[0:03] Yeah.
[0:03] >> I mean there's trucks that go down this
[0:05] road and disappear and then come back up
[0:07] this road.
[0:33] The whole character of the road
[5:25] » Some comments for you.
[5:27] >> It was so exciting.
[5:29] >> It looks well.
[5:31] >> Think about what I'm saying.
[5:33] Okay. Okay.
[5:36] >> Boy.
[5:37] >> Hey.
[5:38] >> That's all right.
[5:39] What does it tell you though?
[5:41] >> Uh
[5:42] okay.
[5:43] >> That's something we can put
[5:45] on your side of the door above. It's
[5:47] kind of uh
[5:48] working the old school
[5:53] » Okay.
[6:03] » We froze them in the pickle just to
[6:05] spare
[6:06] >> Well,
[6:06] >> [laughter]
[6:19] » That is what they did, yeah.
[6:21] That is true.
[6:58] Okay.
[6:59] Thank you. I appreciate that. Yeah.
[7:09] Uh-huh.
[7:11] Yeah.
[7:14] She has a lot of things in her
[7:16] collection
[7:20] But
[7:21] Okay.
[7:22] The one
[7:23] I got to be 20 minutes
[7:25] Oh. Okay.
[7:27] Thank you.
[7:34] Just like
[7:37] Yeah.
[7:39] So,
[7:43] I'm going to
[7:44] All right.
[8:04] » [laughter]
[8:08] » Okay.
[8:32] No, I think that's great. I appreciate
[8:34] that.
[8:35] Oh, thank you.
[8:38] too, and I thank
[8:52] Oh, no. Okay.
[8:58] Oh, dear. Okay.
[9:26] Wow, that's fabulous.
[9:39] I started here.
[9:46] » What is your name?
[9:54] » Okay, I left that about 4
[10:00] Okay.
[10:02] Oh, Jesus Christ. Personally
[10:07] I
[10:10] Pay my pay day.
[10:13] I could actually go in and talk to you
[10:14] all the time all the time I got
[10:32] Oh.
[10:34] he's out
[10:38] Yeah, that's not how it
[10:42] Oh. I can't go out and get that cuz I can buy some I've been buying some
[10:48] like this.
[10:49] I got my whistle sign up.
[10:54] He needed us
[11:12] Because it's hard to get Oh, it's too
[11:15] ugly for me to fly my way.
[11:18] Yeah, I know. That's just the
[11:21] In fact,
[11:22] Army
[11:24] I should take it over to the website.
[11:26] I'm going to study law and stuff.
[11:28] Army
[11:30] You can care of Rotary different way.
[11:33] Your force should be 25.
[11:49] » Uh-oh,
[11:51] we're in trouble now.
[11:55] Oh, we're saved.
[12:20] » I think so, but I'll ask.
[12:25] » I am burned out.
[12:27] >> Okay.
[12:27] >> You got a burn barrel?
[12:28] >> Yeah.
[12:30] >> I don't know what I'm going to do now.
[12:31] Okay.
[12:32] I mean, you can have some recreation's
[12:34] tires.
[12:35] >> No, burn barrel?
[12:36] >> In a barrel?
[12:39] » [laughter]
[12:40] >> Make it a religious function and you can
[12:41] do whatever you want.
[12:43] >> Sometimes they say if you're just have
[12:45] some marshmallows out there.
[12:47] Throw the bag in the pasture.
[12:48] >> Put up the lawn chair and get out a
[12:51] package of hot dogs and you can do
[12:52] whatever you want.
[13:11] » Yeah, you do.
[13:13] >> Um, why is it moving?
[13:16] >> They're
[13:16] sick. They're sick.
[13:19] >> Likely story.
[13:22] No, I'm not.
[13:23] I love you.
[13:25] I'm good.
[13:28] Is it hot in
[13:29] >> here? Please tell me someone else is
[13:31] hot. Turn the AC on.
[13:32] >> It's right on the verge.
[13:38] >> Something I agree on right now is that
[13:47] » Well, if you do that,
[13:51] » It is.
[13:53] Oh my gosh, I'm here.
[14:02] Around the corner from my favorite
[14:04] sister.
[14:14] » We good?
[14:24] Did you get it?
[14:27] for Jim.
[14:29] You have a new password?
[14:30] >> Yeah.
[14:40] » I got a South Weber Fire Department cap
[14:43] that I don't feel good wearing around
[14:46] anywhere.
[14:47] So,
[14:48] >> If you want that back, it's pretty much
[14:49] unused.
[14:52] >> Why don't you feel good?
[14:53] >> You know, I just cuz I'm having I have a
[14:55] fire department hat. I don't work on the
[14:56] fire department. I'm not risking my life
[14:58] going into these buildings.
[15:06] Okay.
[15:08] Let's begin, shall we?
[15:11] I'd like to welcome everyone to South
[15:12] Weber City Council.
[15:14] It is 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, July the
[15:17] 14th, 2026.
[15:19] We'll begin with a pledge of allegiance
[15:22] by council member Deals and then we'll
[15:24] have a prayer by council member Davis.
[15:27] >> Please stand and repeat the pledge of
[15:29] allegiance.
[15:31] >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
[15:34] United States of America and to the
[15:36] republic for which it stands, one nation
[15:40] under God, indivisible, with liberty and
[15:43] justice for all.
[15:52] » Our Father in heaven, we're grateful to
[15:53] be here
[15:55] this evening together as citizens of
[15:57] this great city to
[15:58] discuss the needs of the day. We are
[16:01] hopeful that thy spirit may be here with
[16:03] us that we may
[16:04] treat each other with respect and
[16:06] dignity and that we'll be able to come
[16:08] to
[16:09] appropriate conclusions that will help
[16:11] our city continue to be strong and and
[16:13] move forward.
[16:15] We are grateful for for thee for these
[16:17] opportunities we have to come together
[16:19] to
[16:20] discuss important topics and and to help
[16:24] this great city continue to be
[16:27] a great city.
[16:29] We are grateful also for all those who
[16:31] serve in our city, for firemen, for the
[16:34] policemen,
[16:36] and for all their volunteers that
[16:39] support the function of
[16:41] the city. And we pray that thy spirit
[16:43] may be with them, they may be kept safe
[16:45] from harm and danger. And these blessings we pray
[16:48] for in the name of thy son, Jesus
[16:49] Christ. Amen.
[16:50] >> Amen.
[16:53] Okay, thank you councilman Deals and
[16:55] Davis. We appreciate that very much. The
[16:57] first item on our agenda then will be
[16:59] public comments. If anyone has comments,
[17:02] we'd ask that you come up
[17:03] to the microphone, state your name and
[17:05] city in which you reside. We'll allow
[17:07] you 3 minutes to speak and please be
[17:09] respectful.
[17:11] Anybody have
[17:12] comments?
[17:14] Seeing no comments, then we'll move
[17:16] along the agenda here.
[17:18] Uh we had
[17:20] a presentation by Davis County Sheriff
[17:23] for their quarterly report and we
[17:25] received a
[17:26] call just recently saying that uh
[17:29] they are
[17:31] uh not able to attend tonight and we've
[17:33] moved that to August. So,
[17:36] we'll have their report in August.
[17:39] So, next item is our consent agenda
[17:41] consisting of June 23rd, 2026 minutes,
[17:45] June's checks,
[17:47] May's budget to actual.
[17:49] Is there any changes, corrections, or
[17:52] discussion we need to have on any of
[17:54] these items?
[17:56] If none, then we'll ask for a motion. Go
[17:58] ahead.
[17:58] >> I actually have a question. Um
[18:00] Actually, like I don't ever
[18:02] um
[18:04] uh
[18:04] quick question on I was looking on the
[18:07] uh engineering
[18:09] um costs and some of the checks that
[18:10] were going through for I think it was
[18:12] like $42,000.
[18:14] Um
[18:15] >> Mhm.
[18:15] >> Most of that is what we pay to Jones and
[18:19] Associates, but of course part of that
[18:20] is also your pay-through account or the
[18:22] just the pass-through account. Um one
[18:25] thing I I was looking at though and
[18:27] uh when we
[18:31] ask for preliminary drawings
[18:34] uh from the developers,
[18:36] um
[18:37] that
[18:39] is one in which uh Jones and Associates
[18:42] charges them a certain amount of money.
[18:44] And if
[18:46] they go forward,
[18:48] then
[18:49] we put that into the escrow and I I
[18:51] believe that would be some of the costs
[18:54] that would be recouped,
[18:56] but with the numbers, it doesn't really
[18:58] show it. The it seems more like um
[19:02] like we ought to be putting that escrow
[19:03] earlier or we should make sure that that
[19:05] goes
[19:06] it's only a couple hundred bucks. I
[19:08] mean, it's not a huge thing. I I the
[19:10] whole total for this uh
[19:12] sheet was 600 and something, $630.
[19:15] Um
[19:17] is that is is that something that we
[19:19] could look into on when we
[19:22] um because I don't think that we should
[19:24] be uh charging
[19:26] uh them and not get or
[19:29] I don't think Jones should be charging
[19:31] them and that not be a pass-through cuz
[19:32] that is definitely a cost for the
[19:34] developers.
[19:37] » So, what what is your question?
[19:40] Out of out of that
[19:41] >> And we move either the requirement for
[19:45] the
[19:46] um escrow account in which they would
[19:48] have to be putting money into it to
[19:50] uh or part of the pass-through account,
[19:53] maybe I should say.
[19:54] >> Can I Can I ask you
[19:55] >> Yeah.
[19:55] >> cuz I'm just trying to follow it.
[19:57] >> Yeah.
[19:58] >> Cuz when we ask for a preliminary
[20:00] drawings
[20:01] Jones and Associates aren't the ones
[20:02] that do those drawings.
[20:04] >> But they're charging us a fee.
[20:06] >> a review fee.
[20:07] >> Right.
[20:08] >> And
[20:09] >> Shouldn't that
[20:10] >> That is pass-through.
[20:11] to a developer that
[20:13] they just goes to them and they have to
[20:14] pay it.
[20:15] >> And see, that's what I thought, but um
[20:17] the account numbers I I I can show you
[20:19] later so we don't bog the meeting down
[20:21] here, but um
[20:22] that amount isn't coming back. Uh we're
[20:25] not recouping that from them, at least
[20:27] go through that same account number.
[20:31] >> So, are are you looking at the
[20:34] cuz we we recoup it through the revenues
[20:36] in the revenue section where the expense
[20:39] is on the expenditure side. So, you
[20:41] won't see
[20:43] >> But what in
[20:43] >> coming in and out of one account. It'll
[20:45] be coming It'll be coming in on the
[20:47] revenue account and going out as an
[20:49] expense on on the expense
[20:51] >> as part of those um pass-through
[20:54] >> Yes.
[20:54] >> account numbers though, right?
[20:55] >> But there but there's a revenue pass-through account
[20:59] and then there's an expense
[21:01] >> Okay.
[21:01] >> account that that tracks the expenses
[21:03] and so we know if we're getting It's not one account that you can look
[21:07] at and compare those two. You have to
[21:10] compare a revenue account and expense
[21:12] account.
[21:14] >> Right.
[21:15] Yeah, that's that's what we're doing and
[21:16] that's how I came up with the number.
[21:18] Let's
[21:19] >> The question is about I mean of is if
[21:23] the engineer is doing any work that
[21:26] isn't getting reimbursed. That's what we
[21:28] want to look at and confirm that
[21:30] the timing of that and and what actions
[21:33] take place before and after.
[21:36] >> It's not a big deal.
[21:36] >> Yeah, we can double check that and make
[21:38] sure
[21:39] >> We can we can look at it. We do we
[21:42] typically
[21:43] don't get the revenue the same time that
[21:46] we get the expenses. We'll send out the
[21:48] invoice saying, "Okay, this is what you
[21:49] owe us for this work." And it can take
[21:52] anywhere between a day to 30, 60 days depending on how quick
[21:57] the
[21:59] developer turns around and
[22:01] >> Could they have been
[22:02] um no, cuz it was cap and
[22:05] um anyways
[22:07] we'll talk.
[22:09] Yeah, I just want to make sure that it's
[22:12] >> Mhm.
[22:12] >> No, that's a fair question and and we
[22:14] want to make sure that the reimbursement
[22:16] process is is efficient and also
[22:18] covering everything. So I know
[22:20] internally we have had conversation
[22:22] about whether or not it makes sense to change the methodology
[22:27] um so that developers aren't getting an
[22:30] individual bill over and over and over
[22:33] and don't really have an understanding
[22:34] of kind of the upfront cost and and what
[22:37] that may or may not be. Right now our
[22:39] consolidated fee schedule just says, you
[22:41] know, any other costs associated with
[22:43] that um and so we we have talked
[22:45] internally about whether we should
[22:47] adjust that. Maybe this is a good time
[22:48] to just review the the full process and
[22:51] make sure that we've got things covered
[22:52] the right way.
[22:53] >> Okay.
[22:54] Thanks. Sorry to interrupt.
[22:56] >> Anything else?
[22:59] » Anyone else? I'll look for a motion
[23:01] know, on this.
[23:02] >> Move to approve the consent agenda.
[23:05] >> Second.
[23:06] >> You have a motion and a second. All in
[23:09] favor say I.
[23:10] >> I. I. I.
[23:13] » Next item, resolution 26-27 South Weber
[23:18] Model Railroad Club agreement.
[23:22] Any discussions on this?
[23:25] Angie, have you got anything you want to
[23:28] necessarily bring up?
[23:30] >> Sure.
[23:30] >> Um I feel like some key points to note
[23:33] and if I miss any, Mayor and Dave, if
[23:35] you want to just help me make sure I
[23:37] remembered them all. Um key points is
[23:40] that they would be running two Saturdays
[23:41] a month, April
[23:44] we said April, right? April through
[23:46] October.
[23:47] Um they would like to also do one
[23:51] weekday a month, but we didn't put that
[23:53] in the agreement yet, but they would
[23:55] like to start doing that for the public.
[23:57] Um they will be responsible for all of
[24:02] the equipment on the ground and the
[24:05] city's will be responsible for
[24:07] weed um weed control and maintenance of
[24:11] the park as they're doing right now in
[24:13] the rest of the park.
[24:16] We also added um a couple of addendas I
[24:19] hope you saw on there in the
[24:21] um
[24:23] packet where they have a safety
[24:25] checklist they have to complete every
[24:26] time they run a train so they make sure
[24:28] everything's safe. Um we have [sighs]
[24:32] Sorry, let me just make sure what else
[24:33] is in here.
[24:34] >> The lease amount.
[24:35] Oh, and a project
[24:37] request form. So if there's something
[24:39] that they want to do, they can submit
[24:41] that and then the committee can review
[24:43] it and then they can bring it to
[24:44] council. So it's actually like a
[24:47] procedure that needs to be followed so
[24:48] we have like a paper trail and all of
[24:50] that.
[24:51] Am I missing anything else that we've
[24:53] changed from our last one?
[24:55] >> Anything else that can remember, Dave?
[24:57] >> No, I think that's a good summary. I
[24:59] think that there has been a a great
[25:01] conversation and process to this point
[25:03] after the last city council meeting. The
[25:06] committee and the club have worked well
[25:08] together and have tried to find kind of
[25:11] compromise and and a thought process, a
[25:15] mindset of this is where we're at today.
[25:17] How do we move forward and make it the
[25:18] best it can be. We we did not have too
[25:21] many conversations about, if at all,
[25:24] about uh the past. We we did try to
[25:27] learn from the past and bring up lessons
[25:29] that that we'd like to incorporate
[25:30] moving forward and ways we'd like to
[25:32] operate better
[25:33] in tandem. And and the club has given
[25:36] some and I think the city has given some
[25:38] in an effort to make this uh viable and
[25:42] productive moving forward. So, some of
[25:45] much of the agreement looks similar. We
[25:47] did reorganize a little bit to make it
[25:49] more readable, a little bit cleaner with
[25:52] sections that they clearly identify club
[25:54] responsibilities, city responsibilities,
[25:57] and what is included in both of those.
[25:59] And And our hope is that moving forward
[26:01] we'll be able to, you know, make this
[26:03] great for the public and for the club
[26:05] members as well.
[26:07] >> Yeah. Question.
[26:09] Um
[26:11] some question on the public is the $200
[26:14] for lease fee was kind of low. Wasn't
[26:17] there some additions on the city's
[26:19] behalf in lieu of fee that the city's
[26:21] receiving like additional run days and
[26:24] things of that nature? Angie.
[26:26] >> Yeah. And she was
[26:27] >> that was in lieu of a few
[26:29] sessions.
[26:29] >> yes, originally the contract was one day
[26:32] one Saturday per month. And now we've
[26:35] increased that to two Saturdays per
[26:36] month.
[26:38] >> Wasn't there something also in addition
[26:40] that the city can specify days just for
[26:43] the city to run
[26:44] for the city residents?
[26:46] >> So, those would be for just open run
[26:48] days for citizens and visitors, right?
[26:51] They but the train club actually offered
[26:54] to do it during the weekday, which is
[26:56] great I think to add that out. Um, they
[26:59] just didn't put in the con- We didn't
[27:00] put in the contract yet just to make
[27:01] sure that they had enough staffing. We
[27:03] didn't want to put that in without them
[27:05] being able to talk to us the to the rest
[27:07] of the train club members. Um,
[27:10] so those have been some concessions that
[27:13] they have made on there. And just a
[27:14] reminder, the original agreement
[27:18] the city was doing all the weed control.
[27:21] And then there had been discussions
[27:22] between the city and the train club
[27:25] about, you know, damaged rails. And so
[27:27] that's why
[27:29] damaged rails during
[27:31] um, mowing and such. So that's why it
[27:33] was sent back to the train club. Uh,
[27:36] we've had really good discussions about
[27:37] that. And so that's why we're bringing
[27:40] the weed control back since we have the
[27:42] staff to go ahead and do that. And they
[27:44] can focus on providing the amenity.
[27:47] What else can I answer for you?
[27:51] >> Sorry, I just thought there was
[27:51] something I read in the contract that
[27:53] the city
[27:54] there was there was an option for the
[27:55] city to request certain days that they
[27:57] run just for city events.
[28:00] >> Oh, absolutely. Yeah.
[28:01] >> was in concessions in lieu of additional
[28:03] monies for them to use the track the
[28:05] $200 that they offered to do a special
[28:08] run days
[28:09] for days to be picked by the city. And
[28:12] >> So yeah, that could be country fair
[28:14] days. That could be any other event that
[28:16] the city says we'd like you to do that.
[28:18] >> argument that I'm hearing that there was
[28:19] $200 is cheap. It is cheap, but they're
[28:21] also doing other things in lieu of
[28:24] dollars. And that's what I wanted to
[28:25] bring out.
[28:25] >> Sure. Yeah.
[28:26] >> Good point.
[28:27] >> Thank you.
[28:29] >> Joe?
[28:30] Just a couple questions. Um,
[28:33] then was this originally a 60-day and
[28:35] then we turned it down to 30-day?
[28:38] Or is that something that we did?
[28:40] >> As far as the potential like termination
[28:43] of the agreement language, it was uh,
[28:46] 60-day notice and 90 days. That was that
[28:49] was shrunk down to a 30 day notice and
[28:51] 60 days to then remove.
[28:53] >> Okay, so it got to that point. Okay, so
[28:55] it still has the removal of that. Yeah.
[28:56] I
[28:58] noticed in there we talk about dispute
[29:01] resolution.
[29:04] Who and through how how's that supposed
[29:07] to be handled?
[29:08] Or is that something we're going to
[29:11] approach on a
[29:13] one-by-one basis?
[29:15] Case-by-case. Thank you.
[29:18] >> Which section is that? Can you remind
[29:20] me?
[29:20] >> No, I just put the bare notes on here.
[29:25] It talks about
[29:28] If a dispute
[29:31] I believe it was in the
[29:34] um
[29:38] safety
[29:40] where it's talking about the
[29:42] um
[29:43] city manager has the ability to do stop
[29:45] it. um
[29:48] I should have written down the appendix
[29:50] that that was in. I apologize.
[29:54] » Well, it's okay. I'm just trying to look
[29:55] through all of your
[29:56] >> execution of agreements
[29:58] which country
[29:59] agreement course
[30:02] >> changes that might be needed
[30:05] >> Well, the changes changes I have another
[30:07] one cuz it actually says that the city
[30:09] manager can deny it.
[30:12] And then it later says so if there's any
[30:14] change or anything added
[30:16] any projects the city manager can deny
[30:19] it but then down on like the next line
[30:21] it says that those changes come to the
[30:24] city council. So is it that
[30:27] it can stop with the city council stop
[30:30] with the city manager and then go to it?
[30:35] I'm
[30:35] >> Well, I
[30:36] if there's a safety concern city staff
[30:39] would be the ones that would say, you
[30:42] know, we need to stop. And then it would
[30:44] come to council for us to consider any
[30:47] type of action after that.
[30:48] >> Okay. So,
[30:51] uh basically, city manager can veto it
[30:54] for it not being good enough, it's not
[30:55] put together, it's not safe, or anything
[30:57] like that. So, that way we just don't
[30:58] get every change coming up to the city
[31:00] council, right?
[31:01] >> Well, well, yeah. It would be similar to
[31:02] how it was earlier where it was like,
[31:04] "Hey, there's a situation. We need to
[31:05] stop for a minute so we can evaluate
[31:07] it." That wouldn't That process wouldn't
[31:10] really change from what it currently is.
[31:12] >> Um
[31:15] The audit section talks about providing
[31:18] acknowledgement of receipt project for
[31:22] uh
[31:24] any of the plans that they have
[31:27] for fixing safety items. The
[31:32] proposed modification section talks
[31:35] about submitting to the city manager the
[31:38] request form for modification with ex-
[31:41] explanation of why, any documentation,
[31:44] and whatnot. That that then is reviewed,
[31:46] and the city council has to approve
[31:50] the modifications.
[31:59] Okay.
[32:01] Um
[32:05] Yeah, I should I
[32:05] >> I think I think Dave's right. He's
[32:07] addressing section 3.10 audits.
[32:11] Um this Let's see.
[32:15] Talks about safety audits, and the
[32:16] second paragraph says that the city
[32:18] manager of the club shall provide
[32:20] manager with an acknowledgement of
[32:21] receipt
[32:23] to resolve identified action items.
[32:27] >> There's one other section that has a
[32:29] similar remedy provision. So, the
[32:31] principle in both the audit section, and
[32:33] then it's in
[32:36] uh
[32:37] Let's see. It's the default section,
[32:40] which is section 11.
[32:42] Notice of default and then fine or
[32:44] abatement. And both of them essentially
[32:47] operate on the same principle that the
[32:48] city provides notice. They have a cure
[32:50] period. If they don't cure, then you can
[32:52] roll into
[32:53] either fine abatement or default of the
[32:56] agreement.
[33:00] Okay.
[33:05] >> Um
[33:08] I don't know what I was talking about.
[33:10] >> Is that Is that Is that satisfactory?
[33:12] Do you feel okay with that procedure?
[33:14] Are there questions you have about that?
[33:16] >> Yeah. Um I think I'll I'll be quite
[33:19] honest. I'm so excited for this. I am
[33:21] very very happy. I think you guys have
[33:22] done a fantastic job and the club has
[33:25] done a fantastic job. I'm so glad that we get to keep this and do this and
[33:30] I think it's been a win-win for for
[33:32] both.
[33:33] Um and yeah, I
[33:37] I'm very excited about it. Um I was just
[33:40] trying to see on that um
[33:49] Yeah.
[33:50] I'll have to go back and look, but it
[33:52] won't matter at that time, I don't
[33:53] think.
[33:53] >> If If you have questions, just come back
[33:54] and
[33:55] >> Yeah.
[33:55] >> let me know anything that you have on
[33:57] there cuz we have worked hard. We've had
[33:58] very harmonious discussions. It's been
[34:00] really great. So
[34:01] >> I'm good.
[34:02] >> not contentious in any way and I'm I am
[34:04] excited to move forward. So
[34:06] >> Yeah. This has been great. I I'm again,
[34:08] I'm very grateful for you guys.
[34:09] >> It's been really good.
[34:10] >> So
[34:10] >> I will add from a city staff
[34:12] perspective, this is a major shift in
[34:15] the way that city staff has interacted
[34:17] with the club in the past. And the the
[34:20] agreement before essentially had the
[34:23] city staff as kind of the enforcement
[34:25] arm and a regulatory agency, where this
[34:30] changes that mindset and has city staff
[34:33] a little bit more as a partnership and
[34:35] the ability for staff to feel like we
[34:39] care a little bit more about the success
[34:41] of the train club. I don't want to say
[34:43] that in a in a negative way, but it
[34:46] frees us a little bit as staff. Also put
[34:49] some additional burden I would say with
[34:51] the weed maintenance and whatnot.
[34:52] There's a timing element, but
[34:54] the city council has directed us to to
[34:56] put more resource into this and to take
[35:00] care about it differently and and this
[35:02] agreement is a result of that and shows
[35:04] that
[35:05] commitment from the staff side from a
[35:07] time and a caring standpoint and and I
[35:09] hope that we can see that result.
[35:12] >> Agreed.
[35:12] >> Thank you. And I would say this we have
[35:14] come very far since our first agreement
[35:16] on Claire.
[35:17] >> You have done very good job.
[35:18] >> Thank you.
[35:20] Thanks everybody. I have one other thing
[35:21] though I want to bring up to the rest of
[35:23] the council. If the council would like
[35:27] we can ask
[35:29] our park staff just to monitor the
[35:31] amount of extra time and
[35:34] materials to maintain this so we can
[35:36] kind of get the best
[35:38] estimate of what this is going to cost
[35:40] our the city to maintain the weeds and
[35:42] such, but it shouldn't be significant.
[35:47] A significant investment of what we're
[35:49] doing right now.
[35:51] Over what we're doing now. Does that
[35:52] make sense? Wayne you're looking like
[35:54] I'm not making sense.
[35:55] >> No, it makes sense. It's just why we
[35:56] want to why we want to put emphasis on
[35:58] it.
[35:58] >> Okay. I'm I'm just asking.
[36:01] >> just like a pickleball court or baseball
[36:03] court. It's a park facility at that
[36:06] particular park and there's a cost
[36:07] associated with maintaining it. It by
[36:09] highlighting that it draws attention to
[36:11] it for what purpose?
[36:13] >> Okay, thank you. I know I agree. I just
[36:14] wanted to make sure we had discussed
[36:16] costs before so I wanted to make sure
[36:17] everybody was on the same page.
[36:19] Cool. Mayor I make a motion we approve
[36:21] resolution 2627 South Weber Model
[36:24] Railroad Club agreement.
[36:25] >> I second that.
[36:26] >> Have a motion second by Councilwoman
[36:28] Deales. We'll do a roll call vote
[36:30] starting with Councilman Windsor.
[36:32] >> I.
[36:35] >> Very unanimous. Motion carries. Thank
[36:37] you.
[36:38] Next resolution 26-28
[36:41] cooperative agreement with the Utah
[36:43] Division of Forestry Fire and State
[36:46] Lands.
[36:47] Any discussion on this resolution?
[36:50] Anyone?
[36:54] If not, we'll ask for a motion.
[36:59] » Mayor, I make a motion to approve
[37:00] resolution 26-28 cooperative agreement
[37:03] with the Utah Division of Forestry Fire
[37:05] and State Lands.
[37:06] >> Second it.
[37:08] >> Okay, we have a second by Councilman
[37:09] Davis.
[37:11] We'll do a roll call vote starting with
[37:14] Councilman Howerton.
[37:15] >> I.
[37:21] » You good, Chief?
[37:22] >> I'm good.
[37:26] » [laughter]
[37:27] >> Next item,
[37:29] resolution 26-29
[37:32] Utah Wildfire Resource Memorandum of
[37:35] Understanding.
[37:37] Any discussion on this?
[37:41] » Mayor, I make a motion to approve 20
[37:43] resolution 26-29
[37:45] Utah Wildlife Wildfire Resource
[37:48] Memorandum Understanding.
[37:50] >> Second.
[37:51] >> Okay, most Motion is seconded by
[37:54] Councilwoman
[37:55] >> Petty.
[37:56] >> We'll do a roll call vote starting with
[37:57] Councilman Windsor.
[37:58] >> I.
[38:03] >> Okay, that's unanimous.
[38:06] Next resolution 26-30
[38:10] amending the policy and procedure 3.040
[38:13] employment of relation
[38:15] relatives and nepotism.
[38:18] Any discussion on this resolution?
[38:21] >> Um I have a couple questions.
[38:23] >> Okay.
[38:24] >> Um, first one,
[38:26] uh, what is the impetus for this?
[38:29] >> There have been a couple of uh,
[38:31] scenarios where
[38:33] uh, department heads have approached me
[38:35] on hiring situations that uh,
[38:39] have run directly into the nepotism
[38:41] policy. And so,
[38:43] um,
[38:44] we've had internal discussions about uh,
[38:46] the limitations that it provided to us
[38:49] and some of the restriction. It was very direct and very um, clear
[38:53] bright line of where that was and so,
[38:56] um, we tried to follow that. Uh, we have
[38:58] found that there are some employees
[39:01] already hired within the within the city
[39:04] that weren't directly in line with that
[39:06] policy.
[39:08] Um, and then running into these
[39:10] situations um,
[39:12] multiple times, um, it created a
[39:14] conversation about is that really the
[39:16] policy that is that is helping us the
[39:18] best.
[39:19] Ultimately, there's three different
[39:21] departments that run into challenges
[39:24] with hiring related to uh, family
[39:27] relationships. And And so, we've carved
[39:30] those out specifically recognizing that
[39:32] we'd like to have in certain
[39:35] circumstances only the ability to to
[39:38] have siblings or or family members be
[39:42] uh, hired in the city. Not in any type
[39:45] of supervisory line or anything like
[39:47] that, but um, specifically within the
[39:49] fire department as part-time employees
[39:52] within the recreation department and
[39:55] within our crossing guards. Um,
[39:57] recreation and fire Sorry, recreation
[40:00] and um, crossing guards because of the
[40:03] nature of those positions, we're not
[40:05] really hiring from outside the city. And
[40:09] uh,
[40:09] and so, it creates a limited pool for us
[40:12] um, which has created challenges in the
[40:14] past. So, this would free that up and
[40:16] open that up for us.
[40:18] Um we have some examples, like I said,
[40:19] within the city where we already have uh
[40:23] family relations working in the same
[40:25] department, crossing guards and
[40:26] recreation that are doing just fine and have not created any problems. And
[40:32] so, we talked about this as a leadership
[40:34] council within staff um department heads
[40:37] and uh and feel comfortable that uh
[40:40] putting it on paper this way still
[40:42] protects the city from any type of, you
[40:44] know, favoritism actions um and things
[40:47] like that. That that's really what we're
[40:48] trying to protect here. Um but freeing
[40:50] up and opening um some of those options
[40:53] for us and and making it so those
[40:54] challenges might not be as difficult to
[40:56] overcome.
[40:57] >> So, if I'm understanding you correctly,
[41:00] um this new policy does not allow for a
[41:05] um relative
[41:07] of the supervisor position,
[41:10] supervisory positions, um to have one of
[41:14] their relatives hired beneath them.
[41:16] >> True.
[41:17] >> Okay.
[41:18] Um
[41:20] does that mean then that we're really
[41:22] talking about uh
[41:24] family familial relationships just at
[41:28] basically same level type of thing. So,
[41:30] uh like for recreation, we had hired,
[41:32] you know, so-and-so's brother to also
[41:34] work at the FAC or things like that.
[41:37] >> Yes.
[41:38] >> And that's the same way we're looking at
[41:39] the fire department, correct?
[41:40] >> Yes.
[41:41] >> Okay. Um
[41:43] the
[41:45] uh this came up at um Zion's
[41:48] quite often.
[41:49] Um
[41:51] if there's any
[41:54] relationship
[41:55] um
[41:56] when you first apply for the job, it
[42:00] needs to be defined there. It needs to
[42:02] actually be reported at that time of
[42:04] applying, not afterwards.
[42:07] Um yeah, disclose. Um and then after
[42:11] uh say, you know, somebody gets married
[42:13] here to each other. Well, fine. You have
[42:15] a certain amount of time just to make
[42:16] sure that those things are reviewed and
[42:19] then
[42:21] approved or if changes have to be made,
[42:24] I didn't see anything on that and I
[42:26] that's just one of the things I would
[42:27] like to
[42:28] >> It did highlight that in our application
[42:31] process, it meaning this conversation,
[42:34] did highlight in our application process
[42:36] that we hadn't always asked the question
[42:38] on our application form, do you have any
[42:39] relatives currently working for the
[42:41] city? And so there have been instances
[42:44] where
[42:45] sisters, for example, have both been
[42:48] hired but they have different last
[42:49] names.
[42:50] You know, because of marriage and things
[42:51] like that. And so, you know, we we have
[42:53] now added that to the to the application
[42:56] process and and we've done that but
[42:59] that's a little bit
[43:01] tied to but not directly related to the document, right? The the language
[43:05] of the policy. So
[43:06] >> And do we have a diff
[43:08] >> There is a disclosure requirement in the
[43:10] policy. It's paragraph 10.
[43:13] And it's it's very short. It's one two
[43:15] sentences but it says all applicants and
[43:17] employees shall disclose any relative
[43:20] relationship with a city officer or
[43:22] employee as part of the hiring process
[43:25] or upon the development of such
[43:26] relationship. Failure to disclose may be
[43:29] grounds for discipline. Okay. So there's
[43:31] two points. One, at point of hiring if
[43:33] the relationship exists, they would have
[43:35] to if the relationship is formed later,
[43:39] marriage or something like that, then
[43:41] they would have to report it at that
[43:42] time.
[43:43] >> And do we define
[43:46] relative in here? Is that the same one
[43:48] that we've been using for like conflict
[43:49] of interest in the
[43:50] >> similar, yes.
[43:51] >> Okay.
[43:53] That's it. Those are my only questions.
[43:55] >> Thank you, John.
[43:57] >> Any other questions?
[44:02] Okay, we'll look for a motion.
[44:05] >> Move to approve resolution 26-30
[44:07] amending the policy and procedures 3.040
[44:09] employment of relatives relatives
[44:11] nepotism.
[44:12] >> Second.
[44:14] >> Give a motion second by Councilman
[44:16] Halverson.
[44:17] Do a roll call vote starting with
[44:19] Councilman Halverson.
[44:20] >> Aye.
[44:24] >> Okay, that's unanimous. Thank you.
[44:27] Our next item our fraud risk assessment.
[44:30] We need to uh
[44:33] have a motion to accept this. Uh every
[44:35] year we have a fraud risk assessment
[44:39] down here in the city and I believe that
[44:41] this year was came back as a low risk.
[44:45] Is that correct?
[44:48] » We were one point away from very low.
[44:52] >> Yes, we right now we're at the at the
[44:54] low risk level.
[44:55] >> Okay.
[44:57] Anyone have any uh comments or questions
[44:59] on this?
[45:00] >> No.
[45:02] >> Mayor, I make a motion to approve the
[45:04] fraud risk assessment.
[45:05] >> Second.
[45:06] >> Okay, motion second by Councilman
[45:08] Windsor. We'll do a roll call vote
[45:10] starting with Councilman Windsor.
[45:11] >> Aye.
[45:15] >> Okay, that's unanimous.
[45:18] Thank you. Resolution 26-31
[45:21] Utah Retirement System URS contribution
[45:24] for firefighters.
[45:27] Any questions, concerns, or
[45:32] discussion on anything here?
[45:34] >> So, this is just where
[45:36] uh the state has now allowed an extra 1.
[45:40] 25%
[45:41] to be able to um be contributed by the
[45:44] city for full full-time employees,
[45:47] right?
[45:47] >> Right. The state will adjust or the not
[45:49] the state, URS will adjust this every
[45:51] once in a while and um they adjusted it
[45:54] again this year and so the city has the
[45:57] opportunity to say um it's past the
[46:00] point where it's specific requirement
[46:03] for the entity to make the payment. And
[46:05] so the the option is to choose will the
[46:07] city take this employee coverage amount
[46:10] or leave it up to the employee. In the
[46:12] past, the council has said as a city we
[46:15] want to take that on and provide that
[46:17] benefit.
[46:18] >> Absolutely.
[46:18] >> Still more clarification, Joel.
[46:21] >> [clears throat]
[46:22] >> There's a difference in the Utah
[46:23] retirement system between a type one
[46:25] employee and a type two employee. 2012
[46:28] became type two employees.
[46:30] Um they capped the percentage that
[46:33] companies, cities would have to
[46:36] contribute towards their retirement.
[46:38] >> Correct.
[46:38] >> That cap got reached several years ago.
[46:41] And now cities and public entities who
[46:44] participate Utah retirement systems
[46:47] uh have a choice before them. This isn't
[46:49] for every type two employee, it's just
[46:51] the firefighters that the state made
[46:53] provisions that cities with firefighting
[46:57] uh crews could elect to pay the
[47:00] additional amount. Um this question's
[47:02] going to come to us every year because
[47:04] the
[47:06] you know, the economy keeps growing. So
[47:07] we're going to continue to be faced with
[47:08] this question and it becomes an issue
[47:10] between
[47:12] why not the regular employees. Uh the
[47:14] type two employees also have the option
[47:16] instead of participating strictly with
[47:18] the URS, they can do a hybrid or they
[47:20] can do all the 401K. Uh so there's some
[47:23] other moving pieces amongst this, but
[47:25] the core question is do we want to
[47:27] continue to finance the retirement of
[47:29] our type two firefighter employees
[47:32] beyond what the cap was. And the cap was
[47:34] set many years ago so that agencies,
[47:38] cities could budget for these retirement
[47:41] systems and not have to continue to
[47:43] forecast what these ever-growing
[47:45] expenses are. So
[47:47] anyway, there's there's the two sides of
[47:48] it.
[47:49] >> Oh yeah. Um my my darling wife has just
[47:52] retired using the Utah retirement system
[47:54] and there's a lot of
[47:56] balance in there.
[47:59] >> Mhm.
[48:01] Okay, we'll look for motion on this.
[48:05] » May I move to approve resolution 2631 as
[48:08] read?
[48:10] >> Second it.
[48:12] >> Okay, a motion is seconded by councilman
[48:14] Dills. Do a roll call vote starting with
[48:17] councilman Howerton.
[48:18] >> I.
[48:24] >> Hey. Perfect.
[48:27] Unanimous.
[48:29] Next item is new business. I've asked
[48:33] if he would take just a minute. We
[48:35] recently gone through the process of
[48:37] having a
[48:38] bond rating on our city and we've got
[48:41] some information here that I'd like for
[48:43] him to
[48:44] tell us about that we all should be
[48:46] proud of and
[48:48] not only is uh city here in our city,
[48:51] but all of our residents should be proud
[48:54] as well. So,
[48:56] and it's worth
[48:57] noting and and talking about. So, Dave,
[48:59] would you take a few minutes and
[49:01] tell us about our bond rating?
[49:03] >> Yes, as part of the process for going
[49:07] out to market for a bond, the city has
[49:09] to present to a rating agency. There's
[49:13] three main
[49:15] rating agencies, Standard & Poor's,
[49:17] Moody's, and Fitch. We went before
[49:19] Moody's and uh
[49:22] you explain the city, you explain the
[49:25] financial circumstances of the city and
[49:27] the practices, operating principles that
[49:29] we follow,
[49:31] economic development, and things that
[49:33] are just the story of the city, as well
[49:35] as the bond and why we are doing the
[49:37] bond and what it goes toward, you know,
[49:38] those types of things. And then the
[49:40] rating agency
[49:42] will evaluate a number of metrics that
[49:45] the city has financially and otherwise,
[49:48] that some of which we provide, some of
[49:50] which they, you know, gather on their
[49:52] own research. And ultimately they give
[49:54] two different ratings. One for the
[49:56] entity as a whole and then one for the
[49:59] bond specifically.
[50:01] And they're not always the same. And the
[50:03] reason for that is the type of bond will
[50:06] determine whether or not it's a higher
[50:07] credit risk or lower credit risk um
[50:10] depending on the circumstances. So,
[50:12] ultimately we ended up with the highest
[50:15] bond rating we could hope for, which is
[50:19] double A2 in Moody's terminology. Um
[50:24] they have a triple A which is the
[50:25] highest and then in the double A
[50:27] category double A1 2 3.
[50:30] Uh a lot of times we think of that in
[50:32] the other rating agencies terminology of
[50:35] a double A plus, double A and double A
[50:37] minus. So, as an entity we were given a
[50:40] double A1.
[50:42] Um
[50:43] the second highest rating possible.
[50:46] Triple A being the highest. Second is
[50:48] double A1. And then the type of bond we
[50:50] have being a lease revenue bond rather
[50:52] than a general obligation bond
[50:54] automatically notches that one down.
[50:57] That that's just standard for them. It
[50:59] has nothing to do with the
[51:01] uh the agency. It really is they set the
[51:04] agency bond rating and then drop it one
[51:07] for a lease revenue. Just the type of
[51:09] bond determines that.
[51:11] So, a double A2 is our bond rating. The
[51:14] uh types of cities that get
[51:19] this type of rating
[51:22] usually average 22,000 in population and
[51:26] 57 million dollars in revenue.
[51:28] So, we are not in that same type of
[51:30] category size-wise and revenue-wise, um
[51:33] which tells me that the other things
[51:35] that we're doing right and the other
[51:36] decisions that the council are making
[51:38] and operational decisions that are
[51:40] taking place are the things that are
[51:42] proving that we are a good credit risk
[51:44] and that we are doing things well. And it was really exciting to see after
[51:49] we were on the call with Moody's um and
[51:52] we got off the call and immediately got
[51:54] a got a phone call from Mark Anderson
[51:56] with Zion's Public Finance and and he's
[51:59] like, you guys that was the that was the
[52:00] best you could get. Like you should be
[52:02] thrilled. And and we are. So, that's a really big deal and a pat on
[52:06] the back I think for for all of the
[52:08] council on the decisions that have been
[52:10] made over many years to get us to this
[52:11] point. So, I didn't pull up what our
[52:14] rating was before. I I want to look at
[52:16] that. I've been a little preoccupied,
[52:18] but I will I'll take a look at that and compare. I'm interested to see how
[52:22] that relates to previous bonds. We did
[52:24] not do this process
[52:27] for
[52:28] the bond that we're refunding in 2023
[52:31] because it was uh
[52:33] placed individually. We didn't go out to
[52:35] market to sell it. So, you do this
[52:37] process when you go out to market, and
[52:39] the last time we did that was more than
[52:41] a decade ago. So,
[52:42] um I think it proves that we're in a
[52:45] good spot and things are going well, and
[52:47] that was really exciting news. So,
[52:49] Thanks, Mayor, for letting me bring that
[52:50] up.
[52:51] >> That's worth noting. So, thank you so
[52:53] much.
[52:54] Any other new business anyone have?
[52:57] Let's do uh
[52:59] committee reports then.
[53:02] Uh
[53:03] Councilman Woodbury, you want to start
[53:04] with that?
[53:05] >> Um the committees haven't met, but uh a
[53:07] subset of the
[53:10] gravel committee uh the aggregate the
[53:12] state aggregate operations work group
[53:14] which is uh
[53:16] I've been uh asked to be a member of for
[53:19] the represent the city.
[53:21] Uh they've
[53:22] have [clears throat] scheduled a meeting
[53:23] tomorrow
[53:24] uh 1:30. Um this is the ongoing
[53:28] discussions that ended last December.
[53:31] Um postponed, I should say, so that they
[53:33] uh they could go through the legislative
[53:34] process.
[53:35] So, we're continuing to have these
[53:37] discussions. This is about fugitive
[53:38] dust. And that's what this this
[53:40] committee meets. It's statewide uh
[53:42] committee members.
[53:43] There was also, and I didn't realize
[53:44] this, but House Bill 378 in the 2026
[53:48] legislative session was passed that had
[53:51] um
[53:52] some modification to fugitive dust
[53:54] mitigation. It was more administrative
[53:55] changes, but that was a
[53:57] uh
[53:58] a bill that was ran. Uh we didn't hear
[54:00] anything about it, but it didn't seem
[54:02] like it was uh
[54:09] I'll be attending that meeting tomorrow.
[54:10] I can have some report in a couple
[54:11] weeks, if any.
[54:13] >> Good.
[54:14] >> Jeremy.
[54:16] >> Uh nothing uh solid. Uh Dave just
[54:19] presented us with uh
[54:21] a kind of first draft of the uh golf
[54:24] cart policy. So, that's under review
[54:26] right now, and
[54:27] hopefully we'll be bringing that to the
[54:29] full council soon.
[54:31] That's it.
[54:33] >> Joel.
[54:34] >> Um
[54:36] uh I guess this would fall under it.
[54:37] I've
[54:38] uh received a request uh where I used to
[54:41] be um with the Parks Committee. Um
[54:44] they're already looking for the day of
[54:46] service,
[54:47] and some people are wanting to request
[54:50] specific parks like they have in the
[54:51] past. Um I'll just forward them over to
[54:53] you, and then
[54:55] uh
[54:56] you guys can decide how to how to work
[54:57] those.
[54:58] >> Thank you.
[54:59] >> That's it.
[55:01] >> Angie.
[55:01] >> Nothing further to report.
[55:03] >> Blair.
[55:04] >> Nothing to report.
[55:05] >> Shaylee, have you got anything?
[55:08] We're good. Okay.
[55:10] Then next item on the agenda is our
[55:12] favorite one of the day.
[55:15] Look for a motion to adjourn.
[55:17] >> So moved.
[55:20] » Nobody wants to second
[55:22] >> All in favor, say aye.
[55:24] >> Aye.