all of the cheer and

[34:07] the tumbling and the martial arts in the

[34:09] new building space, which we're really

[34:10] grateful for. Um that space is is really

[34:14] adequate for for those programs.

[34:23] » So,

[34:24] questions on that for Cammy? I've got

[34:26] some pictures of some of the equipment

[34:27] that that we've been looking at that we

[34:29] could potentially purchase that I can

[34:30] bring up as well. Again, not an

[34:32] exhaustive list, but just some examples

[34:34] of what we believe could fit in the

[34:36] building while still accommodating some

[34:39] of the other classes and making it so

[34:40] that it's not one or the other. We can

[34:43] do both, which is what we two of the

[34:45] council members talked about the last

[34:47] time we were in this meeting, and we

[34:48] wanted to make sure that we heard and

[34:50] we're trying to address that. So,

[34:52] >> Kim, can I ask you else? Yeah, go ahead.

[34:54] Can I ask you um

[34:56] I don't know how I I feel like you have

[34:58] more experience in this.

[35:00] How How do you make it like dual use? Do

[35:01] you have like a fence around? You know

[35:03] how like there's like at a Vasa there's

[35:05] like

[35:06] the personal trainer fence area in the

[35:08] middle of the Vasa. How do you make it

[35:10] so that it's multi-use? Because I like

[35:12] that idea.

[35:13] But then yeah you know what I'm saying

[35:15] like having weight equipment out to

[35:17] >> So, I actually spoke with Eric Anderson.

[35:19] He's our Precor rep um that

[35:23] John Bradley had been speaking to about

[35:25] some equipment. Um

[35:27] he had a long list of equipment that he and John had gone through, but

[35:30] it wasn't um

[35:32] we don't have the budget for all of

[35:34] that. So, what he and I kind of mapped

[35:36] out was almost like um

[35:39] equipment around the the sides like in

[35:41] an L-shape around the the old recreation

[35:43] building, which would leave the center

[35:46] area still open for fitness classes. Um

[35:49] some of that equipment can be brought

[35:51] out like things like medicine ball, slam

[35:53] balls, those kind of things can be

[35:55] incorporated into those type classes,

[35:57] but then stored on the side where the

[36:00] cardio equipment and the um we're

[36:02] looking at like a rig. I don't know if

[36:03] you're familiar with rigs like squat

[36:05] rigs where um you can do wall ball

[36:08] exercises on them. You can do um banded

[36:11] lift the the that's the rig.

[36:14] Where you can do you know banded

[36:15] pull-ups and and assisted pull-ups.

[36:17] These that's a squat rack one of the

[36:19] other things we're looking at um having,

[36:21] but all of that would be like I said on

[36:23] the

[36:24] on kind of around the out of the of the

[36:27] facility leaving the middle section.

[36:30] And then after the after the buildings

[36:32] have been opened, the new building

[36:33] especially, and we have can adjust and

[36:36] make improvements and and look for ways

[36:39] to adjust all of this as we can then

[36:41] afford to

[36:43] purchase more equipment, then that would

[36:45] impede on that middle space. But then

[36:47] we're in a place where we have the

[36:48] staff, we have the equipment, and we can

[36:51] use that more for what was maybe

[36:53] proposed before.

[36:55] >> So Brian, I think

[36:56] >> Does that answer your question?

[36:57] >> Yeah, because well, I was also thinking,

[36:59] you know, like my home gym where it's

[37:01] like

[37:01] take kids, don't come over and hit get

[37:04] the weights to fall on you, you know,

[37:05] like a 50-lb weight. But if you have it

[37:07] in that L, you have that visibility of

[37:09] if there's someone is around there, like

[37:11] even if it's an adult, you want to be

[37:13] safe, too. So I like that idea. So it's

[37:16] all all the machines are visible.

[37:17] >> Yeah, you can see.

[37:18] >> It's almost like zoned. Like the east

[37:20] side of the building and then and the

[37:22] north line to the little corral area

[37:24] right there would would be that L-shape

[37:27] that she's talking about, freeing up the

[37:28] middle. And then again, the the kettle

[37:30] balls or whatever they're going to use

[37:31] during a an instructed class could still

[37:34] come out in the middle and be in there,

[37:35] but you still have that weight equipment

[37:36] on the outside and the strength training

[37:38] and school equipment on the outside.

[37:39] >> And we would do it for where the

[37:40] strength, you know, weight weighted

[37:42] equipment is on one side, cardio

[37:44] equipment kind of in in a zone sectioned

[37:46] off so that, you know, it's it's more

[37:49] structured than it is just equipment out here in the room.

[37:53] >> I like that idea.

[37:56] So that's our story and we're sticking

[37:57] to it unless you have other thoughts or

[37:59] comments.

[38:00] >> Any other questions?

[38:01] >> Um I I would indicate again, Cammy's

[38:03] done a great job working with with

[38:06] our fitness instructors, with our

[38:08] contractors, and all that kind of stuff.

[38:09] I would just to to emphasize on the

[38:11] left-hand side in the older building,

[38:13] all that purple stuff right now we don't

[38:15] have staffing for. So we will have to

[38:17] figure out how those early mornings and

[38:19] those later evenings, how we get

[38:20] staffing and potentially child care in

[38:22] there. Right right now we don't have

[38:24] that. Um the the grayish areas are the

[38:27] ones like the workout of the day or the

[38:29] ones that are less purple, I guess is

[38:31] the best way cuz the screen's not

[38:32] showing right. [laughter]

[38:34] The gray areas would be instructed

[38:36] classes would be structured with an

[38:38] instructor when be in there again using

[38:40] either the weight training equipment or

[38:42] whatever other equipment that we have in

[38:43] there. So that's not so much of a worry

[38:46] but but as far as staffing is concerned

[38:48] cuz we would have instructors to be able

[38:50] to grow into that.

[38:53] >> And just overall, I just wanted to say,

[38:55] you know, we are hoping to just maximize

[38:57] the space that we have but also allow

[39:00] for expansion of future programming and

[39:02] classing and classes, you know, in the

[39:05] future. So um

[39:06] we think that this will allow for that.

[39:12] » Did we get it?

[39:14] Are we on the right track?

[39:15] >> I I want to add, you know, I want to

[39:16] apologize I already apologize talked

[39:18] with uh both Norm and Cammie, but I

[39:22] wanted to say here

[39:23] um the last meeting I was really

[39:25] confused about the plans and

[39:28] yeah, well, there was a change from the

[39:30] original plans. I I realized after

[39:33] talking and thinking it through that

[39:36] what I said to Norm and Cammie wasn't

[39:39] right. Um

[39:41] they're just trying to do the best with

[39:44] what's available to them

[39:46] and I really appreciate the creativity

[39:49] to make this happen. Um

[39:51] so well,

[39:53] you know, it wasn't right for me how I went about that, you know, and I

[39:57] apologize about that. Um

[39:59] I do want to highlight like it's I thank

[40:02] Norm and Cammie for helping me see

[40:04] things with more context. Um

[40:08] and with the limitations that, you know,

[40:10] weren't right in the front of my mind of

[40:13] that we don't have staffing for a lot of

[40:15] this and so we have to be creative. So,

[40:17] I really appreciate it. So, thanks for taking a a look at that.

[40:21] >> Well, thank you. I appreciate that.

[40:24] >> [snorts]

[40:26] » All right.

[40:27] >> Are we good with the way it's going?

[40:28] >> Unless there's any questions or other

[40:30] input that we have.

[40:32] >> It's good.

[40:34] >> Well, what about the equipment? How far

[40:35] away from making any decisions? We do

[40:38] have some money that are set aside for

[40:41] that.

[40:41] >> So, we currently have to finish the new

[40:44] building. That's going to require funds

[40:47] to finish the flooring, purchase the new

[40:49] flooring, the mats, some fans, the

[40:51] center divider. So, once that and John

[40:54] and I are going to start working on that

[40:56] as early as next week, probably looking

[40:58] at I'm getting some of that taken care

[41:00] of. Once all of that has been purchased,

[41:02] then we'll know the lump sum of money

[41:05] that we have for the equipment. And then

[41:07] Eric Anderson and I will get back

[41:08] together. Um he already has kind of

[41:10] started putting together what he thinks

[41:13] would work in that in that um limited

[41:16] space or limited area, as well as um

[41:19] Lindsay, our uh Scott, she's our fitness

[41:23] coordinator. Um she and I have kind of

[41:24] put together a wish list of what we

[41:26] think would would maximize that

[41:28] opportunity. So, um here probably in the

[41:30] next couple weeks, we'll know more about

[41:33] the equipment and when what we can get

[41:35] in there and how to use those funds to

[41:38] the best of our ability.

[41:40] >> [laughter]

[41:41] >> Okay.

[41:46] Good.

[41:47] >> Okay.

[41:47] >> Great. Thanks, Kim.

[41:48] >> questions?

[41:50] >> All right. Thank you.

[41:51] >> Okay.

[41:52] >> Um

[41:53] upcoming agenda items.

[41:56] >> Yeah, so mayor and council, we have uh

[41:58] in in the main meeting, the regular

[42:00] meeting, we have uh

[42:02] minutes. We have bills. You'll notice

[42:04] that the bills are quite large this

[42:05] time. That's because we're

[42:07] now paying for a fire truck, and it will

[42:09] be here

[42:11] uh supposedly within the next week or

[42:12] two. They they were uh our staff went

[42:15] back to to Alpharetta, Wisconsin

[42:18] and had a uh

[42:20] interesting time getting there, not not

[42:22] at the place, but

[42:24] after a 4 and 1/2 hour Uber ride, they

[42:26] were able to get to the to Alpharetta,

[42:28] Wisconsin and

[42:30] uh trained in and beautiful new truck

[42:32] and and identified some areas that they

[42:35] needed to have some either paint

[42:36] touch-up or other things that need to be

[42:38] addressed. And so, those will be coming

[42:40] in the we we anticipate in the next 2

[42:41] weeks we should have that to a fire

[42:44] truck on the ground in Salt Lake City

[42:45] and then down to here.

[42:47] Um architectural review committee

[42:49] appointment.

[42:52] >> Yeah, so uh I'm not sure if she'll be

[42:54] able to be here tonight, but it's

[42:55] someone that you all know. She's on our

[42:57] planning commission. If you remember,

[42:58] ARC requires that we have representation

[43:00] from the planning commission.

[43:02] Uh I've talked with her and she's she's

[43:04] good to to

[43:05] take on this role, but it would be um

[43:07] Breanna Nixon who we would suggest to be

[43:10] appointed to the the architectural

[43:12] review committee. Everybody else is

[43:14] already been appointed and is already

[43:15] there. Uh Kylie Lance would who was on

[43:18] the planning commission and and was was

[43:21] in that role, she would become the

[43:22] alternate based on the the ARC amendment

[43:25] that happened at the last meeting. So,

[43:27] yeah, Breanna Nixon is is the the person

[43:29] that we would ask for your your uh

[43:32] support and and approval to to appoint

[43:34] her to the ARC committee.

[43:38] >> Okay.

[43:39] >> During the public forum, we have a safe

[43:41] route to school discussion at Santaquin

[43:43] Elementary. I know that myself and I

[43:45] think the mayor and council member Keel

[43:47] have had and staff members have had

[43:50] emails and discussions with the PTA

[43:52] president at uh I think it's the PTA

[43:54] president, right, Travis?

[43:56] She's either on the board or

[43:58] >> School safety coordinator.

[44:00] >> Okay. Anyway, coming and talking about

[44:03] uh proposal ideas, thoughts for

[44:05] safe route to

[44:06] school at Santaquin Elementary. We'll

[44:08] have Chief Hurst and Jason Calloway will

[44:10] also be here. Everything from signage to

[44:14] stop

[44:15] crosswalks to other things that we'll

[44:17] talk about, I'm sure, during that

[44:18] discussion.

[44:19] >> Now,

[44:20] Rod said he had had discussion recently

[44:24] with

[44:25] school board. Do we want to ask him to

[44:28] come up first and

[44:29] >> We we may want to.

[44:31] >> all the stuff he's just gone through?

[44:33] >> may want to, and here's why. The the

[44:35] school district actually determines the

[44:37] Safe Routes to School. They we work with

[44:39] them, again, for everything from signage

[44:42] to to crosswalks to other things. We

[44:45] work with them and try and figure out

[44:46] the best route, but we are not the

[44:48] designee of Safe Routes to School. We

[44:50] can help with with things that are being

[44:52] requested or things that the school

[44:54] district will will request, but we do

[44:56] not designate or assign or fill in the

[44:59] blank of Safe Routes to School. That's

[45:01] done by the school district. And there's

[45:02] a reason for that. If you've ever seen

[45:03] the school district actually has a heat

[45:05] map.

[45:06] They they can look at Santaquin, and I

[45:08] turn north cuz that's the way I look at

[45:09] all maps. They they can look at

[45:11] Santaquin and say there's eight people

[45:13] in that block that go to this school, or

[45:15] there's four people in that block that

[45:17] go to this school. So, that that's how

[45:19] they do it is they use GIS and a and a

[45:21] heat map to be able to determine what

[45:23] may be best for Safe Routes to School.

[45:25] So, that that might be something to have

[45:28] him just come up and talk about. I I

[45:30] know that there have been some efforts

[45:31] in the past, last year,

[45:33] uh similar requests came in, and we

[45:35] painted uh an updated uh crosswalks and that kind of thing. And so, working

[45:40] with both the principal and the PTA and

[45:42] with the school district, we have done

[45:44] some things there. I'm I'm confident

[45:46] there's probably more that that there's

[45:47] will be requested.

[45:49] But, happy to answer any questions that

[45:51] I can on that, but again, we've got

[45:53] Chief Hurst who just met with the school

[45:55] district, and then Jason Calloway on our

[45:56] public works side of things.

[46:00] Uh

[46:01] item number six, resolution 03-06-03 is

[46:04] a

[46:06] municipal wastewater planning program.

[46:07] This is an annual thing that we have to

[46:09] submit and Jason goes in and fills this

[46:11] out online and this is just a resolution

[46:14] saying, yep, this is what we've done.

[46:16] Uh, resolution number seven, sorry, item

[46:19] number seven, resolution 06-04 is a fee

[46:21] schedule update. There's quite a few

[46:23] things on that. The the main impetus of

[46:25] a fee schedule update in June is for our

[46:28] COLA. Remember that we that each year we

[46:31] look at utility rates and and costs and

[46:33] all that kind of stuff and we do a cost

[46:34] of living adjustment for utility rates.

[46:37] So, that is happening here. Also,

[46:40] there's stuff on there, everything from

[46:41] street lights to stream street signage

[46:44] to rental of buildings and different

[46:46] parts of our parks and other things.

[46:48] I've worked with all departments and so

[46:51] there's a lot there, but this is just an

[46:53] annual update that we do. Sometimes

[46:55] we'll do one mid-year, but this year is

[46:57] just a the the normal June one that we

[46:59] adopt. Happy to answer any questions if

[47:02] you have questions on that. As you can

[47:04] see from some of those things, costs

[47:05] just continue to increase, whether it

[47:08] happens to be a hydrant meter for

[47:10] contractors when they use water from the

[47:12] city, whether it happens to be park

[47:14] rentals, whether it has to be street

[47:16] lights, costs just continue to increase,

[47:18] unfortunately.

[47:19] >> Can I ask a question on that? Um,

[47:22] I saw waste removal. I thought that the

[47:24] cost went down and from last year, the

[47:27] contract, maybe I'm misunderstanding

[47:29] that.

[47:29] >> It was it it was it was even, basically.

[47:31] It's within about and I have to pull up

[47:33] the spreadsheet, but the cost to to do

[47:35] it this year and remember that we have a

[47:37] COLA every year as well. So, the the

[47:39] cost from Republic to Waste Management

[47:42] was about even. Now, I can tell you that

[47:44] in the time since we've had the the uh,

[47:48] the contract with Waste Management, and

[47:49] nothing to do with Waste Management, but

[47:52] uh, recycle costs have increased $15 a

[47:54] ton just in the last month from the time

[47:57] that we adopted the the tentative budget

[47:59] to now just just

[48:01] tipping fees for recycle.

[48:04] Just

[48:05] >> So our cost with waste management is

[48:07] going up. And so these

[48:09] >> It will next year. It doesn't It is

[48:12] going up just I want to say it's about

[48:15] 8 cents a can. Don't quote me on that. I

[48:17] can pull up between the meeting if you

[48:18] want me to, but I want to say that their

[48:19] cost was about 8 cents per can more than

[48:22] what we're currently paying with

[48:23] Republic. But they came in the lowest

[48:25] cost estimate.

[48:27] >> Okay. Okay. That makes sense. Yeah.

[48:30] I just wanted to make sure that we

[48:31] weren't increasing those fees

[48:35] without an actual need from us.

[48:38] But yeah.

[48:39] >> Yeah.

[48:39] Okay.

[48:40] >> Yep. I I think we're good. I'm happy to

[48:42] answer any questions that you have. Item

[48:43] number eight is the certified tax rate.

[48:46] That is the the

[48:48] tax rate that has been assigned by the

[48:51] state for the

[48:53] um it's called the certified tax rate

[48:55] for the mill levy.

[48:56] And that rate

[48:58] as I've indicated to council members and

[49:00] the mayor that rate has gone down

[49:02] .00001.

[49:04] So 1/10,000 of a decimal point has gone

[49:07] down.

[49:08] Um if that's what's adopted tonight, I

[49:10] know there's been some other discussion.

[49:11] We're happy to have discussion about

[49:12] that. But what's being presented at the

[49:14] mayor's direction tonight is the

[49:15] certified tax rate. And then item number

[49:18] nine would be a final budget. Should

[49:20] that pass and should that be the

[49:21] direction that's taking then that taken,

[49:25] then there would be no more need to

[49:27] continue on with the truth and taxation

[49:28] process, the noticing the the um

[49:34] newspaper ads, the public hearings, etc.

[49:37] Now I I do want to make sure that

[49:38] everybody's aware we still have a public

[49:39] hearing on June 30th for this current

[49:42] fiscal year that we're in. So that's

[49:43] different than than what's being

[49:45] presented tonight and there's no public

[49:47] hearing required tonight to just adopt

[49:49] the certified tax rate should that be

[49:51] what the council wants to do. And at the

[49:53] direction of the mayor that's what we

[49:54] have presented and also in the final

[49:55] budget.

[49:58] Resolution 0607 is approval of URS

[50:01] service agreement. Um we have our

[50:04] finance director here. Shannon, if you

[50:06] want to come up and talk about those two

[50:07] items that the URS

[50:09] service agreement and the employer pick

[50:11] up.

[50:12] >> Uh so the service agreement is just um

[50:14] to update the contract or the agreement

[50:16] that we have with URS to add a couple

[50:18] services that they've rolled out. Um one

[50:21] being a um

[50:24] a

[50:25] um Roth 457 and a Roth 401K. In order

[50:29] for our employees to be able to

[50:31] participate in those we have to sign a

[50:33] service agreement basically saying we're

[50:34] allowing it. Um also on that there's a

[50:37] box that we can check that says we allow

[50:39] any of our part-time employees whether

[50:41] they're benefited or not, they can take

[50:43] money out of their own paycheck and they

[50:44] can invest it in URS. So it's just an

[50:47] update to that service agreement to add

[50:48] those two things.

[50:50] >> If and I wanted to ask a question on the

[50:53] 401 or the Roth if they have existing

[50:57] uh with previous employer or some

[51:01] something along those lines,

[51:02] >> [clears throat]

[51:03] >> do we allow them or is this allowed to

[51:06] roll them into that so they can continue

[51:09] on

[51:09] >> that's between the employee and URS but

[51:11] yes, they allow any type of

[51:14] um savings plan that a

[51:16] employee had somewhere else to be rolled

[51:18] over into URS. You have to work with URS

[51:20] to do that.

[51:21] >> It doesn't have anything to do with us

[51:23] unless they're the employees yeah.

[51:25] >> allowable is what what I'm asking. Some

[51:29] don't allow it to be moved and

[51:31] >> Yeah, and they're they they also allow

[51:33] loans to be taken out um and we had to

[51:35] put on there whether we're going to

[51:36] allow employees to take loans out which

[51:38] basically then we just pay back through

[51:40] payroll deduction. They just want us as

[51:42] an employer to um say whether we allow

[51:44] that or not and whether we want to do

[51:47] the payroll deductions if they do take

[51:49] out a loan.

[51:51] » Which it was checked, right?

[51:53] >> Yes. Yep, all those things were checked.

[51:57] » The pick up if you want to cover that.

[51:59] >> the pick up. The next item is

[52:01] um so every year URS uh does a

[52:03] recalculation of their rates. Um this

[52:06] year with the public safety,

[52:08] uh those those amounts went up for the

[52:11] tier two defined benefit. It's just that

[52:13] one little section of uh public safety

[52:16] tier two in the defined benefit plan,

[52:18] not the not the 401k plan, but the

[52:20] defined benefit was basically is the

[52:22] pension plan. Um those rates went up. Um

[52:25] and we as a city are allowed to decide

[52:28] whether we want to pick up that amount

[52:30] or not. In the past, we have picked up

[52:32] the total amount. And at the mayor's

[52:34] direction, we uh on the agenda is

[52:37] um

[52:38] the option to pick up that entire

[52:39] amount.

[52:41] >> And that is budgeted.

[52:43] >> Yes, it is budgeted currently.

[52:48] » Any questions for Shannon?

[52:51] >> Is that what um

[52:55] We can talk about it when we get to the

[52:57] budget, but I noticed that there was

[52:59] like $30,000 increase from the tentative

[53:01] budget to the final budget in

[53:04] uh police employee benefits. Is that

[53:07] >> No, that was just a missed um somebody's

[53:10] benefits were missed. When I got back

[53:13] going through that um to update the the

[53:15] benefits with the reduction of the

[53:17] savings, I noticed that there was one

[53:19] person that actually got missed. And

[53:20] that's about what it costs for one

[53:22] person for for benefits.

[53:23] >> Okay. Okay, that makes sense.

[53:25] >> Yep.

[53:27] Anything else on those two items?

[53:31] » So, Jason, you can cover 11 and 12 or 12

[53:33] and 13, I mean.

[53:35] >> Yeah, so item number [clears throat] 12,

[53:37] ordinance amending landscaping

[53:38] requirements. I know I've talked with

[53:40] Council member City Attorney about this.

[53:41] He's gotten some concerns from residents

[53:43] about this change. Really, this is a

[53:46] change that that we're obligated to do because state legislation has told

[53:51] us we cannot uh continue to to do how we

[53:55] um how we address landscaping

[53:57] requirements. Right now, our code

[53:58] requires that before you get a CFO, you

[54:01] have to have landscaping in.

[54:04] Uh the state, I think in the name of

[54:05] affordable housing, doesn't doesn't

[54:07] allow us to do that anymore. Uh there's

[54:09] kind of a a history on this that I've

[54:11] talked with Jeff about. There was a time

[54:13] where the city required landscaping

[54:15] bonds for for people to to to either put

[54:18] the landscaping in or do a landscaping

[54:20] bond so so that we had landscaping in

[54:22] sooner than later. The reason why there

[54:24] was such a an emphasis and an effort to

[54:26] do that was because, you know, we

[54:28] frequently get concerns of people that

[54:30] complained about their neighbors who

[54:31] didn't have landscaping in and it was

[54:33] generating a lot of dust or weeds or

[54:37] erosion issues or just plain aesthetics

[54:40] of of

[54:41] someone someone with a yard that's not uh

[54:44] a landscape.

[54:46] Our options are really kind of limited

[54:48] here. Each time the city uh does

[54:50] something to address that that lands

[54:52] those landscaping concerns or lack of

[54:53] landscaping concerns, uh the state

[54:56] passes legislation that that uh probably

[54:58] is in reaction to to how we've been

[55:00] doing things. Um

[55:02] there certainly could be a requirement

[55:04] to require it uh within a certain time

[55:06] after CFO, but we don't have really any

[55:09] leverage to to enforce that. It would

[55:11] just be a typical enforcement issue

[55:13] where we issue a fine, but again, that

[55:15] becomes counter

[55:16] productive to, you know, for finding

[55:19] somebody, then they're losing money to

[55:21] actually put into their landscaping. Um

[55:24] So,

[55:25] yeah, it's it's the same challenge like

[55:27] anything else. Like code enforcement is

[55:29] not an easy thing. It's not something

[55:30] that's quickly done and is expensive to

[55:32] enforce. So, our proposal with this

[55:34] amendment is to just basically conform

[55:36] to state code and that is that

[55:39] we don't require landscaping before COO

[55:42] is issued and and I guess from then

[55:45] we'll just hope that people are

[55:46] motivated to get their landscaping in.

[55:49] >> Jason, if someone has already posted a

[55:52] landscaping bond, would they be eligible

[55:54] to have that reimbursed?

[55:55] >> I believe so, yep.

[55:57] I think because we can't require it

[55:58] anymore.

[55:59] >> I would bet we've already released all

[56:01] of those.

[56:02] >> Yeah.

[56:07] And the landscaping bond was the

[56:08] approach that we took years ago.

[56:11] Probably now for two or three years or

[56:13] at least we've we've had this you can't

[56:15] get a COO until you get landscaping in.

[56:17] So there's no bond amounts that we've

[56:19] held on to for for years.

[56:22] >> So if if the city had some of those

[56:24] bonds, they've all been refunded.

[56:26] >> It sounds like it, yep.

[56:27] >> Okay, thank you.

[56:29] Why did we refund them?

[56:32] >> Pardon that?

[56:33] >> Why did we

[56:33] >> Cuz the state legislature

[56:34] >> It's illegal for us to hold them.

[56:36] >> Because we can't hold landscaping bonds

[56:38] anymore.

[56:39] >> Is there a way that you know we can

[56:41] charge a fee or put a requirement? This

[56:44] is a concern that I have.

[56:47] I just went to the Parade of Homes Utah

[56:49] Valley and you go into these nice

[56:51] neighborhoods and you see people that

[56:52] buy these houses that they totally can't

[56:54] afford in Mapleton, these really big

[56:56] houses and for years they just have dirt

[56:59] and it's disgusting and it's dirty, it

[57:02] makes everyone else's

[57:04] cars, their house is dirty from dust.

[57:07] Is there a way

[57:09] I don't really feel comfortable with the

[57:11] current ordinance but I wonder is there

[57:14] a way that we could just charge to their

[57:16] city bill a fee

[57:18] for non-enforcement because

[57:21] that that that's an easy way to enforce

[57:23] it because they have to have a city bill if they're

[57:26] going to be having landscaping they're

[57:28] almost 100% going to have a city bill.

[57:30] It'd would great for that to be a way I

[57:33] think that's

[57:33] >> that we ought to ask our legal counsel.

[57:36] >> I don't know that you could do that.

[57:38] Because it looks like it's a way of

[57:40] getting around what the legislature

[57:41] intended. There are ways that you can

[57:43] enforce something like nuisance if if

[57:47] it's the related weeds growing where it

[57:49] would be grass, you can then enforce

[57:51] that, but

[57:52] the remedy is to get rid of the weeds.

[57:55] >> The problem is is I feel like that's so

[57:56] hard to enforce though. It's that's how

[57:58] I'm like The certificate of occupancy is like a really easy to be like, "You

[58:05] have to do this." And that's why I'm

[58:06] wondering, is there a way

[58:08] to say, "Hey, we allow this. You have 1

[58:12] year."

[58:13] And or or or some way for us to force a

[58:16] fee collection similar to like how an

[58:18] HOA and you know, I'm I'll be crucified

[58:20] for this. An HOA to like put a lien on a

[58:23] house. If we if we already have billing,

[58:25] is there a way for us to charge that fee

[58:27] to encourage it? Um I just I just know

[58:30] that when we open the door to something

[58:31] like this, basically we're saying, "You

[58:33] never have to do this."

[58:36] Like you never have to. And and I don't

[58:38] think there's any way to enforce it cost

[58:40] efficiently.

[58:41] >> The only way I'm comfortable right now

[58:44] expressing any opinion on this is that

[58:46] if it's a nuisance,

[58:48] you establish that it is a nuisance, we

[58:50] still have nuisance regulations. And our

[58:52] those aren't only weeds, they can

[58:54] contain other things, too. So,

[58:56] we can look at

[58:58] how we might

[59:00] encompass [snorts] some of those things.

[59:01] But I think as far as just putting a fee

[59:03] on it,

[59:04] I think

[59:05] the state is likely going to say

[59:08] >> So, so to be clear, this ordinance is

[59:10] just getting us in line with state code.

[59:12] We can't be sideways with state code.

[59:13] And so, like it or don't like it, we

[59:16] we've we've done it for years and had

[59:19] those those bonds and it's worked out

[59:21] really well, but the reality of it is is

[59:23] the state has now come down and said,

[59:24] "You can't do that." At CO at of all or

[59:27] building permit or any other you you

[59:29] can't hold a

[59:31] C of O because they don't have

[59:33] landscaping in.

[59:34] >> And we we have a

[59:34] >> No, but but like the bigger builders,

[59:36] they'll put it in because it's part of

[59:38] our code.

[59:39] >> No, they'll put it in because they just

[59:40] want to have landscaping and it's it

[59:42] brings value to the the home.

[59:43] >> Cuz I mean they do the bare minimum.

[59:46] >> Right.

[59:46] >> No, they they do up until exact

[59:48] requirement in the code is where they do

[59:50] landscaping and very bare minimum. It's

[59:51] really bad.

[59:52] >> Yeah.

[59:53] >> So the concerns you expressed we

[59:54] completely agree with and that's why

[59:56] we've had these different strategies to

[59:57] try and and and and get people to put

[1:00:00] landscaping in sooner than later, but

[1:00:02] Norm's exactly right. This is getting in

[1:00:04] line with state code. If there is some

[1:00:05] sort of an enforcement

[1:00:07] uh strategy that you want to to look at

[1:00:10] uh regarding new citizens and stuff, but

[1:00:12] again, like I explained

[1:00:14] code enforcement is is not always an

[1:00:16] easy thing. It's time consuming. It's

[1:00:18] expensive and really it's going to be

[1:00:20] what's the priority of the council for the you know

[1:00:24] the priority to make this you know to

[1:00:27] enforce these types of of of issues. Uh

[1:00:30] we're happy to do that at your

[1:00:31] direction, but again, it's a it's a challenging thing that the

[1:00:34] city has tried to to do in different

[1:00:36] ways and state legislation state

[1:00:38] legislature continues to to not allow

[1:00:40] the city to do that way and again, I

[1:00:42] think it's all in the name of of

[1:00:44] affordable housing that to have that cost of landscaping up front is

[1:00:49] just adding to the cost of housing and they're trying to remove those those

[1:00:53] costs

[1:00:54] as a barrier for people to get

[1:00:55] affordable housing.

[1:00:57] >> Okay. Yeah, thanks.

[1:01:00] >> Uh item number 13,

[1:01:02] uh ordinance amending the zoning map of

[1:01:03] Santa Cruz City. This is a specific uh

[1:01:05] ordinance proposal proposal by an

[1:01:07] applicant. This is not coming from

[1:01:09] staff. Let me make that clear.

[1:01:11] Uh I think that they might be here

[1:01:12] tonight. I've I've encouraged staff to tell them they should be here to

[1:01:16] represent their application.

[1:01:18] Um but

[1:01:20] we'll see if they come. I know that they

[1:01:21] were maybe a little bit

[1:01:23] >> [clears throat]

[1:01:23] >> discouraged. The Planning Commission

[1:01:24] gave a unanimous recommendation not to

[1:01:27] approve this zoning proposal.

[1:01:29] Essentially, this is a property that's

[1:01:31] on Highway 198, just kind of north of

[1:01:33] the Apex storage units there.

[1:01:36] It's It's an older home.

[1:01:38] They're proposing to to change the zone

[1:01:41] from residential agriculture to

[1:01:45] residential commercial, so R-Ag to R-C.

[1:01:48] Um

[1:01:49] Their intent in doing this this

[1:01:51] [clears throat] rezone is they want to have a business in there. And right

[1:01:56] now, the business is is a daycare.

[1:02:00] Um I know it that

[1:02:02] in the past they've also talked about

[1:02:03] doing a stance studio there.

[1:02:05] Essentially, what they're trying to do

[1:02:06] is is start a business and and be able

[1:02:09] to work from I should say

[1:02:10] [clears throat] start a business as a

[1:02:11] home occupation with with limited number

[1:02:14] of of kids that they can have there and build that up and eventually get

[1:02:18] enough revenue that they can turn into

[1:02:20] more of a commercial operation. Um I

[1:02:23] think the Planning Commission's feelings

[1:02:24] was was great, that's we can support you

[1:02:27] in that that effort. However,

[1:02:30] residential commercial may not be the

[1:02:31] best approach. There may be a

[1:02:34] C-1 commercial interchange is a better

[1:02:36] approach because that's more focused on business. However, if they change to

[1:02:41] commercial interchange, home occupations

[1:02:43] aren't allowed in that zone. So, their

[1:02:45] suggestion was the zone that you have is

[1:02:47] R-Ag, you can do home home occupations

[1:02:49] and and you should start and do it that

[1:02:52] way. Um

[1:02:53] Again, they're motivated to try and and

[1:02:55] get the business going and and make some

[1:02:57] revenue, but I I also,

[1:02:59] uh you know, I'm I'm I'm concerned that, uh

[1:03:03] they're also not excited about the site

[1:03:06] improvements that they would need to

[1:03:07] have there for a commercial operation.

[1:03:09] They would need to have curb,

[1:03:10] [clears throat] gutter, sidewalk,

[1:03:11] parking.

[1:03:13] Uh they need to bring the home up to

[1:03:14] building code for a commercial

[1:03:15] operation.

[1:03:17] Um

[1:03:17] And that would allow them to have a lot

[1:03:19] more kids, but under the home

[1:03:20] occupation, I think they can have a

[1:03:21] maximum of 16 kids during the day. And

[1:03:25] you know, again, that's under a home

[1:03:27] occupation and and more meant to to keep

[1:03:30] the character of of a a residential

[1:03:32] home. Um

[1:03:33] but anyways, with all that being said,

[1:03:35] um

[1:03:36] that's that's, you know, the staff I

[1:03:38] think really

[1:03:40] uh kind of agrees with with the the

[1:03:41] recommendation the planning commission

[1:03:43] provided and and that's kind of where things stand with their proposal.

[1:03:47] Um do you have any questions about that

[1:03:48] particular one?

[1:03:53] » Okay, moving on. Number 14 is a

[1:03:55] discussion possible action on approval

[1:03:58] of the rack tax uh funding from as

[1:04:00] recommended by the rack tax committee.

[1:04:03] Uh discussion possible action on award

[1:04:05] of library FF&E. I do want to make sure

[1:04:07] that that we all understand this is only

[1:04:09] a portion

[1:04:10] of the FF&E. This is not all of it.

[1:04:13] The The initial estimate that we had on

[1:04:14] FF&E 2 years ago was like 475, 475,000.

[1:04:18] So, this is bookshelves. This is just

[1:04:21] a start. And And we're And uh kudos to

[1:04:24] Jan and Shannon, they're working to

[1:04:26] everything from the security gates, the

[1:04:27] RFID readers that that will be for folks

[1:04:30] coming in and out of the library, and

[1:04:31] then also furniture for offices and

[1:04:33] chairs and other furniture for sitting

[1:04:36] and and reading areas and those types of

[1:04:37] things. This is just the start of it,

[1:04:39] and so they're just We're just starting

[1:04:41] down that road at this point in time.

[1:04:43] Happy to answer any questions you have

[1:04:45] on those two items.

[1:04:46] 16, 17, and 18 are just the final

[1:04:49] budgets from CDRA, LBA, and SSD. And I

[1:04:53] don't think there's been any changes

[1:04:54] from the tentative on those budgets.

[1:04:57] There hasn't been. Okay.

[1:04:59] I I do know the mayor asked me, sorry,

[1:05:01] to to go back and I'll have Shannon come

[1:05:03] back up. Um Shannon has has uh in the in

[1:05:07] the uh final budget that's before you

[1:05:09] tonight, it's a final budget as though

[1:05:12] it's adopted and it and I have had some

[1:05:14] questions on it. And so, what the mayor

[1:05:16] has asked Shannon to do is to go through

[1:05:20] the budget and talk about where the

[1:05:22] changes have been made. And so, I'm

[1:05:23] going to try and format this a little

[1:05:25] bit and try and get it so that we can

[1:05:27] talk about that.

[1:05:28] Uh sorry.

[1:05:30] >> Yeah, if you just If you can just show

[1:05:31] the projected budget line, that probably

[1:05:34] be easier than

[1:05:36] >> Is that where you want me?

[1:05:37] >> Um yeah, either

[1:05:38] >> Oh, I got to do I got to do one more

[1:05:40] angle.

[1:05:40] >> Yeah.

[1:05:42] Actually have to do

[1:05:43] >> Okay.

[1:05:43] >> Can you guys see those numbers? I can

[1:05:44] barely see those.

[1:05:46] >> Yeah.

[1:05:46] >> Um

[1:05:48] Thank you for allowing me the

[1:05:49] opportunity to come and review this with

[1:05:51] you. Um a majority of the changes uh

[1:05:54] came from the decrease in the benefits.

[1:05:58] Um and then just redistribution of some

[1:06:00] of that funding. Um there was also some

[1:06:02] changes in

[1:06:03] um

[1:06:05] uh removing the property tax uh and then

[1:06:07] just redistributing redistributing that

[1:06:10] money and then also some small changes

[1:06:13] to operational budgets um and

[1:06:16] um

[1:06:17] to balance and because of trending. So,

[1:06:19] going through and just looking at what

[1:06:21] trending is, some of the um revenues

[1:06:24] were increased a little bit, some of

[1:06:25] them were decreased. Um but we'll we'll

[1:06:28] go through those really quick.

[1:06:29] >> So, Shannon, before you jump on, I want

[1:06:31] to If it's in yellow, that means that it

[1:06:32] has changed from

[1:06:35] the

[1:06:37] tentative budget to the final and she'll

[1:06:38] explain that. I also want to mention

[1:06:40] that it is not a reduction in benefits,

[1:06:42] it's a reduction in the cost of the

[1:06:44] benefits.

[1:06:45] >> [laughter]

[1:06:46] >> As you As we talked about

[1:06:47] >> Yes.

[1:06:47] >> we we've actually done a lot better with

[1:06:49] the with the health care to get better

[1:06:51] coverage at basically a even dollar

[1:06:54] cost. And so, we had projected before

[1:06:56] the increase in cost of 9.02% or 9.2%.

[1:07:00] We cut that back out and that didn't

[1:07:02] happen until after the tentative budget

[1:07:03] was approved. So, again, kudos to

[1:07:05] Shannon and Jason and and myself for

[1:07:07] that. So, go ahead, Shannon.

[1:07:09] >> Um yeah, if you can I don't know if you

[1:07:10] guys can see the little numbers on in

[1:07:12] the gray box. Is that hard to see up

[1:07:14] there?

[1:07:15] >> We can see it all right there.

[1:07:16] >> You've got it right there. Oh, good.

[1:07:17] Okay. Um [clears throat] I've just gone

[1:07:19] through and highlighted anything that

[1:07:21] changed from the tentative budget and

[1:07:23] over to the side is what it changed by.

[1:07:26] So, um if you'll notice the current year

[1:07:28] property tax um that went up by 71,000.

[1:07:32] The next line was the proposed property

[1:07:34] tax increase, that went down to zero.

[1:07:36] So, you can see that that was a negative

[1:07:38] $67,000.

[1:07:40] Um

[1:07:41] if you go down, so the difference

[1:07:44] between those two uh is the 3,700. Go to

[1:07:47] the next section. There's an increase of

[1:07:49] $700 just in business licenses and per-

[1:07:52] permits based on trending.

[1:07:54] Um

[1:07:57] a little bit of an increase to

[1:07:58] miscellaneous inspection fees. Arena

[1:08:00] rentals had a zero in it. Um

[1:08:03] we recently I recently

[1:08:06] I didn't know that we had a contract

[1:08:07] with the roping club to pay $1,000 a

[1:08:09] year

[1:08:10] >> [laughter]

[1:08:10] >> until we had to do a grammar request

[1:08:12] recently and I found that out. So, I

[1:08:14] made the change to the budget to reflect

[1:08:16] that $1,000 coming in for the arena

[1:08:18] rental.

[1:08:19] Um

[1:08:21] there was just a small $29 change to uh

[1:08:23] the number that was inserted for the

[1:08:25] Goshen Interlocal Court Agreement.

[1:08:28] Uh for a total in that section of an

[1:08:30] additional uh $1,271.

[1:08:32] >> In revenue, right?

[1:08:33] >> In revenue. Yes, this is These are all

[1:08:35] revenues in the general fund.

[1:08:38] Um the next one was um interest

[1:08:40] earnings. That is shows a reduction of

[1:08:42] $43,000.

[1:08:44] Um some of that has to do with some of

[1:08:46] the savings that we had with the

[1:08:48] benefits. Um

[1:08:50] uh

[1:08:51] and also just making sure this is one

[1:08:54] area where um I just feel like we don't

[1:08:56] want to overestimate cuz we just do not

[1:08:59] know uh what the market's going to do or

[1:09:01] how much money we're going to have in

[1:09:02] the bank. Um, so

[1:09:05] if if we come in over on this one,

[1:09:06] that's that's a a good thing, but I

[1:09:08] would hate to come in under and have to

[1:09:09] be cutting things. Um, so when we had a

[1:09:13] little bit of savings, that that revenue

[1:09:14] was reduced.

[1:09:17] Um

[1:09:18] >> Did you take into account we're paying

[1:09:21] out 4 million, uh, tonight?

[1:09:24] That will take a portion of that out and

[1:09:27] what those differences

[1:09:28] >> Yes.

[1:09:28] Yeah, those are the things we

[1:09:30] >> That that's another thing that we look

[1:09:31] at. We look at trending, we look at how

[1:09:33] much money we're paying out, how much

[1:09:34] money we have, how much goes into fund

[1:09:36] balance or comes out of fund balance.

[1:09:38] All those things Shannon looks at really

[1:09:39] closely.

[1:09:41] >> So total overall difference in the

[1:09:43] general fund was, um, a reduction in

[1:09:45] revenues of $37,000.

[1:09:49] Um, as far as the expenditures in the

[1:09:51] general fund, you can see there's

[1:09:52] nothing in legislation, uh, the

[1:09:54] legislative budget change, nothing in

[1:09:56] court.

[1:09:57] Um, administrative benefits, uh, you'll

[1:09:59] see that reduction because of the cost

[1:10:02] savings on the, um, the benefits.

[1:10:05] Um

[1:10:05] >> Is that just related to health care?

[1:10:07] >> Mhm.

[1:10:08] >> All right.

[1:10:08] >> Yep.

[1:10:09] >> And and you know what? That is really

[1:10:12] upon you guys that did a bunch of work

[1:10:16] when we were looking at going the other

[1:10:18] way with where we we were going to end

[1:10:21] up and that was two or three days of

[1:10:23] good hard work to come up with this.

[1:10:25] Thank you.

[1:10:26] >> Yeah.

[1:10:26] >> And and so Councilmember Rosario, your

[1:10:28] question, it actually continues on

[1:10:30] through the budget because we pay wages

[1:10:32] and salaries in so many multiple

[1:10:34] different locations. It's it's $32,000

[1:10:37] here and $15,000 there. As they

[1:10:39] accumulate down at the bottom that are

[1:10:41] underwater and PI and sewer and the

[1:10:43] general fund and the fire department,

[1:10:45] all of those will you'll see reductions

[1:10:47] in.

[1:10:47] >> Yeah.

[1:10:48] >> Again, that's as Shannon indicated.

[1:10:51] >> on how the employee is allocated, um, to

[1:10:54] which budgets they're allocated to. So.

[1:10:56] >> Mhm.

[1:10:57] >> Um, in supplies uh you can see a

[1:10:59] reduction of $740.

[1:11:01] Um there's some numbers in the budget

[1:11:03] that that I use for plug numbers. And so

[1:11:06] if I if there's something that needs to

[1:11:08] be balanced, usually I'll use a supplies

[1:11:09] budget to balance that. So you see a few

[1:11:11] little changes in supplies budgets.

[1:11:14] Um the team um appreciation and

[1:11:17] recognition program, there's a reduction

[1:11:19] of $4,500.

[1:11:21] Uh

[1:11:22] as of right now, I think that program is

[1:11:24] going away. We just don't know for sure.

[1:11:26] So I So we left a little bit of money in

[1:11:28] it just uh to make sure that those

[1:11:31] changes um

[1:11:32] didn't affect us negatively.

[1:11:34] >> that tarp program is through the trust.

[1:11:36] They give us a rebate back by training

[1:11:39] our staff and making sure that they have

[1:11:40] certain training and and uh

[1:11:43] safety mechanisms, those types of

[1:11:45] things. So that's what that is.

[1:11:47] >> Um the insurance and bonds, I think I

[1:11:49] talked to you a little bit about that uh

[1:11:52] when we had the um public hearing for

[1:11:54] the tentative budget. Um

[1:11:57] that is an increase. We did not get that

[1:11:59] increase until after the tentative

[1:12:00] budget was approved. Uh so some of that

[1:12:03] savings from the insurance actually went

[1:12:04] to to fund that

[1:12:06] for a total in that category of um

[1:12:09] reducing the expenditures by $12,000.

[1:12:12] Oops.

[1:12:14] Hang on.

[1:12:18] Um the next is engineering department.

[1:12:20] There was just a small change uh with

[1:12:23] um benefits on that one.

[1:12:26] Uh just making sure

[1:12:27] uh

[1:12:28] in the uh

[1:12:30] the hiring of a new employee

[1:12:32] that we had enough money in there to

[1:12:34] cover

[1:12:35] we don't know if we're going to hire

[1:12:37] somebody that's a two-party, somebody

[1:12:38] that's a family. So we just have to put

[1:12:40] the highest rate um that we that we know

[1:12:43] of in there.

[1:12:44] Um and then

[1:12:45] >> a $3,000 change in engineering.

[1:12:48] >> increase in that one.

[1:12:50] Government buildings, you can see there

[1:12:51] was a $250 increase to uh

[1:12:54] part-time staff. That could be just a uh

[1:12:56] change I noticed in

[1:12:58] um a Christmas bonus or something on the

[1:13:00] salaries and wages um tab.

[1:13:03] Um benefits, you can see a reduction

[1:13:05] there

[1:13:06] for the same reason. Utilities, just

[1:13:08] based on trending, that was reduced by

[1:13:10] $5,000, but the building and grounds

[1:13:12] maintenance was increased by $10,000

[1:13:15] for a total change in that fund of an

[1:13:17] additional $2,375.

[1:13:21] Um in the police, that's where uh

[1:13:24] Council Member Del Rosario is talking

[1:13:25] about an increase of uh

[1:13:27] $37,000.

[1:13:29] Um

[1:13:30] when I got thinking about that, I'm

[1:13:32] pretty sure that's the that this one and

[1:13:34] the one in the library is the same

[1:13:35] thing.

[1:13:36] Um we're just getting benefit renewals

[1:13:38] in, and I noticed that there's a couple

[1:13:41] of employees that were waiving benefits

[1:13:43] that are now going to take benefits, and

[1:13:45] so I had to add those back in.

[1:13:48] And that's you'll see that in the

[1:13:49] library as well. I think there's a

[1:13:50] $20,000 difference in the library, too.

[1:13:54] Um so that's the increase to the police

[1:13:56] department.

[1:13:58] The streets, um just a reduction in the

[1:14:01] benefit costs.

[1:14:04] Um nothing in sanitation, building

[1:14:06] inspection, just the reduction of the

[1:14:08] benefits.

[1:14:10] Parks, um the same thing, just a small

[1:14:13] increase to part-time salaries and

[1:14:14] wages,

[1:14:16] >> [clears throat]

[1:14:16] >> um and then the reduction in the

[1:14:17] benefits cost.

[1:14:20] Cemetery,

[1:14:21] um

[1:14:22] there was just a I after um Council

[1:14:25] Member Del Rosario had asked about if we

[1:14:27] had budgeted enough money for the fuel increases, I went back and

[1:14:30] reevaluated everything there and did add

[1:14:33] just about $500 to well, it is $500 to

[1:14:36] the fuel in the cemetery.

[1:14:39] Um

[1:14:40] planning and zoning is just the benefit

[1:14:42] redu- the cost of benefits reduced.

[1:14:46] And then here's where everything kind of

[1:14:48] comes together. Without seeing all the

[1:14:51] other pictures, maybe we'll come back to

[1:14:52] this

[1:14:53] because all this has to do with either

[1:14:55] reduction or increases to all the other

[1:14:57] funds.

[1:15:01] Let's see. So

[1:15:06] Nothing in

[1:15:08] the fund 11.

[1:15:10] Capital projects, there is just a change of um

[1:15:17] And you'll have to kind of go down the

[1:15:18] revenue or the expenditures first to

[1:15:20] make sure the revenues make sense, but

[1:15:23] on the security camera and access

[1:15:25] control, there was $15,000 budgeted

[1:15:28] there for cameras at the Orchard Hills

[1:15:30] Park or the Orchard Cove Park. Um

[1:15:35] there was $25,000 added coming from fund

[1:15:38] balance. So it didn't affect the general

[1:15:39] fund only because we don't know what's

[1:15:41] going to be happening with the fitness

[1:15:42] center and security there and having to

[1:15:45] change that out. So we stuck some money

[1:15:48] in there to just make sure that we had

[1:15:50] something and didn't have to go back and

[1:15:53] pull funds funds from

[1:15:55] the general fund or somewhere else. And

[1:15:56] there is there is enough money in the in

[1:15:58] the fund balance to accommodate that.

[1:16:00] >> In general in our parks, we're having

[1:16:04] this to increase cameras and security

[1:16:06] just because of vandalism and other

[1:16:08] things that are going on. So

[1:16:09] >> [clears throat]

[1:16:09] >> So is that when you say that that is to

[1:16:13] account for potentially, right? Just

[1:16:15] in case for the Rex building.

[1:16:18] >> And or or or any other park that comes

[1:16:20] up that that may be you know, we have a

[1:16:23] lot of vandalism at the Foothill Park or

[1:16:25] where somewhere where we need cameras.

[1:16:27] It just seems like the last couple years

[1:16:28] we've come back in a budget amendment

[1:16:30] and said, "Hey, we need money for

[1:16:31] cameras because we've got some

[1:16:32] vandalism."

[1:16:33] >> And we recently did it with with the

[1:16:35] public works facility. We have cameras

[1:16:36] down there now. This current fiscal year

[1:16:38] that we are in we did the the safety

[1:16:40] building for both cameras and access

[1:16:42] control, and we're just finding more and

[1:16:44] more that that's a a need. In fact, when

[1:16:46] I when I hear from my colleagues in the

[1:16:49] city management field, cameras are their

[1:16:51] number one deterrent of of vandalism

[1:16:53] [clears throat] and damage and other

[1:16:55] things to parks and and bathrooms and

[1:16:57] other facilities. So.

[1:16:58] >> And it's also uh trying to get all of

[1:17:00] our facilities on the same program

[1:17:03] >> Network, yep. Yep.

[1:17:04] >> having different types of security

[1:17:06] systems for one building versus another

[1:17:08] building.

[1:17:08] >> Mhm.

[1:17:09] >> Um it just makes it a whole whole lot

[1:17:10] easier if they're all the same. So.

[1:17:13] Um that was added in. Again, if we don't

[1:17:15] spend it, it just rolls back into fund

[1:17:16] balance. So.

[1:17:19] Um going on to the capital vehicles and

[1:17:22] equipment, this one you can see a little

[1:17:24] note. I found an error in the tentative

[1:17:27] budget where this

[1:17:29] um first of all, um the the sale of uh

[1:17:33] surplus property, we only had in there

[1:17:35] at $25,000.

[1:17:36] This year, um we brought in probably

[1:17:39] double that, and so that just based on

[1:17:42] trending, um was increased to $40,000.

[1:17:45] And then I noticed when I changed that, it didn't change in the total. This

[1:17:49] cell right here was not added into this

[1:17:52] cell down here.

[1:17:54] So, the changes were made to account for

[1:17:56] that, but the total overall didn't

[1:17:58] change.

[1:17:59] So, if you look at the total, the budget

[1:18:00] itself did not change. It's just making

[1:18:03] the corrections for the increase in the

[1:18:04] revenue, and then um

[1:18:07] the correction to making sure that the formulas are adding up correctly.

[1:18:12] Um

[1:18:14] expenditures,

[1:18:16] so you'll see uh

[1:18:18] the expenditure for the fire set aside

[1:18:21] is no longer separated into the two line

[1:18:24] items for the property tax increase.

[1:18:26] It's just all in the one line item with

[1:18:28] the with the zero in the property tax

[1:18:29] increase.

[1:18:33] Computer and technology, just based on

[1:18:35] trending, um

[1:18:37] and I think the big reason for this is,

[1:18:39] um to account for when they come and do

[1:18:41] all of our change out of our computers,

[1:18:43] that the the amount that we pay monthly

[1:18:45] doesn't cover the extra work, and so

[1:18:47] they bill us uh for those hours. And so,

[1:18:50] this is just increasing that to make

[1:18:51] sure that we've got enough money to pay that. And that just came from the

[1:18:55] general fund.

[1:18:56] So, you can see the increase from the

[1:18:58] general fund went up 7,000, and you the

[1:19:01] I think Norm here says -7,000.

[1:19:03] >> It does. You've got the wrong It should

[1:19:05] be positive.

[1:19:06] >> It should be positive.

[1:19:07] >> be positive right there. But again,

[1:19:09] we're seeing just overall in general

[1:19:11] computer prices and and memory and chips

[1:19:14] and everything is just going up.

[1:19:15] Just like everything else that we're

[1:19:17] seeing.

[1:19:18] >> Um in the capital repair and replacement

[1:19:22] >> Can I

[1:19:22] >> Um

[1:19:23] >> Can I just suggest, you know, Apple came

[1:19:25] out with really affordable computers

[1:19:27] that are very, you know, five, six

[1:19:30] hundred dollars. I know that our systems

[1:19:32] don't work in that, but I'd like to

[1:19:33] point that out is that

[1:19:35] you know, more and more companies, even

[1:19:37] schools, are completely switching out

[1:19:39] their

[1:19:40] computers for that because they're so

[1:19:42] efficient. It's easier and quicker for

[1:19:44] employees to be able to do stuff, or

[1:19:47] students, and it's cheaper than most

[1:19:49] PCs. So, just throwing that out there.

[1:19:52] >> We'll We'll look into that as we go

[1:19:53] through our computer ro- rotation. I can

[1:19:55] tell you that we do have an Apple now.

[1:19:57] >> Yeah.

[1:19:59] >> [laughter]

[1:20:02] » Um going down to capital Oh, where were

[1:20:05] we at?

[1:20:05] >> Capital repair and replacement.

[1:20:07] >> Capital repair 44 fund.

[1:20:08] Um so, that just was a change in um the

[1:20:11] way we're paying ourselves back uh for

[1:20:15] uh

[1:20:16] in the uh end of the year budget

[1:20:17] amendment, you'll see in that budget

[1:20:18] amendment that we're going to be

[1:20:20] borrowing

[1:20:21] from the capital repair and replacement

[1:20:23] fund enough money to do the UL the ULS

[1:20:25] pipeline project. Um and that'll that'll

[1:20:28] happen at the end of this year for this

[1:20:30] fiscal year. This is just a a repayment

[1:20:32] back to ourselves. Um and just what it

[1:20:35] was just increased a little bit on what

[1:20:37] um

[1:20:38] just figuring those numbers what we

[1:20:39] could afford to to do. So.

[1:20:44] » Capital roads?

[1:20:45] >> Yeah, capital [clears throat] roads. The

[1:20:47] only change here is to the expenditures

[1:20:52] at professional and technical.

[1:20:54] Um an additional 100,000 was added and

[1:20:56] it came from contributions to fund

[1:20:58] balance.

[1:20:59] Um and I'll let

[1:21:01] the mayor take a few seconds and talk to

[1:21:03] you about the why the change here in the

[1:21:06] 45 account.

[1:21:08] >> Wait a minute. Tell me where we're at.

[1:21:09] >> So this is the capital roads projects that

[1:21:13] we put the $100,000 back in or not back

[1:21:15] in but didn't get included in the in the

[1:21:17] tentative but now is included in the

[1:21:19] final.

[1:21:19] >> So this This includes the amount of

[1:21:22] money that we pay

[1:21:25] that goes through uh MAG.

[1:21:28] And um

[1:21:30] what we we did

[1:21:32] 4 and 1/2 years ago

[1:21:34] uh in meeting with MAG, they lined us up

[1:21:38] with um

[1:21:39] Dave Stewart

[1:21:41] whom we have used who brought to the

[1:21:44] city and and this money was channeled

[1:21:47] from an employee that we had used up to

[1:21:51] that point and

[1:21:53] uh we didn't replace but we were able to

[1:21:56] utilize that same money to do the kind

[1:22:00] of things that we had anticipated doing

[1:22:02] then.

[1:22:03] And in fact at a better rate.

[1:22:06] And uh this 100,000 is actually 50,000

[1:22:10] less than where

[1:22:12] we were supposed to be. So

[1:22:15] with that uh

[1:22:17] we have gotten

[1:22:19] um

[1:22:22] 6 million for a water tank.

[1:22:25] >> 4 4 million for water tank.

[1:22:26] >> 4 4 million for a water tank.

[1:22:27] >> Almost 2 million for

[1:22:29] >> Almost two for meters.

[1:22:31] Uh

[1:22:33] EA studies uh at the at about 5 million

[1:22:38] and he was

[1:22:40] uh has been

[1:22:42] uh helping us get through uh all of this

[1:22:46] with

[1:22:47] UDOT.

[1:22:48] Um he was the kingpin to roll this in.

[1:22:52] Um and

[1:22:54] I would say this is probably the biggest

[1:22:57] thing that we've been able to invest in

[1:22:59] having

[1:23:00] an employee but not an employee to do

[1:23:03] all of this work to get us to this point

[1:23:05] with that.

[1:23:07] Now, in the future we're looking at

[1:23:09] trying to roll into other MAG projects

[1:23:12] that we're already rated on and in fact

[1:23:15] we can change that rating if we can find

[1:23:18] a way to do additional sources which

[1:23:21] we're working on right now

[1:23:24] that could make those million-dollar

[1:23:27] trails that come down

[1:23:29] uh and connect the town

[1:23:32] a viable option without having to go

[1:23:35] back to uh

[1:23:37] any other budget money. And and so we're

[1:23:40] trying to figure out how to pull that

[1:23:42] all together. So,

[1:23:44] utilization of him in that uh

[1:23:48] professional service through MAG

[1:23:52] especially over the last 5 years has

[1:23:54] brought to us

[1:23:56] a lot.

[1:23:57] I don't know how else we could do it and

[1:24:00] uh

[1:24:02] I was ready to just say, "Hey, we don't

[1:24:05] need this again." but

[1:24:07] you know what? It can make a big

[1:24:08] difference this year. Maybe in the

[1:24:10] future

[1:24:12] we need to look at changing that.

[1:24:14] Um it's same thing with Lincoln shirts.

[1:24:18] Um

[1:24:18] they work mostly with state grants and

[1:24:22] theirs are the grants that pull through

[1:24:27] getting

[1:24:28] skate park built

[1:24:30] and without them

[1:24:32] we don't get that.

[1:24:34] They they are the guys that have been

[1:24:36] able to bring us

[1:24:38] pit toilet in

[1:24:40] the bike park

[1:24:42] >> bike skills park half half of that was

[1:24:44] paid for with that

[1:24:45] >> and so there there are a lot of values

[1:24:49] in doing that kind of things and I just

[1:24:52] wanted to

[1:24:53] take a couple of minutes and explain it

[1:24:56] so that we can you can look at it and go

[1:24:59] yeah we've invested

[1:25:01] few hundred thousand dollars but we've

[1:25:02] got millions out of this and

[1:25:06] that's what we're trying to do with the

[1:25:08] way that you work the system.

[1:25:10] Okay, does that explain it? Did I miss

[1:25:13] anything?

[1:25:14] >> No.

[1:25:15] >> Who who are we actually paying with

[1:25:16] that?

[1:25:17] >> Pardon?

[1:25:17] >> This is MAG. It's our lobbying services.

[1:25:20] >> MAG yep

[1:25:21] Mountain Land Association of Government.

[1:25:23] >> Yeah so that line Adam is just adding

[1:25:25] that back in.

[1:25:26] >> Okay.

[1:25:28] I'm going to really

[1:25:28] >> there was enough money in the roads fund

[1:25:30] to actually just pull it from fund

[1:25:31] balance there too so it didn't affect

[1:25:33] the general fund or anything.

[1:25:35] I'm going to quickly go through this cuz

[1:25:37] we have 5 minutes storm drain there's no

[1:25:40] >> What water fund there was $3,300 just

[1:25:43] increase it.

[1:25:43] >> Yeah the one thing and anything in green

[1:25:45] right here

[1:25:47] these are if if the council decides that

[1:25:50] they want to move forward with this

[1:25:51] final budget there's three things in the

[1:25:53] tentative budget that have to change

[1:25:54] that that I found mistakes. This one's

[1:25:57] just a rounding error if you'll notice

[1:25:59] the total expenditures are a dollar more

[1:26:02] or revenues are total a dollar more than

[1:26:03] the total expenditures even though it

[1:26:05] says zero. I just need to make it's just

[1:26:07] from rounding and I just need to make a

[1:26:09] correction to that so those two things

[1:26:11] are the same.

[1:26:12] In water

[1:26:14] um

[1:26:16] you can see

[1:26:17] >> benefits

[1:26:18] >> uh benefits and then because of that

[1:26:20] then there's extra money going to fund

[1:26:21] balance.

[1:26:23] Um so the total overall changes were

[1:26:25] $3,300.

[1:26:27] In the sewer fund that's where another

[1:26:28] correction needs to be made. So in the

[1:26:31] sewer um impact fee fund the transfer

[1:26:34] going into the sewer for the um capital

[1:26:37] improvements to the WRF

[1:26:39] it shows a different amount than

[1:26:41] um usually I have those tied by formula.

[1:26:44] Somehow that formula got taken out. So

[1:26:46] um

[1:26:48] it this just needs to be corrected to

[1:26:49] that that uh the same amount as it

[1:26:51] that's in the sewer impact fee fund.

[1:26:55] Um

[1:26:56] and then of course then we'll just

[1:26:58] adjust the contributions from fund

[1:26:59] balance.

[1:27:01] And that contribution from fund balance

[1:27:02] is actually the bond that we took out

[1:27:04] for the the sewer the $3.1 million bond.

[1:27:08] We got total revenues in this year.

[1:27:11] We'll just use those that contribution

[1:27:13] from fund balance is actually the use of

[1:27:15] those bond funds.

[1:27:16] So.

[1:27:19] Um

[1:27:20] in the sewer you'll see

[1:27:23] just the decrease in the benefit cost,

[1:27:25] pressurized irrigation,

[1:27:28] um

[1:27:31] there was just a little bit of a

[1:27:32] decrease in the um

[1:27:35] uh transfers from the PI impact fee.

[1:27:39] Um and then

[1:27:41] the benefit cost

[1:27:43] and then increase to the contribution to

[1:27:45] fund balance.

[1:27:48] For a total of $1,500 with the uh

[1:27:50] changes in the

[1:27:51] uh 54 PI fund nothing in the 55.

[1:27:55] There's that sewer impact fee change

[1:27:57] that I was talking about. This number

[1:27:59] doesn't need to be changed just the one

[1:28:00] in the 52 the sewer fund needs to match

[1:28:02] it.

[1:28:04] Um so if there is a an approval of the

[1:28:07] final budget tonight there's just uh one

[1:28:09] other thing that needs to be changed and

[1:28:12] we'll get down to the library really

[1:28:13] quick.

[1:28:15] So, I would just if if it is approved,

[1:28:16] just recommend just um the changes that

[1:28:19] we discussed, the three changes that we

[1:28:21] discussed.

[1:28:23] Let's see. Sorry it's taking me to get

[1:28:25] down there. Nothing to the

[1:28:26] transportation.

[1:28:28] So, PI impact fees

[1:28:30] um

[1:28:32] a little bit of an increase to the

[1:28:33] interest earnings just based on

[1:28:34] trending.

[1:28:35] Um

[1:28:38] small changes there.

[1:28:42] That change to the capital the the

[1:28:44] um

[1:28:45] the revenue coming back in for the um

[1:28:48] repayment from capital repair and

[1:28:50] replacement.

[1:28:52] So, that totaled to about $5,500

[1:28:54] increase in that fund.

[1:28:58] 61 fund, there is there were some

[1:29:00] changes, but it was just all just

[1:29:02] redistributed. So, the the benefit um

[1:29:06] savings were just redistributed within

[1:29:07] that fund. So, there's no change to that

[1:29:09] total.

[1:29:12] Um small changes to

[1:29:16] the 62 account, um minus $300.

[1:29:23] Let's see.

[1:29:25] >> Museum.

[1:29:26] nothing. Royal Oh, let's see.

[1:29:29] Museum.

[1:29:31] So, you'll see the RAP tax, the $155,000

[1:29:34] coming from fund balance

[1:29:36] in the 66 account. So, the additional

[1:29:39] revenues there and then the additional

[1:29:40] expenditures.

[1:29:43] >> So, that's the carryover. The 155 is the

[1:29:45] carryover to to be able to handle the funds that are in there this year

[1:29:48] that we won't use. Sorry, Shayna.

[1:29:50] >> Uh 67

[1:29:52] um we were notified that we received a

[1:29:54] $14,000 grant. Um and then

[1:29:57] um just noticing that uh some of the

[1:29:59] grant funding was in miscellaneous

[1:30:01] revenue versus intergovernmental

[1:30:02] revenue. So, I created a a a a new

[1:30:05] category for intergovernmental revenue

[1:30:07] and just moved all those grant fundings

[1:30:09] to that that category.

[1:30:12] So, you might see a little bit of a the dollar amounts didn't change other

[1:30:15] than the addition of that $14,000.

[1:30:17] And then you'll see the $14,000 in the

[1:30:21] um

[1:30:22] in the expenses well. The reduction in

[1:30:25] transfers from the general fund come

[1:30:27] because of the reduction of the benefits

[1:30:29] cost.

[1:30:30] So, we didn't need to transfer as much

[1:30:32] from the general fund.

[1:30:34] Uh so, that's why you see a reduction in

[1:30:36] the the transfer from the general fund

[1:30:38] there.

[1:30:40] Um

[1:30:41] classes

[1:30:45] Uh overall reduction of $2,500, which is

[1:30:49] basically the reduction in the benefit

[1:30:51] cost.

[1:30:54] And then library, this is where you'll

[1:30:56] see

[1:30:58] I missed something on the tentative

[1:30:59] budget right here in green. I didn't

[1:31:01] zero out this proposed property tax, the

[1:31:04] separated benefits and wages for the

[1:31:06] proposed property tax increase. That

[1:31:08] [clears throat] needs to be zeroed out

[1:31:09] in the final budget. So, that's one of

[1:31:11] the that's one of the three changes that

[1:31:12] need to be made. Um but those would just

[1:31:14] be added up here to the part-time

[1:31:17] salaries and benefits and then also to

[1:31:19] the benefit line item. So,

[1:31:21] it wouldn't be adding anything

[1:31:23] >> Um it's just redistributing.

[1:31:25] >> It's redistributing those two uh line

[1:31:27] items right there. But you can see that

[1:31:29] increase to the benefits line item.

[1:31:31] So, uh that is uh because there was a

[1:31:34] library staff that was waiving her

[1:31:35] benefits, it's now going to take her

[1:31:37] benefits. So, we had to account for

[1:31:38] that.

[1:31:40] Um and then seniors

[1:31:48] A just a small change to the

[1:31:49] contribution from fund balance to

[1:31:51] account for an increase that um just

[1:31:54] based on trending that they may need in

[1:31:57] um

[1:31:59] Oh, I think I have the wrong wrong line

[1:32:00] item. It should go down here. That 2274

[1:32:03] should go to the food.

[1:32:07] There was an increase to the food there.

[1:32:09] And then the fire,

[1:32:12] you'll see the same thing here with um

[1:32:15] reduction of benefits, and then where we

[1:32:17] brought the money in from the general

[1:32:19] fund

[1:32:21] into this fund, and then back into

[1:32:23] capital projects. You saw that we took

[1:32:25] it out of the the um

[1:32:29] the

[1:32:30] last line there, the proposed property

[1:32:33] tax increase transfer to capital

[1:32:34] vehicles.

[1:32:36] So.

[1:32:37] Um

[1:32:39] >> Okay.

[1:32:39] >> Any questions? I guess if you have

[1:32:41] questions, maybe you can ask in the

[1:32:43] general meeting cuz I think we're out of

[1:32:44] time.

[1:32:46] >> [laughter]

[1:32:46] >> That's great. Thank

[1:32:48] No, thank you. Went through it all very

[1:32:51] well.

[1:32:52] Um

[1:32:53] I think that pretty much sets us up, but

[1:32:56] I would like to just take two or three

[1:32:58] minutes before we get going. So, we'll

[1:33:00] start our uh

[1:33:03] main meeting at uh like 7:05, something

[1:33:07] like that. So, I'd entertain a motion to

[1:33:09] close this work session.

[1:33:10] >> So moved.

[1:33:11] >> Seconded.

[1:33:11] >> Moved and seconded. All in favor?

[1:33:13] >> Aye.

[1:33:14] >> Closed.

Santaquin City Council Work Session Meeting - June 16, 2026

Transcript