[1:36] Mine says it's on. You can. Oh, now it's

[1:39] working.

[1:39] >> Now we Okay.

[1:40] >> Yep.

[1:42] >> Definitely working now. Okay. Are there

[1:44] any general announcements?

[1:48] >> Um, I do not have any general

[1:50] announcements. Are there any staff

[1:52] members with announcements?

[1:54] Ryan has an announcement.

[1:59] » On Friday, we have the Eric Dodge

[2:01] concert out at the Gazebo Park as part

[2:03] of our America 250 celebration. So,

[2:05] that'll be free for anyone to attend.

[2:08] Um, a lot of fun.

[2:13] » Anything else?

[2:15] >> Nothing.

[2:16] >> Okay. Um, first item on the agenda is an

[2:19] administrative action item. discussion

[2:21] and possible approval of an agreement

[2:23] with Parkplace Residential doing

[2:25] business as Arcilla Ridge LLC to develop

[2:28] parcel S100C as workforce housing

[2:32] including the potential transfer of

[2:34] parcel S-100C from the town of

[2:36] Springdale to ParkPlace residential

[2:39] pursuant to section 7-9-2

[2:42] of the town code. The town council will

[2:45] accept public comment regarding the

[2:46] proposed disposal of parcel S100C and

[2:50] the staff contact is Tom Denzy.

[2:53] Thank you, mayor. Um in a previous

[2:56] meeting, the council selected Parkplace

[2:59] Residential to be um our um partner in

[3:04] developing workforce housing units on

[3:07] the town's Trapper Circle property

[3:09] located at the end of Trapper Circle,

[3:12] parcel S-100-C.

[3:15] Um, so you've you've uh selected

[3:19] ParkPlace to do that work, but we to to

[3:24] uh as of yet have not entered into an

[3:26] official agreement with ParkPlace to be

[3:29] our partner. Um, and I'm using partner

[3:32] with a lowercase P, not an uppercase P,

[3:34] not a public private partnership. This

[3:36] is this is just a a general uh

[3:40] cooperation. So evidently when I say

[3:43] partner, county town attorney gets a

[3:45] little bit anxious because it has a

[3:46] different meaning. So lowercase partner.

[3:49] Um but essentially what the what the

[3:51] arrangement is is that um ParkPlace

[3:54] Residential will develop 10 workforce

[3:57] housing units on the property. um they

[3:59] will be rented and occupied according to

[4:01] the active employ by by um households

[4:06] who meet the active employment criteria

[4:09] in the town's workforce housing overlay

[4:10] zone. Um and that will uh be binding on

[4:15] the property for a period of 50 years.

[4:18] Um after 50 years that restriction goes

[4:20] away and the property then is can be

[4:23] developed by Parkplace Residential

[4:25] according to any use which is then

[4:27] allowed by the zoning on the property.

[4:30] This is the the kind of the framework

[4:33] and and the agreement that the council

[4:36] gave preliminary approval to in the

[4:38] previous meeting. So the agreement

[4:40] that's before you now just formalizes

[4:43] that relationship. So the agreement

[4:45] that's before you now will will make all

[4:47] of those things official. It will bind

[4:49] RCA Ridge to develop the 10 workforce

[4:52] housing units. It will bind them

[4:54] operationally to ensure that they are um

[4:57] occupied by households who meet the

[4:59] active employment criteria in the code.

[5:01] It will have um some uh consequences for failure to meet those standards. Um

[5:09] and importantly for the town, it binds

[5:12] the town to transfer ownership of the

[5:15] property S100- C to ParkPlace

[5:19] Residential.

[5:21] Per the town's uh property uh disposal

[5:24] ordinance S-9-2,

[5:26] any parcel that's valued over $250,000

[5:30] the town intends to dispose of needs to

[5:32] go through a special process that

[5:33] requires notice and then the opportunity

[5:35] for public comment. um because this the

[5:38] value of the property exceeds that

[5:40] amount. The with the town had an

[5:41] appraisal for the property at $ 1.9

[5:44] million. We need to go through that

[5:46] process. So the action that's before you

[5:48] today is two things. One is to go

[5:50] through the process in 7-9-2 to accept

[5:53] public comment on the proposed disposal

[5:56] of a parcel valued in excess of

[5:58] $250,000.

[6:00] And the other is to uh determine whether

[6:03] or not to approve the agreement as has

[6:06] been drafted by the town attorney that

[6:08] will formalize our relationship with

[6:10] Parkplace Residential. Um you received

[6:13] an email last night. I apologize for the lateness of that. There was some

[6:18] back and forth between the town attorney

[6:20] and Parkplace on on some of the um

[6:22] particulars of of the agreement, some

[6:25] last minute changes that have to do with

[6:27] um limitations on how ParkPlace is able

[6:31] to um acquire f uh uh loans or financing

[6:35] using that parcel as as leverage. Um the

[6:38] town attorney inserted some some

[6:39] language that better protects the town

[6:41] in that regard. We can go over that if

[6:43] you have questions. Um otherwise that

[6:46] that's that's the action today. One is

[6:48] accept public comment on the proposed

[6:50] disposal of the property and then two

[6:52] would be to decide whether or not to

[6:54] enter into this agreement with Parkplace

[6:56] Residential.

[6:57] >> And are those separate issues? Are we

[6:58] accepting comments only on the disposal

[7:00] or on both?

[7:02] >> Um so that's up to you. You are only

[7:05] required to accept public comment on the

[7:08] property disposal.

[7:10] >> Okay. Obviously, they're linked and and

[7:11] they're related topics and so it would

[7:13] make sense that if someone wants to

[7:15] address you on both that might be

[7:17] appropriate, but you're only required to

[7:18] accept public comment on the actual

[7:20] property disposal.

[7:21] >> Okay. I think we'll accept comments on

[7:22] both and will we do the usual public

[7:24] hearing format?

[7:25] >> It's not a public hearing.

[7:27] >> It's just public comments.

[7:28] >> So, you just have to provide an

[7:29] opportunity for people to come up and give you comments.

[7:32] >> Okay.

[7:34] So, do we want to hear comments first or

[7:36] do we want to discuss first preference?

[7:40] comments.

[7:41] >> Let's hear comments.

[7:42] >> Okay. So, if you want to make comments,

[7:45] please make sure you signed in and um go

[7:48] up to the microphone and state your name

[7:50] and make your comments

[7:55] over there.

[7:57] >> You can sign in after all. We just need

[7:59] to make sure

[8:05] » Gil Kefir. I'm with the Moave uh

[8:08] homeowners association. I'm not part of

[8:10] the board of directors at this time, but

[8:12] I am a a homeowner there. Um my main

[8:17] concern about the development there is

[8:22] two things. uh that no grading

[8:26] uh or changes in the grading uh allow

[8:31] storm water to come on to the uh Moanabi

[8:35] property, the our open space. Uh there

[8:39] is a detention pond there. Um

[8:44] uh I think we would be uh amanable to to

[8:47] looking at them trying to use that. Uh

[8:51] however, we would probably want them to

[8:53] also take responsibility

[8:56] for keeping that clean. Uh the second uh

[9:01] concern is that we allowed the um a

[9:06] previous owner to use the uh easement to

[9:11] get back to that property. And they took

[9:14] down a f a fence, a barbwire fence, and

[9:17] they basically took the whole fence down

[9:20] to the south side of the ement. They

[9:24] never put it back up. They left it in a

[9:26] heap on HOA property. So what I would

[9:30] like to see is the easement well

[9:33] definfined and uh the new our property

[9:39] well defined so that uh the trades do

[9:44] not park their vehicles on HOA property

[9:47] the trucks do not deliver u supplies and

[9:52] store them on HOA property and that

[9:55] there's no grading on HOA property.

[9:59] Thank you.

[10:08] » Hi, my name is Al Tyl. I live on Mo up

[10:11] here. Uh, one concern

[10:14] uh for me and this may be premature but

[10:17] I'll get it out here early because doing

[10:20] this uh post build and everything hasn't

[10:23] helped me much on this particular issue

[10:25] on other buildings. uh with what we put

[10:28] down there, we're already dealing with a

[10:31] considerable amount of lighting coming

[10:34] up from the hotel that's down there and

[10:36] the adjacent buildings that are around

[10:37] it. The extent that it basically lights

[10:40] all the way up the south side of Moach

[10:43] Hill, past my driveway, all the way up

[10:46] to the top of the hill and basically

[10:48] it's like I have a light on outside on a

[10:51] 15 acre property. Um, if one things I

[10:55] think we need to consider as we're doing

[10:56] stuff like this is light control and

[11:00] what we're going to do about it because

[11:02] you had a 10-unit uh property down

[11:05] there. That's going to be a lot more

[11:06] light unless it's handled, you know,

[11:09] very properly, I guess. And uh the

[11:12] reason I'm bringing this up here now is

[11:15] I've had discussions regarding the

[11:17] lighting down there

[11:19] eight times, nine times already. and I

[11:22] get a nod and I get, you know, we we'll

[11:25] look into that. We're going to do

[11:27] something. Even the first couple times I

[11:29] got, now where do you see the light? And

[11:31] I actually was going to give him my

[11:33] glasses so he could look around and see

[11:35] it's coming all the way up the hill and

[11:36] it's actually dark out and you know, the

[11:39] lights are lighting everything up. So,

[11:41] if you all can take that into

[11:43] consideration as this thing moves

[11:44] forward, um, we got enough already. 10

[11:48] more units is going to be a lot of

[11:49] light. It's got to be handled properly.

[11:52] And if you do get bored, let's look at

[11:54] that hotel and see if we can knock them

[11:56] down a bit because they've done nothing

[11:59] to knock down their lighting at all. And

[12:01] that it just glows all the way down

[12:03] there. And you're more than welcome to

[12:05] come up to my place, up into that

[12:07] general area anytime in the evening, see

[12:09] what I'm talking about. I'm not talking

[12:11] about small amount of light. I'm talking

[12:14] about a significant amount of light that

[12:16] you can walk around at night time

[12:17] without a flashlight and everything's

[12:20] lit up and we're I don't know what that

[12:22] is 200 feet up on the hill up like that.

[12:26] So, uh please take a look at that.

[12:28] Consider it. Thank you.

[12:30] >> Thank you.

[12:32] >> Other comments.

[12:35] >> Okay, let's go into deliberation.

[12:38] So Tom, the um changes made that we

[12:42] received last night were approved by

[12:44] Kyle, right? Both parties agreed to

[12:48] those minor changes.

[12:49] >> That that's correct. And and one other

[12:51] change that I I forgot to mention is the

[12:53] name of the development entity is it's

[12:56] officially listed as RCA Ridge. Um that

[13:00] they had not quite got that gotten that

[13:02] entity set up as a as a legal entity by

[13:05] the time Greg drafted the first version.

[13:07] So Greg listed their official

[13:09] development name. Now they have RCA

[13:12] regionally

[13:14] registered as an LLC. So that's the

[13:15] other change.

[13:16] >> Okay.

[13:18] I have a question. Um that

[13:22] I think I read the answer, but I just

[13:24] want to clarify this entire

[13:28] agreement runs with the land.

[13:31] >> That is correct.

[13:32] >> Okay. So, um,

[13:37] would it be similar to the Mountain

[13:40] Country homes? Like if there were to be

[13:43] a new owner,

[13:45] things could be amended, but as it is

[13:47] right now, everything runs with the

[13:49] land, not with the owner or developer.

[13:55] >> That's correct. one of and I guess to be

[13:57] more technically correct that this

[14:00] agreement is made with RCA ridge but it

[14:03] is binding on successors and assigns

[14:06] there is a restrictive covenant which

[14:08] will be recorded against the property

[14:10] which does run with the land and will

[14:13] survive any transfer of ownership. Um

[14:16] the other thing is that there is a

[14:18] reversionary clause on the deed that

[14:20] will be recorded. So in addition to the

[14:23] agreement which is binding on successors

[14:25] and assigns we have a restrictive

[14:27] covenant which is uh runs with the land

[14:31] and then we have a reversionary clause

[14:33] on the deed itself which will survive

[14:35] any transfer of ownership. So we have

[14:37] three levels of protection to make sure

[14:39] that this agreement survives any

[14:41] transfer of ownership.

[14:44] And if we get into the future um even 10

[14:48] 15 years down the road and we find that

[14:51] 100% of the AMI is not

[14:55] working out or or some other small

[14:56] detail are those details

[15:00] changeable

[15:02] with both parties agreeing.

[15:04] >> Yes. Yeah. And any any any as with any

[15:06] agreement you can change that but it

[15:09] takes both parties to agree. So RCA

[15:12] Ridge couldn't come back and

[15:13] unilaterally say, "Oh, 100% AMI rent

[15:16] isn't working. Now we need to go up to

[15:18] 200% AMI rent." Um they would need to

[15:21] come and um negotiate that with the

[15:24] town.

[15:25] >> Okay. So it takes both parties to change

[15:29] any of the details.

[15:30] >> That is correct. Okay.

[15:31] >> Which is interesting because we didn't

[15:33] require any income restrictions. They

[15:36] chose to impose those. But it's still

[15:38] probably good that we can have a say in

[15:40] that.

[15:41] >> Correct. And and again just as as a

[15:44] slight clarification, it is not an

[15:45] income restriction. It's a rent

[15:47] restriction. So there so the only the

[15:50] only restriction for the occupants who

[15:52] are going to be occupying the property

[15:54] is that they are actively employed in

[15:56] the town of Springdale. They can make as

[15:58] what much as they want, right?

[15:59] >> But RCA Ridge is only allowed to charge

[16:01] them the rent associated with 100% AI.

[16:05] >> Okay. for Washington County.

[16:07] >> They could charge them less.

[16:09] >> Correct.

[16:09] >> If they're not filling them, they

[16:11] mentioned that they may need to go down.

[16:12] Okay.

[16:13] >> Correct.

[16:15] >> Comments, questions from council.

[16:20] » Um, so we've seen this before. Um, I

[16:24] appreciate the comments from our

[16:25] residents and there will be design

[16:28] development reviews and and plenty of

[16:31] checks and balances along the way for

[16:33] the project itself. It sounds like we

[16:35] don't have any objections to

[16:37] transferring the property or selecting

[16:39] RCA Ridge. We've vetted them out

[16:42] thoroughly. So, sounds like maybe we're

[16:44] ready for a motion on both items.

[16:46] >> Yeah. And just to kind of follow up that

[16:48] this particular agreement does not

[16:52] um give them any extra lighting or extra

[16:59] development incentives other than um the

[17:04] impact fees, the delayed impact fees.

[17:06] unlike the hotel that you were

[17:09] mentioning has a development agreement

[17:12] that

[17:15] does affect the the lighting and so um

[17:17] the development that's going in will be

[17:20] required to meet all of the current

[17:22] standards that we have.

[17:24] >> Yeah. the dark sky lighting standard.

[17:26] >> Dark sky materials he height setbacks,

[17:30] drainage,

[17:31] everything is going to be um like any

[17:35] other developer that would come in.

[17:36] There's no no special set a

[17:40] one clarification is that I think it

[17:43] says nine and possibly 10, right? So

[17:46] they would be within the their legal

[17:48] right if they couldn't fit that 10th

[17:50] unit.

[17:51] >> That's correct. the the desire is to get

[17:54] 10 units, but

[17:55] >> because of the development constraints

[17:57] on the property,

[17:58] >> it may not be

[18:01] >> um feasible or possible to get the 10th

[18:03] unit.

[18:04] >> Right. Okay. Anybody want to make a

[18:06] motion?

[18:11] » I'll make a motion.

[18:12] >> Okay. Thanks, Pat. The town council has

[18:14] reviewed the trapper circle of workforce

[18:16] housing land disposal and improvements

[18:19] agreement with Parkplace Residential

[18:21] doing business as our CILA bridge LLC

[18:24] dated April 22nd, 2026, including

[18:27] exhibits 1 through 8 as presented and

[18:31] authorizes the mayor to execute the

[18:33] agreement and all associated exhibits

[18:35] and documents necessary.

[18:38] >> I'll second motion by Pat and second by

[18:40] Kyla. Kyla I

[18:42] >> Barbara.

[18:45] » Next item on the agenda is a review and

[18:47] possible approval of a contract awarding

[18:49] the George A. Barker River Park

[18:51] expansion project to Interstate Rock and

[18:53] this is Ryan Goobler.

[18:55] >> Yep. Thank you. Um yeah, so we back in

[19:00] March we issued an invitation for bids

[19:02] for the River Park project and were able

[19:04] to receive three applications. Um, as

[19:07] our town code stipulates, uh, we are

[19:10] required to select the lowest

[19:13] responsible and responsive bidder and

[19:16] that turned out to be Interstate Rock.

[19:18] They came in with a bid of 1,355,775.80.

[19:25] Um, and

[19:28] uh, the contract was drafted by our

[19:30] architect and reviewed by our legal

[19:32] team. I will say there are a few things

[19:35] I need to bring to your attention. First

[19:36] off, there's a typo in that second

[19:38] paragraph. Um it should say March 2026.

[19:41] I apologize for that. That was my fault.

[19:44] And then um we are also

[19:48] in working with Interstate um originally

[19:50] the date of commencement was scheduled

[19:52] to be today, April 22nd. They've had

[19:54] some scheduling issues. So we are uh

[19:57] working with them to uh amend that

[20:00] provision so that the date of

[20:01] commencement will be changed to April

[20:03] 30th. So their 120 days will start on

[20:06] April 30th, not on April 22nd. But as I

[20:08] mentioned um the re the contract was

[20:11] drafted by the architect, reviewed by

[20:13] our attorney and um yeah, we are

[20:18] here to answer questions.

[20:21] So, we're here to consider awarding the

[20:24] contract to Interstate Rock, not to talk

[20:26] about the design or anything like that.

[20:29] >> That's correct.

[20:30] >> Okay.

[20:32] Discussion.

[20:35] >> Um, I didn't notice like a particular

[20:39] call out. It could have been um about

[20:42] how many days the park will not be

[20:44] accessible.

[20:46] We have not had our pre-construction

[20:48] meeting yet and that is something that

[20:49] will be discussed at that meeting.

[20:56] » So the guess I'll just mention real

[20:57] quick on that in earlier meetings with

[21:00] interested biders.

[21:02] That point was definitely made.

[21:18] » And and actually letting them do the job

[21:21] so they get done quicker instead of

[21:23] Yeah. So I think it's a balance.

[21:26] >> Um I didn't know if it would be part of

[21:29] the agreement to be determined.

[21:33] Ryan, I do have a a question about the

[21:35] funding and it may just be I have the

[21:37] math wrong. In terms of this phase one,

[21:41] we're matching $684,000

[21:44] from the county. Correct.

[21:46] >> And we're getting 20,000 from Utah

[21:48] outdoor wreck.

[21:50] >> 200,000 Yep.

[21:53] >> 70,000 coming from general funds. So the

[21:55] remaining 400 some thousand is coming

[21:56] from

[21:59] fees, things like that.

[22:02] So 684 twice is1,ion368,

[22:05] but the interstate rock bay bid is

[22:08] for1,355.

[22:10] So the $12,000,

[22:12] we're making that up. May not spend it.

[22:15] I mean, how does that work?

[22:16] >> In discussing that with the architect,

[22:17] we because there had been, you know, we

[22:19] had value engineered some things out of

[22:21] the plan. So, we had conversations, hey,

[22:23] do we leave that $12,000 as a

[22:26] contingency if something were to come up

[22:28] or if at the end of it we decide we want

[22:30] to bring something back in, we have that

[22:32] option. But he recommended we just leave

[22:33] it alone for now so that when inevitably

[22:37] when something comes up that we have to

[22:38] fix that, we weren't anticipating we

[22:40] have that as cushion.

[22:43] >> And Ryan, we have another potential for

[22:46] TRT money from the county, but that's

[22:48] for that's if we go ahead with phase

[22:50] two, right?

[22:51] >> Correct. No opportunity to get that for

[22:53] phase one.

[22:55] >> Yeah, that no obligation to move forward

[22:58] with phase two at all. Right.

[22:59] >> That's completely at our discretion.

[23:01] >> Okay.

[23:04] » And the um

[23:09] letter we got from our legal

[23:12] that that has been included in this

[23:16] contract.

[23:19] » That was jump in. That was a

[23:22] confidential correspondence and so that

[23:24] was not included with the packet

[23:24] material that was sent separately to the

[23:26] council.

[23:29] Th those are just kind of general legal

[23:34] considerations from the council from the

[23:37] town council to the from the town's

[23:40] council town council

[23:46] seal cil.

[23:49] >> Any other discussion? We we've long

[23:52] worked with Interstate Rock and we know

[23:54] that they are reliable contractor and

[23:59] I I doubt that anybody has any concerns

[24:02] about their performance. Is there are

[24:04] there concerns about the contract

[24:06] itself?

[24:08] Okay. If not, then will I entertain a

[24:10] motion?

[24:13] I move to approve the contract between

[24:15] the town of Springdale and Rock Products

[24:18] in the amount of 1,355,75.80

[24:26] for construction services for George A.

[24:35] » I'll second it.

[24:36] >> A motion by Jack and a second by Pata. I

[24:39] >> Andy

[24:40] >> Barbara I

[24:40] >> Jack

[24:41] >> Pati

[24:44] >> next item on the agenda is what we're

[24:46] really here for budget work session to

[24:48] discuss the fiscal year 2026 and 27

[24:51] budget staff contact is Tom Dans

[24:54] >> thank you um just before we get started

[24:57] because we are going to be looking at

[24:58] the screen a lot is that uh lectturn can

[25:01] you all see past that okay is that in

[25:03] your way

[25:05] >> I can see but I would see better without

[25:07] that

[25:08] >> microphone. The lectern's not a problem.

[25:11] >> Okay. Thank you, April.

[25:15] >> Maybe I'll get a donut while you're

[25:16] starting.

[25:20] » It's Yeah, you It's going to be a long

[25:21] haul, so carve up.

[25:31] » Hey, Barbara.

[25:36] Not a ton of frosting

[25:38] and and not cake either. Maybe just

[25:43] >> Yeah, glaze. That would be good.

[25:45] >> Sure.

[26:34] Okay, we're getting sugared So, we're

[26:36] ready.

[26:36] >> Awesome.

[26:38] All right. Well, uh, thank you, council,

[26:40] for, uh, coming today to talk about the tenative budget. This is the second

[26:45] step in the town's annual budget

[26:47] process, or or I guess I should say the

[26:49] council's second step in the town's

[26:52] annual budget process. The first was the

[26:53] capital priorities meeting that we had

[26:55] in January where we look at kind of big

[26:58] capital purchases for the coming year

[27:00] and then also for the next two to five

[27:02] years. Um based on the direction that we

[27:05] received from the council at that

[27:06] session, um staff has worked together um

[27:10] looked at at um other expenditures and

[27:13] other costs for the coming year and has

[27:14] prepared uh a a staff proposed budget

[27:18] for fiscal year 2627.

[27:21] And that that's what we're here to

[27:22] discuss. Before we get into it too much,

[27:25] I just want to talk a little bit in

[27:26] general um about uh kind of budgeting

[27:31] and and where we're coming from as a

[27:32] staff this year with budgeting. Um

[27:36] first of all, kind of in general,

[27:38] there's um three kind of big overall I'm

[27:43] going to I'm going to say in my mind

[27:46] tenants of of of the budget um that that

[27:50] we looked at. Um, one is, uh, just

[27:53] making sure that revenues equal or

[27:55] exceed expenditures, right? That is the the the fundamental concept of of a

[28:00] budget is that you're not spending more

[28:01] than you are projected to make. So,

[28:04] that's very much a quantitative type of

[28:06] analysis. Do our revenue revenues equal

[28:09] or exceed our projected revenues? So,

[28:11] we'll talk a little bit about budgeting

[28:13] from a quantitative standpoint. Um the

[28:16] second kind of uh fundamental tenant of

[28:18] budgeting is are we using our

[28:21] expenditures? Are we using the the way

[28:24] we spend our money to move the town

[28:25] forward strategically to accomplish the

[28:28] goals and objectives and priorities that

[28:30] we have have established um that you've

[28:33] established as a council that the town

[28:34] has established in our general plan and

[28:36] other planning documents and other

[28:38] policies. How well do our proposed

[28:42] expenditures move those plans and

[28:44] policies forward? So that's much more of

[28:46] a qualitative type of analysis. Also

[28:49] talk about budgeting from a qualitative

[28:51] standpoint. Are we spending money

[28:53] wisely? Not only are we not spending

[28:55] more than we make, but are we spending

[28:57] it wisely? Um the third kind of tenant

[29:00] of of budgeting is um are we complying

[29:04] with all of the necessary

[29:06] um accept generally accepted accounting

[29:08] principles and and government standards

[29:10] for plan for for for budgeting. That's

[29:13] much more of an administrative type

[29:14] analysis. That is not the purpose of

[29:17] today's meeting thankfully. Um so we're

[29:20] not going to get into that. So really

[29:22] what what what I would suggest the

[29:23] council focus on on today is big

[29:26] picture. Are we making sure that we're

[29:29] not spending more than we make? Are we

[29:31] being wise fiscally?

[29:34] Quantitatively and then qualitatively

[29:37] are we spending money where it makes the

[29:39] most sense? Are we getting the most um

[29:41] impact for the money that we're

[29:43] spending? So that's that's where I would

[29:46] suggest we we we focus today's

[29:48] discussion just to to drill into that a

[29:50] little bit more um on the quantitative

[29:53] side are we spending more than what we

[29:56] are making. So the first first step of

[29:58] that is to look at revenue. Um in years

[30:01] past um we have looked at at revenue and done an analysis based on um trends

[30:08] and and last year's budgeted re revenue

[30:11] and and the previous year's actual

[30:12] revenues received and done kind of a

[30:14] forecast that usually results in about a

[30:17] fiveish percent increase in what our

[30:19] projected revenues will be fiscal year

[30:22] over fiscal year. Um this year as a

[30:24] staff we have made a a a decision to be

[30:28] very

[30:30] um conservative and instead of

[30:32] projecting that 5% increase we're

[30:35] essentially projecting a a a flat

[30:37] revenue from fiscal year 2526 to fiscal

[30:41] year 2627.

[30:44] Um there's a couple reason reasons why

[30:47] we are doing that. Um, our our general

[30:50] fund revenue, as the council knows, is

[30:52] driven almost exclusively by taxes and largely by by our three taxes, our

[30:57] sales tax, our resort tax, and our

[30:59] transient um room tax. Those are those

[31:02] are um very heavily influenced by

[31:04] visitation. And so, as visitation

[31:06] increases, typically those increase as

[31:08] well. And the trend has been for

[31:10] visitation to to increase, but that's

[31:12] not a guarantee. And so we are we're being very conservative and

[31:17] holding that revenue flat because our

[31:20] other opportunities to increase uh

[31:22] revenue particularly in the general fund

[31:24] are are pretty limited. We could do a

[31:25] property tax increase. That's not going

[31:28] to net us a lot of additional money and

[31:30] it's not really a a politically um

[31:35] uh

[31:37] wise thing to do anyway.

[31:39] um we could increase our user fees and

[31:41] we and we probably should look at that,

[31:42] but again that's not going to net us a

[31:44] lot of money. So So we're holding

[31:45] general fund revenue pretty constant.

[31:47] Same with the enterprise funds. Um those

[31:50] are as as the council knows those are

[31:51] driven by user charges, by what people

[31:53] pay in water rates, sewer rates, by what

[31:56] we collect in impact fees. Um our our

[32:00] water rate, sewer rate, and irrigation

[32:02] rates have an automatic escalating table

[32:05] that the council adopted five years ago.

[32:08] Each year those increase a little bit.

[32:09] So So we will get a little bit of an

[32:11] increase. We're still holding those

[32:12] flat. As a side note, um preview of

[32:15] coming attractions, that automatic

[32:18] fivest step um increase had a had a

[32:23] fiveyear step. and those that that the

[32:25] fifth step goes into effect on January

[32:27] 1st, 2027.

[32:29] After January 1st, 2027, we're there are

[32:32] no more planned increases in our water

[32:34] rates, sewer rates, or irrigation rates.

[32:38] So, that will be

[32:39] >> the state mandates that.

[32:41] >> Well,

[32:43] correct. And even if the state doesn't m

[32:46] mandate that, that's something that we

[32:47] will want to look at because um it is

[32:52] likely that the state will will mandate

[32:54] us to do something and that something is

[32:57] um budget for depreciation. We have

[32:59] never budgeted for depreciation in those

[33:02] funds and um it is likely that the state

[33:08] will require us to um and and it's

[33:11] something that we should be doing even

[33:13] if the state didn't require us to be

[33:15] doing. The problem is that budgeting for

[33:18] depreciation means that we will need to

[33:21] dramatically increase rates

[33:25] or dramatically reduce expenditures

[33:29] or do a combination of both, which is

[33:32] probably the most likely. Um and and so

[33:35] that's not something that that we're um

[33:38] biting off in this budget year. Um but

[33:41] it is something that we the council

[33:43] should be aware of and something that

[33:45] for sure in our next budget year um

[33:48] before we get to that budget year we

[33:49] will want to have a serious discussion

[33:51] with the council about rates and and

[33:53] where we want to go with budgeting for

[33:55] depreciation enterprise funds.

[33:59] » Jack, you look like you have a question.

[34:02] So So uh part of depreciation

[34:07] relates to capital improvements,

[34:09] correct?

[34:11] Well, what does depreciation all

[34:14] capture?

[34:17] » Don, do you want to You would do a far

[34:19] better job of explaining depreciation

[34:20] than I could. Do you mind giving

[34:27] » her a microphone? Yeah.

[34:40] » Physical infrastructure.

[34:41] >> Yes.

[34:41] >> And so my question on that though is

[34:44] don't we already have that built in?

[34:49] >> No. We have a we have we have we have a

[34:51] small

[34:53] amount that's a renewal and replacement

[34:55] fund but it's not capture all of

[34:58] depreciation

[35:04] » last year should should have been about

[35:06] $360,000

[35:08] and you can imagine what that would do

[35:10] to

[35:13] what user rates

[35:19] Okay. So, so again, that's from a that's where we're coming from with a

[35:25] revenue from the revenue side is we're

[35:28] being very conservative. We're

[35:29] essentially holding things flat. Um and I'll I'll get to a little bit more

[35:36] on why that is in just a second. Um the second part that we want to talk

[35:41] about is is our quantitative analysis.

[35:44] Um and are we are we spending our money

[35:47] wisely? So, in the staff report, I've highlighted a list of some of the

[35:52] kind of key expenditures and and these

[35:55] are are things that are are generally um

[35:59] kind of big ticket expenses. Um some are

[36:02] bigger ticket than others. Um you know,

[36:05] projects ranging from about 1520 $20,000

[36:07] all the way up to a half million dollars

[36:09] or more. These are are the kinds of

[36:12] projects that aren't strictly 100%

[36:16] necessary to keep the lights on in the

[36:18] town functioning. And so in that in that

[36:20] regard, they're not, you know, kind of

[36:22] operational costs, but they are things

[36:24] hopefully that we're doing that will

[36:26] help us achieve the goals and objectives

[36:28] of our general plan, our our uh capital

[36:31] facilities plans, our master plans. Um,

[36:34] and so I think these some of these

[36:36] expenditures are what we would

[36:37] appreciate the council's feedback on in

[36:40] terms of are we spending the town's

[36:42] money wisely. Are we are we putting um

[36:45] our resources towards the most

[36:47] beneficial uses?

[36:49] And um there may be things that that we

[36:52] haven't identified the council wants us

[36:54] to be spending money on. There may be

[36:56] things that are listed here on these key

[36:57] expenditures that that you think we

[36:59] shouldn't be um spending money on. And

[37:02] there may be things that I didn't

[37:03] identify that are identified in the

[37:04] budget sheets that you've you've

[37:06] identified that you want to talk about.

[37:07] But those that that's the discussion

[37:08] that I'd really like to have with the

[37:10] council is are we making wise use of our

[37:12] money? And then the final comment is um

[37:14] in the staff report I talked a lot about

[37:16] the fund balances and and Don can help

[37:19] me out here a little bit as well, but

[37:21] the fund balances are are like like the

[37:23] town's rainy days fund. It's it's our

[37:25] savings account is essentially the

[37:27] difference between what we make every

[37:28] year and what we spend every year. And

[37:31] over the past several years, we've been

[37:33] well, every every year we we use the um

[37:36] fund balances to make the balance the

[37:39] budget balance. We we borrow some from

[37:41] our savings account, which is normal,

[37:42] and that's fine, and that's that's a that's a legitimate um uh

[37:48] budgeting strategy. However, we can't

[37:51] become reliant on the fund balance

[37:53] because um it's like a savings account,

[37:56] right? if if we don't replenish it and

[37:58] we all we do is make withdrawals,

[37:59] eventually it goes away. And and I think

[38:02] we're at the point now where we need to

[38:04] start thinking really seriously about

[38:06] making more deposits into that account

[38:09] than withdrawals. So, as we're thinking

[38:12] about some of these key expenditures,

[38:13] also be cognizant of the fact that um

[38:16] the health of our fund balances also

[38:19] should factor into how we spend our

[38:21] money. Is that a good summary, Don?

[38:25] Okay. So, with that, um

[38:30] I would just open it the the discussion

[38:32] up to the council and we can talk about

[38:34] um revenues. If you want to talk about

[38:36] any of any of our revenue projections,

[38:37] we can. If you want to talk about any of

[38:39] the expenditures that we have um

[38:42] budgeted for, we can. Um, we have all of

[38:44] the uh um department heads here who are

[38:49] able to answer questions about specific

[38:51] projects and and so this is your time

[38:54] now to ask away.

[38:57] >> I thought that what we would do is to

[39:00] first look at the sort of the staff

[39:03] report and the questions that the

[39:04] philosophical questions that were on the

[39:07] last page there. We'll talk about that.

[39:09] I assume that everybody's looked at this

[39:11] and then we're going to really focus on

[39:14] year one more than we do on the further

[39:16] years, but maybe we'll go through this

[39:20] um these two things and then I thought

[39:24] by department maybe the department

[39:26] manager could talk about the big

[39:28] projects and and anything they just want

[39:31] to make us aware of and get our input

[39:33] on. Does that sound okay? Okay. So, um,

[39:38] and I see that your your key

[39:41] expenditures that you have in the staff

[39:42] report are put again in the capital

[39:46] priorities list, right? That's a

[39:48] duplicate of those.

[39:49] >> Yeah. The the capital priorities list is

[39:51] attached that's the document that we

[39:53] reviewed in January. That's just

[39:55] attached as a as a reference as a

[39:58] reminder to you of what we did discuss

[40:00] in January just as a double check to

[40:01] make sure that we are capturing those

[40:03] priorities from the capital facilities

[40:05] list in this year's budget.

[40:08] >> Okay. So, so let's start by um and and I

[40:12] appreciate the conservative approach to

[40:14] revenues. I think visitation is up

[40:16] drastically this year at the park, but

[40:18] that doesn't necessarily transfer to it

[40:21] doesn't necessarily mean our revenues

[40:23] will be up because seeing more pressure

[40:25] on on places to stay downhill and a lot

[40:29] more day traffic coming through and that

[40:31] kind of thing. So I think it's a good

[40:32] idea to be conservative.

[40:34] Um so first philosophical question was

[40:38] is the staff budget approach to

[40:39] projected revenues keeping them

[40:42] essentially flat appropriate for the 26

[40:45] 27 revenues. Would anyone argue that we

[40:48] should expect more or less

[40:52] » I I personally

[40:54] like

[41:01] applaud Tom for for taking this. I think

[41:04] The last thing I agree with

[41:08] increase in visitation

[41:12] finding more and more people

[41:26] increase in

[41:31] things like that because I'm not sure

[41:38] staying in a motel.

[41:41] So one quick question

[41:47] tax I mean

[41:51] how is that obviously that's going to

[41:53] help us

[41:54] >> does it come to us

[41:56] >> oh that's right

[41:58] >> it's I don't think our percentage

[42:02] » no the the the town's TRT rate stays the

[42:06] same so the the amount that the county

[42:10] collects is is is increasing. But again,

[42:12] that that that's not a direct funding

[42:14] direct back to the town

[42:16] >> and we get a quarter of that.

[42:22] » Well, historically, the the amount that

[42:24] the town collects in our own dedicated

[42:28] town TRT has been about a quarter of the

[42:33] counties.

[42:34] But um but again what what the county

[42:37] collects for their TRT is completely

[42:39] separate from what the town collects for

[42:41] our TRT and we don't get any dedicated

[42:44] direct funding from the county TRT. Um,

[42:47] obviously we benefit from that like with

[42:49] the river park project is being funded

[42:51] from the county TRT, but there's no

[42:52] direct funding stream straight from the

[42:54] county TRT back to the town

[42:57] >> and the state TRT is increasing also,

[42:59] but they're intent with what they

[43:01] collect on that is to fund

[43:04] places like for example Tori who don't

[43:06] have a lot of funding but have a need

[43:09] for search and rescue and those kinds of

[43:11] things. So we should not expect to see

[43:13] any money from the state TRT. we should

[43:17] fight like crazy to get some money from

[43:19] the county TRT and that's that's

[43:23] what we're trying to do and Brian

[43:25] successfully got a a nice grant for the

[43:28] river park. So, um which is great, but I

[43:31] don't think we'll see any increase any

[43:33] drastic increase in our own TRT.

[43:37] We do have the option of imposing a

[43:39] third of a percent transportation tax,

[43:42] right? That's something that I don't

[43:44] know when we talk about that, but it's

[43:46] something we should talk about.

[43:47] >> Yeah, we can talk about it now. I mean,

[43:49] we we can't do that for this budget

[43:50] year, obviously. Um but but if that is

[43:53] something that we wanted to um to

[43:56] consider for the fiscal year 2728,

[44:01] we could um Robert is here and and can

[44:04] show you his his list of upcoming needs

[44:06] that we're going to have in road

[44:08] projects and road reconstruction. And

[44:10] it's a pretty hefty lift. Um, and so if

[44:12] there's options for additional funding

[44:14] there, that that's something the council

[44:16] can

[44:17] >> that's a gas tax

[44:18] >> or what how do we what is a

[44:20] transportation?

[44:21] >> Well, there's a there's a there's a

[44:23] tough there's a transportation user fee

[44:24] which is assigned to households. So

[44:28] there would be a a a fee that all

[44:30] households pay. Um, and then there's

[44:33] also a transportation So that's one

[44:35] option. Then there's also a

[44:36] transportation tax. Um, it's not a gas

[44:39] tax, it's just a sales tax. And that

[44:41] would be a tax that everybody who makes

[44:43] a purchase could pay. So there there are those two potential funding

[44:47] sources

[44:50] >> and those could be used for road

[44:52] projects.

[44:53] >> Correct.

[44:54] >> So yeah, we've got a lot of those and so

[44:57] something I don't know when do do we

[44:59] want to discuss that now? Um I will tell

[45:02] you that most communities in Washington

[45:05] County are planning to impose that for

[45:08] what it's worth.

[45:09] >> It or oppose it.

[45:13] So I guess you know it's just something

[45:15] to keep in mind you know when we talk

[45:17] about more and more people are going

[45:21] down

[45:31] sales and use uh and TRT tax.

[45:46] closer and closer to 50%.

[45:54] It's just something to keep in mind.

[46:04] » Well, let's keep that in mind for next

[46:06] year. And I will meanwhile uh keep my

[46:09] ear to the ground on what other

[46:10] municipalities are doing. My my

[46:13] understanding is that most of them plan

[46:14] to implement that but have not done so

[46:17] yet. So

[46:19] >> and and I guess my point on that is like

[46:21] where you have other communities that

[46:23] are I don't know

[46:28] they have that

[46:32] unfortunately I mean we're just

[46:36] >> Yeah. And I think what we have that they

[46:38] don't have and it's it's

[46:41] it might be a mood point anyway, but

[46:45] they're they don't have the visitors

[46:46] spending money in most communities like

[46:48] we do here. So we don't pay that whole

[46:50] tax as residents like they do in the

[46:52] other communities. But anyway, something

[46:55] to think keep in mind for next year. So

[46:57] it sounds like nobody has any problem

[46:58] with keeping the expected revenues flat.

[47:02] How extensively should the town rely on

[47:04] appropriated use of the beginning fund

[47:06] balances for expenditures and to balance

[47:08] fund budgets? So, I guess

[47:09] philosophically we're asking, are we

[47:11] okay with taking money out of our

[47:14] general fund or savings account to cover

[47:16] these these funds?

[47:21] And I I think my answer to that is

[47:24] within reason. I I think that

[47:31] we probably should get a better handle

[47:34] on our

[47:37] depreciation and you know what the fact

[47:39] that the irrigation fund is subsidized

[47:42] a lot by the the general fund. I think

[47:46] that can only happen for so for so long.

[47:49] Especially I mean this year if we're

[47:51] choosing to

[47:54] uh be strained in the growth that we see

[47:59] someday that might not be our choice. It

[48:02] might be the actual way it is. Um and

[48:05] that money is going to have to come from

[48:07] somewhere and our savings keeping. So I

[48:12] think I I'm really I feel really

[48:15] sensitive to the idea that we're

[48:16] thinking, you know, we just talked about

[48:19] the tax and maybe now we are talking

[48:23] about um increasing user fees

[48:26] potentially and it all has to come from

[48:29] somewhere. So whether we're feeling the

[48:31] pinch or our

[48:34] residents and visitors are feeling the

[48:36] pinch, it's it's really difficult.

[48:40] There's no easy answer. So I think we

[48:43] should try to use moderation in both avenues.

[48:52] I'm personally a big proponent of user

[48:55] taxes. I think that

[48:59] people ought to pay for what they use.

[49:02] And I I am not really crazy about the

[49:05] idea of funding,

[49:07] especially the water fund. I think that

[49:09] water is our most precious commodity

[49:12] and if somebody wants to use more, they

[49:14] should plan to pay for that. And so, you

[49:19] know, the the $3,000 that we that we

[49:22] fund, the irrigation fund is pretty

[49:24] minor, but it's still water. And then

[49:26] the 69,000 that we fund, the water fund,

[49:28] I sort of have a problem with that. I

[49:30] think we ought to be pricing water to

[49:34] break even.

[49:37] Sewer is a little bit different right

[49:39] now because we were forced to do a

[49:41] project that

[49:43] is is costing us a lot of money and debt

[49:46] service and

[49:49] transportation. I think that that extra

[49:51] tax could take care of some of that,

[49:54] right, Tom? Because that would go

[49:56] directly into the transportation fund.

[49:58] >> Yeah. So, the the the trans and again,

[50:01] Don can back me up on this hopefully,

[50:03] but the the transportation fund is

[50:05] probably the healthiest of all of our

[50:07] funds

[50:09] and and so I I yes, that extra tax

[50:13] could, you know, could help and that's

[50:14] great. Um, and to the extent that we

[50:17] could use that tax to to um lessen the

[50:21] load the impact on the general fund

[50:23] would be fantastic, but the the

[50:24] transportation fund itself is actually

[50:26] pretty healthy. Okay. It looks like a

[50:28] lot of money that we're over, but

[50:31] maybe Oh, but we're over. We're not.

[50:33] Yeah, that's really healthy. I was I was

[50:35] thinking we were under. So, we're over

[50:38] on all of it except sewer.

[50:40] >> Yeah. So, what's going on with the

[50:41] sewer?

[50:43] Yeah, I think it that's some that is

[50:45] something that I think we really need

[50:48] to look at.

[50:51] We spent

[50:56] million

[51:00] projects

[51:02] and now because it's not moving TSS

[51:06] levels that

[51:10] expected it to, we are now having to add

[51:14] chemicals and we are going to have an

[51:16] expenditure approximately

[51:19] $160,000

[51:22] chemicals to make this filtration

[51:26] project. So

[51:29] that $160,000

[51:36] should in my mind that should trigger us

[51:40] looking at the the sewer rates and

[51:43] potentially raising the sewer rates.

[51:46] And I have a question about the sewer

[51:48] rates too in that um I know that 40% of

[51:52] the effluent has come from Zion National

[51:54] Park. With them putting the extended

[51:57] sewer in, will it be more of of what we

[52:01] receive?

[52:03] >> Yeah, slightly. That um that rate I

[52:06] think is adjusted

[52:08] how do we adjust that, Don?

[52:10] >> Annually.

[52:12] That rate is adjusted annually. So yeah,

[52:14] as as those new restrooms in the park

[52:16] come online, then that they'll they'll

[52:19] pay more for it

[52:20] >> and they pay that percentage, I know.

[52:22] But do we take all of these expenses

[52:24] into account when we when we charge them

[52:26] or do we just charge them per whatever

[52:30] unit we all pay?

[52:33] >> Can you answer that?

[52:35] >> We take all of the expenses. Okay.

[52:37] >> So

[52:39] they also are paying a share of the

[52:42] project. Okay.

[52:49] » Okay.

[52:52] » So, we'll still be in a deficit in sewer

[52:54] fund and and

[52:57] especially when you consider the

[52:58] chemicals

[52:59] >> when you consider the chemical

[53:00] >> which is something we were not expecting

[53:02] when we we built this sewer filtration

[53:04] project. And

[53:07] >> without going into a lot of detail, what

[53:09] happened there? Obviously, the

[53:11] expectation

[53:15] can engineer something, it doesn't mean

[53:17] it's always going to work.

[53:18] >> Yeah. The um but didn't didn't the

[53:21] contract original contract include a

[53:23] clause that said in case this doesn't

[53:26] work, we're going to use

[53:28] it wasn't like it was a surprise, right?

[53:32] >> I think

[53:33] >> Sorry, Pat. Will you repeat that last

[53:34] question?

[53:35] >> The in terms of using the chemicals,

[53:37] that wasn't a surprise for us. Rob,

[53:39] >> do you want to respond to that? That was a surprise.

[53:44] >> But the contract said that if if this

[53:47] filtration system doesn't work, we may

[53:49] have to use chemicals. And the contract

[53:51] >> Yeah, I I think you're right. Initially,

[53:53] we were the we were under the impression

[53:55] that the plant would run without

[53:57] chemicals. It would just it would just

[53:58] kind of do its own thing. It would still

[54:00] need routine daily maintenance, that

[54:01] type of stuff, but no chemical addition.

[54:05] Um and with running the plant uh trying

[54:08] to get it online and reach these TSS

[54:10] numbers, we weren't able to get low

[54:11] enough numbers for the state discharge

[54:14] into the river. So we had to um start

[54:17] adding chemical which is going to be

[54:20] this that large number that 160 um kind

[54:24] of a higher higher number at this point.

[54:26] We're still pretty new in the chemical

[54:27] game. found numbers that worked, but

[54:29] that's or that are working, but that's

[54:32] kind of the higher end of what it's

[54:34] going to cost. So far, there's still

[54:35] some tweaking that we can do. And right

[54:38] now, we're running at a higher gallons

[54:41] per minute.

[54:42] The normal the normal rate of discharge

[54:45] at the lagoons will be around 100

[54:47] gallons per minute. Right now, we're

[54:48] double that to 100 gallons per minute.

[54:50] So, we're actually adding more chemical

[54:51] at the moment than we buil will be under

[54:54] normal operations. Even with the

[54:57] additional sewer line in the park,

[55:00] >> would that take it all up?

[55:01] >> Yeah, anticipated um anticipated flows

[55:05] still should be around the 100 gallons

[55:07] per minute on a daily basis or hourly

[55:11] basis on a on a yearly flow. Um the

[55:15] other thing that we've looked into as

[55:16] far as cutting chemical costs is um

[55:20] getting shipments larger shipments and

[55:22] have a larger um storage tank there so

[55:26] that we can if you the more you buy it's

[55:28] you know a bulk rate. So the more you

[55:30] buy the cheaper it is. So that's another

[55:32] way that we can uh decrease that amount

[55:35] of money. um upfront it's going to cost

[55:37] a little more for that actual

[55:38] infrastructure to go in for a larger

[55:40] tank um to to hold that chemical and

[55:45] then just whatever it takes pump that

[55:47] into the into the filters and things but

[55:50] um that is another way that we can

[55:52] decrease costs in the future. It's not

[55:54] going to immediate thing, but that's

[55:56] just

[55:57] >> And Pat, I think maybe one of the

[55:58] clauses you're thinking of is there was

[56:00] a clause that said if it didn't work as

[56:03] intended, the engineer was held

[56:07] >> responsible.

[56:08] >> Not responsible.

[56:10] >> That's that's what I think. I think that

[56:11] they they acknowledge we acknowledge

[56:13] that it may or may not work. So, I don't

[56:15] think we have any recourse with Sunrise

[56:18] if that's where you're going with making

[56:20] them pay for the chemical or anything.

[56:22] Is there any chance that

[56:25] the state would issue us a different allowance of what we could put

[56:31] in the river? Because it's algae. It's

[56:32] not it's not sewage or are we pretty

[56:36] much where we're going to be with the

[56:37] state?

[56:39] >> I'm I think we're pretty much there.

[56:42] >> Okay.

[56:43] >> We kind of talked about that Tom um in

[56:45] that last meeting with Sunrise

[56:49] some thoughts on that. I think We're

[56:51] basically stuck with um the amount of

[56:55] water that we can put into river and the

[56:58] PSS.

[56:59] >> Okay.

[57:01] So, we're not going to discuss an

[57:04] increase in sewer rates here today,

[57:06] right, Tom? We're just something we want

[57:09] to get on the radar for future. We

[57:11] really want to cover those costs.

[57:13] >> That That's correct. I mean, you have to

[57:15] go through a a hearing process and

[57:18] things to raise your rates, but

[57:21] It it's if you want us to start thinking

[57:23] about that and looking towards that, you

[57:25] can give the staff to that direction.

[57:28] >> I'd say yes.

[57:29] >> And what I was bring

[57:33] about about the sewer rates. It's a flat

[57:35] rate, right?

[57:38] For from my house, it's a flat rate.

[57:41] >> It's it's based on usage. It's based on

[57:43] your water usage.

[57:44] >> Yeah. Right. Got it. Okay. Good.

[57:45] >> Yeah.

[57:46] >> But you probably never leave the first

[57:47] tier. That's probably why it looks like

[57:49] a flat rate.

[57:50] >> I would also recommend and Tom and I

[57:52] have talked about this since since this

[57:54] project is still kind of in process and

[57:57] we don't really know how much chemical

[57:59] will be used and how, you know, um we

[58:02] talked about letting it kind of limp

[58:04] through this first year and watching it

[58:06] until it gets, you know, till we have a

[58:08] normal before we jump in and raise rates

[58:11] because we don't want to raise them and

[58:13] have them be too high or have to raise

[58:15] them again, you know. So I that's kind

[58:17] of what Tom discussed.

[58:20] >> That sounds like a good plan.

[58:21] >> And I have no problem with that. I just

[58:23] think it's something that we need to be

[58:25] looking at.

[58:26] >> Absolutely.

[58:26] >> Yeah. It's on the radar for sure.

[58:29] >> Prominently on the rad.

[58:31] >> Yeah. And in the in the meantime, I

[58:33] maybe while we're waiting for the sewer

[58:34] to to settle itself out, we do know what

[58:38] we are um deficient in for the water

[58:41] fund and that our tears are going to be

[58:45] um out starting in 2027. So maybe we

[58:49] start looking at that sooner rather than

[58:51] later.

[58:52] >> Although we're in a positive on those

[58:54] funds. Oh, I thought we were saying that

[58:56] we the

[58:57] >> Yeah, the only one I I was I was not

[59:00] looking at that correctly. We're the

[59:02] only one we're negative on right now is

[59:03] the sewer fund.

[59:04] >> Well, and irrigation.

[59:06] >> Yes, with an

[59:07] >> until we start looking at depreciation.

[59:09] >> Correct. Two two asterisks. One is

[59:11] actually three asterisks. Um one is um

[59:15] because they don't they don't include

[59:17] depreciation. Um the other asterisk is

[59:19] because that relies on the transfer from

[59:21] the general fund to those enterprise

[59:24] funds to make them balance and and the

[59:26] third is that it also relies on

[59:27] appropriated use of the beginning fund

[59:29] balances.

[59:31] >> So how many

[59:35] of the funds are being supplemented by

[59:37] the general fund

[59:42] » and we don't even want to talk about

[59:44] irrigation today.

[59:46] Well, I I believe it I believe for the

[59:48] irrigation and the general fund, excuse

[59:51] me, the irrigation and the water fund.

[59:53] Is that correct, Don?

[59:54] >> Yes.

[59:55] >> Um

[59:57] but when you say, you know, um

[1:00:00] subsidized,

[1:00:01] >> so they don't pay for themselves.

[1:00:03] >> Yeah. Yeah. But I mean, all of the funds

[1:00:06] have some I mean all of those all those

[1:00:09] operations rely to to some extent on the Well, never mind. I'm I'm not

[1:00:15] going to go there. Ju Yeah.

[1:00:19] » Well, so we've got some rate increases

[1:00:23] coming next year and I think I think it

[1:00:25] sounds like philosophically this council

[1:00:27] believes that these funds should these funds should be funding themselves

[1:00:33] so to speak and we should our rate

[1:00:35] should

[1:00:37] reflect that that we would like for them

[1:00:39] to cover themselves.

[1:00:41] Uh, I do have a question on the building

[1:00:43] fund, the SMBA fund. What is the

[1:00:46] revenue? Because that's more revenue

[1:00:48] than we get in rents for the medical

[1:00:50] clinic.

[1:00:57] There was a number in the sheets of what

[1:00:59] we get from them and I couldn't figure

[1:01:00] out what where this higher number

[1:01:02] >> lease revenue from the general fund.

[1:01:05] It's just that that weird number. So we

[1:01:07] get we have the the community center

[1:01:10] bond

[1:01:11] >> lease payment and then have the Lion

[1:01:14] Boulevard property purchase lease

[1:01:15] payment. So So we have both of those debt service payments.

[1:01:20] >> So they're not actually money we're

[1:01:22] making.

[1:01:22] >> No, it's just it just hops from the

[1:01:25] general fund to the Simba fund general

[1:01:28] fund. Yeah.

[1:01:28] >> Okay. So that 4500 is approximately what

[1:01:33] we get for the medical center. The yeah

[1:01:35] the 4500 is is actually what we are

[1:01:37] getting in interest.

[1:01:39] >> Okay.

[1:01:43] makes sense.

[1:01:45] So then the third philosophical question

[1:01:48] where are the key expenditures discussed

[1:01:50] in this report appropriate use of TM

[1:01:52] funds? Are there other expenditures

[1:01:55] equipments plans etc. So I think to talk

[1:01:57] about that we should start looking at

[1:01:59] these

[1:02:01] key expenditures

[1:02:03] and uh maybe we do that in conjunction

[1:02:05] with the capital priority sheet um

[1:02:08] specifically looking at year one.

[1:02:12] So So Tom, why don't you talk to us

[1:02:15] about the general government admin key

[1:02:18] expenditures?

[1:02:21] >> Sure. Well, I'll I'll talk about the

[1:02:22] first one and then I'll maybe I'll let

[1:02:24] Nile talk about the the second one.

[1:02:25] Okay.

[1:02:26] >> Um so the first one is the um ongoing

[1:02:29] work on the

[1:02:32] uh town's newly acquired property 2

[1:02:34] acres on Lion Boulevard. Um that we

[1:02:37] obviously acquired that property with

[1:02:39] the extent of expanding our municipal

[1:02:41] campus. At the time we acquired that we

[1:02:43] were looking specifically at a medical

[1:02:45] clinic and then potential other

[1:02:46] municipal uses. Maybe a town hall, maybe

[1:02:50] a um post office.

[1:02:53] So, uh, we obtained a a grant from the

[1:02:57] governor's office of economic

[1:02:59] opportunity to fund the initial

[1:03:02] master site planning for the property

[1:03:05] and then also the um full design of the

[1:03:10] medical clinic. That's the that's the

[1:03:12] $334,000.

[1:03:15] Um, we we've started that project. We so

[1:03:18] far have spent about $55,000

[1:03:22] of that project, I believe.

[1:03:27] >> Including the architect fees,

[1:03:29] >> I believe. So,

[1:03:31] >> I'd sign more checks than that.

[1:03:33] >> It could be. We haven't spent it all.

[1:03:35] So, so that three the point is that

[1:03:37] $334,000 is actually spread across two

[1:03:39] years, across this budget year and the

[1:03:41] next budget year, but it's completely

[1:03:42] offset by the GoEO grant. So, so yes,

[1:03:46] that is a key expenditure and yes, that

[1:03:48] is money that we will be spending. Um,

[1:03:50] however, it's it's also completely paid

[1:03:52] for by a grant. So, not spending that

[1:03:55] money is not going to change our bottom

[1:03:57] line at all.

[1:04:00] >> So, that's that's the first um that's

[1:04:02] the first project. The second one is

[1:04:04] I'll let Nile talk about the town jail

[1:04:07] rehabilitation.

[1:04:09] >> Yes. So this is one of the projects that

[1:04:11] the historic preservation commission has

[1:04:14] been working on. So over the last few

[1:04:16] years uh the HPC has been quite active

[1:04:18] in um

[1:04:22] doing some work on our historic assets

[1:04:24] in the town. So we have the greenery

[1:04:26] that uh was refurbished and there's some

[1:04:30] interpretive information there. Um the

[1:04:33] HBC has put a plaque at the irrigation

[1:04:37] ditch and then uh just on Monday

[1:04:39] actually we completed the um

[1:04:42] interpretive sign and monument at the

[1:04:45] pioneer cemetery. So this is um this is

[1:04:49] kind of the next um project in the HBC's

[1:04:54] in their crosshairs uh to do some work

[1:04:57] on the on the jail. Some of the work

[1:04:59] would be um to address some potential

[1:05:03] safety issues that are there. Um but

[1:05:06] then also to clean it up, maybe a little

[1:05:08] bit of landscaping, some interpretation

[1:05:11] um and those sorts of things. Uh we're

[1:05:14] hopeful that the jail will be on the

[1:05:18] walking tour. Um, and so it's it's just

[1:05:21] kind of yeah, one of those historic

[1:05:23] assets in town that the HBC would like

[1:05:26] to um refurbish and kind of bring up to

[1:05:31] a standard where people can come and

[1:05:34] visit it.

[1:05:36] >> Has there been any effort to secure?

[1:05:42] Yeah. So, at at the moment, the the HBC

[1:05:45] and staff have not um pursued any grants

[1:05:49] at at this point. On our most recent

[1:05:51] project at the Pioneer Cemetery, uh we

[1:05:54] got uh $5,000 from Rocky Mountain Power.

[1:05:58] So, there are um we kind of haven't

[1:06:01] gotten to that point yet with the town

[1:06:03] jail, but there there may be

[1:06:05] opportunities similar to that for the

[1:06:07] town jail.

[1:06:08] >> And I was just kind of curious in a

[1:06:10] previous

[1:06:19] I'm just curious if this I don't think

[1:06:28] » you said Greater Zion likes to hear from

[1:06:30] Springdale.

[1:06:35] » I know that

[1:06:36] >> that's what I thought I heard. Yeah, in

[1:06:38] the context what we were talking about

[1:06:39] that was I think more for like we talked

[1:06:42] like marketing. I don't know if there's

[1:06:44] something

[1:06:46] maybe with the tax advisory board almost

[1:06:49] as the same

[1:06:50] >> like I will tell you you know I'm

[1:06:52] involved in Washington.

[1:07:04] Aren't there grants from Utah State

[1:07:06] Historical Department, too?

[1:07:09] May maybe you could look into something

[1:07:11] like that, Nile, but it's not a lot of

[1:07:13] money anyway. So, and um so the key

[1:07:16] expenditure for the park, we've already

[1:07:18] talked about that today. I don't think

[1:07:19] we need to get into that one.

[1:07:22] Um Garen, what about

[1:07:25] I don't know that we have any uh

[1:07:27] questions about police vehicles or a

[1:07:29] parking car, but is there anything you

[1:07:30] want to say about that?

[1:07:37] I don't. It's straightforward. It's It's

[1:07:39] every year. So, um, Robert, what about

[1:07:41] these public works projects?

[1:07:44] Looks like most of those are streets.

[1:07:51] » Yeah. Do you guys have any questions on

[1:07:54] any of these projects?

[1:07:55] >> I guess I have a question on Big Springs

[1:07:58] Road.

[1:07:58] >> Okay.

[1:08:00] Um, is that a priority?

[1:08:04] >> Uh, yes. That road is uh pretty

[1:08:08] dilapidated. We we definitely need to

[1:08:11] look at getting that uh reconstructed.

[1:08:15] >> What? So, you said it funds the design.

[1:08:19] So, just a design that's just designed

[1:08:21] this year.

[1:08:22] >> Yeah. So in years past, co kind of

[1:08:25] messed it up, but um we used to try to

[1:08:29] do the design in year one and then the

[1:08:33] project in year two because it just got

[1:08:35] to be too much to try to get design done

[1:08:37] and then get everything else compiled to

[1:08:39] get ready for the project. So trying to

[1:08:42] go back to design in year one, project

[1:08:44] in year two or three seems to work

[1:08:47] better.

[1:08:50] So if we look at year two, you're that's

[1:08:54] where you've got the big expenditure for

[1:08:55] the paving and overlays and everything,

[1:08:57] correct? Okay.

[1:08:58] >> So So if we fund the design this year,

[1:09:01] we should be prepared to fund the work

[1:09:03] next year.

[1:09:05] >> Just

[1:09:08] » um Robert, what's the hold up with the

[1:09:10] sidewalk? What like you do? It says that

[1:09:13] we're waiting on U dot.

[1:09:16] >> Yes and no. So, um, when I first

[1:09:20] contacted UD do, um,

[1:09:23] I was given the impression that we

[1:09:25] weren't going to have to go through

[1:09:26] structures, um, like we had on the past

[1:09:29] two projects because we've done two

[1:09:31] projects with them. It was pretty

[1:09:32] straightforward.

[1:09:34] Um, so

[1:09:37] going through different entities through

[1:09:38] UD do um, yes, we don't need to go

[1:09:41] through that. We don't need to go

[1:09:42] through that. And then I was assigned a

[1:09:44] project engineer for the project. he dug

[1:09:47] into it more and started asking more

[1:09:49] questions on uh the UD do side and he

[1:09:53] come back and said hey we want to run

[1:09:55] this through structures again. So that

[1:09:57] ch kind of changed the scope of

[1:09:59] everything because we didn't plan on um

[1:10:02] having to investigate soils. We didn't

[1:10:04] plan on having to design the wall like

[1:10:06] we had on the previous two projects. In

[1:10:08] fact, this wall is actually shorter than

[1:10:11] any project we've done. And so going off

[1:10:14] that information, we thought we were

[1:10:16] fine, but as uh time progressed, they

[1:10:20] wanted to go back to the way we did the

[1:10:22] other two projects. And so it's really

[1:10:23] slowed things down.

[1:10:24] >> Okay. And you you're saying here that

[1:10:27] it's coming from UD do funds, you do

[1:10:30] contingency funds.

[1:10:31] >> Um I was able to get $78,000 in

[1:10:34] contingency for it.

[1:10:36] >> So a portion of Okay.

[1:10:37] >> Yep.

[1:10:39] And then I had a a question for you

[1:10:41] about the balance rock drainage study.

[1:10:46] >> Uhhuh.

[1:10:47] >> Um,

[1:10:49] obviously that that area is an issue and

[1:10:52] I agree that we should try to do

[1:10:54] something. Um, but I'm wondering

[1:10:59] if we study that and find out that the

[1:11:02] water is not coming from town property,

[1:11:06] what what mitigation strategies? I mean,

[1:11:12] will the study tell us things that we

[1:11:14] actually have control over?

[1:11:17] >> I don't think we'll know that until we

[1:11:19] do the study because right now it's a

[1:11:21] big question mark of we have this issue.

[1:11:24] the water's coming down, but we haven't

[1:11:26] really pinpointed what exactly is going

[1:11:29] on. And so the study is to kind of help

[1:11:33] us start figuring out what's going on,

[1:11:35] where it's coming from, where it's

[1:11:36] going.

[1:11:38] >> Were we having that runoff before that

[1:11:40] road was

[1:11:42] built?

[1:11:43] >> Yeah, we've always had runoff there. So,

[1:11:45] um, in years past before, uh, Luke

[1:11:48] Wilson had his parking lot and that kind

[1:11:49] of stuff, um, that was a big open area

[1:11:52] right there. And so generally most of

[1:11:55] the silt from the runoff came to that

[1:11:58] big dirt area and it was easy to manage

[1:12:00] because we could just grab uh the back

[1:12:03] hoe um load a couple dump trucks of the

[1:12:06] silt and take it away. Now that we've

[1:12:09] built out properties, it's changed the

[1:12:12] flow and also the um the flood that we

[1:12:14] had in 2021. Um I had a pretty good um

[1:12:18] idea of how things ran until that flood.

[1:12:22] And then once that flood came in, it

[1:12:24] changed the course of how things water

[1:12:27] moves now. And so we're relearning some

[1:12:29] of that.

[1:12:30] >> Okay. So this study will tell us where

[1:12:32] it's coming from and therefore what the

[1:12:33] mitigation is.

[1:12:34] >> Yep.

[1:12:35] >> Seems important.

[1:12:37] >> Okay. So I'm thinking maybe once we

[1:12:40] identify where the water is coming from,

[1:12:42] it's maybe not stopping it at the

[1:12:43] source, but once it's down on the

[1:12:45] roadway,

[1:12:47] what we do with it then? like if we can

[1:12:49] direct it somehow then

[1:12:51] >> potentially. Um so Sunrise when they

[1:12:53] look at it um talking to Blaine we're

[1:12:56] just gonna come up with a bunch of ideas

[1:12:58] of what we could or couldn't do to

[1:13:00] mitigate it. Um whether that be up top

[1:13:04] or SR

[1:13:10] I have a question about the dredging

[1:13:12] that that we do every year. Is there any

[1:13:15] system design that could be done that

[1:13:17] would eliminate the need for that or is

[1:13:19] that just a normal part of a settling

[1:13:22] pond?

[1:13:24] I'm just wondering if there's something

[1:13:26] we could do in the short run that that

[1:13:27] saves us money in the long run, but

[1:13:29] maybe the answer is no.

[1:13:30] >> Um, at this point, no.

[1:13:32] >> Okay.

[1:13:33] >> With with the area that we have, there's just no ground for that material

[1:13:38] to go when they dredge it out. It can't

[1:13:41] go into the wash.

[1:13:43] Okay. And obviously you couldn't just

[1:13:46] put a filter because it would just clog

[1:13:47] up anyway. And yeah. So Okay.

[1:13:50] >> Um and if we are going to be going over

[1:13:53] the the the master plan stuff there is a plan eventually to put a

[1:13:57] different structure up there that can be

[1:13:59] maintained concrete bottom structure

[1:14:02] that

[1:14:06] » so it will be a routine maintenance type

[1:14:08] thing not just a contracted project.

[1:14:11] >> Okay. So, is there anything else from

[1:14:14] the staff report and and the key

[1:14:16] expenditures we want to talk about? Do

[1:14:17] we want to look at the capital

[1:14:18] priorities list that we looked at in

[1:14:21] January?

[1:14:22] >> I just want to make a quick comment

[1:14:24] about the last one on the 60k. You know,

[1:14:27] I I mean, I do kind of I mean, I

[1:14:29] understand it. You know, I drive a 2014

[1:14:32] Tundra. I could certainly make the same

[1:14:35] argument. It's susceptible to major

[1:14:38] repairs. Therefore, I need to buy a new

[1:14:39] truck. you know, unless you've got a

[1:14:42] vehicle that you've got a history of

[1:14:45] high maintenance,

[1:14:48] and correct me if I'm wrong, we're

[1:14:49] really not talking about vehicles that

[1:14:51] have high mileage other than they've got

[1:14:55] age on them. So, I guess I kind of

[1:14:57] question the

[1:15:00] thought process, you know, just because

[1:15:02] it's an older vehicle, you know, we need

[1:15:04] to replace it with new. So, I'm kind of

[1:15:07] slow. So, and and I look at it addition

[1:15:11] to those dynamics, you also have

[1:15:13] exposure. These trucks go places that I

[1:15:16] don't take my pickup truck, right?

[1:15:25] » So, that do they actually leave the

[1:15:27] pavement?

[1:15:31] » Yeah, they they leave the pavement um

[1:15:34] going down to the sewer lagoons. Um once

[1:15:36] you turn into Rockville, you got that.

[1:15:39] We end up in precarious places

[1:15:42] sometimes. I mean, it's not all the

[1:15:44] time, but we do.

[1:15:48] >> We also end up hauling trailers and that

[1:15:50] sort of thing, too. You know, with the vac.

[1:16:04] So, was that just a comment, Jack?

[1:16:05] >> It's a comment. Okay. I mean, I what I'd

[1:16:07] really like to hear is this vehicle has,

[1:16:10] you know, a long history of high

[1:16:11] maintenance,

[1:16:13] you know, other than, you know, it's a

[1:16:16] 2017.

[1:16:17] >> Um, it had some transmission issues that

[1:16:21] cost us, I think, three or $4,000 a

[1:16:25] couple years back. And,

[1:16:28] uh, talking to Kobe, I think his truck

[1:16:30] is at like 135,000 miles now.

[1:16:34] So,

[1:16:37] >> well, I feel just like in our personal

[1:16:39] budgets where

[1:16:41] if we need to replace a water tank in

[1:16:45] our house, we want to have the money

[1:16:47] there to do that. Doesn't mean we have

[1:16:49] to replace it, but I they're a better

[1:16:52] judge of when it's time than

[1:16:55] >> I don't know.

[1:16:57] >> I think it's the same argument used for

[1:16:59] police cars. Um, routinely, I think

[1:17:02] nationally three year cycle, right? Get

[1:17:04] them out. They never leave the road with

[1:17:06] as high use, which is not bad for a car

[1:17:09] like that. We dump them every three

[1:17:11] years mainly because you

[1:17:19] » Yeah, the warranty is big on those. We

[1:17:21] also they they run a lot because they're idling. They're we do off-road

[1:17:26] quite a bit as well with some of these

[1:17:29] areas

[1:17:29] >> sense to recycle these things on a

[1:17:31] regular basis. Yeah, we

[1:17:33] >> Yeah,

[1:17:34] >> I think

[1:17:34] >> I agree because we we do have a police

[1:17:36] two police cars that are constantly

[1:17:39] either being towed or in the shop or

[1:17:40] something that I'm trying to get rid of.

[1:17:42] So, yeah, does happen.

[1:17:51] » That's just my opinion on it. I think

[1:17:53] for me in looking at the list I keep

[1:17:56] wondering what

[1:18:01] I don't see anything

[1:18:05] it's kind of more related to I mean are

[1:18:08] we missing anything as it relates to

[1:18:15] what are we doing as far as future

[1:18:22] water

[1:18:25] to me that just kind of seems to be

[1:18:26] missing from the last.

[1:18:32] » So, I guess that's my question is are we

[1:18:35] missing anything?

[1:18:38] >> Yeah, that that's a really good point,

[1:18:40] Jack. And the the mayor alluded to this

[1:18:42] a little bit earlier as well that water

[1:18:44] is our most precious and valuable

[1:18:45] resource. And one of the ways, one of

[1:18:48] the one of the one of the um primary

[1:18:51] ways to encourage water conservation is

[1:18:52] through appropriate water pricing. Um

[1:18:56] and so so that could be a water

[1:18:58] conservation strategy. Um we've also

[1:19:00] talked a little bit with the community

[1:19:02] development department about a um water

[1:19:06] a water-wise landscape ordinance that

[1:19:09] can be implemented and um water-wise

[1:19:12] building requirements that can be

[1:19:14] implemented. So yes, absolutely. I don't

[1:19:17] know that those are things that will

[1:19:18] cost us money to do um but definitely

[1:19:21] things that we we want to incorporate

[1:19:23] >> and we need to remember that even though

[1:19:25] we don't get water from the

[1:19:29] conservation I mean the Washington

[1:19:32] County conser water conservancy district

[1:19:36] that we do pay property tax and we can

[1:19:39] be included in their program. So if we

[1:19:41] wanted to do something like a buyback

[1:19:43] lawn program or or things like that,

[1:19:48] they would support that.

[1:19:49] >> Correct. And I and I think as we all

[1:19:51] know that there's a certain segment of

[1:19:54] our residents who really want to

[1:19:58] so you know whether or not it has a cost

[1:20:01] associated

[1:20:02] um I and this came up

[1:20:10] » they wanted to know why the town wasn't

[1:20:12] more concerned about water conservation

[1:20:15] and so I mean I think we are concerned

[1:20:17] it's just maybe our messaging is a

[1:20:24] I think putting less grass at the park

[1:20:26] is a good start, too. I think I think

[1:20:29] walking the talk is our best

[1:20:30] demonstration.

[1:20:34] Um

[1:20:35] >> can sorry m can I

[1:20:36] >> uh

[1:20:37] >> just bring up one other uh expenditure

[1:20:40] just to make sure that you noticed it um

[1:20:43] with and and Robert can talk to this a

[1:20:45] little bit as well about um Redhawk

[1:20:47] Drive maintenance

[1:20:50] there. We we there's a choose your own

[1:20:52] adventure part of the staff report here.

[1:20:55] There's a $10,000 or a $400 some

[1:20:59] odd,000.

[1:21:00] >> That's really different.

[1:21:03] Um, Robert, do you want to talk about

[1:21:05] the differences there?

[1:21:06] >> Yeah.

[1:21:10] » So, the $10,000 difference is

[1:21:14] essentially uh just mitigating the

[1:21:17] cracks for now until we decide to do the

[1:21:19] reconstruct again on talk. Um, we were

[1:21:23] in the red pretty heavy on the budget

[1:21:25] and so that was one thing that we looked

[1:21:27] at that maybe could be shifted till next

[1:21:29] year. Um, so

[1:21:33] >> but more importantly, those houses are

[1:21:35] going to be built, so why work on the

[1:21:37] road before they're built?

[1:21:39] >> Yeah.

[1:21:41] >> So I personally like the idea of

[1:21:44] spending a little bit to for the short

[1:21:47] term and then redoing the road after the

[1:21:49] houses are built. Anybody object to

[1:21:51] that?

[1:21:52] >> No, I think that's actually a really

[1:21:54] great idea. I mean, I'm currently

[1:21:56] watching a fairly brand new road get

[1:22:01] construction. So, I think if we can

[1:22:03] wait, that will inevitably help the

[1:22:06] neighborhood have a nicer road for

[1:22:08] longer. Um, if you can wait for all the

[1:22:12] construction

[1:22:15] and maybe we would benefit from those

[1:22:16] soils reports that they're doing there,

[1:22:20] too.

[1:22:20] >> Or maybe we'll do our own. So uh so we got soil reports um when we did the

[1:22:27] project in I think 2019 and then we also

[1:22:30] got soil reports last year after we

[1:22:34] started seeing the issues and um

[1:22:38] essentially what it come down to is

[1:22:41] the soil the clay um before we did the

[1:22:45] project in 2019 was saturated to the

[1:22:49] optimum level of moisture for that soil.

[1:22:52] The recommendation from Landmark was to

[1:22:55] uh remove 3 ft of that soil to build it

[1:22:59] back up, not knowing that layer was part of that that optimum

[1:23:07] moisture layer. And so when we removed

[1:23:09] the 3 ft from the recommendation,

[1:23:12] they're thinking that's what's causing

[1:23:14] the issues now. And so, um, yeah.

[1:23:21] >> And then the developer might build a

[1:23:23] couple spurs, but that's at their

[1:23:25] expense, right?

[1:23:26] >> I I didn't hear that part.

[1:23:27] >> The developer when they build the

[1:23:29] houses, I think they might have a couple

[1:23:30] spurs, but I think that's at their

[1:23:32] expense and ours.

[1:23:33] >> That's correct.

[1:23:34] >> I did have a question, um, Robert, about

[1:23:39] the bus turnaround asphalt on the dirt

[1:23:41] lot up here. Mhm.

[1:23:43] >> Wouldn't that would that be a Utah Tech

[1:23:45] expense or a Sunran expense or is that

[1:23:48] legitimately ours?

[1:23:49] >> So, when we last talked um at the last

[1:23:53] council meeting about capital

[1:23:54] priorities, um Tom had mentioned to the

[1:23:57] shuttle that he could talk to the

[1:23:59] shuttle people and have it uh turn

[1:24:01] around at the community center. Yeah.

[1:24:03] >> Um since that meeting, Tom did call

[1:24:05] them. I have had no issues up there

[1:24:08] because they're turning around the

[1:24:09] community center now. So that is now a

[1:24:11] non-issue.

[1:24:12] >> Okay.

[1:24:14] So for now we won't pave that.

[1:24:16] >> No. And and in years past um when I had

[1:24:20] talked to the school um they had told me

[1:24:24] yes it's our responsibility to do the

[1:24:27] pavement and stuff but if you guys were

[1:24:29] to put in curb and gutter that would

[1:24:31] really accelerate and really make us

[1:24:35] want to maybe look at doing something

[1:24:37] there. Now, that was probably

[1:24:39] conversations 2019, 2020. Um, I haven't

[1:24:43] had conversations since. I know Rick

[1:24:45] talked to him once or twice, but it

[1:24:47] wasn't anything serious about doing

[1:24:50] something up there.

[1:24:51] >> And I think we just need to have a

[1:24:53] larger conversation about that whole

[1:24:56] property with Utah Tech with the new

[1:24:57] administration and sort of see where

[1:25:00] things are going. That's Yeah, we'll put

[1:25:04] that on your list, Tom.

[1:25:06] So looking at the pri capital priorities

[1:25:09] list, we looked at this in January. Is

[1:25:11] there anything

[1:25:13] especially focusing on this year one

[1:25:16] immediate? Maybe even look at year two.

[1:25:18] Does anyone have any questions

[1:25:23] >> or concerns?

[1:25:24] >> But before we move on, I should have

[1:25:25] said this earlier. I think grants are a good idea to investigate for the jail,

[1:25:30] but I do think it's important that with

[1:25:32] it being on the audio tour and the fact

[1:25:35] that we do know about some safety issues

[1:25:38] now that we make the effort to get that

[1:25:42] project on this year's keep it on this

[1:25:45] year's and if we can get grant money I

[1:25:47] think that is always

[1:25:50] uh been a benefit and preferential um

[1:25:53] but it is $20,000 that I think is would

[1:25:55] be well spent.

[1:25:58] that project

[1:26:00] and then we can move on to

[1:26:01] >> Yeah, we don't have that many historic

[1:26:03] areas in town. It's good to take care of

[1:26:06] what we do have.

[1:26:08] >> Okay. Sorry to kind of be late to the

[1:26:10] game on that comment.

[1:26:12] >> Guess the other the other thing that's a

[1:26:14] big expense

[1:26:17] pretty big expense that we didn't talk

[1:26:18] about the water line from Balance Rock

[1:26:20] Road to Lion Boulevard. Is that actually

[1:26:22] a like a main water line?

[1:26:26] Rob, do you want to talk about that?

[1:26:27] Yeah, that's I I I noticed that was left

[1:26:30] off the key expenditure list. I

[1:26:31] apologize that should have been included

[1:26:32] there, but Rob can give you some

[1:26:34] background on that project.

[1:26:38] » Yeah. So, that section of water line

[1:26:40] will connect

[1:26:44] it'll give us a back

[1:26:54] section.

[1:27:11] So it's for the town water supply. It's

[1:27:13] not a balanced rock

[1:27:14] >> it project. It just happens to be

[1:27:16] located there.

[1:27:19] >> Okay.

[1:27:21] Great. So only use it in

[1:27:24] emergencies or we use it kind of

[1:27:27] regularly?

[1:27:27] >> It would be regularly used but it'll be

[1:27:29] valved out to where we can access water

[1:27:32] from the park if um

[1:27:42] » um and just just a couple notes on that

[1:27:45] project that's actually included in the

[1:27:48] current 2526

[1:27:50] fiscal year budget. Um we haven't

[1:27:53] started that because

[1:27:56] um there's currently an application for

[1:27:58] a subdivision on the property where the

[1:28:01] water line would cross and that um that

[1:28:06] subdivision would would potentially

[1:28:10] necess necessitate a change in the

[1:28:12] alignment of the of the pipe. And so

[1:28:17] we're waiting to for some certainty on

[1:28:20] what the design or what the ultimate

[1:28:22] disposition of that property is going to

[1:28:24] be before moving forward with that

[1:28:26] project. So we don't have to put the the

[1:28:29] put it in and then find out that it's

[1:28:32] got to move or something because of the

[1:28:34] uh development plans for the property.

[1:28:39] So somewhere on here

[1:28:43] there were events there was a list of

[1:28:45] events that we fund.

[1:28:49] » Might not go into actual spreadsheet

[1:28:52] though

[1:28:57] there there's events in the budget

[1:28:59] sheets

[1:29:01] under

[1:29:02] >> Oh that's where I saw it. Yeah.

[1:29:04] >> Yeah. Ryan, what's your department?

[1:29:05] 1070.

[1:29:07] 103.

[1:29:14] » We had a pretty robust discussion about

[1:29:17] this last year and I think we need to

[1:29:20] talk a little bit about it now. And I

[1:29:22] think Ryan and Jackie, you just now did

[1:29:25] a download me from the chalkfest. So,

[1:29:29] might be a good time to talk about that

[1:29:31] since that's one of the big

[1:29:32] expenditures.

[1:29:38] 1050 350 Tom.

[1:29:42] >> There it is.

[1:29:44] >> There we go. Yeah, that's that was

[1:29:46] >> What pages?

[1:29:48] >> Page

[1:29:50] 12 down in the bottom. It says page 12

[1:29:53] of 61.

[1:29:58] » Yeah. So, um, in my budget proposal, I

[1:30:02] requested the 25,000 for Zion Chalk and

[1:30:05] Earthfest. It's highlighted there

[1:30:06] because this was our first year having

[1:30:08] it here at this site. The past three

[1:30:10] years, it had been down at Zion Canyon

[1:30:12] Village. So, we wanted to assess how it

[1:30:15] was received at this new location and

[1:30:17] then we were going to have a

[1:30:18] conversation. And so, we did that this

[1:30:19] morning right before our uh before this

[1:30:23] meeting. Um, I will say I I'll continue

[1:30:26] to bang the drum. It's actually 22,000.

[1:30:28] we do to get $3,000 from a sponsor

[1:30:31] that's included as revenue. It's just an

[1:30:33] accounting thing, I guess. But uh um so

[1:30:37] the intent as we haven't we haven't had

[1:30:38] a debrief with our planning committee

[1:30:40] yet, but from all we've heard and

[1:30:44] discussed, this seems like a good

[1:30:45] location. We we plan on continuing to

[1:30:47] have it here as opposed to moving it

[1:30:49] back down to Zion Canyon Village. Um,

[1:30:54] and so yeah, that 25,000 represents

[1:30:58] what we need to to keep the event going

[1:31:00] as is.

[1:31:02] >> I will agree with you. I thought it

[1:31:03] transferred well up here and I I enjoyed

[1:31:07] the the festival up here. I wasn't like

[1:31:11] in my head I had a difficult time seeing

[1:31:15] how it would

[1:31:17] easily move locations, but I thought you

[1:31:20] did a great job doing that part.

[1:31:23] Um, and having it up here, I like seeing

[1:31:25] things happen on the ball field. It's a

[1:31:28] good use of that space.

[1:31:30] >> Yeah. And that's something we were

[1:31:31] keenly aware of. We knew that there

[1:31:33] would be trade-offs. You know, there was

[1:31:34] some some built-in advantages to having

[1:31:36] it at the previous location. There were

[1:31:37] some other advantages to having it here.

[1:31:39] We talked about that quite a bit and we

[1:31:41] felt like this really

[1:31:44] gives us the best chance of having an

[1:31:46] event that will be good for the

[1:31:48] community, good for residents, um be

[1:31:50] able to grow if needs be. Um gives us a

[1:31:53] lot more flexibility.

[1:31:54] >> You know, I thought it was great here

[1:31:56] and um I wonder it's my understanding

[1:32:00] that Nate has pulled out. Tell me more

[1:32:03] about that. What's what is Nate's

[1:32:05] concern?

[1:32:06] >> So Nate is not pulled out. Nate is

[1:32:09] actually he's doubled down. He he wants

[1:32:11] to be a part of this event. He has

[1:32:12] expressed that he would like to

[1:32:15] distribute some of the the um

[1:32:18] responsibilities of some of the other

[1:32:19] businesses in town. He does contribute a

[1:32:21] lot when with money with inind donations

[1:32:24] with hotel rooms. Um but in our meeting

[1:32:27] today he was present and he he affirmed

[1:32:30] with us that yeah he wants to continue

[1:32:32] to see this event grow and he wants to

[1:32:34] be a part of it and wants to support it.

[1:32:36] Um, I don't think, and I think he would

[1:32:39] agree, I don't think having it down at

[1:32:41] his property is something he is

[1:32:45] willing to do at this point.

[1:32:47] >> You know, um, I heard from a lot of the

[1:32:49] artists that there were fewer people,

[1:32:52] but the people who came to this were

[1:32:54] here for the festival. They weren't just

[1:32:56] people who were going in and out of the

[1:32:57] park. And I saw a lot more locals than I

[1:33:00] was seeing because I've been working

[1:33:01] that for years. Um, I like that aspect.

[1:33:04] I I think I said this last year. I

[1:33:07] personally, and I understand I'm one of

[1:33:09] five, but I personally don't know what

[1:33:10] it has to do with Earth Day. I wonder if

[1:33:13] we want to dislodge it from Earth Day

[1:33:17] and make it its own event and maybe

[1:33:20] doing do something for Earth Day that's

[1:33:23] a little more Earth Day like like a

[1:33:25] community cleanup or something like that

[1:33:27] because I think the carbon footprint for

[1:33:29] this event is huge and I think it's kind

[1:33:34] of counter to calling it an Earth Day

[1:33:36] fest. That's again just my personal

[1:33:38] opinion. I I have a little bit of a

[1:33:40] problem with that. I think it's a great

[1:33:42] event and I like events where we see

[1:33:44] locals and that one this year we did for

[1:33:46] sure. Um, but I wonder about that. And

[1:33:51] then we talked last year a lot about the

[1:33:53] Butch Cassidy race and whether it was

[1:33:55] worth all the work and money. And I

[1:33:57] think we decided last year that it is a signature event for the town. Doesn't

[1:34:03] bring in a lot of extra people staying

[1:34:05] in rooms, but it's a great event. And

[1:34:07] it's I mean has anybody changed their

[1:34:10] mind about that because that's another

[1:34:11] big expenditure.

[1:34:14] >> I I I don't think taking butch Cassidy

[1:34:18] funding away would go over very well. I

[1:34:21] think it's a tradition. Um

[1:34:25] but and as much as I like the chalk

[1:34:28] fest, I don't know if I like it $22,000.

[1:34:32] And and that's that's hard for me to say

[1:34:36] u because it's two days of coming up

[1:34:40] with my kids and we're looking at the

[1:34:42] art and we're going to the vendors and I

[1:34:45] think it's I like it personally. I like

[1:34:48] it. And then I see the cost associated

[1:34:50] with it which that's just the that's

[1:34:53] just the dollar amount. That's not staff

[1:34:56] time. That's not

[1:34:59] >> soft costs at all.

[1:35:03] And so I think last year we talked about it and

[1:35:09] it felt like tough for times and things

[1:35:12] needed to be cut and we saw this as

[1:35:14] being a fairly significant expense and I

[1:35:19] don't know I think this year yeah we

[1:35:21] just should touch back in and see like

[1:35:24] what other council members feel about

[1:35:26] the cost. Well, I think it'd be good to

[1:35:29] keep this as a placeholder for now um

[1:35:32] and then hear back from the committee. I

[1:35:35] thought it was a really conversation

[1:35:37] this morning.

[1:35:49] So, and then you know I I uh it it

[1:35:54] certainly is a popular event and you

[1:35:57] know sometimes when you think of how the

[1:36:00] Cassidy run got started I mean this

[1:36:02] could be a signature event in the making

[1:36:05] for the town. I think everybody seems to

[1:36:08] really enjoy it. And you know, I I think

[1:36:11] it's good to remind ourselves that, you

[1:36:13] know, um you got to give it some time to

[1:36:17] grow when you move locations like that.

[1:36:19] And I really and I came into it late in

[1:36:23] the day on Sunday, but I really heard

[1:36:26] from a number of people on how much they

[1:36:29] like the location. They like the overall

[1:36:31] feel of it. It had actually a more

[1:36:33] relaxed

[1:36:35] enjoy the the art a little bit more and

[1:36:38] but there were some things that kind of

[1:36:40] came out that I think's worthy of

[1:36:42] discussion on cost of the live music

[1:36:45] which is a lot um you know whether or

[1:36:48] not you know the beer garden is

[1:36:50] warranted

[1:36:51] things that could be condensed more

[1:36:54] towards the gazebo area so I I think we

[1:36:57] need to hear back from the committee

[1:36:59] >> okay

[1:36:59] >> and and just see what they come up with

[1:37:01] >> and when you download do you download

[1:37:03] with the vendors too because I heard

[1:37:05] some of the booths felt like they didn't

[1:37:07] get much visitation and that could be

[1:37:09] better on the lawn. We talked about that

[1:37:11] a little bit. The the bands could be

[1:37:14] lower key. They don't have to be high

[1:37:16] cost bands and they could be at the

[1:37:17] gazebo. I mean, there are things we

[1:37:19] could do for sure.

[1:37:21] >> Yeah, I know. Uh we've got uh like our

[1:37:23] food trucks, like those types of

[1:37:24] vendors. Robin is in contact with them

[1:37:26] and and has a pretty good feel for how

[1:37:28] they did. Lisa and Julie have been

[1:37:30] working closely with our educational

[1:37:32] vendors. Okay. So, that's a resource. We

[1:37:34] don't have a a download or debrief with

[1:37:36] them necessarily, but we we meet with

[1:37:37] them and we gather their input and then

[1:37:39] we bring that to our our debrief with

[1:37:41] our planning committee.

[1:37:42] >> So, maybe you take what comes back from

[1:37:45] the follow-ups and make some changes

[1:37:47] next year and take a look at that. Lisa,

[1:37:50] this is unusual. Is there anything you

[1:37:51] want to say?

[1:37:54] >> No, just

[1:37:57] >> Okay. And you're part of that download,

[1:37:59] right? Okay. So, that's great. Pat, did

[1:38:02] you I'm sorry. I might have cut you off.

[1:38:04] >> No. Um,

[1:38:06] I was reminded many, many years ago that

[1:38:08] there's more to a town than water rates

[1:38:11] and police service and fire and roads.

[1:38:13] They're all important. Um, but something

[1:38:16] like this makes the town. And I realize

[1:38:18] there's a cost and it sounds like you

[1:38:21] guys are going to navigate how that gets

[1:38:22] handled. But I think if there's any

[1:38:25] discussion about eliminating it, I would

[1:38:26] be dead set against that.

[1:38:29] >> About eliminating it. Yeah.

[1:38:31] >> That are you talking about the race or

[1:38:33] the

[1:38:33] >> talking about the Cassidy or

[1:38:35] >> or the Chuck Fest? Okay. Yeah. We are an

[1:38:37] arts community, so the Chuck Fest is

[1:38:40] >> one of our few arts.

[1:38:41] >> Yeah. And maybe one way to lower the

[1:38:43] carbon impact would be to try to make it

[1:38:47] more

[1:38:49] local artist, even if they aren't like

[1:38:51] the best. Um, I mean, I think the good

[1:38:55] ones are really great to see, but maybe

[1:38:58] if they were more local, then we

[1:39:00] wouldn't be buying airplane tickets or

[1:39:03] however that works.

[1:39:05] >> Well, hotel rooms. I guess it's more

[1:39:06] hotel rooms.

[1:39:07] >> Well, it's airline tickets, too.

[1:39:10] >> So,

[1:39:11] >> well, we don't we don't buy those,

[1:39:12] right? But I mean, people are flying in.

[1:39:14] And are they coming?

[1:39:15] >> We do buy those. That's part of our

[1:39:17] Yeah.

[1:39:18] >> So, are they coming for a Cayanta too or

[1:39:21] are these different people? Are they

[1:39:23] It's only a week apart.

[1:39:25] >> I don't believe there. I don't know,

[1:39:26] Lisa, if there was any crossover with K.

[1:39:28] I don't think so.

[1:39:48] International

[1:39:54] really make sure

[1:40:07] she's trying to

[1:40:23] times it's like, "Oh, we had to come.

[1:40:25] Cool."

[1:40:28] So we can pay for it and we want to do

[1:40:30] this. So they're not making

[1:40:36] » No, I just wondered if we were saving

[1:40:38] money by being a week away from them,

[1:40:40] but it's a whole different group. So

[1:40:41] you're saying no, we're not.

[1:40:42] >> Absolutely. And there are people who

[1:40:44] like go there and come here, but very

[1:40:48] few people come from We had a lot of

[1:40:50] people.

[1:40:52] >> I talked to a lot.

[1:40:55] >> Yeah. So, no. And the artists are often

[1:40:58] times different.

[1:40:59] >> One little boy told me he was not from

[1:41:01] this country. He's from St. George, from

[1:41:04] that country, which is five hours away.

[1:41:09] >> That's true.

[1:41:10] >> The one thing that I liked hearing this

[1:41:11] morning is, you know, part of the this

[1:41:13] question has been, well, what other

[1:41:14] businesses are contributing? And Ryan, I

[1:41:17] thought I heard you say in addition to

[1:41:19] Cable Mountain, there were 34 rooms room

[1:41:24] >> 34 35 nights. Yeah. From other hotels

[1:41:26] throughout town.

[1:41:27] >> Even Stu's Steve's cab Stew's cabins had

[1:41:31] some people in them.

[1:41:32] >> Yeah.

[1:41:33] >> Talked to a couple artists who were

[1:41:34] staying there. I think it's a great

[1:41:35] event and I think it does support our

[1:41:37] being an art community and just if

[1:41:40] there's a committee working on what I

[1:41:43] and I liked the location a lot. So,

[1:41:46] >> oh, and then I just uh the mention of

[1:41:48] Greater Zion this morning as far as

[1:41:50] marketing, you know, part of that

[1:41:53] committee discussion is talking about

[1:41:55] what are the limiting factors to getting

[1:41:57] people up here and parking is always an

[1:42:00] issue, but um also how it's marketed.

[1:42:03] And I think if there's any way to tap

[1:42:05] into the Greater Zion Group for them to

[1:42:08] help with marketing, then that'd be a

[1:42:10] good thing.

[1:42:12] And I will and I I mentioned this this

[1:42:14] morning in our other meeting, but you

[1:42:15] know, no, every year there it changes,

[1:42:18] right? It's not the same event year

[1:42:19] after year. We're always looking at how

[1:42:21] to be more efficient with our money,

[1:42:22] stretch it further. So, we'll do the

[1:42:24] same thing. I'm sure we each one of us

[1:42:26] has a laundry list of things that we

[1:42:28] want to see change or make some tweaks

[1:42:30] and we'll continue to do that.

[1:42:32] >> And just one last comment is the

[1:42:34] recognition of the huge workload this. I

[1:42:37] was

[1:42:38] >> absolutely that's that's one of

[1:42:40] >> you and it and you guys ran it like

[1:42:42] clockwork. It was great. It was well

[1:42:44] done and

[1:42:45] >> you know right down to people helping

[1:42:47] with parking

[1:42:48] >> covered all the bases.

[1:42:50] >> It's not a a it's not a quantifiable

[1:42:54] well maybe it is if somebody was really

[1:42:56] good at tracking but the amount that

[1:42:58] staff does take on to to do an event

[1:43:01] like this and Butch Cassidy is a lot. Um

[1:43:06] so it for it turning out like it does

[1:43:08] and being wellrun. I think that's really

[1:43:10] great. Um, and I will agree with the sentiments that when you're

[1:43:15] building an event,

[1:43:18] um, you do have to be consistent in

[1:43:22] order to grow. Um, I wonder what Butch

[1:43:25] Cassidy was way back in the beginning.

[1:43:27] Maybe it was um to was slow to grow, but

[1:43:31] things do tend to catch on and become

[1:43:33] things that people look forward to and

[1:43:36] they've once and maybe they'll come. So,

[1:43:38] I I have been the one person who has

[1:43:41] said I'm not sure it's worth the price

[1:43:43] tag, but I will say I personally do like

[1:43:46] the event and I think it's well done.

[1:43:49] Um,

[1:43:51] let's just see how we can make it maybe

[1:43:52] more earthwise and

[1:43:55] >> well and then

[1:43:56] >> cost efficient. just real quick recog

[1:43:59] what we have let go, you know, as far as

[1:44:01] like fireworks and things like that that

[1:44:03] had a big dollar

[1:44:06] uh attached to it. So, there's

[1:44:08] definitely been some savings there for

[1:44:10] the town

[1:44:11] >> and and maybe this makes more sense to

[1:44:14] put money towards this.

[1:44:17] >> Are there other events there that anyone

[1:44:19] wants to

[1:44:19] >> uh Yeah, 10,000 for New York New Year's

[1:44:22] Eve. That's kind of a lot.

[1:44:26] >> Yeah. So that uh that that's largely

[1:44:28] based off of what we spent last year. Um

[1:44:31] so there's a lot of costs associated

[1:44:32] with that event. We got the live

[1:44:34] entertainment. Uh we've got food which

[1:44:36] you know that was also there's quite a

[1:44:39] bit of food. Um so that is something

[1:44:42] that was mostly a carryover from last

[1:44:44] year. I think we increased it just a

[1:44:46] little bit to account for more food. Um

[1:44:50] but yeah, we plan on doing something

[1:44:51] similar. It's New Year's Eve.

[1:44:54] was I I didn't make it last year. It was

[1:44:58] a magician, right? The year before there

[1:45:00] was a magician. Um, were there a lot of

[1:45:04] locals?

[1:45:04] >> Yeah, feels like there were a lot of

[1:45:07] locals.

[1:45:07] >> Okay.

[1:45:08] >> Especially compared to other years,

[1:45:10] >> like there were more there was a

[1:45:11] stronger local presence.

[1:45:13] >> Yeah, it was really well attended. I

[1:45:16] mean, the the tables were full. Um,

[1:45:19] everybody seemed to be engaged and

[1:45:22] enjoying themselves. So

[1:45:24] >> I did not feel like

[1:45:34] you know it's it's kind of that thing is

[1:45:36] I don't know it's hard to on some of

[1:45:38] these events um

[1:45:41] to gauge how many

[1:45:44] but I think what I liked seeing there

[1:45:47] was you saw a lot of families there with

[1:45:49] kids

[1:45:50] >> and so I think If we have the

[1:45:53] opportunity to provide that kind of

[1:45:55] venue for families, then you know, we

[1:45:58] should do it.

[1:46:01] >> Yeah. And again, you know, 10,000

[1:46:03] compared to what we used to spend

[1:46:05] fireworks.

[1:46:06] I don't think that's excessive. So,

[1:46:09] >> okay. Red.

[1:46:10] >> Can I hop in for just a second? Just so

[1:46:13] you're aware, the the money that's in

[1:46:15] here for Butch Cassidy is offset by a

[1:46:17] revenue number because we do charge for

[1:46:20] Butch Cassidy. So we it really pays for

[1:46:23] itself.

[1:46:24] >> Well, and then you make a donation.

[1:46:26] Yeah, it gives money to Grafton and to

[1:46:29] this usually it

[1:46:32] >> so spread the love.

[1:46:36] >> It is a lot of work for staff, but you

[1:46:39] all kind of have it dialed in and Okay.

[1:46:43] What What else, Tom, have we not

[1:46:46] covered that you really want to get some

[1:46:48] input on? Um, this is great feedback.

[1:46:51] Like like we talked about at the at the

[1:46:53] outset, um, as a staff, we worked hard

[1:46:56] to bring you a budget that is

[1:46:58] conservative and balances. We just

[1:47:01] wanted to get your feedback, your input

[1:47:03] to make sure that we're spending the

[1:47:05] money in the right directions, that

[1:47:06] we're hitting the top priorities, that

[1:47:08] we're accomplishing the the priorities

[1:47:09] that we need to. And so I I think you've

[1:47:12] given us really valuable feedback. Um if

[1:47:15] there's anything additional that you

[1:47:16] wanted to to let us know

[1:47:21] >> I do have one one question. um the

[1:47:24] medical project, medical clinic project

[1:47:26] is that does that I realize sounds like

[1:47:29] it's design and documents. Does it

[1:47:31] include any kind of um

[1:47:34] research? What the modality of the

[1:47:37] clinic might be?

[1:47:39] How many days a week it's going to be

[1:47:40] open? What who the who it's going to

[1:47:44] service? Is it just a design thing?

[1:47:45] >> It's just design.

[1:47:52] » Yeah. Um, so absolutely if that's the

[1:47:56] direction from the council, we can do

[1:47:58] that. That's outside the scope of that

[1:48:00] project. Um, but I think what what the

[1:48:04] gist of of where you're going, Pat, is

[1:48:07] do we need to take a step back and

[1:48:09] actually before we jump into a design to

[1:48:11] make sure that we're designing for

[1:48:12] something that is actually the right fit

[1:48:15] for the is that where you going with

[1:48:17] that?

[1:48:17] >> I wouldn't I wouldn't say slow slow it

[1:48:19] down. I mean, it's got some pretty good

[1:48:21] momentum now.

[1:48:22] But perhaps look at you know right now

[1:48:24] it's I think two days a week or whatever

[1:48:26] the

[1:48:27] >> it's four

[1:48:28] >> four days a week now you know since it's

[1:48:30] our land and it will be our building do we want to to designate what kind of

[1:48:37] service that clinic needs to deliver

[1:48:41] >> where we stand with that since our last

[1:48:43] meeting where we talked about it um Rick

[1:48:46] and Tom you were there I think and I met

[1:48:48] with Lori Wright the CEO of family

[1:48:50] healthcare just to get a feel for their

[1:48:52] commitment, what they felt they could

[1:48:54] pay for rent, what that kind of thing.

[1:48:57] And I believe, and I was, this was my

[1:48:59] question, too. I believe where that

[1:49:01] stands now is that the architect is

[1:49:03] downsizing the building. Lori had

[1:49:06] conversations. Number one, Family

[1:49:08] Healthcare feels committed to stay here.

[1:49:11] They would like to run that

[1:49:12] >> building. They are committed to

[1:49:14] >> You have that. That's good.

[1:49:16] >> Yeah. Well, we'd have to get into the

[1:49:18] details because what we owe her then is

[1:49:22] once the building is rightsized,

[1:49:25] what's the cost and therefore what's the

[1:49:27] rent likely be? So, she can't make any

[1:49:30] commitments about

[1:49:31] >> of course not right

[1:49:32] >> until we know that. So, but they are

[1:49:35] definitely interested in staying in the

[1:49:36] community. We gave her every opportunity

[1:49:39] to say it's not working out for us.

[1:49:41] We did not ask the about their

[1:49:44] willingness to stay in the existing

[1:49:46] building if we were to not build a new

[1:49:49] building, but I can tell you it's not

[1:49:51] working out. I I went in last week and

[1:49:54] they had to have me come back because I

[1:49:57] can't use the X-ray machine when anybody

[1:50:00] else is in the building. I had to have

[1:50:01] my hand x-rayed. So, it's got

[1:50:03] limitations that make it prohibitive in

[1:50:05] the long run. I don't I don't think we

[1:50:07] ought to ask them to stay there, but we

[1:50:08] do. So Tom, do you know are we waiting

[1:50:11] on that architectural

[1:50:15] drive uh plan or where are we with that?

[1:50:18] >> So this is um you know full full

[1:50:22] accountability. This is something that

[1:50:24] in the in this managerial transition has

[1:50:26] been a little bit dropped. So that's on me to get back with VCBO and

[1:50:34] restart th those uh those conversations.

[1:50:37] I don't know. Um, after that meeting

[1:50:39] with Lori and the feedback that's been

[1:50:41] given back to VCBO, if they've done a a

[1:50:45] reduced design, if they're still waiting

[1:50:47] on us, that's on me to get back in touch

[1:50:49] with them.

[1:50:49] >> Yeah, that's because I thought we gave I

[1:50:51] thought we Lori and us gave them

[1:50:53] directions on what could be eliminated

[1:50:55] and that they were going to come back

[1:50:56] with something, but you haven't seen

[1:50:58] anything. So, maybe they're waiting for

[1:50:59] us. So

[1:51:00] >> yeah, I'll I'll circle back with

[1:51:01] >> Yeah, that'd be good because because we

[1:51:03] talked about if if even if the medical

[1:51:08] clinic is a go, but especially if it's

[1:51:10] not, then we need to talk about a

[1:51:13] council chambers of some sorts. Um I

[1:51:16] think we need to move forward with that

[1:51:18] property. So

[1:51:20] >> I think you know and and so as this

[1:51:25] progresses though, what is the best way

[1:51:27] to keep the council informed? And I

[1:51:30] guess I'm kind of wondering, is this

[1:51:31] something that that if if any one of us

[1:51:34] had a question at the community

[1:51:36] development open houses, is that

[1:51:39] something you guys are prepared to

[1:51:42] uh at least give updates on where we're

[1:51:44] at with that?

[1:51:45] >> Um,

[1:51:47] >> maybe not. Maybe not yet.

[1:51:51] >> Yeah. So, I mean, you are any council

[1:51:54] member is is always welcome to come and

[1:51:57] approach me. And like we said, at this

[1:52:00] point, I don't have too much of an

[1:52:01] update to give you, but once I do, I

[1:52:03] will I I'll be happy to give you an

[1:52:05] update. Um, we can have like a for the

[1:52:07] next little bit, we can just have like a

[1:52:10] standing item on your council agenda for

[1:52:12] an update on the medical clinic. um we can do any number of things to make

[1:52:17] sure that you're getting information you

[1:52:18] need to be updated,

[1:52:20] >> but it's like everything else. I mean,

[1:52:22] you're you're assigned to certain things

[1:52:24] and other people are assigned to certain

[1:52:26] things. And so where we ought to be

[1:52:29] covering any status changes is in our

[1:52:31] council report.

[1:52:33] >> So I think you're welcome to ask them

[1:52:35] questions. You're welcome to ask and

[1:52:37] Randy and I questions. were on the

[1:52:38] committee, but also it's on us to make

[1:52:41] sure if there's any significant progress

[1:52:43] that we report that out and there are

[1:52:45] things we can talk to just between us

[1:52:47] and things we talk to.

[1:52:50] So, so probably the manager report would

[1:52:53] be where we put the more confidential

[1:52:55] information.

[1:52:56] >> Sure, we can do that.

[1:52:57] >> But yeah, I mean it's

[1:52:59] >> Yeah, I think you know and it's it's

[1:53:01] stating the obvious. It's for any one of

[1:53:04] us when we get hit up with a question by

[1:53:07] a res

[1:53:09] hopefully

[1:53:14] » and and there's nothing wrong with

[1:53:16] saying that's not my project. You should

[1:53:18] talk to Randy about that or you should

[1:53:20] talk to Pat about that. I mean that's

[1:53:23] better not to say anything than to

[1:53:25] >> to say the wrong thing. But I but I

[1:53:28] think it's it's on those of us on those

[1:53:30] committees to keep the others informed

[1:53:32] because

[1:53:34] you don't want surprises.

[1:53:36] So

[1:53:42] » I'm looking for it. I did I see any kind

[1:53:45] of a dollar entry for the art review

[1:53:47] board?

[1:53:49] >> Um

[1:53:51] there is a there is a well n I think

[1:53:54] >> I saw something. God and Nyall's gonna

[1:54:00] >> I'm gonna give you the update on that.

[1:54:02] >> Okay.

[1:54:04] >> Yes. So, in in the May meeting, we you

[1:54:08] will be looking at how to spend your

[1:54:10] wrap tax. We we'll be reviewing wrap tax

[1:54:12] applications and other use of the wrap

[1:54:14] tax. And one of the one of the um

[1:54:18] anticipated uses of that wrap tax is a

[1:54:20] line item for public art that would then

[1:54:23] go into the art review board and um

[1:54:26] allow them to have a little bit build up

[1:54:28] a little bit of a a fund that they could

[1:54:30] start commissioning some public art. So

[1:54:32] that will be coming in the May meeting

[1:54:34] when you look at rap tax applications

[1:54:37] and use of rap tax.

[1:54:38] >> And I'm not sure if Rick filled you in

[1:54:40] on the conversation I had with him. It

[1:54:43] was my understanding that about $11,000

[1:54:47] was going to be uh put towards the art

[1:54:50] review committee which was the balance

[1:54:52] of the wrap tax money available.

[1:54:57] Yeah. And as a council you can spend

[1:54:59] that money however you want and I have

[1:55:02] not we the the um

[1:55:06] uh application period for wrap tax

[1:55:08] applications I believe now has closed. I

[1:55:11] haven't reviewed those to see how much

[1:55:15] we have requested in wrap tax funding.

[1:55:17] Um but yeah, it's it then it will just

[1:55:20] be dependent on how how many of those

[1:55:21] projects you want to fund, how many of

[1:55:24] Ryan's projects you want to fund or not

[1:55:27] fund

[1:55:29] >> and then what the balance is and and

[1:55:31] then what you want to do with the

[1:55:32] balance if you want to send that to

[1:55:34] >> public the balance from last.

[1:55:36] >> Right. So,

[1:55:39] um, so is he saying there's $11,000 in

[1:55:42] this year's budget that can go to the

[1:55:43] RVU board or in the that's what he

[1:55:47] anticipates is going to be in the fiscal

[1:55:48] year 2627 budget?

[1:55:52] >> I don't know. I just because part of our

[1:55:55] meeting discussion is and recognizing we

[1:55:58] need to get the plan finalized, but the

[1:56:01] committee, the review board would like

[1:56:03] to be in a position that if there's an

[1:56:05] opportunity to purchase a public, we've

[1:56:08] got something sitting there to move

[1:56:09] forward with.

[1:56:11] >> Right. Exactly. And that's the intention

[1:56:12] is to use wrap tax for that. And I I

[1:56:16] believe that it is, you know, we were

[1:56:17] thinking 10 $11,000 was the anticipated

[1:56:19] amount.

[1:56:20] >> Okay. Yep.

[1:56:23] >> I thought that was just to pay all

[1:56:24] Tucker.

[1:56:26] >> It may be. You know, it's hard to say.

[1:56:28] He hasn't given us an invoice yet.

[1:56:32] >> I thought I saw 10,000 in there, too.

[1:56:37] » Um, something reminded me.

[1:56:40] We received an email about um pickle

[1:56:43] ball

[1:56:45] >> partition

[1:56:46] >> windshield

[1:56:47] >> wind screens. I could not find that line

[1:56:50] item in the the budget sheets.

[1:56:55] I wondered if it made it in

[1:56:56] >> it's a 107260

[1:56:58] Tom.

[1:57:02] » Yeah, it's in uh so it's it's

[1:57:05] highlighted differently because it was

[1:57:07] going to be a wrap tax, but it's in our

[1:57:10] buildings and grounds

[1:57:12] budget for parks department.

[1:57:14] >> Okay. How much is it?

[1:57:16] >> Uh I've asked 14,500.

[1:57:19] based off a quote we

[1:57:20] >> lightened up there.

[1:57:21] >> It's kind of hard to read in that font

[1:57:23] color, but

[1:57:24] >> and it's going to be like a 360 like

[1:57:26] enclosure.

[1:57:28] >> Yeah. Yeah. So, it's

[1:57:30] >> you can't see through it. Like it's

[1:57:31] opaque.

[1:57:32] >> It's a It's a semi They have them around

[1:57:36] at other uh pickle ball facilities. It's

[1:57:38] a semi-trans. I mean, kind of see

[1:57:41] through it. It's It's mostly there to

[1:57:43] block the wind obviously, but yeah, it

[1:57:45] would encompass the entire perimeter of

[1:57:46] the of the

[1:57:48] >> like a plastic. Is that ugly?

[1:57:51] >> No, I mean I don't think it's ugly.

[1:57:53] >> Like a net.

[1:57:54] >> It's kind of Yeah, it's almost like a

[1:57:56] >> shade

[1:57:57] >> kind kind of more of like a It's a

[1:57:59] fabric that is Yeah, kind of like that.

[1:58:02] And the ones I've seen are usually

[1:58:04] green, which is what I would prefer to

[1:58:06] see.

[1:58:06] >> And what's the status of that?

[1:58:08] >> Just waiting for it to be approved. And

[1:58:10] then once it is, we'll get started next

[1:58:12] fiscal year.

[1:58:13] >> Personally, I think

[1:58:16] >> pickle ballers.

[1:58:18] >> That's just my wall.

[1:58:19] >> But see, then I think no, there

[1:58:22] shouldn't be a wall because that area is

[1:58:24] very open, natural, and what's it going

[1:58:28] to look like when this stuff goes up?

[1:58:31] And that's what I didn't know what it

[1:58:33] really looks like. And

[1:58:36] >> it's kind of like a canvas material.

[1:58:39] Yeah.

[1:58:40] >> And it doesn't go to the top of the

[1:58:41] fence. It's

[1:58:42] >> Is it going to encourage people to run

[1:58:44] their animals in there because now it's

[1:58:47] kind of fenced.

[1:58:49] >> I don't know. I have hesitations

[1:58:53] and I didn't know what the rest of the

[1:58:55] council was feeling.

[1:58:56] >> We I I've seen them and they're they're

[1:58:58] pretty unobtrusive. I mean, you can see

[1:59:00] through them. They're green. The ones

[1:59:02] I've seen you can see.

[1:59:05] >> You can see through them. Okay. It's

[1:59:08] like a really fine fine mesh.

[1:59:12] >> Could you send us a photo?

[1:59:14] >> Sure.

[1:59:28] » Anything else?

[1:59:34] » Um yeah, so just two things. one is so

[1:59:37] the next step in the budget process then

[1:59:39] is to have your tentative budget hearing

[1:59:41] in your May meeting. Also at that time

[1:59:44] like we talked about already you'll be

[1:59:45] talking about um use of the wrap tax. Um

[1:59:50] and then in the June meeting you will

[1:59:52] have your um final budget hearing and

[1:59:57] adopt the final budget for this year. So

[1:59:59] that's what's up next for the council.

[2:00:01] Um the other thing is just um a a super huge thank you to um all the other

[2:00:08] department heads and particularly to to

[2:00:10] Dawn um for just the really professional

[2:00:16] work that has been done on the budget

[2:00:18] preparing it for the council this year.

[2:00:20] Um it's been great to to work as a as as

[2:00:25] a team and present you this budget and

[2:00:27] particularly for me as a new town

[2:00:28] manager has been fantastic. So, thank

[2:00:30] you to all the department heads. Thank

[2:00:32] you to Don for your expertise. Um, Mary,

[2:00:36] you mentioned that you said, "Hey, we

[2:00:38] really uh I forgot the word you used.

[2:00:41] Good job on your revenue projections."

[2:00:43] That's actually all done. Um, so good

[2:00:45] job, Don, on those revenue projections.

[2:00:47] Um, and we're happy to bring this budget

[2:00:49] back to you for the tenative budget.

[2:00:51] >> Well, what what I really appreciated was

[2:00:53] the the explanation whether I don't know

[2:00:55] who crafted the very beginning the staff

[2:00:57] report. I thought it was very well done.

[2:00:59] I was able to for me anyway much

[2:01:03] >> I was going to kind of say the same

[2:01:05] thing, Tom. I um thought that the staff

[2:01:08] report made me feel

[2:01:11] very focused and confident confident

[2:01:14] about the discussion we were going to

[2:01:15] have as opposed to um going through all

[2:01:20] 61 sheets saying like where

[2:01:26] you know what's going on. I mean, I did

[2:01:28] still skim through all of the things to

[2:01:30] look for things that stood out to me or

[2:01:32] things that I wanted to follow up on,

[2:01:34] but I thought your staff report um was

[2:01:37] very nice. So, thank you. Good job for

[2:01:39] your first one, especially.

[2:01:41] >> Well, thank you very much. I appreciate

[2:01:43] the feedback, but again, it really was a

[2:01:44] team effort and and Don was a huge

[2:01:46] collaborator on the staff report as

[2:01:47] well. So,

[2:01:48] >> well, you did well first one and you did

[2:01:50] great. Um, I wanted to say for those of

[2:01:52] you who missed it, which is all of you,

[2:01:55] um, Monday was Navy Day at Zia National

[2:01:58] Park and they had a bunch of sailors

[2:02:03] around town and in the park and they had

[2:02:05] a flag raising ceremony and a flag

[2:02:07] lowering ceremony. They had sailors from

[2:02:10] the USS Utah, which is in New London,

[2:02:12] Connecticut, and will be commissioned

[2:02:14] soon. I should have brought the pin they

[2:02:16] gave me. And uh they had a concert at

[2:02:19] the OC10 amphitheater. The band was

[2:02:22] fantastic and they had me read our

[2:02:26] proclamation at the beginning and the

[2:02:29] admiral was up there with me. I can send

[2:02:31] you a picture if you'd like. And it was

[2:02:33] just a really cool event. So um they

[2:02:36] appreciated the res the proclamation

[2:02:39] and I don't know if anyone made it to

[2:02:41] the concert last night. I was I was not

[2:02:44] around but I

[2:02:45] >> I went to the concert the day before on

[2:02:47] Monday. That was good.

[2:02:48] >> Oh, you were there at Okay, I'm sorry I

[2:02:50] missed you. I I We came in at the end as

[2:02:52] you saw.

[2:02:52] >> You guys were in the lower right and we

[2:02:54] >> Yeah. Okay.

[2:02:55] >> Were there a lot of people there?

[2:02:56] >> Um

[2:02:58] >> third third full

[2:03:00] >> more than that.

[2:03:01] >> Could have been.

[2:03:02] >> Yeah, quite a few. But not a lot of

[2:03:04] locals.

[2:03:05] >> But the band was great. They were funny

[2:03:07] and

[2:03:08] >> yeah,

[2:03:08] >> proclamation was great. It was it was a

[2:03:10] good event.

[2:03:11] >> Yeah, it was. I saw a Facebook post last

[2:03:14] night from somebody who was at the

[2:03:17] concert.

[2:03:20] They said they were the only local

[2:03:21] there.

[2:03:22] >> I saw that, too.

[2:03:25] >> And and another local made a comment

[2:03:27] that the town sucks at informing people

[2:03:30] about things.

[2:03:32] >> And somebody responded to that and said

[2:03:35] it was posted multiple places. And yeah,

[2:03:38] it's that was unfortunate that thought

[2:03:41] we didn't do but it wasn't our event it

[2:03:43] was a Z national park event too so

[2:03:48] >> so may one thing and not on topic at all

[2:03:51] the the rules of order and protocol is

[2:03:53] that something we'll see in the next few

[2:03:54] months to

[2:03:58] >> yeah so we're based on the um uh

[2:04:01] feedback that the council gave in your

[2:04:03] meeting from a couple weeks ago working

[2:04:05] on on revising those and we'll bring

[2:04:07] those back to you and your hopefully

[2:04:09] your your May meeting but not making any

[2:04:12] promises

[2:04:12] >> arising somewhere

[2:04:13] >> but it'll be in yeah some sometime in

[2:04:15] the next few meetings

[2:04:18] » a motion to adjourn move we adjourn

[2:04:22] >> motion by Kyla second by Randy

[2:04:24] >> Kyla I

[2:04:25] >> Barbara I

[2:04:30] » sorry bud

04/22/2026 Town Council Special Meeting

Transcript