[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