[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.