[12:54] Okay, we'd like to welcome everyone to
[12:56] South Weaver City Council. It is 6:00 PM
[12:58] on Tuesday, April 14, 2026. We'll begin
[13:03] with the pledge of allegiance led by
[13:06] Councilman Dills and then I'll offer a
[13:08] prayer.
[13:10] Please stand and repeat the pledge of
[13:11] allegiance
[13:14] to the flag of the United States of
[13:17] America and to the republic for which it
[13:20] stands. One nation under God,
[13:23] indivisible, with liberty and justice
[13:26] for all.
[13:29] Our
[13:32] heavenly father, as we begin this city
[13:34] council meeting this evening, we pray
[13:36] that Holy Spirit will be here with us
[13:38] this night. That those things that we
[13:41] discuss and the decisions we make be
[13:44] proper and and best for our city. We're
[13:47] grateful for the blessings, blessings
[13:52] in this community. Grateful for those
[13:54] that live here and for those that work
[13:58] and that they will that will bless our
[14:01] staff and bless
[14:03] our first responders that they will
[14:05] always be kept safe to serve our
[14:08] community well. Pray that general will
[14:11] watch over and protect our military.
[14:14] Be with them, guide their actions and
[14:18] things that they do and also keep them
[14:21] safe.
[14:22] grateful for their many blessings. Pray
[14:25] that we can conduct this meeting this
[14:29] night and be influenced by the goodness
[14:31] we pray for in the name of Jesus Christ.
[14:34] Amen.
[14:39] » Okay, we'll begin with public comments.
[14:41] If you've got a comment, we'd ask you to
[14:43] come up to the microphone, state your
[14:45] name and city which you reside. We'll
[14:48] allow you three minutes to speak
[14:51] and open for public comments.
[15:06] » Michael Grant 261 died. First of all,
[15:09] I'm recovering well, but I'm married to
[15:11] these crutches till uh June 16th, so get
[15:14] used to it. I'm doing it for an endic
[15:17] parking spot.
[15:18] >> Oh, yes.
[15:21] >> Sure.
[15:21] >> And I want to I have questions for Mr.
[15:23] Parker, the presenter regarding
[15:25] permanent and uh transitional housing by
[15:28] Davis County. Few questions are uh where
[15:31] is it coming from? Is it federal? Is it
[15:34] state? Is it mandatory? Is it optional?
[15:37] Uh do we get a page for that? What kind
[15:39] of transaction is going on? uh you know
[15:43] being open then um would there be a
[15:46] penalty if we don't do this? Is it just
[15:49] a recommendation advisory or mandatory
[15:53] to include this kind of housing in our
[15:56] city? Lastly, we are not a big city. We
[15:59] have 200 homes. The only um source of
[16:02] revenue primarily are taxes by the
[16:06] residents. We do have a Maverick and
[16:09] which gets us some revenues, but the
[16:11] sand pits probably are not generating
[16:13] revenues as much as we had expected
[16:15] during changes. So, and our um contract
[16:19] with DCSOS money and most of our crime
[16:23] is happening at Maverick. So, when we
[16:25] start getting this housing, we the
[16:28] citizen will have to pay more to DSO and
[16:31] other law enforcement. We don't even
[16:33] have a code enforcement officer. So that
[16:35] just adds to our cause. We probably are
[16:38] not the right candidate for such an
[16:40] underdeing.
[16:42] Thanks.
[16:43] >> Thank you.
[16:55] » Anyone else?
[16:59] Okay, then that'll lead us right into
[17:01] our next presentation. We have
[17:05] Ryan Parker here from Davis County
[17:07] Housing. Well, and Ryan,
[17:10] >> we got two Ryan. They're team tagging
[17:12] tonight, it looks like.
[17:14] >> Okay, we'll turn the time to you guys.
[17:17] >> Good evening, mayor, council members. My
[17:19] name is Ryan Stein. I'm actually the
[17:21] community services manager for county.
[17:23] So, my office oversees federal programs,
[17:25] homeless response, affordable housing,
[17:27] variety, other initiatives, but
[17:29] appreciated the public comment. So I
[17:31] wanted to give a little bit about a
[17:33] context about why we're doing this.
[17:34] We're actually doing this presentation
[17:36] with all 15 cities in Davis County. So
[17:38] as you probably recall, three years or
[17:40] yeah, three years ago now, uh the state
[17:42] legislature passed a law to require
[17:44] counties of the second class to what was
[17:46] called winter overflow code plans. So as
[17:50] part of that process, the county
[17:51] convened a winter overflow task force
[17:53] that was comprised of seven areas of one
[17:54] county commissioner and they started
[17:56] meeting having discussions about what
[17:58] winter overflow would look like. So the
[17:59] winter overflow requirement was from
[18:01] October 15th until April 30th. We had to
[18:04] basically operate an emergency shelter
[18:06] during that period.
[18:08] When we started having those questions,
[18:10] obviously you can imagine the challenges
[18:11] of trying to operate a temporary
[18:13] emergency shelter only six months out of
[18:15] the year. Logistically, financially, it
[18:17] was hugely challenging. So we went back
[18:19] to the state legislature and said,
[18:21] "Would you guys make a change to the
[18:22] code that would allow us if we work
[18:25] towards and we let them perfectly vague,
[18:27] potentially rehab, yeah, intentionally
[18:30] big rather, uh that if we work towards a
[18:33] long-term solution to address
[18:34] homelessness, I say solution in quotes,
[18:37] that gave us some flexibility to decide
[18:38] as a county what's best for our response
[18:41] because we didn't feel like an emergency
[18:42] shelter would work would really be
[18:45] needed in Davis County." Um, so that's
[18:47] when we started talking about permanent
[18:48] support housing, transitional housing.
[18:50] We looked at models all across the back
[18:53] that say the legislature didn't make
[18:54] that change for us. So that allowed us
[18:56] essentially a runway period to kind of
[18:58] figure out what would work for Davis
[19:00] County. We looked at communities all
[19:02] across the country, Hen County,
[19:03] Milwaukee County, and the things that we
[19:06] found to be most effective in terms of
[19:07] getting people out of homelessness. Now,
[19:09] right, emergency shelters has a place.
[19:11] It gets people out of the cold and and
[19:13] in shelter, but it doesn't actually move
[19:15] the needle in terms of getting people
[19:16] out of homelessness. Permanent
[19:18] supportive housing and transitional
[19:19] housing have been shown to be highly
[19:21] effective across the country for getting
[19:22] people stabilized into housing, get them
[19:25] the services they need, the help they
[19:26] need, and get them out of that
[19:28] situation. So, what Brian and I are here
[19:31] today to do is just kind of educate the
[19:32] city council about what is permanent
[19:34] support, permanent supportive housing,
[19:36] and transitional housing. What does that
[19:37] mean? We're talking about those things.
[19:39] We're not here suggesting that we're
[19:40] going to bring a project to South
[19:42] Weaver. Like I said, we're giving this
[19:43] presentation to every city. As you guys
[19:45] know, Davis County is extremely
[19:47] landmark. There's less than 9,000 bell
[19:49] blankers left in this county. So, it's
[19:51] hard to find land. Part of our what our
[19:53] office is doing is we're looking for a
[19:55] potential site. So, we want to just have
[19:57] this conversation with all of our cities
[19:58] to educate them. So, if a site does
[20:00] become available, all our stud all of
[20:02] our cities are aware of what we're
[20:03] trying to do. So, with that, I'll turn
[20:06] the time over to writing to the
[20:07] president.
[20:09] Thank you, Ryan.
[20:10] >> Thank you, sir. Ah, well, mayors and
[20:13] council, thank you. Uh, thank you for
[20:14] the public that is here today. It's very
[20:16] exciting time. I always enjoy coming out
[20:18] and talking about housing. Uh, and your
[20:21] lovely city reporter is going to help me
[20:22] with my uh with my presentation. So,
[20:24] without further ado, uh, my name is Ryan
[20:26] Parker. I am the housing and
[20:28] homelessness coordinator for Davis
[20:29] County. I work under I work under Ryan
[20:31] here. If you want to click the next
[20:33] slide. U, so this is our team. Uh, the
[20:36] other person part of our team. name is
[20:38] Samantha Branch. She's our grants
[20:39] administrator. So, if any of you are
[20:41] working on any kind of CDBG or home kind
[20:43] of grants uh with the county Samantha's
[20:46] probably going to be the one helping you process it, she's great. I
[20:48] actually go back with her to the housing
[20:50] authority of Salt Lake County way back
[20:52] in the day. So, we've been doing this
[20:53] for a very long time. So, there's a lot
[20:55] of expertise, a lot of passion behind
[20:57] this. Next slide. So, uh to begin with the point in time count, this is
[21:02] the most recent one. We don't have this
[21:04] year's numbers yet for the 2026 point in
[21:06] time count. But for those who aren't
[21:07] familiar, the point in time count is an
[21:10] annual hunted um operation where every
[21:14] uh county of every state where we
[21:17] basically go out on three consecutive
[21:19] nights, I consider the coldest nights of
[21:20] the year at 3:00 a.m. and we try to
[21:22] count as many and observe as many people
[21:24] that are experiencing homelessness as
[21:26] possible. Uh you'll see last year we had
[21:28] 127 in Davis County and man I I should
[21:32] know these slides off the back of my
[21:33] head at this point but you'll see uh in
[21:35] some of those smaller like the
[21:36] chronically homeless individuals we're
[21:37] seeing in the about 30s the 40 range and
[21:40] then we're also seeing individuals that
[21:42] are utilizing services like safe harbor
[21:44] victims of domestic violence etc. Uh
[21:46] next slide please. Uh so you'll see over
[21:49] the last four years uh we've kind of had
[21:52] a fluctuation in number especially
[21:53] following COVID the 2024 to 2025 that
[21:57] huge jump was during that point in time
[21:59] count that was operated by our great
[22:01] partners Open Doors that the volunteers
[22:04] what they were doing they were only
[22:05] counting surveys and not observations.
[22:07] So for those that have never done the
[22:09] point in time count I'd highly recommend
[22:11] signing up we'll be posting it uh
[22:13] probably around November December. We do
[22:16] go out every January and I'm partaking
[22:18] in it. I do it every year that I can.
[22:19] So, please if you have it, it's a great
[22:21] time. We all just eat snacks, drink
[22:23] coffee. We just go around our our
[22:24] counties. Um, but what we do is we go
[22:27] out and we'll interview individuals.
[22:28] Now, sometimes folks at 3:00 in the
[22:30] morning do not want to be bothered, let
[22:32] alone those who are staying outside. I'm
[22:34] sure if I knocked on your door at 3:00
[22:35] a.m. wanting to give a survey, you
[22:37] probably have some choice orders for me.
[22:38] So, it's those that don't want to take a
[22:40] survey. We just count that as an
[22:42] observation. by let letting the 2024
[22:44] point in time count they were only
[22:46] counting surveys so that's why you see
[22:47] that large jump that we have those folks
[22:50] that even open doors like yeah no we
[22:52] were counting some of the same people
[22:54] what I can say is while we do not while
[22:56] we don't have the preliminary numbers in
[22:57] front of us uh we did see a little bit
[22:59] more observations this year so we are
[23:01] anticipating even ever so slightly
[23:03] increase in our point in time count
[23:07] thank you all right so what is permanent
[23:09] supportive and transitional housing so
[23:11] normally we would just purpose
[23:12] supportive housing or just do a project
[23:15] on transitional housing. But the great
[23:17] thing with these type of projects is
[23:18] that we they can be hybrid. They don't
[23:20] have to be either or. So you'll normally
[23:22] see things like transitional housing in
[23:24] let's say converted motel uh that you
[23:26] see a lot happening in like the Salt
[23:28] Lake County area. And then per
[23:29] supportive housing is where you're going
[23:30] to see what is your standard kind of
[23:33] housing. And there's many different
[23:34] types of those housing. What you can see
[23:36] in uh prior uh what we're talking about
[23:38] with permanent supportive or
[23:39] transitional housing is we're talking
[23:41] about prioritizing permanent housing for
[23:43] a stable base for people to recover. And
[23:46] when we mean permanent that's what we do
[23:48] mean now these are going to be not for
[23:49] everybody. Not everyone needs permanent
[23:51] uh supportive housing. You might have
[23:53] individuals that more qualify probably
[23:55] for transitional something quick and off the street help stabilize them
[23:58] getting employment. We're talking
[24:00] probably more young able-bodied
[24:01] individuals. But for the 50-year-old
[24:03] chronically homeless individual who's
[24:04] bound to a wheelchair, they're probably
[24:06] not going to find self-sufficiency
[24:08] working as Walmart. They're probably
[24:10] going to need that little extra help.
[24:11] And so permanent supportive housing uh
[24:14] will also provide what is known as
[24:15] on-site support because when people
[24:17] think of housing first, unfortunately,
[24:19] what has happened over the last few
[24:20] years is that housing first has been
[24:21] housing only. So the federal government
[24:24] they really prioritize housing first
[24:25] which means we are going to get people
[24:27] qualified for subsidized uh units or
[24:29] subsidized assistance without any kind
[24:31] of prerequisitions except income
[24:33] qualifications basically. And what was
[24:35] happening was while we had many
[24:37] meaningful you know well-meaning
[24:39] individuals or organizations that were
[24:40] applying for these funds they didn't
[24:42] have the infrastructure on the back end.
[24:44] So they said yes we're just going to
[24:45] inquify these folks. We're going to put
[24:47] them in a unit. They're going to be
[24:48] great and then they would just kind of
[24:49] walk away. That is not housing first. As
[24:52] a housing case manager for the housing
[24:53] authority county, what my role was after
[24:56] getting individuals out of the camps and
[24:58] signed up into housing with the lease, I
[25:00] would follow them into housing for at
[25:01] least a minimum of 12 months where we
[25:04] are working on setting up uh utilities
[25:06] and payments. You'll be amazed at how
[25:08] many folks the last time they were
[25:09] paying utilities was with money orders
[25:11] at Macy's. You know, everyone's like,
[25:13] "Wait, you just do everything online
[25:14] these days." So, those were kind of very
[25:16] fun activities to do with folks. Uh but
[25:18] that is also the big reason why program
[25:20] support of housing works because you're
[25:22] not seeing individuals that will get all
[25:24] this great things up front, case
[25:25] management, uh referrals, job training,
[25:28] all that kind of stuff put into housing
[25:30] and then best of luck to you and not and
[25:32] not ever addressing the core issues of
[25:34] what brought them into the homeless
[25:34] system in the first place. With
[25:36] permanent supportive housing and
[25:37] transitional housing, you have onsite
[25:39] case management, on-site support, and
[25:41] even things like APRNs who can come in
[25:43] and do med management. uh and what we've
[25:46] seen uh and we'll and I'll show you in a
[25:47] few slides as the statistics of what we
[25:49] have here in Utah precisely is that the
[25:51] future projected outcomes for long-term
[25:53] housing stability, the increased
[25:54] employment rates and greater economic
[25:56] independence. Next slide.
[25:59] So the key components of permanent
[26:01] supportive housing, we talked about the
[26:02] indefinite stay. What that more simply
[26:04] means is a right of tenency. So when we
[26:07] get into transitional housing, you're
[26:08] going to see things like six months to
[26:10] 12 months. And these are going to be a
[26:12] little bit more kind of like extended
[26:13] stays, sober livingings where there's
[26:15] not really like you don't really have
[26:16] lease rights. It's more so like I mean
[26:18] you probably can have a instead of a
[26:19] landlord to be a program manager. You
[26:21] might have required drug testing or even
[26:23] things like you have to attend certain
[26:25] AA meetings, get a car signed, etc., Perman supportive housing again you
[26:30] are required to sign up for the services
[26:32] that while you are living there, but you
[26:34] have the right of tenency. you're going
[26:35] to have a lease and every year what you
[26:38] what the big component is is that the
[26:40] individuals have the right of first
[26:41] refusal. Meaning that a landlord cannot
[26:43] just non-renew their lease. They still
[26:45] have to meet all their regulations. They
[26:47] still have to comply with their lease,
[26:48] still have to pay their rent. Uh but
[26:50] once their lease is up, it's not going
[26:52] to be well, you know, I'm not going to
[26:53] renew your lease because I want to raise
[26:55] my 30%. Uh, and I can say this as a
[26:58] former property manager for the Central
[27:00] City Apartments that is a purpose for
[27:02] housing project on Fifth South that is
[27:04] owned and operated by um by First Step
[27:06] House. So, it's the same thing as any
[27:08] other apartments, but we just have
[27:10] on-site support and we give our tenants
[27:12] the right to fund refusal. And sometimes
[27:14] they do. Sometimes they say, "Man, I've
[27:15] been here for about a year or two. I
[27:17] think I'm doing good and you know, I
[27:18] actually kind of want to just move back
[27:19] to Tilla or something like that." Okay,
[27:21] great. Now they have stud now they have
[27:22] a solid renter history and we're able to
[27:24] use that to then qualify for the next
[27:26] apartment and the next apartment but we
[27:28] always give them that chance been able
[27:29] to say well it's 12 months we're not
[27:30] going to leave next slide
[27:34] and so back to transitional housing
[27:36] we're talking about 6 to 24 months time
[27:38] limited stay but you still get those
[27:39] comprehensive support services we're
[27:40] still going to talk about uh having uh
[27:43] job site training u different types of
[27:46] uh educational supports we've already
[27:48] talking with with partners in the county
[27:49] whether it be Davis Tech or USU that
[27:52] would be willing to offer either
[27:54] scholarships or different kinds of uh
[27:56] job training. And so you're going to as
[27:58] well as um talking with groups like Open
[28:00] Doors or Davis Behavioral Health to do
[28:02] on-site case management, substance use
[28:04] treatment, things to that effect where
[28:06] they're going to be able to get those
[28:07] things on site instead of having to just
[28:09] travel. We're going to bring all these
[28:10] services to these folks, help them get
[28:11] stabilized in order to get them ready.
[28:14] Now, you do see that we do have
[28:15] transitional housing and permanent
[28:16] housing. Sometimes transitional housing
[28:18] can be used as a good way to just kind
[28:20] of gauge an individual do needs
[28:22] assessments and if there is a person
[28:23] that might require a little bit longer
[28:25] than you know six to 24 months then we
[28:27] can you know consider doing a permanent
[28:29] housing. Next slide.
[28:32] And going back to again the distinction
[28:34] between housing versus housing only is
[28:35] that people are not just being dropped
[28:37] off and left alone. As part of what my
[28:39] job was as a housing case manager, I had
[28:41] to check in on my clients at least once
[28:43] a week. when I was managing the central
[28:45] city apartments, the on-site case
[28:46] managers, they were checking in with
[28:47] their folks daily because they worked on
[28:49] site and their clients lived on site.
[28:52] So, even if I mean, of course, people
[28:53] live their adults are going to live
[28:54] their lives. If they miss someone that
[28:56] day, they'll just leave a note on their
[28:58] door, but there's always that constant
[28:59] communication. And the best thing about
[29:01] these these types of approach is that
[29:03] they're that everyone's going to have
[29:04] their needs met. So, as a property
[29:06] manager, if there was concerns about
[29:08] either behavior or rent and I couldn't
[29:09] get a hold of the other tenants, I would
[29:11] just reach out to their case manager and
[29:12] their case manager like, "Oh, yeah.
[29:14] Meeting with them, you know, bring it
[29:15] up." And that way, we were always able
[29:16] to have constant communication. So,
[29:18] there's never going to be this kind of
[29:20] what you saw with with some of these
[29:22] unfortunate housing first practices that
[29:23] were housed locally. These kind of
[29:25] disconnect, these cracks in the systems
[29:27] where what can you expect when you don't
[29:29] treat an individual's underlying cause?
[29:31] a person who has been severely disabled,
[29:34] who suffers with severe persistent
[29:35] mental illness and they've been on the
[29:37] streets. You put them in a great you
[29:41] know you don't know you don't help them
[29:44] develop all the necessary skills or even
[29:45] the life skills or even the inhome
[29:47] nursing skills that they might need. So
[29:49] that is what the best approach to
[29:50] permanent supportive housing and
[29:51] transitional housing is that is the
[29:53] actual true model with housing works.
[29:57] Thank you. Now the best part so what is
[29:59] the actual proof of this? This sounds
[30:00] great, Ryan. We love your energy. And
[30:03] where where does the rubber meet the
[30:04] road with this stuff? And not in
[30:06] California, not in New York. What are we
[30:08] talking about here? From the data from
[30:10] the Office of Homeless Services that has
[30:12] that have been looking at the actual
[30:14] numbers for what is our success rate,
[30:16] the permanent support of housing
[30:17] projects here in the state of Utah. Over
[30:19] the last four consecutive years, we have
[30:20] seen a success rate that is held steady
[30:22] at 93%.
[30:24] And the way they gathered this
[30:25] information is from the Utah Homeless
[30:27] Management Information System, HIMis. Uh
[30:29] so when you have service providers the
[30:31] road home first step house or any open
[30:34] doors safe harbor anyone who utilizes
[30:36] these kind of services they always you
[30:38] know will u designate their project and
[30:40] just kind of identify if a person is
[30:42] exiting homelessness if they're entering
[30:43] homelessness and that's where this data
[30:45] comes from. So we are seeing here
[30:47] locally uh that per supportive housing
[30:49] and transitional housing have huge
[30:50] success rates when dealing with
[30:51] individuals experiencing homelessness
[30:53] because again what we are doing is we
[30:54] are connecting people to services. We
[30:56] are not just leaving them to their
[30:58] basically to their own abilities and
[31:00] just putting them in just free housing
[31:01] the same best.
[31:04] >> Thank you. All right. So, the benefits
[31:07] of housing the chronically homeless. So,
[31:08] we already can just discuss the improved
[31:10] health outcomes and health outcomes and
[31:12] reduce mortality, the decreased use of
[31:14] emergency services. So, we're talking
[31:15] the high utilizers when we have people
[31:17] that are in camps, people that are
[31:18] outside or people that are going in and
[31:20] out of jail. This is going to cost all
[31:21] the taxpayers money. uh every uh every
[31:24] interaction with law enforcement, every
[31:26] interaction with the emergency room,
[31:27] every interaction with paramedics,
[31:29] responders, especially during either uh
[31:31] severe colds or high heats. These are
[31:34] all calls that obviously our first
[31:35] responders do fantastic with and meeting
[31:37] the needs of these this vulnerable
[31:39] population. But being able to have these
[31:41] people housed in in a very safe and
[31:43] stable environment just decreases uh the
[31:45] bandwidth on our on our services,
[31:47] especially in rural areas or in small
[31:49] towns. So we have the lower public cost,
[31:52] increase housing stability and
[31:53] self-sufficiency and enhance community
[31:54] safety and reduce crime rates.
[31:58] So the economic benefits of an
[31:59] affordable housing project. I always
[32:00] like to add these slides because we can
[32:02] all say here as adults in the year of
[32:04] our Lord 2026 altruism does not pay the
[32:06] bills. How do we make these projects
[32:08] pencil? How do we make these things best
[32:10] in our community? So we have the reduced
[32:12] public cost talked about the job
[32:14] creation and local spending when people
[32:16] live in the communities that they're
[32:18] able to work in that just booms the
[32:20] economy. As the resident of Twilla
[32:22] County, I can tell you Tilla County
[32:23] commissioners and Twilla City Councils,
[32:25] they're trying to figure out how to
[32:26] bring jobs there because about 80% of us
[32:28] commute into Salt Lake County and they
[32:29] know that's a lot of money they're
[32:31] leaving on the table. So when you have
[32:32] these housing projects that are able to
[32:34] connect residents to educational
[32:36] prospects, job prospects, you are now
[32:39] getting a new employee here in your
[32:41] city, here in your area. Uh enhance
[32:44] property values, increase tax revenue,
[32:45] and decrease reliance on social
[32:47] services. So again, when people are able
[32:49] to stabilize because I mean sure uh we
[32:52] can always, you know, want to we can
[32:55] always want to hope for the best,
[32:56] prepare for the worst, but in the end,
[32:57] everyone wants to live with dignity.
[32:59] Everyone wants to be independent. And so
[33:01] when we're able to create these kind of
[33:03] networks, when we're able to create
[33:04] these infrastructures, this one goes
[33:06] ahead and just continues to support that
[33:07] quality.
[33:09] And you'll see that even in Salt Lake
[33:11] City where you have downtowns and you
[33:12] have all these different services that
[33:14] will per supportive housing projects are
[33:16] you see quiet and sticky.
[33:20] And then what does a purpose housing or transitional housing project look
[33:24] like in your community? So the great
[33:26] thing is is that we are no longer in the
[33:28] 80s. We do not have to live with the old
[33:30] box um you know DC Chicago style pro
[33:33] housing projects. Our perport housing
[33:36] projects can adapt to anything that the
[33:38] architects need to for whatever
[33:40] communities desire. In fact, the three
[33:42] new uh the three uh resource centers
[33:44] that came online in the Salt Lake City
[33:46] area after the closure of the downtown
[33:47] shelter, those were all designed with
[33:49] input from the communities in from the
[33:51] neighborhoods in those communities. So,
[33:53] we can use different uh cottage
[33:55] clusters. They don't have to be these
[33:56] big old apartment buildings. We can do
[33:58] town homes. We can I mean if we want we
[34:01] can even do reuse projects because again
[34:03] as Ryan was mentioning yes the land is
[34:05] very tight. Are we looking at
[34:06] redevelopment infill? There's nothing
[34:08] that can't be done when it comes to
[34:10] prosper housing and transitional housing
[34:11] projects with with the amazing
[34:13] developers we have this day and age and
[34:15] especially developers here in Utah and
[34:17] we've already been talking with some
[34:18] that are very interested in doing a
[34:19] project somewhere in Davis County.
[34:23] And so the community partners that we
[34:24] have been in constant touch with uh over
[34:26] these past few months and getting this
[34:28] kind of uh really just kind of getting
[34:29] the ball rolling and these conversations
[34:31] going has been Davis behavioral health.
[34:32] Some of you might be familiar that they
[34:34] are currently building their own uh
[34:36] housing development in the Kisville
[34:38] Logan or Leon kind of border. Uh we have
[34:41] open doors Davis Community Housing
[34:43] Authority Utah State University and
[34:44] Davis Technical College. Inter Mountain
[34:46] Health has also talked about wanting to
[34:48] be able to support with any kind of
[34:49] health initiatives.
[34:52] And then next, so finally, the reason
[34:54] why we're here, and I wanted to rephrase
[34:56] this, but I didn't have time this
[34:58] afternoon. Uh, what we are asking is
[35:00] that if an opportunity arises, because
[35:02] again, at this point, nothing has been
[35:03] penciled, nothing is mandatory, nothing
[35:06] like we're we're not uh we're not we're
[35:08] not swinging hammers or anything like
[35:10] that at this point. if an opportunity
[35:12] were to arise and we had the partners,
[35:14] we had the finances, we had everything
[35:16] ready to go and something like this were
[35:18] to be considered and there was a site
[35:19] and an opportunity here in South Weieber
[35:22] that we would at least consider here
[35:24] what the project would do. And the thing
[35:26] when we're talking about these type of
[35:28] projects is that every community has a
[35:30] different need, right? The need of Davis
[35:33] County is not the same as Salt Lake
[35:34] County. So, in Tilla, where I'm
[35:36] currently living at, where we're in a
[35:37] rural area and people do not want to
[35:40] have huge shelters, we have a very small
[35:43] and very practical homeless shelter that
[35:44] is in a residential neighborhood and it
[35:46] has 60 beds. It's not like the South
[35:48] Salt Lake shelter where we're talking
[35:50] about 300 beds or have legislature.
[35:52] We're talking about maybe building an
[35:53] 1100 bed shelter. So, we're talking,
[35:56] well, what are we looking at with this
[35:57] development? It could be 50 units, 60
[35:59] units, and then everything that we can
[36:01] do as a county to help support any kind
[36:03] of environmental impact when we're using
[36:05] CDBG or home funding again because we
[36:08] want to be a supportive partner in all
[36:09] of this. We're not here to say, "Yeah,
[36:11] you guys should let uh this developer,
[36:13] this operator open up here because we
[36:15] just think it's good. We want to do what
[36:16] we can to help support our communities,
[36:18] our uh our cities, and all
[36:20] stakeholders." Uh, and with that, I'm
[36:22] open to any questions that the council
[36:24] have.
[36:28] Thank you. Appreciate you coming. Anyone
[36:30] have any comments or any questions?
[36:35] >> Do do we have any
[36:38] like this in Davis County now?
[36:40] >> We do not.
[36:40] >> I think so.
[36:41] >> That's what we are hoping. We at least
[36:42] want to find somewhere to one per
[36:45] municipal housing project because the
[36:47] need is there now. And again, if we saw
[36:50] what the point of time count was, we
[36:51] found 127 last year. And not all of
[36:54] those are going to be individuals that
[36:55] need permanent housing. So on the top 30
[36:58] maybe 50 maybe 60 units things to that
[37:00] effect. Just one appropriate size per
[37:03] support housing project in Davis County
[37:05] is something that we are hoping to have
[37:07] as soon as possible.
[37:12] » I think we're approaching it the right
[37:13] way. I really do.
[37:16] >> Absolutely. That's why I'm saying well
[37:17] we want because we believe that sure
[37:19] shelters they have the groups. They
[37:21] really do. I mean, in fact, safe harbor
[37:22] is a fantastic community partner that we
[37:25] have, but we don't want to work upstream
[37:27] of this, right? Because in the end,
[37:29] while there's so many different nuances
[37:30] and solutions that we could try to deal
[37:32] to addressing homelessness, what is it
[37:34] all about? Housing, housing, housing, but the right housing.
[37:38] We're not going to throw spaghetti at
[37:40] the wall and see what sticks. We see
[37:41] what person supported housing can do,
[37:43] especially for those who have chronic uh
[37:44] who are chronically homeless, people
[37:46] that require a lot more deeper need and
[37:48] saying instead of just putting people in
[37:50] disconnected units just across counties
[37:52] and trying to connect, let's bring the
[37:53] services and everyone under together
[37:55] under the same roof and that is what is
[37:57] going to bring con consistency and
[37:58] stability and in the end
[38:00] self-sufficiency and long-term um and
[38:02] long terms. Yeah.
[38:04] >> Great. Appreciate it.
[38:06] >> Thank you. Thank you. Thanks.
[38:13] Okay. Next, we need to approve our
[38:15] consent agenda consisting of March 10th,
[38:18] 2026 minutes, March 24th, 2026 minutes,
[38:23] March checks, and February's budget to
[38:25] actual counselor. Is there any changes
[38:28] or discussion to any of these items? If
[38:32] not, we'll ask for a motion to approve
[38:35] them.
[38:39] to approve the consent agenda.
[38:42] Seconded.
[38:45] » Excuse me. We have a motion and a
[38:46] second. Councilman Albertson. All in
[38:49] favor say I.
[38:53] » Next item. Ordinance 2026-05
[38:57] zone change of 1.45 acres at
[39:00] approximately 1121 East Lester Street.
[39:04] some agriculture to residential low
[39:07] density
[39:09] council. Do you have any discussion on
[39:11] this item?
[39:16] I I think it's a great idea. And maybe
[39:18] just for Lance,
[39:21] I mean, I know we have Are they able to
[39:24] split that into two lots without having
[39:26] to do a
[39:28] like one of our private roads or a
[39:32] >> They will they will have to extend the
[39:33] culde-sac and make it
[39:36] >> um Oh, okay.
[39:37] >> kind of mirror what's on the north side,
[39:40] right? Yeah. The north side. Uh it'll be
[39:42] a shorter culde-sac, but it'll have to
[39:43] have that culde-sac,
[39:44] >> but they are putting a culde-sac in
[39:45] there.
[39:46] >> Yeah.
[39:46] >> Okay. That's that was my
[39:47] >> We looked at previously there were a lot
[39:49] of uh people who came in were looking at
[39:51] property doing four or five homes and
[39:53] they just couldn't make it
[39:54] >> and that's why I was wondering how that
[39:56] >> Yeah. But this this two is very doable.
[39:59] >> Okay.
[40:01] We'll look for a motion then.
[40:07] Mayor, I make a motion to approve
[40:08] ordinance 2026-05
[40:10] zone change of 1.45 acres at
[40:13] approximately 1121 East Luster Drive
[40:15] from agriculture to residential bow
[40:18] density.
[40:18] >> Seconded.
[40:20] >> Okay, we have a motion second by
[40:21] Councilman Davis. We'll do a roll call
[40:23] starting with Councilman Windsor.
[40:25] >> I I
[40:27] >> I.
[40:29] >> Great. Motion carries.
[40:31] >> Appreciate it. Thank you.
[40:34] Next item, resolution
[40:37] 26-09,
[40:38] amending the consolidated fee schedule,
[40:41] chapter 7, impact fee five, sewer. Any
[40:46] discussion on this resolution?
[40:54] Not someone like to make a motion.
[41:02] Mayor, I make a motion to approve
[41:04] resolution 26-09 amending the
[41:06] consolidated fees schedule chapter 7
[41:09] impact fees.
[41:10] >> Seconded.
[41:11] >> Motion a second by Councilman
[41:13] Habersonson. We'll do a roll call vote
[41:16] starting with Councilman Habersonson.
[41:17] >> I
[41:22] motion carries.
[41:25] Thank you. Next one. Next item.
[41:29] uh direction on the construction project
[41:31] at 7375
[41:34] South and 125 East. Dave, I assume
[41:38] you're going to lead us in that
[41:39] discussion.
[41:41] Yes,
[41:43] [clears throat]
[41:45] the packet gives a uh brief summary
[41:50] based on the retreat discussion and the
[41:53] direction of staff to go and design the
[41:55] project and see if we could get that
[41:57] ready for bid. Uh we before we bid, we
[42:00] wanted to bring that back to the council
[42:02] and and have a discussion.
[42:05] Staff's recommendation is to put this
[42:07] project in the budget for fiscal year
[42:10] 27. However, not bid it until next
[42:14] spring. Uh the reason for that is
[42:17] information that we've gathered since
[42:18] the retreat in doing the design and
[42:20] meeting with Davis County um
[42:24] uh shows us that uh we have more
[42:27] opportunity to provide receive potential
[42:31] grant funding from the county. uh pursue
[42:34] that as well as um look to rescope the
[42:38] project by rerouting it and uh
[42:40] potentially saving money by not having
[42:42] to run the length of South Weber drive,
[42:45] but those things are still kind of yet
[42:47] to be determined of timeline and
[42:48] whatnot. Um Brett has [clears throat]
[42:51] done really good work through the budget
[42:52] committee meetings to this point to put
[42:55] the entirety of the project in the
[42:57] budget. Uh but that would be money that
[43:00] we wouldn't have to spend if we're able
[43:03] to uh just wait a year and bid it next
[43:06] year. So that's the recommendation by
[43:08] staff is put it in the budget for fiscal
[43:10] year 27 so that we could then do that
[43:14] project next year calendar year.
[43:18] [clears throat]
[43:18] >> Um the time frame in which it's going to
[43:20] be in next year's budget I think you
[43:21] said b did it in April. Is it the whole
[43:24] amount of the project going to be spent
[43:26] in the fiscal year 27 budget and is it
[43:28] required to put all that in the 2026
[43:31] budget?
[43:32] >> The answer to that is no. It would not
[43:35] all be spent in fiscal year 27 at this
[43:39] point. Determining how much of the
[43:41] project would be in fiscal year 27
[43:43] versus uh need to be in fiscal year 28.
[43:46] We just don't have those details yet.
[43:54] So,
[43:55] I guess I just [clears throat] don't
[43:56] understand. Um, if we don't really have
[43:58] all the details for the project, if we
[44:00] don't even know really if we're going to
[44:01] get a grant for it, there's changes that
[44:03] could be made, uh, everything that we
[44:05] just learned, um, why aren't we just
[44:07] handling that as an amendment? We'd have
[44:09] the funds still at that same time during
[44:12] the 27, but then we'd actually be able
[44:13] to see what we're voting yes for, how
[44:16] much, what, why, how.
[44:18] >> We're happy to do that as well. we
[44:19] that's an option um and a process we
[44:22] could utilize as well. Either one would
[44:25] work. Is there an advantageous path
[44:29] either way or is it six?
[44:32] >> Um Joel brings up a really important
[44:35] point that simply a transparency aspect
[44:39] of saying we know exactly how much we're
[44:42] budgeting for the project based on the
[44:44] updated information that we gather from
[44:46] now through January, February next year
[44:49] when we'd want to bid it out. we could
[44:51] bring a budget amendment back at that
[44:53] point so that it would be more clear
[44:55] what the total project cost is. Um for
[44:58] ease, we could put in what we have now
[45:01] knowing that we're not authorizing that
[45:04] spend. We're just putting that money in
[45:06] the budget. So e either one really
[45:08] works. I I think there's pros and cons
[45:10] to both, but it's from a clarity
[45:14] standpoint, doing it as a budget
[45:15] amendment makes sense from maybe an ease
[45:18] standpoint. um it's already in the draft
[45:21] budget, so we could just leave it like
[45:22] that. But either way, we're good as
[45:25] staff.
[45:27] >> So, if I'm if I'm hearing recommendation
[45:30] correctly, outside of what you just
[45:31] called out is the recommendation was to
[45:33] postpone the project year because we
[45:35] feel like there could be significant
[45:38] changes from now until then that would
[45:40] be advantageous for the city. Exactly.
[45:42] >> Correct.
[45:42] >> Yes.
[45:42] >> But not a full year more. I mean a full
[45:45] year yes is but our our budget year
[45:48] doesn't start till July so we're really
[45:50] post talking about postponing six months
[45:52] right
[45:53] >> but we're appropriating the funds for
[45:55] the entire project just to be
[45:57] appropriate sorry
[46:02] I I agree with both I don't know that I
[46:03] have a preference either way I would
[46:06] like it I mean it
[46:09] it's a it's a significant amount when
[46:10] you look at the uh it's like the third
[46:13] page of the budget report. I mean,
[46:16] [clears throat] it shows those dollars
[46:18] and where they have to come from.
[46:20] They're significant dollars out of the
[46:22] funds as Wayne and I reviewed it in the
[46:24] finance committee. I mean, it definitely
[46:26] is a significant toll on the funds and
[46:28] the mayor can attest to that. He was
[46:30] there, too. it. So, it's I mean I
[46:34] wouldn't mind if there was even an ear
[46:37] tag somewhere in the budget so that we
[46:39] see that those our funds we're
[46:40] considering
[46:43] for that for that budget year. But I I
[46:46] mean I'm okay with it whether we budget
[46:48] that amount or not. I still think the
[46:50] project definitely needs to progress. I
[46:53] like the fact that we're having Brandon
[46:55] design it so that we can start that
[46:57] process.
[46:59] I like for the fact that it's fully appropriated in the budget because
[47:03] then the funds can't be
[47:05] >> reappropriated that now we don't have
[47:07] any money once the project does go and
[47:09] now we're have
[47:09] >> I I agree with that totally.
[47:11] >> I'd rather have it there reserved not
[47:12] spend it given the information that
[47:15] comes forward or be able to spend it um
[47:17] and have that flexibility. We don't have
[47:19] to spend it if we get the grants but
[47:21] having it there keeps it there and not
[47:23] reappropriated something else that might
[47:25] come up.
[47:27] But one of those important
[47:31] then I guess we might cancel
[47:34] those clauses in the contract that we
[47:36] can uh bid it in different schedules and
[47:39] go that route. But yes,
[47:47] » what would we like to do?
[47:48] >> I like I like being appropriate.
[47:51] >> I like that too.
[47:52] So at least we know that that's that
[47:55] amount is reserved for something like
[47:58] that.
[48:03] » You guys good with that?
[48:04] >> I'm good with that.
[48:06] >> Okay.
[48:08] >> Anything else, Dave?
[48:10] >> Is Is Brett good with that?
[48:13] >> He has to find the money all the time.
[48:15] He needs
[48:16] >> I I can find the money. Um, no, it's it really is it's sixes either way. I do
[48:23] like it being appropriated in there so
[48:25] that like you have already mentioned the
[48:29] that it shows the full amount of what
[48:31] the project could be. Um, my thought is
[48:35] the amount that we do have appropriated
[48:37] is higher than what the project will be
[48:41] and we can bring those numbers up when
[48:43] it gets closer. we have better numbers,
[48:45] a better idea of how the project is
[48:47] going to go. But I I like having it in
[48:50] there.
[48:51] >> Just for total total transparency, the
[48:54] one fund, I believe it's the storm drain
[48:56] fund, is basically making a taking a
[48:59] loan from the other funds and it's about
[49:01] a 10-year payback period.
[49:03] >> Correct.
[49:05] >> That's that's the one
[49:07] I say negative, but the one thing people
[49:09] need to realize to make the project go
[49:11] their portion of it. They don't have the
[49:12] money right now, but those are impact
[49:14] fees that are going to reimburse it,
[49:16] right? Is it not correct?
[49:17] >> Yeah. So, storm drain is basically short
[49:19] a million dollar of the $4.5 million
[49:23] total project cost and that's divided up
[49:25] over the different funds and their
[49:28] portions. But storm drain by itself is
[49:30] about a million dollar short. We don't
[49:33] have a specific number at this point of
[49:36] how much cost savings we could have by
[49:38] rerouting, but [clears throat] it could
[49:41] potentially wipe away that deficit by
[49:45] rerouting it. And and
[49:47] so that's uh that would perhaps take
[49:51] away the need to loan from storm future
[49:53] storm drain impact fees.
[49:57] >> Summarize the worst case scenario for
[49:59] the project is what's being
[50:00] appropriated. Exactly. [clears throat]
[50:08] Ultimately, this decision will be made
[50:10] through the budget process with this was
[50:13] an action item. If the council wanted to
[50:16] bid the project and say yes, go bid it.
[50:19] Then there's a conversation of do we
[50:21] need to amend our current budget or put
[50:23] it into the fiscal year 27 budget. Um,
[50:27] with the delay, there's not an action
[50:29] needed on this item right now. Uh, the
[50:32] decision will be made through the budget
[50:34] process.
[50:36] >> Can I just quickly clarify that the the
[50:40] different funds that are paying for the
[50:43] project, that's what a lot of the the
[50:45] savings, the fund balance that is being
[50:46] used. Um, that's the intent of it is to
[50:50] go towards projects like this. Just so
[50:53] that you guys are aware that we're not
[50:55] just spending fund balance just to spend
[50:57] it, but that's the intent of of the fund
[51:00] balance is to cover projects, bigger
[51:04] projects that we don't get enough
[51:06] revenue in in one year.
[51:11] » Well said.
[51:11] >> Okay. Thank you, Brad.
[51:15] » Okay. you get the direction you need,
[51:17] Dave.
[51:18] >> I think
[51:21] » yes, there was a majority of the council
[51:23] that said, "Leave it in the budget as is
[51:25] >> and bid it next January."
[51:27] >> And then bid it next January, February.
[51:29] >> Yeah.
[51:29] >> Okay.
[51:30] >> With more information while we pursue
[51:31] the grant. And
[51:32] >> sorry, I was misreading your facial
[51:34] expression. I thought maybe you were
[51:35] questioning what
[51:36] >> Sorry. No, I
[51:42] » the grant from the county. We should
[51:43] know
[51:45] like I think it's the end of September,
[51:47] isn't it?
[51:48] >> November.
[51:49] >> No, that's about November. Yeah.
[51:51] >> Yeah. It's when it's fall time frame
[51:53] there
[51:54] >> on that. Okay. Next item, discussion
[51:57] item. Fiscal year 2027 budgets that
[52:02] >> we'll let you lead this you and Dave.
[52:10] Um,
[52:13] I guess where what do you guys want to discuss? Really,
[52:18] as I mentioned earlier, a lot of this
[52:21] information is in that document. Um,
[52:24] provided there's a lot of different
[52:26] topics that we could cover. Um, I I want
[52:30] I was the hope was that you guys had
[52:33] time to review this um, and that you
[52:37] come back with your your own specific
[52:39] questions. But I do want to point out um
[52:42] between the retreat when we met in in
[52:45] February and the current budget that
[52:48] that's in there right now um that that
[52:53] difference I have it broken out in a
[52:55] percentage. I didn't really feel that
[52:57] the dollar amounts were were valuable in
[53:00] this sense. But you can see we worked
[53:02] very well with different departments and
[53:06] come up with a number to to show where
[53:08] the changes were going were from the
[53:11] retreat to now. And as you can see, a
[53:13] big portion of that is is the projects.
[53:16] The two big projects or andor equipment
[53:19] that we have this year is the 7375
[53:23] and also the purchase of the quint.
[53:26] That's where a big portion of of that is
[53:27] going and that's where a majority of the
[53:29] changes from the retreat to now occur.
[53:33] Um in operation and m maintenance we did
[53:36] see a decrease. Um we we focused I
[53:41] worked with the departments very closely
[53:43] to try and figure out where we can can
[53:45] make cuts and or not necessarily make
[53:48] cuts but also look at where we can save
[53:52] the city money. Are we spending too much
[53:54] in one area and and things like that? We
[53:57] went through it with the departments.
[53:58] Dave and I have gone over it. Um I've
[54:01] done a lot of research on the data.
[54:03] That's where it is.
[54:05] um salaries covers about 6% of the of
[54:08] the increase. Um bank charges were
[54:12] actually surprisingly
[54:14] even though that's a 2% is is more than I was expecting but that's kind of
[54:19] where the numbers landed for that. Um
[54:21] services is a little bit less than 1%.
[54:25] Um and like I said the operation
[54:27] maintenance is is a negative 4% at the
[54:29] moment.
[54:34] So you believe that the maintenance on
[54:36] the new public works building building
[54:39] is going to be less than what we were
[54:40] paying at the old one.
[54:42] >> Operation and maintenance is more than
[54:45] just
[54:47] the the maintenance. There's
[54:49] >> I know that's why I said maintenance
[54:50] instead of operation and maintenance
[54:52] >> overall their department. Yes. Between
[54:55] all the other departments it decreased.
[54:59] Does that does that make sense?
[55:01] Um,
[55:03] >> all you did was just repeat the
[55:04] statement, but I guess
[55:05] >> but it's it's it's this is I didn't want
[55:09] to go department by department for the
[55:11] fact that I wanted you guys to look at a
[55:13] city as a whole. Um, even though yes,
[55:18] the the public new public works building
[55:20] their operation and maintenance did
[55:22] increase but not at the same rate as the
[55:25] whole city decreased.
[55:29] It is it is just a slight decrease and
[55:33] if we had not done the public works
[55:34] building it would have been probably
[55:37] more drastic um percentage difference
[55:40] but um there's actually brought it up
[55:43] quite a bit closer to that negative 4%.
[55:47] >> So any specifics on where we did the
[55:51] such large maintenance cuts? one one
[55:55] place in particular was our internet service provider.
[56:01] Um there was a good chunk of change that
[56:04] we were paying every year. Um when
[56:06] connect came through um they offered the
[56:10] city a a proposal and a rate that we
[56:15] couldn't pass up on for the whole city
[56:18] to switch over and we're working on that
[56:20] as one of our projects with it to switch
[56:23] over um to be on connect fiber
[56:33] Rachel,
[56:34] >> no, you don't.
[56:35] >> I just didn't want to interrupt if you
[56:36] did. I think Okay. Um Brett, would you
[56:38] explain? We have a balanced budget put
[56:40] in here. Can you explain not just for
[56:42] the council for the public? Correct.
[56:44] >> Yeah, that's probably where I I should
[56:46] have started. A balanced budget in
[56:49] essence is saying that our revenues
[56:52] equals our expenditures at the moment.
[56:55] Um
[56:55] >> well, my question, let me get to my
[56:56] question because you might be going
[56:58] someplace different. [laughter]
[56:59] The balance budget that you presented is
[57:02] based upon uh what change in the
[57:04] revenue? Are we just holding our
[57:06] property tax? Are we going to maintain
[57:08] the rate or what are we doing in regards
[57:11] to making sure that the budget is stays
[57:13] balanced?
[57:14] >> There's
[57:16] in relation. So, the property tax is
[57:19] actually a a smaller portion of of the
[57:22] revenue that comes in through the city,
[57:25] but it it is a good portion because it
[57:27] impacts um the community at most. And
[57:31] so, the property tax at this moment is
[57:34] to is to increase the rate to where the
[57:38] rate was uh two years ago, I believe, is
[57:41] where is where we're at. to increase the
[57:44] rate, not just hold the rate, to
[57:46] increase the rate to where it was two
[57:48] years last year. It decreased
[57:52] and we felt that it was sufficient. It
[57:54] wasn't a a huge request and we did we
[57:57] felt that it wasn't necessary to go
[57:59] through truth and taxation to hold the
[58:01] rate. Um, and so this year we're looking
[58:04] at bringing that rate back up to where
[58:06] it was two years ago.
[58:08] That percent increase estimated is
[58:12] >> the the the dollar amount or the
[58:14] percentage
[58:15] >> percentage
[58:16] >> it was it was
[58:19] about 5%
[58:21] >> which is about $60,000
[58:23] >> correct?
[58:24] >> Yeah.
[58:28] which I did some I did do some math and
[58:31] looking at it for the the average median
[58:34] home
[58:36] um it's around five I think it was
[58:38] around five 550 was the average median
[58:42] home size it was an increase of about
[58:44] $2.15
[58:47] » per month
[58:48] >> a year
[58:51] per year
[58:57] What Brett is saying is that
[58:59] [clears throat] this budget includes the
[59:01] intent to go through the truth and
[59:03] taxation process
[59:06] to take our rate from the 1434, you
[59:09] know, 01434
[59:13] to 0.1441,
[59:15] which is where we were 2 years ago.
[59:19] That's a rate. And when the city
[59:21] determines this is the rate that we're
[59:23] trying to hold, then the estimated
[59:27] amount that we receive becomes an
[59:29] estimate. Just I said estimated amount,
[59:31] it becomes an estimate. The other
[59:33] inverse of that is the city could say we
[59:35] want to generate X dollar amount in
[59:38] property tax and the county would then
[59:40] back into a rate and tell us what the
[59:42] new rate would be to generate that
[59:44] amount of property tax. So the last few
[59:48] years we've talked about maintaining a
[59:49] certain rate or area of rate and then
[59:52] the we've had to estimate the amount of
[59:54] property tax that would come from that
[59:56] rate.
[1:00:02] » Any questions?
[1:00:04] >> Say that. Joel,
[1:00:04] >> I said, do you guys have anything? No, I don't have any other questions on it
[1:00:09] other than if if everybody's okay with
[1:00:11] that last item because that's that's
[1:00:14] kind of the main discussion item.
[1:00:16] I I was thinking we were holding the
[1:00:18] rate when we met in our last admin
[1:00:21] finance committee.
[1:00:23] >> Um
[1:00:24] I didn't I hadn't thought about going
[1:00:27] back to the what we were two years ago
[1:00:30] cuz we let it deteriorate a year ago and
[1:00:32] drop down.
[1:00:35] I don't know where everybody else was on
[1:00:36] that same page. And I and I I was going
[1:00:40] to maybe just ask Brett to and I know
[1:00:43] it's a guess and I don't need you to do
[1:00:45] it tonight, but before the so that we
[1:00:48] can know what the amount would be in
[1:00:51] [clears throat] your estimate if we just
[1:00:52] hold the rate
[1:00:56] at what a current our current percentage
[1:00:59] rate.
[1:01:02] The difference between those two rates
[1:01:03] last year was about $6,000. It was not a
[1:01:07] big number.
[1:01:07] >> That's what I That's what you're asking.
[1:01:09] That's what I'm asking because I think
[1:01:11] it might be a little more palatable.
[1:01:13] >> Yeah, that difference would be anywhere
[1:01:17] between5 to $6,000.
[1:01:21] » We will still get more revenue. Correct.
[1:01:23] >> Most likely, unless the county tells us
[1:01:25] something different,
[1:01:26] >> but it would be holding the same rate.
[1:01:28] >> Yeah.
[1:01:40] I did not at all plan to uh raise the
[1:01:44] rate. Um and I'll let you know I I don't
[1:01:48] support that at all right now. Um
[1:01:51] I wish
[1:01:56] right I I I honestly don't know what to
[1:01:59] say. Um,
[1:02:02] I wish that we could have a project that
[1:02:04] actually looks at how much we're
[1:02:06] spending per capita. Um, because past
[1:02:10] month and a half I've been running
[1:02:11] numbers and we're we're higher than
[1:02:14] everybody. Whether it's the same type of
[1:02:17] cities that we are, I mean, when you
[1:02:19] start getting into the ridiculous $686
[1:02:22] per capita is the burden that we have on
[1:02:26] a $7.26 26 billion total general fund
[1:02:30] expenditures and that's what we're
[1:02:32] talking about right now. And I mean when
[1:02:35] we're looking at that and everybody else
[1:02:37] are I mean South Ogden they're half that
[1:02:42] you know Fruit Heights way below it.
[1:02:45] West Point again half. I'm just saying
[1:02:48] that
[1:02:50] we've got to eventually
[1:02:53] stop taking money from the residents and
[1:02:57] say, "Okay, if this is the level of
[1:03:00] service you guys want, this is what we
[1:03:01] need." I don't think we can do that as
[1:03:04] long as every single year we're giving
[1:03:07] another 5% to all salary. Um, I don't
[1:03:11] think we can do that where we don't
[1:03:12] really have a good capital budget. So,
[1:03:15] we're bonding for things. Um, I mean,
[1:03:20] just even looking at versus other cities
[1:03:22] and all of these different categories
[1:03:23] that we listed in there, we're way
[1:03:26] higher than everybody else there.
[1:03:28] There's nothing that I can find that we
[1:03:30] can go woohoo. We spent less money on I
[1:03:32] mean, we're we're ridiculously high even
[1:03:35] on parks right now compared to some of
[1:03:37] the other cities. And that we know is
[1:03:38] probably because we got more grass than
[1:03:40] everybody else that is existing as our
[1:03:43] parks, not because of how much we're
[1:03:45] spending on them or the wreck. I just I
[1:03:48] wish we could take a look at it.
[1:03:51] And I know that's not part of the budget
[1:03:53] process. Budget process is just to see
[1:03:55] what we've talked about and agree to it.
[1:03:58] And
[1:04:00] I just I wish that there was more. I'm
[1:04:03] sorry. Um, we've got Parsons that will
[1:04:06] probably be shutting down or staying at
[1:04:08] the $75 to $50,000 instead of $375,000
[1:04:13] that they were at their peak in 21.
[1:04:16] Usually averaging about $350,000.
[1:04:20] That's gone. That's going away.
[1:04:23] Um, we haven't seen as much as we'd like
[1:04:26] to out of General RV. And the
[1:04:27] indications is the market is still
[1:04:30] really, really slow on sales.
[1:04:33] We're asking to give more people
[1:04:36] full-time status with benefits, which
[1:04:40] sure that takes up part of this year,
[1:04:42] but that also puts us on the hook for
[1:04:46] the next 10 years. Somebody making
[1:04:48] 65,000 here, we're talking about
[1:04:51] literally a million plus dollars in 10
[1:04:53] years of additional costs for the
[1:04:56] benefits for for the retirement. And
[1:04:58] it's it just gets to that point where I
[1:05:01] don't think we're looking far enough
[1:05:03] ahead to be able to say, "Well, it's
[1:05:06] just it's just this amount." And I would
[1:05:08] love to have the time to be able to do
[1:05:10] that. I would love to have the
[1:05:11] information to be able to do that. Um I
[1:05:14] mean, I've I've gone through and I've looked at so many different things
[1:05:18] just trying to figure it out for a month
[1:05:19] and I just I I I think we have so many
[1:05:24] opportunities where we could say,
[1:05:25] "Here's what we need to do." And
[1:05:29] here is why we don't need to pay for the
[1:05:33] city of tomorrow, our buildout with the
[1:05:37] 8,000 people that live here right now.
[1:05:39] They shouldn't be forced to pay for a
[1:05:41] full bout level of everything. Um
[1:05:46] I think we need to to really look at
[1:05:48] some of these and say, okay, um we've
[1:05:51] got one of the best fire departments
[1:05:53] around. We've spent a lot of money to
[1:05:55] make sure we have that That's 100% my
[1:05:58] top priority. I think that's great.
[1:06:01] I don't know if having the highest level
[1:06:04] in any of these other categories really has that same level for me.
[1:06:11] >> Can I ask a question, Joel,
[1:06:12] >> please?
[1:06:12] >> What information are you referring to? I
[1:06:14] don't know where you've collected this
[1:06:16] or is this like a report that's out for
[1:06:18] the
[1:06:19] >> Well, it is. You can go to the state. Um
[1:06:22] they have the all of the they have the
[1:06:24] listing of every single one of the
[1:06:25] budgets that have been coming out for
[1:06:27] the past 101 15 years. Um and you can
[1:06:30] compare it with the simple formula is
[1:06:35] this is how much um population we have
[1:06:38] in our city. I know I have to use my
[1:06:40] hand. Sorry. Um this is the population
[1:06:42] we have in our city. This is the amount
[1:06:45] that we're going to spend this year
[1:06:47] according to our budget.
[1:06:49] this is how many people that relates to
[1:06:52] or the cost for each one of those
[1:06:54] people. Then you can also go in there
[1:06:56] and say, okay, how much of that taxes is
[1:06:59] residential
[1:07:01] property tax versus commercial? And
[1:07:04] we're we're ridiculously low. We all
[1:07:07] know that. But that means when we look
[1:07:09] at somebody like Riverdale for example,
[1:07:13] um they have so much revenue coming in
[1:07:17] versus people that live there that
[1:07:19] they're actually making money every
[1:07:21] year. That's somebody who's not mine.
[1:07:26] So
[1:07:27] those are the numbers that that we were
[1:07:29] pulling from. And I would I would love
[1:07:33] to be able to say, "Okay, let's turn
[1:07:36] this over to the finance committee and
[1:07:39] how are we looking at what we're going
[1:07:41] to be in 10 years and how much we spend
[1:07:43] now or stop the spending of now is going
[1:07:46] to help us." We've got um different
[1:07:49] rates coming in for the uh not the
[1:07:52] retirement for the estate numbers.
[1:07:58] Sorry, I can't think right now. Um,
[1:08:00] anyways, it's going from what about a 1%
[1:08:03] to a 2.5, which isn't much when you
[1:08:07] consider how many employees we have,
[1:08:08] full-time employees that we have with
[1:08:09] that, but it's still a hundred extra
[1:08:11] thousand a year that as long as we just
[1:08:15] keep on spending on this one year, we're
[1:08:18] not really looking forward. And we've
[1:08:20] talked about that in capital projects,
[1:08:22] how we need to to put money aside for
[1:08:25] it. [clears throat]
[1:08:27] Excuse me. And I don't know I really
[1:08:30] don't know what this
[1:08:33] budget is if if we say okay that's it.
[1:08:36] This is the final budget really. I mean
[1:08:38] we'll be able to talk about it later.
[1:08:40] But
[1:08:42] we don't usually.
[1:08:44] And I mean, I know it's just Joel doing
[1:08:47] his crap again, but I I really wish that
[1:08:50] we could
[1:08:52] have a a project or something that at
[1:08:54] least goes through and says, "Guys, this
[1:08:56] is this is what
[1:08:59] right now." Brandon's not here. I I'll
[1:09:02] just go on and say it to everybody.
[1:09:05] We spend more money on engineering than
[1:09:08] South Ogden.
[1:09:11] Straight out. There's the numbers. It's
[1:09:13] in their budget.
[1:09:15] We're we're south Weieber.
[1:09:18] Maybe the contractor isn't the best way
[1:09:20] or maybe it has been and we're not we're
[1:09:22] about ready to run out of real property
[1:09:24] that's going to be turning around. So,
[1:09:26] we're not even going to be getting um
[1:09:28] building permit.
[1:09:30] And as we just increase the number of
[1:09:34] people,
[1:09:35] we're not according to the numbers that
[1:09:37] we've pulled at least we have not been
[1:09:40] keeping with our number of people back
[1:09:43] 10 year not even 10 I think it was in 21
[1:09:46] uh in 21 we were pretty close to
[1:09:48] everybody else out there and then we
[1:09:50] jumped up to where we left say
[1:09:56] our city was paying per capita
[1:10:00] about let's say 18%. I can find the
[1:10:03] actual numbers. Um and we've left that
[1:10:06] and we've gone a different direction and
[1:10:08] most of that we haven't changed the
[1:10:10] services that we're giving to the city.
[1:10:12] It takes into account inflation already.
[1:10:15] So that means most of it is headcount
[1:10:18] and projects.
[1:10:20] That's it. I don't think we're massively
[1:10:22] overloaded on headcount.
[1:10:26] Um, but even if we just add, and this is just the math, and like I said,
[1:10:31] I can pass it around. I just don't think
[1:10:33] we're going to be able to do it tonight.
[1:10:36] Even if we just look at 5% raise to our
[1:10:42] 32 full-time employees
[1:10:45] um
[1:10:46] every year and not looking at anything
[1:10:49] else, not looking at the big cost of
[1:10:51] changes and we need to match what
[1:10:53] Riverdale is doing and all of this kind
[1:10:55] of stuff. um
[1:10:57] we're we're spending beyond what really
[1:10:59] we can and I'm just worried that as we
[1:11:02] start hitting these different areas,
[1:11:03] we're not going to have the money to
[1:11:04] keep up with it. I appreciate you guys
[1:11:08] letting me talk for so long and ramble
[1:11:09] on. So, thanks.
[1:11:12] So, I if any of that means anything, I
[1:11:15] would just say I would like to see us
[1:11:19] come up with a formal strategy from the
[1:11:22] city council of what we want to spend
[1:11:25] the money on. Whether that's paying off
[1:11:28] debt, whether that's paying for um new
[1:11:31] parks and equipment, or whether it's for
[1:11:33] keeping our fire department the top of
[1:11:35] the top, I think we ought to come out
[1:11:37] with a strategy that's more than just
[1:11:38] one year. And I think our admin finance
[1:11:42] group is the best to do it. I just don't
[1:11:45] know if that's something that's feasible
[1:11:47] before budget comes to voting on. So,
[1:11:52] but I would like it. Anyone have any
[1:11:54] thoughts on my ramble?
[1:12:01] » Anyone? And you say they're rambles, but
[1:12:04] I I think you express some legitimate
[1:12:05] concern, Phil. I don't think it's
[1:12:07] anything that's out of place. I mean, I think I've had those concerns for a
[1:12:13] long time as we sit here and we you go I
[1:12:15] go back
[1:12:17] n 10 years ago when I first got on
[1:12:20] counsel and you have the public up here
[1:12:22] telling us
[1:12:24] they're willing to pay whatever property
[1:12:26] taxes can be. I mean, I I come from a
[1:12:29] business background and I'm sitting here
[1:12:30] going, "Okay, what does it take to run
[1:12:32] this city for the next 30, 40, 50
[1:12:34] years?" and it's bringing in revenue.
[1:12:38] But yet, I've had all this public sit up
[1:12:40] here and say, "Hell no."
[1:12:43] So then that's how they have to pay for
[1:12:46] it. And I mean, it's been over and over. If we we suggest things, I
[1:12:51] mean, it's been don't do that in my
[1:12:54] city, do that somewhere else. Well, then
[1:12:57] who pays for all this? But yet, they
[1:12:58] still want the same services.
[1:13:01] And so, it's a fight. I agree with you.
[1:13:04] It's it's legitimate concerns. I don't
[1:13:05] know how a lot of these little cities
[1:13:07] continue financially cuz you're trying
[1:13:10] to give them the same services with the
[1:13:11] with a city that's 10 times the size of
[1:13:15] us and that's what people are expecting.
[1:13:19] One of the cities I looked at is White
[1:13:21] City. It's down in literally in the
[1:13:24] middle of Sandy. Um, so it was kind of
[1:13:27] an interesting comparison of a small
[1:13:31] basically residential city surrounded by
[1:13:36] metropolises. They've got no chance for
[1:13:39] getting any more commercial. And because
[1:13:42] of that, they've had to keep their
[1:13:44] budgets very low. Um, I
[1:13:47] >> think they're about to get swallowed up.
[1:13:48] >> I think so, too. But I've been thinking
[1:13:50] that since I was 12 and lived right near
[1:13:52] there. Um, so I don't know what the
[1:13:56] answer is. And that's what I'm trying to
[1:13:58] say is that I just feel like the last
[1:14:01] four or five years when I've done the
[1:14:03] budget, I've always wanted to do more.
[1:14:06] And I I think we've made some
[1:14:08] improvements. I'm not saying you guys
[1:14:09] haven't. You guys have done a fantastic
[1:14:11] job,
[1:14:13] but I just don't think that we've done a
[1:14:16] good enough job as a council giving the
[1:14:19] strategy of what we feel is best.
[1:14:23] and then
[1:14:24] doing it. I mean, Angie, even you told
[1:14:28] me one time, there's never a right time
[1:14:30] to raise.
[1:14:33] And I agree, there really isn't. But I
[1:14:36] don't I don't think we're heading to the
[1:14:38] best of times coming ahead of us. And
[1:14:41] yet, we're spending like we are instead
[1:14:43] of saving some. So, and maybe that's it.
[1:14:45] We save some. But anyway, sorry.
[1:14:52] Joe makes some points and I'm not
[1:14:54] debating the right or wrong. So that's a cost per capita is a metrics but
[1:14:59] there's so many qualitative aspects
[1:15:01] behind that that we have to also sift
[1:15:03] through to understand what does that
[1:15:05] really mean uh cost of service what's
[1:15:07] that service the level of service not so
[1:15:09] much where the revenue is coming from so
[1:15:11] I it's combination of what both you and
[1:15:13] Blair are talking about I don't think
[1:15:15] it's something that we could come up
[1:15:16] with a magical answer before the
[1:15:18] budget's going to be presented in May
[1:15:20] and something look at regards to you
[1:15:24] mentioned a project I know if it's a
[1:15:26] [clears throat] project that Blair and I
[1:15:27] can eft. Although Blair's got some
[1:15:29] pretty good shoulders down there.
[1:15:32] >> Um, joking aside, I mean, yeah, we're
[1:15:36] dealing with people's money and we're
[1:15:38] trying to make the best fiduciary
[1:15:40] decisions for the benefit of not today,
[1:15:42] not just only today's, but the forward.
[1:15:45] I'm not saying we're investing in our in
[1:15:48] our future, but we have to do some of
[1:15:50] that with all with regards to today's
[1:15:52] requirements as well.
[1:15:55] So
[1:15:56] >> yeah, I I understand things will go up
[1:15:58] with smaller communities. You get you
[1:16:00] put another 100,000 people in a
[1:16:02] community and obviously the cost per
[1:16:04] person, it's going to go down. Compare
[1:16:06] city to city. What's the different
[1:16:08] demographics? I have to deal with Sandy
[1:16:09] City, but they have contracts with Sandy
[1:16:12] City that doesn't cost them very much,
[1:16:13] but they get the service. So it's kind
[1:16:15] of like, yeah, they're cost because they
[1:16:17] can't. So there's I guess what I'm
[1:16:20] saying is yeah it's a metrics but we
[1:16:22] also need to put a little you know
[1:16:24] asterisk next to that is what is that
[1:16:26] really telling us points taken you know
[1:16:29] we're increasing so what does that mean
[1:16:31] and what take a look at it
[1:16:34] >> well and there's three different um city
[1:16:38] level um or municipal I should say um
[1:16:43] budgeting
[1:16:44] uh numbers to look at um Capita is one
[1:16:49] and again that's like like you said it's
[1:16:51] a very high level on it but there's two
[1:16:53] others that between the three of them it
[1:16:55] really paints you a good picture of what
[1:16:58] you're spending and whether you're
[1:17:00] spending on bloat which means you're
[1:17:03] just paying too high for services or if
[1:17:06] there's some type of economies that
[1:17:08] could be cut like you said by cutting
[1:17:10] down maintenance costs. Um, I mean, I
[1:17:13] don't know if we could even come up with
[1:17:14] enough of a strategy to look at it and
[1:17:16] say, "Okay, um, when we're on the I
[1:17:20] think on the list was two or three new
[1:17:24] full-time employees."
[1:17:26] Two.
[1:17:27] >> There's no new full-time employees in
[1:17:28] this
[1:17:29] >> just adding them to the retirement,
[1:17:31] right? That was the one that was on
[1:17:33] there.
[1:17:33] >> We're just putting them on salary.
[1:17:35] >> It was just changing from hourly rate to
[1:17:38] salary.
[1:17:39] >> Oh, okay. So, we're not putting them on
[1:17:40] the Utah retirement system.
[1:17:41] >> No, they're already
[1:17:43] Okay.
[1:17:44] >> So, they're one of the Okay.
[1:17:46] >> Um, but that's kind of something that we
[1:17:50] would be looking at. How many how much
[1:17:54] percentage wise versus all of these
[1:17:56] other cities, big or small, are we on
[1:18:00] par with? And while I don't think any
[1:18:02] one number gives you a direct, you know,
[1:18:05] hey, we're we're really high, I do think
[1:18:07] that a story is pretty quickly unfolding
[1:18:09] as you do this. Um, and I don't know,
[1:18:13] maybe this is something that that Brett
[1:18:15] can work on, but I know that he's also
[1:18:17] extremely busy. So, um, I don't know. I
[1:18:21] don't know where to go with it. I just I
[1:18:23] know that I I don't want to do another
[1:18:25] tax increase and um I want to do some
[1:18:29] more looking forward on the next one at
[1:18:30] least, I guess. So,
[1:18:35] » thank you.
[1:18:37] >> Okay. Any more direction from anyone?
[1:18:40] >> Mayor, there are a couple of items that
[1:18:42] um we need to point out that are in the
[1:18:44] draft budget right now. Okay.
[1:18:46] >> Um, [clears throat]
[1:18:49] one of the one of the items that is in
[1:18:51] there that went through the recreation
[1:18:52] committee is switching our software for
[1:18:55] registrations
[1:18:57] uh from a company called sports sites to
[1:18:59] a company called sportsmen. Um, right
[1:19:01] now our sports sites uh software is for
[1:19:04] registrations. We also have a separate
[1:19:06] software called gym assistance for our
[1:19:09] memberships. And uh we've done some
[1:19:12] research and looked at options to um
[1:19:15] enhance that service uh by switching to
[1:19:18] sportsmen. There is uh an annual cost
[1:19:22] difference there ongoing as well as a
[1:19:24] one-time uh implementation cost that is
[1:19:27] currently in the draft budget. But but
[1:19:30] what I want to bring up is the idea that
[1:19:33] um our current contract goes through the
[1:19:35] end of June 30th. In order to be able to
[1:19:37] go live with the new software July 1, we
[1:19:41] would need to be signing an agreement
[1:19:43] and starting that transition process
[1:19:45] over the next two months. So if the
[1:19:48] council's okay with leaving that in as
[1:19:50] it is, I would take that as a signal
[1:19:52] that we could sign that agreement and
[1:19:55] start that transition. So, we did not
[1:19:57] want to sign anything until the council
[1:19:59] had officially had a chance to to see
[1:20:02] that. I know it's not officially adopted
[1:20:04] in the budget until the end of June, but
[1:20:07] that timing doesn't work out for the way
[1:20:09] that sports sites transitions. And so, I
[1:20:13] wanted to bring that up as as something
[1:20:14] that you could look at and at least I'm
[1:20:17] just going to jump right in. There's
[1:20:18] money in the budget if you go with one
[1:20:20] or the other, right? It doesn't matter.
[1:20:22] you were going to if you weren't having
[1:20:23] this debate about who you still would
[1:20:25] have had money in the budget to cover
[1:20:26] it.
[1:20:27] >> So actually have signed an agreement
[1:20:28] that's an administrative aspect as long
[1:20:30] as there's money in there to cover it.
[1:20:32] >> But there there's not money to cover our
[1:20:34] current budget. So it either requires a
[1:20:36] budget amendment or it requires having
[1:20:39] that money in the budget for next year.
[1:20:41] So it's currently in the budget for next
[1:20:43] year to transition July 1.
[1:20:45] >> Yeah. But I don't want to sign that
[1:20:48] agreement and start the transition until
[1:20:50] it is budgeted and appropriated by the
[1:20:52] council. So I would essentially be
[1:20:55] signing the agreement administratively
[1:20:56] to start making that change with the
[1:20:59] understanding that recognizing the draft
[1:21:02] budget includes it and I would take that
[1:21:04] as authorization from the council that
[1:21:06] it would be budgeted for July 1. So I
[1:21:08] would not be overstepping.
[1:21:09] >> For the record, we're talking how many
[1:21:11] dollars for the new contract?
[1:21:14] The difference is what rep?
[1:21:16] >> So the the one time to switch was 25 and
[1:21:21] then the ongoing
[1:21:22] >> $2500
[1:21:23] >> and the total was five but the
[1:21:25] difference from what we're currently
[1:21:27] paying to to the five is about $1,300.
[1:21:31] >> So ongoing $1,300 a year implementation
[1:21:34] $2500. Again, it's within my budget
[1:21:36] ability to sign that contract and move
[1:21:39] forward if it's budgeted. Well, it's
[1:21:41] technically not budgeted now. So that's
[1:21:42] why I bring it forward as a
[1:21:44] >> I think it's planned to be budgeted. So
[1:21:46] I I don't have a problem with it. I
[1:21:47] don't either.
[1:21:48] >> Okay.
[1:21:49] >> Uh another item is
[1:21:53] we have the last few years used
[1:21:55] recreation fund balance to supplement
[1:21:58] the loss of the gravel pit funds that uh
[1:22:01] that Joel brought up uh previously that revenue stream has decreased. Well,
[1:22:06] at the current rate, uh, we basically
[1:22:09] can do that one more year. This fiscal
[1:22:11] year 27 covers it this year, but after
[1:22:14] that, it is not an option anymore. And
[1:22:17] so, I want to bring that to the
[1:22:19] council's attention. The rec committee
[1:22:21] has been talking about that for a few
[1:22:23] years now um, as a as a looming issue
[1:22:27] and trying to tackle that. But, uh,
[1:22:31] again, just pointing that out in our
[1:22:32] current uh, draft budget as it stands.
[1:22:35] Another
[1:22:38] item is uh we just in the budget we have
[1:22:42] $15,000 for a server upgrade. We just
[1:22:45] got the quote back. Um the
[1:22:48] recommendation is to do the server
[1:22:49] upgrade and a firewall upgrade which
[1:22:52] totals 30,000. The server would be 20 by
[1:22:56] itself. The firewall would be 10,000.
[1:22:59] So, uh, if the council's okay with that,
[1:23:03] we would recommend before our next, uh,
[1:23:05] draft budget discussion to increase that
[1:23:08] line item from 15,000 to 30,000.
[1:23:12] Questions or concerns about that
[1:23:13] specific item?
[1:23:15] >> What's getting cut to be able to balance
[1:23:17] that budget?
[1:23:20] » That's within the capital projects as a project, not an ongoing cost. So it
[1:23:26] would just be a a fund balance item from
[1:23:28] 15 to 30.
[1:23:30] >> The capital reserves are going to go
[1:23:32] down.
[1:23:33] >> Yes.
[1:23:35] >> Again, only if the council's okay with
[1:23:37] it, right? It's it's it's all in draft
[1:23:39] status right now.
[1:23:42] >> In relation to the capital, we have
[1:23:46] increased
[1:23:47] um the re the sales tax revenue going
[1:23:50] into capital um from last year to this
[1:23:53] year. I know we've been working on a on
[1:23:55] a upward increase to upward amount to
[1:23:59] increase what we put into capital from
[1:24:00] sales tax. Um last year it was at 200.
[1:24:05] This current year we're at 217 and next
[1:24:08] year we we plan to increase that to 230.
[1:24:12] We are working on increasing the amount
[1:24:15] that we put in to the capital and and
[1:24:17] putting that into reserves not just for
[1:24:21] the current year's capital projects but
[1:24:23] for future capital years projects that
[1:24:26] we plan on doing.
[1:24:28] We we've discussed in admin financer
[1:24:30] getting it to 250
[1:24:33] and trying to maintain as I mean
[1:24:35] >> 25 yeah and when we originally set that
[1:24:41] was 150 and then went to 200 and then
[1:24:44] but it didn't have anything to implement
[1:24:47] that it should increase based on the
[1:24:48] same percentage that everything else is
[1:24:50] increasing. So that's one of the
[1:24:52] discussions we need to have is as admin
[1:24:55] finance and come back with a
[1:24:56] recommendation is how does that
[1:24:57] increase. so that it so that that
[1:24:59] capital
[1:25:01] fund can still keep up with everything
[1:25:03] that's going on. Before we didn't have
[1:25:04] that, there was no money going into
[1:25:06] those funds and it was it was a problem.
[1:25:10] But it needs to increase from what it is
[1:25:12] so that some of these things like that
[1:25:13] road project aren't so painful.
[1:25:16] >> When we came out of the budget retreat,
[1:25:18] the intent was to do 250,000.
[1:25:21] Um after going through all of the
[1:25:24] committee meetings and the discussions
[1:25:25] there, two major things that came out of
[1:25:28] that based on kind of the market study
[1:25:30] discussion and and the all the other
[1:25:32] committees was to remove the 30,000 that
[1:25:36] we had said for code enforcement
[1:25:39] changes. Um and and that's part of
[1:25:42] getting that to the 217.
[1:25:44] So the current budget includes all of
[1:25:47] the market study. It does not include a
[1:25:49] new code enforcement officer. Um, and
[1:25:52] instead of 250 of sales tax, it's 217 of
[1:25:56] sales tax going into capital project.
[1:25:59] >> 230
[1:26:01] 217 fiscal year 26 230 going to
[1:26:06] >> Yes, I did not make that clear.
[1:26:14] And and one final one final thing to
[1:26:16] point out uh again information that came
[1:26:19] after the budget uh draft was put out
[1:26:22] and published last week. We got
[1:26:24] information from Central Weber Sewer
[1:26:26] Improvement District about uh an intent
[1:26:29] for them to increase their fee by 8%.
[1:26:34] In the past, the council has said that
[1:26:37] is a pass through fee. It's not our fee
[1:26:39] to to determine. And so, uh, if the
[1:26:43] council continues with that philosophy,
[1:26:45] then our sewer our sewer monthly utility
[1:26:49] be fee, um, their portion only would go
[1:26:53] up 8%. We haven't calculated what that
[1:26:55] would be as a total fee increase uh for
[1:26:58] the city's monthly utility bill uh sewer
[1:27:02] fee, but their fee would be an 8%
[1:27:06] increase. So, philosophically, would you
[1:27:08] want us to look at maybe eating some of
[1:27:11] that or just passing that through
[1:27:13] because it's not our fee?
[1:27:17] I say pass it through because we are
[1:27:20] already eroding those funds for the
[1:27:23] other project. It's not our fee. It
[1:27:25] >> it is just shy of $2. Um
[1:27:29] >> fairly
[1:27:30] >> it's Yeah, it's right now our current
[1:27:33] rate on that is $2362
[1:27:36] and I believe it will go up to 25.
[1:27:39] [sighs]
[1:27:40] >> So Rod, what are the Central Weavers
[1:27:42] Sewer Improvement District's increased
[1:27:44] costs? What? Why? Why are they always
[1:27:45] coming back for more and more money?
[1:27:46] They got capital projects or
[1:27:48] >> so this they've got a they've got one
[1:27:51] that's eating them alive right now.
[1:27:54] Uh
[1:27:56] but this 8% that they're going to raise
[1:27:58] it last year. It was supposed to go into
[1:28:01] effect last year and uh I don't think
[1:28:05] they did things exactly the way they
[1:28:07] should and the state turned them down
[1:28:08] and said you can't do it. So they're
[1:28:10] doing it this year rather than last
[1:28:12] year.
[1:28:13] uh I believe it was 3 years ago that
[1:28:17] they uh maybe four that uh because of
[1:28:21] the increases
[1:28:23] uh in inflation and everything else
[1:28:27] like everybody else suffers with, they
[1:28:31] needed to put a
[1:28:35] 24%
[1:28:38] increase and they didn't want to throw
[1:28:40] it all in one year. And so the committee
[1:28:43] met and decided that they would do it in
[1:28:46] three-year increments of 8% each year.
[1:28:49] This 8% increase here is is the last of
[1:28:53] the three increases that they're going
[1:28:55] to be having. But
[1:28:58] they're like everything everybody else
[1:29:01] growth. You know, they just finished a
[1:29:04] 82 million dollar project out there to
[1:29:08] upsize the plant and to go from
[1:29:11] chlorination to
[1:29:14] ultravided
[1:29:16] and uh and then also enlarge the plant.
[1:29:20] They're doing a project right now, the
[1:29:22] one that's really come back to bite
[1:29:25] them. Uh they they've got to rem replace
[1:29:28] a main there on 1900 West and they
[1:29:32] started at Midland and I think it runs
[1:29:34] to 12th Street and they're fighting
[1:29:39] they've had problems with Verizon
[1:29:43] uh with their rightway and and U DOT is
[1:29:48] [snorts]
[1:29:49] not been good at all. It's cost the
[1:29:53] district a lot of money because of UD do
[1:29:56] and uh anyway they've just got all of
[1:29:59] these big projects that are coming down
[1:30:02] the line. They uh
[1:30:06] but anyway that's what that 8% is
[1:30:11] >> the rehabilitation of existing capital
[1:30:14] that's taking a big chunk of this and
[1:30:15] then they're also planning for some
[1:30:16] future growth.
[1:30:18] >> Yeah.
[1:30:24] Okay,
[1:30:25] >> I pass through with Angie. Just pass
[1:30:27] through. [clears throat]
[1:30:27] >> Yeah, I think pass through is going to
[1:30:29] be the best. I think that's what we've
[1:30:30] done before.
[1:30:32] >> Okay.
[1:30:36] As a as a final item from me as far as
[1:30:38] budget process goes, um
[1:30:42] a tenative budget will will go before
[1:30:46] the council for adoption May 12th. Uh we
[1:30:50] have scheduled in two weeks another
[1:30:53] budget discussion item. So essentially
[1:30:55] any feedback from tonight, any requested
[1:30:57] changes or whatnot, we're going to be
[1:30:59] worked on and put uh into a second draft
[1:31:03] so that we can review that and look at
[1:31:04] that in two weeks. And then um we'd have
[1:31:08] two weeks from that budget discussion to
[1:31:11] have a tenative budget ready for
[1:31:12] adoption May 12th followed by a public
[1:31:15] hearing on that tenative budget so that
[1:31:18] the community could look at it, public
[1:31:20] could see that, provide any comments and
[1:31:22] feedback uh end of May and then in June
[1:31:25] the final budget would be adopted. So,
[1:31:28] um, we're in a we're coming to the final
[1:31:31] stages here, but also, like I said, it
[1:31:34] is in draft format and and now's the
[1:31:36] time to be discussing changes as desired
[1:31:38] by the council.
[1:31:40] >> Mayor, may I I I not make a motion, but
[1:31:44] I propose that the staff be directed to
[1:31:46] come back with a a draft budget holding
[1:31:49] the rate and a draft budget that they
[1:31:51] proposed of re reestablishing the rate
[1:31:53] of two years ago. I'm interested to see
[1:31:56] if you're holding the rate, what has to
[1:31:58] be cut or where are you changing to, you
[1:32:00] know, save $60,000. Where's that coming
[1:32:03] from? And that way we can take those two
[1:32:05] pieces of information and we adapt then
[1:32:08] we can adapt one or the other based upon
[1:32:09] the information you bring forward. That
[1:32:11] would be my recommendation.
[1:32:15] » I would agree with that.
[1:32:16] >> I think that's kind of what Blair was
[1:32:18] saying.
[1:32:18] >> Yeah. And and it's only5 or $6,000. So,
[1:32:21] I'm hoping we can find that without
[1:32:24] taking with what we're putting into the
[1:32:25] capital.
[1:32:31] Okay.
[1:32:34] New business. Every Anyone have any new
[1:32:35] business they'd like to discuss?
[1:32:41] Anything come out of your committees
[1:32:43] that you'd like to discuss? Wayne?
[1:32:46] >> Yeah. We um we had a meeting the other
[1:32:49] day with the uh gravel pits and um we
[1:32:52] enlightened them on the Utah State
[1:32:55] University
[1:32:56] uh study which they uh are now taking a
[1:33:01] deeper look at. We actually provided
[1:33:02] them the uh actual report and uh we're
[1:33:05] going to have further dialogue with them
[1:33:06] at our next meeting as to what our next
[1:33:09] steps as.
[1:33:12] without saying anything more than that.
[1:33:15] Um, we did ask what their plans were
[1:33:18] given the water year we're having, the
[1:33:20] lowest on history, April 1st, lowest on
[1:33:23] history. They indicated they both have
[1:33:25] their own water rate wells and that's
[1:33:28] where most of their uh
[1:33:32] water
[1:33:34] comes from. Um they are concerned not
[1:33:37] concerned but they did question when the
[1:33:38] irrigation companies are turning their
[1:33:40] water because that's what waters the
[1:33:41] embankment or the grassy areas so
[1:33:46] you might see that turn a little brown
[1:33:47] is my suspicion but uh the indication
[1:33:51] was still not putting enough water down
[1:33:53] the dust is still happening u despite
[1:33:55] our questioning we asked what what is
[1:33:57] your backup and they don't have a backup
[1:33:59] plan so um I think we need to have some
[1:34:03] further dialogue with our state
[1:34:05] representatives and the environmental um
[1:34:08] environmental services
[1:34:10] as they should and uh they're not
[1:34:12] willing to go anywhere else. Um the they
[1:34:16] don't think they need to go anywhere
[1:34:17] else even though the the material still
[1:34:19] becomes airborne. So um other dialogue
[1:34:23] is going to have to go at a higher level
[1:34:24] to you know force some sort of change.
[1:34:27] It's not happening. They are doing um
[1:34:30] they aren't ignoring the issue. I'm not
[1:34:32] saying they're not sitting on their
[1:34:33] hands and doing nothing. They're doing
[1:34:35] what they can with what they have. But
[1:34:37] obviously the material that they have on
[1:34:38] site right now does not hold the water
[1:34:41] and dries out really quickly with the
[1:34:43] wind. So unless we can stop the wind,
[1:34:45] which in my solution was put a put a
[1:34:48] little wall up in front of those stock
[1:34:49] piles and force the wind around it,
[1:34:52] they're not willing to do that. And
[1:34:56] >> did you did you meet with both
[1:34:57] companies?
[1:34:58] >> Yep.
[1:34:58] >> Okay. Very good.
[1:35:00] >> Yep. There hasn't always been. That's
[1:35:01] why I'm asking
[1:35:02] >> both of them equally. Um, talking to
[1:35:04] them both and if they can keep water on
[1:35:06] it, it seems to be great. But the
[1:35:07] problem is you can't keep about an inch
[1:35:10] of water or, you know, two to three
[1:35:12] inches of water a month is what what it
[1:35:14] takes to keep that stuff from getting
[1:35:15] airborne. That's just a lot of water.
[1:35:17] It's just not in their capability of
[1:35:19] doing so. It's got to be shielded
[1:35:21] [clears throat] or sheltered, kept out
[1:35:23] of the wind, and that's what they're
[1:35:25] going to have to be compelled to do
[1:35:26] because they're not willing to do it on
[1:35:27] their own. That's my report. I'm not
[1:35:31] putting words in their mouth, but that's
[1:35:32] just my report of what I get from them.
[1:35:35] Um,
[1:35:36] think we had any other committee meets,
[1:35:38] did we, mayor?
[1:35:39] >> I think that's it.
[1:35:41] >> Oh,
[1:35:44] yeah. We talked about the budget and you
[1:35:46] guys got to hear that. So, I don't think
[1:35:48] there's anything more we need to add on
[1:35:49] that one. So, that's my report. Thanks,
[1:35:52] >> Jeremy. You have any
[1:35:53] >> nothing new? No,
[1:35:53] >> Bill. Angie,
[1:35:56] >> um just to kind of piggy back off of
[1:35:58] what Wayne said, we did um have a small
[1:36:01] email discussion about watering in the
[1:36:03] parks and how that might look different
[1:36:05] this year, though our parks may not be
[1:36:08] as illustrious as in previous years.
[1:36:12] Um
[1:36:14] and then
[1:36:16] look for information coming forward on
[1:36:18] our next agenda for different
[1:36:20] discussions from ours
[1:36:23] committee. Okay, that's it.
[1:36:28] >> Blair,
[1:36:28] >> nothing to report.
[1:36:30] >> Dave,
[1:36:31] >> just one thing related to watering.
[1:36:34] Additionally, we have system of fire
[1:36:40] hydrants.
[1:37:02] Well, wait. I've got a yard and there's
[1:37:04] a fire hydrant nearby. They can always
[1:37:06] put it on my yard, you know, and it does
[1:37:08] to a good use that way. My neighbors
[1:37:10] wouldn't mind it either, but
[1:37:18] » one time application, but I'm trying to
[1:37:19] help you out.
[1:37:24] » Are you flushing all the hydrants in the
[1:37:26] city every year or do you just do a
[1:37:27] section
[1:37:30] every year? Right.
[1:37:34] » What's the risk of not doing that?
[1:37:43] Okay.
[1:37:56] » How many hydrants do we have?
[1:38:01] » That was a trivia question at a retreat.
[1:38:03] I can't remember either.
[1:38:05] >> I don't know. I I generally I understand
[1:38:07] what you're saying, but I still think
[1:38:08] there might be one or two that may need
[1:38:10] to be flushed on dead ends and stuff
[1:38:11] like that to keep
[1:38:12] >> I was just going to say your dead end
[1:38:13] ones that collect stuff that might be a
[1:38:15] good to just do the dead end ones
[1:38:17] because that's what gets in those
[1:38:19] valves. And
[1:38:24] do what you think. I mean, I think you
[1:38:26] need to do what's smart.
[1:38:28] >> Be prudent. Just be prudent.
[1:38:31] >> Sounds good. Thank you. What are what
[1:38:32] are we doing on firework restrictions
[1:38:35] this year? Any changes? Any additions?
[1:38:38] >> Right now, no changes, but that's coming
[1:38:40] before the council next meeting. I
[1:38:43] believe before May.
[1:38:45] >> Yeah, I believe it's scheduled for April
[1:38:47] 28th.
[1:38:49] Last meeting I was in about
[1:38:58] ago that might be
[1:39:05] » okay.
[1:39:07] Just keep in mind that if you want to
[1:39:09] make that as a municipal restriction,
[1:39:11] your next council meeting is the
[1:39:13] opportunity. If you don't do it by May
[1:39:14] 1st, then you lose that chance. You can
[1:39:17] always restrict them May 1st and then
[1:39:21] make it less restrictive when the date
[1:39:24] rolls around if you find that conditions
[1:39:26] are different than you expect them to
[1:39:27] be. It does have to be based off of your
[1:39:30] fire chief's recommendation or your fire
[1:39:32] marshall's recommendation, but um that's
[1:39:36] your opportunity for for making that
[1:39:38] decision. If you don't make it by May
[1:39:40] one, then you can't.
[1:39:44] » Okay, we'll look for a motion to
[1:39:45] adjurnn. So moved.