[0:01] All right, welcome to the service area. Three is Board of Trustees meeting. Today's Tuesday, March 17th. The time is 5.36. All joys to relay start. I have some technical difficulties that we're working through. Start with roll call and conflict of interest disclosures. We'll go ahead and start their price, no conflict. Just to show you the conflict. Gary text, no conflict. Scott, we can no conflict. Chris, we'll lock no conflict. Jody and Agnes, no conflict.

[0:27] but generally, like, no contracts.

[0:33] Maybe even, I'm not into it.

[0:35] Yeah.

[0:36] Nathan.

[0:37] Yeah.

[0:38] Nathan, Nathan.

[0:39] Nathan, Bracken, Legal Counsel, no conflict.

[0:42] I do.

[0:43] David Satterson, no conflict.

[0:46] Thank you.

[0:51] You can do the agenda.

[0:54] Start with general public comments.

[0:59] Your comments will be limited to three minutes.

[1:04] Do we have any answers to any of the other patrons?

[1:07] Oh, go ahead to state your name and your lots of room or address.

[1:12] My name's Jim Bitlow, 591 Summit Drive.

[1:19] I've been here since 1998 and 2006 out there.

[1:26] I'd like to thank the board for serving at the NNW Sports Board,

[1:29] and my wife hasn't the time that that takes.

[1:34] In the last summer,

[1:38] we lost our daughter, and I came up to him in Greece, while she was

[1:45] there on a theater residency, and we've been thinking of what we wanted to do to have

[1:53] a muscle meal for her, and so we've had three chairless swings made from the Golden Eagle

[2:01] double chair that are ours for how many years since we got those.

[2:06] was probably 12 or 15 and we got the safe one down to the big farm.

[2:15] My wife, I believe Joe, is sending us pictures of one of those.

[2:19] I just think we ought to put it.

[2:25] Joey.

[2:25] Here were the fences are already from the old Boy Scout project.

[2:35] one of my other daughters and I actually went down probably eight, ten years ago

[2:39] and replaced the tops on those because we were tired of getting splinters in our butt.

[2:46] Something in that area, they need to have the pink dot so we can paint

[2:52] out on it and put a new seat that would last probably out of like a Marine board.

[2:58] So it could stay there for a long time and then have a little puck to

[3:05] So I talked to Joe yesterday, I'm not exactly sure what process needs to happen for that

[3:11] to be able to build there as a permanent picture.

[3:14] Honestly, I'm not either.

[3:16] So Park is part of what's owned by the service area.

[3:19] So we manage Park's trails.

[3:22] And there is some sort of memorials and other things that have happened up there.

[3:27] There's a Boy Scout project.

[3:28] there is a bench that Jim talked about so what he would need in what I've

[3:34] asked him to give us is like a site plan and this is something we can work on

[3:37] with Chris is a site plan and a project but basically he would need the board's

[3:41] permission to do a project like this because it's on service area property so

[3:47] more than anything I wanted him to come down and just you know explain the

[3:52] project as he's intending to the board so you understand what he wants to do I

[3:57] I thought it would be helpful to put a face to the name and then I sent you a picture

[4:01] this afternoon in the email but Chris can speak to it a little bit more about a possible

[4:05] memorial up at the park so what that process would be.

[4:13] So I'm supportive of this if this is something for the community as the board would like to

[4:18] approve those that have been up into the park we have a hitching post that was one of the

[4:24] Scout projects and also that bench that bench was long before me but there's also been some

[4:32] girl scout projects up there and so forth. So how this bench would go in there and where we'd

[4:39] want it, I would probably suggest somewhere near the Hitching Post where it's a nice big flat area

[4:45] where people kind of hang out and so forth if it's something that we want to move forward with.

[4:54] Yeah, well, certainly for presenting that, my condolences, the family, and yeah, I agree

[5:02] on that.

[5:03] I think it's a great idea.

[5:05] Do we want to wait for the site plan before we take a vote, do we want to just give

[5:09] a board board consent here, depending on the site plan?

[5:12] You can just give us a direction to say, like, as a board.

[5:15] Of course.

[5:17] a level spot and what's the method to get it there.

[5:22] I mean, good.

[5:23] I can grab some strong guys and there.

[5:25] Oh, we can remove the ballards and drive it.

[5:29] Drive it in with the skid steer for the tractor.

[5:33] So, yeah.

[5:33] And where's that low spark?

[5:34] Just in that area?

[5:36] Yeah.

[5:36] And the farm, where the big farm.

[5:38] That'll be the perfect farm.

[5:40] Where there's like the old machine.

[5:46] to have people with a great memorial, but also a real benefit to the community.

[5:51] The only thing I would want to say is maybe you want some help assigned for people not to tie their horses to that.

[5:59] Because I know that I've been up there on horseback several times, and we do hitch to those foes.

[6:04] And you wouldn't want someone to hitch to that and the horse to spill, to get the jet.

[6:10] So maybe some type of little.

[6:14] The main thing is the frame is a steel frame.

[6:17] Not going to pull it off.

[6:19] Yeah.

[6:19] I just, I won't tag to it.

[6:20] I promise you, but you know,

[6:22] other people go up there and stuff like that.

[6:26] But what, I'm having heard of that.

[6:28] So we want to make a motion to.

[6:30] It's not really something we vote on because it's not on the agenda,

[6:33] but that gives us direction.

[6:35] If like the board's cool with it,

[6:36] then both continue to work with Jim to let it happen.

[6:39] I just want to make the board aware.

[6:41] it's, you know, your direction. I think it's wonderful. I saw the picture you shared.

[6:47] It sounds like the board is all in favor. What was I planning?

[6:52] I'd be happy to help you. I'm going to throw it in the phone.

[6:55] I'm going to throw it in the phone. I'm going to throw it in the phone.

[6:57] Yeah.

[7:00] So how old is your daughter?

[7:02] 19.

[7:04] So what's your next year?

[7:06] She was there on the internet.

[7:08] is going to be that group

[7:14] out of New York one year at least.

[7:19] We used to call 100 degrees.

[7:24] So it's five hours from Athens and just this beautiful level.

[7:28] It's called Poppinto.

[7:29] It's a trail of the Diko Scorch, which is, I think they say by width,

[7:38] it's the deep discord track in the world. And they were there and just a

[7:46] trick stumbled to fit the very wrong spot.

[7:55] So Jim will reach out and we'll set up a meeting and we'll just move forward with it,

[8:00] the board told it, work with it, and we'll figure it out. All right, so follow up this week or maybe

[8:05] you're early next week and yeah like tomorrow morning I go chase no back in the

[8:12] Candidates since we haven't had one through this. But I'll be back after that.

[8:16] Yeah, calling when you're done and then we'll visit it without. Thank you. Any other public comment?

[8:21] Anybody else? Are you going to name the batch that's our name? Yeah, some name put a

[8:26] platform that are, yeah, quite determined that, but

[8:32] do

[8:33] something on that. That's great, because if anybody else

[8:37] hear your comments, anyone online? Just glad to be here

[8:44] boggles, a lot 153. It's been a long time since I joined to see

[8:51] how you're doing. Just want to observe. I appreciate you

[8:55] on. Thanks for. Any online comments?

[9:03] Okay. Having heard none.

[9:07] We'll move on to the administrative

[9:09] financial section. We made approval of the guests from last and the introductory floor.

[9:21] In the motion for motion approved. Just to make the motion carry on. Seconded.

[9:31] in the vote. All those monthly

[9:41] financials.

[9:44] So that was just included in the board packet.

[9:48] Is this sort of month and February, right? Yes, yep. Dave's on the phone. We have questions about that.

[9:55] One of the things I was looking for for direction is if you want to continue what we've done the past

[10:00] is quarterly or if you want to go to monthly reports for the board just let me know either way.

[10:08] It's really just so you know where we're at, for the two months, so it's not a ton of

[10:12] info there.

[10:14] Yeah, we're only having January and February, so there's not really much to report.

[10:20] So, I happy to answer any questions or comments, but pretty early in the year,

[10:27] do we have any

[10:28] questions or comments?

[10:32] I have a question.

[10:34] Who's that?

[10:35] That's Dave Sanderson, our accountant.

[10:37] Dave Sanderson, our accountant.

[10:39] That's what I thought.

[10:39] Yeah.

[10:40] Thank you.

[10:41] Yeah, they'd be here for the closed session on the phone call. Yeah, he yeah, he's here for a meeting. Yes. Yeah,

[10:52] it takes it takes us to the discussion around the consent agenda.

[10:59] You want me to just you were Nathan.

[11:02] I could start Nathan can finish basically what I had proposed at our chair meeting was adding a consent agenda, which basically we just include the minutes and then the financials.

[11:14] It's really just a very small step to kind of make things one vote and just get one vote

[11:20] for those two items.

[11:22] The consent agenda is kind of taking for granted that you looked at everything, read

[11:26] through it, and then we'll just do one vote.

[11:29] We're through it instead of like voting on each item.

[11:33] Nathan's talked about it, Dave's talked about these items, so I was suggesting adding a consent

[11:38] agenda to ours, anything that we just want the board to review, acknowledge, and then

[11:43] and it's one simple vote to get through.

[11:45] And then I looked at midways,

[11:47] midway does the same type of thing.

[11:49] So it was just basically kind of changing

[11:51] the way we set up our agendas.

[11:53] Mason, do you have anything to add?

[11:58] Sorry, no, that's accurate.

[12:00] And most public entities have a consent agenda.

[12:03] The consent agenda is really just the types of things

[12:07] that you have pretty much every meeting

[12:08] that you know you're gonna have

[12:10] that you should be reading ahead of time

[12:12] that ideally wouldn't require any discussion.

[12:15] And so the idea is, I can show an example, but basically, your consent agenda item would

[12:21] basically be that.

[12:22] The prior minutes and then the financials, now, and you would just say, okay, do I have

[12:27] a motion to approve the consent agenda items and there would be a motion to approve it,

[12:31] without necessarily having to discuss each one.

[12:33] That said, just because it's only consent agenda item doesn't mean that you couldn't discuss

[12:37] it.

[12:38] It's just a way to move things along that are routine in a quicker way.

[12:42] Okay.

[12:43] If wherever you wanted to, if wherever you wanted to discuss the items you absolutely

[12:46] could and you could take them and turn and vote on them individually, it just gives you

[12:50] the option to say, particularly, Derek, would say, okay, we're at the consent agenda item

[12:54] of the portion.

[12:54] Has everyone read the minutes and looked at the financials or are there any discussions?

[12:58] Nope.

[12:59] Okay.

[12:59] Any questions?

[13:00] No.

[13:00] All right.

[13:01] Do I have a motion to approve the consent agenda items and then can go from there?

[13:06] It's just a way to move things along more quickly.

[13:08] So

[13:11] everybody's okay with that. We can just implement that in the next just a little procedural thing.

[13:18] Do you have a general consensus?

[13:21] Yeah.

[13:22] It sounds like it's streamlined things and makes it quicker.

[13:25] Yeah.

[13:28] Okay.

[13:30] All right, legislative update.

[13:31] Thank you.

[13:37] So this was a, I think for you, relatively calm legislative process.

[13:42] process this year. There was one bill that we were following HB 501 that would have increased

[13:48] your water bill by probably about, I think, $2,500 per connection that did not pass. Essentially,

[13:57] the problem that we have is the federal government cut the funding that it provides for drinking

[14:02] water and sewer infrastructure by about 60%. So the state is trying to figure out a way

[14:07] to make up for that funding.

[14:09] This bill would have required each culinary water provider

[14:12] like the service area to impose essentially an income tax

[14:16] that's based on your medium adjusted gross income

[14:19] by the number of connections multiplied by a percentage.

[14:22] And as Chris and I did the math,

[14:24] it would have been like $23, $2500 in the service area,

[14:27] but that bill didn't pass.

[14:29] However, the larger issue of how we are going to fund

[14:31] this gap is not a question that's going to go away.

[14:35] I hope the water community will work on that over the following year to come up with some proposals for the legislature instead of being reactive.

[14:44] There are some bills that will impact us, I think, administratively. One of which is that we will need to develop a way for people to submit.

[14:56] to submit forms on line, so if someone fills out, say,

[15:00] Water dedication form with the service area or a grammar request form. We'll need to have a way for them to submit it online. There are some laws that will change how grandma works as well. Just making some clarifications in what constitutes a record that subject to public disclosure. The big land use bill SB 284 was passed at like 1145 before the end of the session on the Friday.

[15:27] the Friday at the end of the session, the big change that it makes, I think, for you is

[15:33] it makes detached accessory dwelling units a permitted use now.

[15:39] And so we've already been dealing with a lot of those, I think, our water policies are

[15:44] set up in a way that hopefully wouldn't impact this too much.

[15:49] The related part of that is that if we're going to require water dedications, we now need

[15:55] to have a 40-year plan, so just as a reminder, public water suppliers are entitled to have

[16:02] water rights that they hold for future growth even though they're not using them.

[16:05] They essentially have to check in every five years or so with the state engineer's office

[16:10] and get what's called an extension request.

[16:12] They can do that for a period of 50 years.

[16:14] After they hit 50 years, then they have to have a 40-year plan.

[16:17] And that plan describes how the public water supplier intends to use the water rights that

[16:23] homes and once it has that 40-year plan in place it can continue to get

[16:27] extensions for its water rights. The service areas water rights have all been

[16:31] modified over the years even though they were initially approved in the 60s.

[16:34] They've been replaced to change. So none of them are quite at that 50-year period.

[16:40] So we haven't done the 40-year plan because we're maybe about 10 years out. It

[16:45] didn't make sense to do a plan when we do it in 10 years. It'll be different.

[16:52] But

[16:53] So I recommended to staff that we begin working on getting that and talking with our engineering

[16:58] firms that we have on contract to get a sense of how much that will cost.

[17:02] So that's something we'll bring back.

[17:05] Other than that, most of the other legislative changes are kind of more technical things.

[17:09] But those are, I think, or the big ones that the service area should be aware of.

[17:27] So this is one that's been in the hopper for a while,

[17:30] Carrie and I made some edits,

[17:32] and then Carrie asked for some additional edits

[17:35] regarding the FMLA policy,

[17:37] which my partner Clayton made,

[17:39] and I think just given the

[17:42] Clayton's of the request,

[17:43] got those out yesterday.

[17:45] Derek, I'm not sure if the board

[17:46] board has seen all of those edits or not. I believe Clayton provided them to you, but

[17:50] I'm not sure the board has seen them.

[17:55] Yeah, so I can chime in here to Nathan. We presented the edits to the board.

[18:07] I think

[18:15] When we went through the policy in the meeting, we were talking about it last

[18:19] January. I know that for sure.

[18:21] We went through like line by line with the changes with Nathan and it was either

[18:25] the September meeting or the October or so or November. I don't remember going

[18:30] through the personal policy. So we did. We did and we prove we have some changes

[18:35] that have that the board's reviewed. Clayton added the FMLA language update

[18:41] that Kerry requested last week, but it's pretty much what the board had seen before.

[18:47] But I don't know if the board is seeing Clayton's most recent edits that he sent out yesterday.

[18:51] Yeah, I don't think so. And we can circulate them, or we can go through them now if we can share it,

[18:58] even. But those are just federal law at the Family Medical Leave Act, or what they are.

[19:05] and they are just policies that I guess are standard in other settings like hours that dictate if, you know, to clarify what the rules are in terms of giving employees their federally required rights.

[19:27] If they, you know, how much time their job is protected, if they go on leave, which is

[19:32] 12 months, if they've been there a certain amount of time, it's really just federal law

[19:37] dictated, and we thought it was the personnel, or, you know, it seemed that it was important

[19:45] that that was clarified what everyone's rights were, who are part of the staff because they're

[19:51] federally addicted. And so I think that was the only thing, and they're just about like

[20:00] their federal rules that he put in there about the American Disabilities Act. I don't

[20:05] know, can you speak to it any further, Nathan?

[20:08] No, it's just basically, this is an old policy that was initially adopted, I think, in 2017.

[20:14] It's been reviewed, which is under state law. We have to look at it periodically, which

[20:19] we have and we made tweaks and edits, but basically he added some other language to just kind

[20:24] of update it since then, but mainly that the main point is that if we have reason to believe

[20:31] that the grounds for FMLA leave is a qualifying condition under the federal law that we may

[20:37] categorize someone's leave as FMLA leave.

[20:41] We have to provide certain notices like that, and there's also, he added some language

[20:47] that paid time off, and FMLA leave, fell down concurrently, and just for everyone's just a reminder,

[20:54] FMLA, it's family and medical leave, and it's a federal law that allows people to take up to 12

[20:59] consecutive, allows them to take up to like 12 consecutive weeks of unpaid leave when they're injured.

[21:05] So, for instance, if someone's in a car accident and they can't work, they can take this leave if they

[21:10] qualify, qualify under the law, and we can't fire them during that period of weather recuperate,

[21:15] We don't have to pay them. So Clayton just kind of tweaked that section that we already had to be in line with some recent legal changes that have occurred since we adopted this policy years ago.

[21:34] What are the next steps?

[21:36] I think the next step was to just get this personnel policy in place if we need to review it or make changes and you are very involved with this too.

[21:52] I mean, I mean, I think we grinded at this enough, so we just have to vote on putting

[22:00] the personnel policy in place, and the rule and the book, I think, is that we're supposed

[22:05] to add a minimum look at it each year, like in our roles.

[22:10] I just, my memory of it, maybe it's different in our own else, was that we made a ton

[22:15] of changes.

[22:16] We presented it back to Vince because there was some GM specific, and again he was

[22:20] interim GM at the time.

[22:22] But the onus was on him to provide comments back to us in terms of what the proposed changes

[22:29] work is directly impacted.

[22:31] I believe his oversight, but his position specifically.

[22:38] I think I talked with him a week or two before he took his leave of absence and he I know

[22:49] he's still working on those so the draft that Clayton circulated yesterday and I'm not

[22:54] sure if the board has seen that draft does not include any additional edits for events.

[22:58] So, agnostic to the Benz edits, if we haven't seen what these proposed changes are, what

[23:05] is it that we're supposed to?

[23:07] So, which we've told on it next time.

[23:09] I may add that we've had.

[23:10] So, his changes would be to things that were already in place.

[23:15] I assume, because there wasn't very many global changes to the policy.

[23:22] But what Nathan and Clayton had suggested, struck me if I'm wrong Nathan, was that we

[23:28] You should look at putting the policy in place and then when Vince is back, if there's

[23:35] any edits, then we can say that we can reopen it for edits before next year and make edits

[23:42] if the board approves those edits.

[23:43] Are you speaking to the global personal policy or the FMLA specific piece?

[23:48] To the policy to put it into place with the caveat that when Vince gets back, if he has

[23:54] changes that he'd like to suggest to the board that we'd be willing to reopen it and update

[23:59] it, but that it was important for a lot of reasons with regard to the policy as a whole

[24:05] to get it into place. And then, if he has edits that the board approves of, that we could say

[24:11] that we could put it on the agenda for voting next month and, you know, if he's backed by them

[24:17] and make those, you know, see what those edits are, see what his suggestions are, and reopen it.

[24:23] like have it on the agenda as a voting item if we need it.

[24:27] So to be clear, I don't think Clayton, I have a preference.

[24:30] It's really the board's calling what you do here.

[24:33] I was just trying to point out that I hadn't gotten VINCES edits

[24:35] and they aren't incorporated in the draft

[24:37] and if the board wants to adopt it now they could

[24:40] and we can wait to see what VINC says

[24:42] or if you want to wait till VINC does it, we could do that too.

[24:45] That's what I was trying to get at, Kerry,

[24:47] is it really up to the board on how you want to proceed here?

[24:49] I was just trying to provide options.

[24:51] Is there any harm in not having it in place and postponing until the next board meeting

[24:59] of implementing, or is it kind of a watch, or, yes, very risk of not?

[25:05] I don't think there's much of a risk.

[25:06] I mean, the policy is, the FMLA stuff has been out of whack for a while, so I don't know

[25:13] if it's really going to matter if we wait another month.

[25:17] I mean, we do have someone who is taking FML leave right now, and so maybe there's a desire

[25:23] to get that updated language in place there, but so far in Derek's been heading that

[25:28] more so than me.

[25:29] It doesn't seem to be that there's any real issues there, but that's the only thing I could

[25:33] think of.

[25:42] I guess my concern is that, let me ask, has the board seen the draft that because I'm not

[25:49] sure it was distributed?

[25:50] It was not circulated.

[25:52] No, we have not seen the draft.

[25:54] Is the first time hearing of it.

[25:56] That's maybe my larger concern is your voting on something.

[26:00] I know, in fact, because I think Justin and Carolyn,

[26:03] you probably would not have seen this draft

[26:05] because you weren't on the board when the last time we discussed it.

[26:08] So that's probably my bigger concern maybe about adopting it now

[26:12] is that the board hasn't seen it.

[26:15] I know some of you have seen prior versions

[26:17] but you haven't seen Clayton's edits.

[26:18] And so that's maybe my concern is you'd be voting on something that you haven't seen.

[26:25] I was just going to say also that Vince hasn't had, because it's like given the timing of

[26:31] everything, it's also, you haven't seen Vince's edits, so, and I don't think there's events

[26:40] is the edits, they would be Vince's suggestions to the board, if there's things that

[26:46] he, you know, feels like maybe we should re-evaluate, you know, the board is the one who

[26:53] sets the personal policy, yeah, because it dictates the community what the personnel's responsibilities

[27:00] are and all of that. So there's an opportunity, obviously, for Jody or Chris, or Vince to say,

[27:06] Hey, this could be problematic for these reasons.

[27:10] This isn't how things go.

[27:13] Could you guys consider editing that?

[27:16] I think that's a fair concern, or yes.

[27:19] But do you think there's any benefit

[27:21] to, I don't know if we could really piece me on say,

[27:26] like, would it make sense to have that MLA policy updated?

[27:32] But we still are in the same situation

[27:34] and where we haven't that's what I was going to suggest was past that is it's like federal

[27:41] but they haven't seen that either is that my concern is is that you have I I didn't the

[27:48] doesn't look like the board seeing Clayton's proposed edits and you have two new board members

[27:53] that haven't seen the other edits that's my concern is there's approving something that

[27:57] they haven't seen and I don't think these edits are too difficult but I'm I mean there's

[28:03] So like an edit pretty much on every single page, so it's not that they're difficult

[28:06] at it to comprehend, but they're quite a few of them.

[28:11] I just have some concern because typically the idea of the board when it approves something,

[28:16] it's reviewed it, it's good with it, and then that way when the staff gets it, we know

[28:21] I just a little, I don't know of a single situation where I've been in which the board has acknowledged

[28:26] on the record that it didn't review a policy when it adopted it.

[28:29] Yeah, but I think we circulated it. It's been circulated. No, you circulated it. Okay, so we could forward that. And then, um, you know, instead of going back and forth with Nathan, if people have concerns or questions, whether that be staff or, um,

[28:49] and other board members maybe just shoot them back to Derek and then he can funnel those

[28:59] and figure out like, okay, do any of these make sense? Are there something that he wants

[29:03] to bring up on the legal call to see if there's any reason to tweak things and if there's

[29:09] anything, I mean, I don't think there's really anything that anyone's going to, like, in

[29:15] In my opinion, they're pretty like, I don't know, I mean, Nathan, would you say that there

[29:21] weren't a drastic amount of changes, it was just word-smithing and updating things?

[29:28] We use...

[29:29] Scott, I think you were a little more involved with this than I was, but I think there was

[29:35] some discussion and I'm not entirely sure, because one of the changes is requiring a lot

[29:40] board approval for kind of staff items, staff management and so that was one thing I wasn't quite sure

[29:47] on is whether there was ever a consensus on some of those changes which is part of why I think the

[29:53] board needs to look at it and make sure that I think that I don't know if I remember it if it gets

[29:59] Good or not?

[30:00] I haven't looked good at myself since a day. What was I thought using an agency or something? There was probably half a dozen items where the board was inserting itself into the day to day. And then I think what we did was we pulled that back as a board. We pulled it back globally. But again, I mean, I personally, I don't want to spend a lot of time on this right now because I haven't read it. I haven't reviewed it. It's been five months. I can't vote on it. Yeah. And I did look and it was, I think it actually was. I don't think it was October, November.

[30:29] So yeah, too far back to remember. Yeah, let's circulate it. We'll we'll all chime in to Derek, and then there's no concern. No, you got an employee out on FML and the policy's not updated to what the currently is not really. I mean, the policy, we already have a policy that's that's compliant. It's just like an added additional language. So we already had a section on FML. He just added additional stuff. But I don't think that there's been any.

[30:59] So what he's added is clarifying things that we've already worked through at this point

[31:05] time.

[31:06] So here's the point.

[31:08] FMLA applies whether we have it in our policy or not because it's federal law.

[31:12] All Clayton is added is just some stuff in federal law so that you guys don't have to call

[31:19] up an attorney to interpret the policy.

[31:24] Yeah, I think there's like two or three that I can find in here in the red lines that

[31:30] are kind of seeking board approval.

[31:33] And there are things that kind of came up out of the meetings like fair, it increased

[31:38] discretionary bonuses, things like that that where it was like saying that those would be

[31:45] voted on on the board and not at the staff level.

[31:49] But, yeah, Derek circulated it and let's all take a look at it and provide feedback and

[31:55] discuss it.

[31:56] We could put it on the next agenda for this month.

[32:00] Sounds great.

[32:01] Go on to the written fee and impact fee study on RFP.

[32:07] So we had talked about the board did approve and put into the budget and impact fee study

[32:13] to move from a permit to impact fee study to what two weeks ago now, I think.

[32:19] Chris was asking Nathan at our weekly legal where we're at with that for the

[32:24] impact fee study and then we were talking about doing also a rate and fee

[32:28] study which is having like an outside agency come in and just kind of look at

[32:32] our rate and fee and see if it's in line. There are a couple that are definitely

[32:37] being questioned. So player from Nathan's office did put together an impact fee

[32:42] RFP for us. You know we're kind of in a standstill with that. I was a little anxious

[32:48] just to kind of put out the RFP.

[32:50] Nathan's was like, well, he's just kind of

[32:52] Vince's project, so he wants to wait till he can review it.

[32:56] So did I include that in that?

[32:58] I believe I did, did I?

[33:00] I can't remember this much going on.

[33:02] I think I got that on Monday.

[33:04] So perhaps I have not provided that yet,

[33:07] but I can, that's another thing that I just

[33:09] wanted to let everybody know where we were at with that.

[33:12] We do have a draft from player.

[33:14] What I understand about the impact these studies,

[33:16] it's this very specific language and helping scope because I was doing a draft of it, putting it

[33:23] together, and then I saw another entity that had combined the rate and fee and impact fee, and I was

[33:28] like, this is great. We'll kill two birds with one stone, and then I found it after the fact that

[33:32] you cannot do that. There are two very different entities. So that was my learning curve last week,

[33:39] but I did want to let you all know, and I'll put on my notes here to send that also, so you can

[33:45] review that this week as well. And then maybe give us give me some feedback in

[33:49] direction. Normally when we put out an RFP there's a website called Bonfire for

[33:56] all Chris can kind of describe it better but you know as a contractor's

[34:00] safer his business they'll look for RFPs for their business and then put the

[34:04] bids in. So that's Bonfire we do it and then we put it on our website as well and

[34:09] that's how we put out an RFP. So that is something that I can do now but we do

[34:14] want the board to review that RFP before we do that process, but because I just got that

[34:20] for Claire on Monday, I'm realizing now I don't think I forwarded that to you, so I need

[34:24] to do that.

[34:26] And I don't think it's ready for the board to review, because typically the way this will

[34:29] work is, you know, well, usually it's staff will prepare an RFP. In this case, Jody did.

[34:34] We've reviewed it, but I think it's, Vince is going to have to be the one to implement it.

[34:38] And so I think we need the general manager to be on board with it.

[34:41] So hopefully we can have something that you can review and

[34:43] approve at your next meeting when Vince gets back.

[34:48] So we need to have two RFPs.

[34:50] So the impact fee, again, is an

[34:52] exaction that's governed by the impact fee act and

[34:55] Utah's awful government, also governed by constitutional

[34:58] principles. So the very specific process with that and

[35:02] just as a reminder, it's kind of a multi-stage process with various

[35:05] public notices. But essentially what we would be doing is hiring

[35:08] a contractor to do two things.

[35:10] One is to do an impact fee facility plan and so that's where they would analyze our infrastructure and the services we provide.

[35:18] Then provide some factors for you to consider.

[35:22] They bring that plan back and they say here's what you do.

[35:25] Here's the stuff that we think would be subject to an impact fee or could be subject to an impact fee.

[35:29] What does the board want to do?

[35:31] Based on that plan the board would then need to determine if it wants to take the next step which would be to actually impose an impact fee.

[35:37] And at that point, if the board decided to move forward, the contractor would then put together the actual impact fees.

[35:44] And so that's essentially what that RFP would do.

[35:47] The other RFP, it would be someone to do the water rates.

[35:50] Typically, we've used borough water in the past.

[35:54] I'm not sure if you want to continue using them.

[35:56] I believe that's the service they provide for free.

[35:58] If you wanted to place someone else to do something because I think that what we have is,

[36:02] This rural water does the water rate fees, but you have other fees related to your roads

[36:06] that rural water doesn't do, and so we talked about getting a professional to come in and

[36:10] do those fees.

[36:12] So that would be a separate RFP.

[36:14] We haven't prepared that separate RFP yet.

[36:18] I think it sounds like a good idea to move forward with both of those RFPs.

[36:25] Yeah, I think everyone's on board with doing them.

[36:26] It's just with Vince being out, that's kind of put us behind in preparing them.

[36:33] We have a draft now, so we'll just, when things come back, we'll have a draft to review

[36:39] and then we'll give it to you.

[36:41] We have a draft of the impact fee, but we don't have a draft for the other great fee.

[36:49] Okay.

[36:54] So, yeah, so that'll be certainly goals and a chance to see at least the impact of the RFP.

[37:02] And that takes us to the code reinstatement.

[37:07] Nathan.

[37:09] So, if you mind, I'd like to share my screen.

[37:12] Oh, we can see anything.

[37:13] There's like no internet.

[37:16] That's Caroline's phone.

[37:18] She can.

[37:18] I just know it's not my fault, but it didn't, like, I can't control it.

[37:23] It's not it's you.

[37:24] Oh, okay.

[37:25] All right.

[37:26] I didn't know we didn't have a screen.

[37:27] Okay.

[37:27] So, yeah.

[37:29] In your, as we've discussed before, one of the things I've long wanted to do is put all of your rules

[37:35] and regulation into a service area code or what I'm calling a administrative rules and regulations.

[37:41] And I started that and the board authorized me to do that.

[37:45] and basically what I did is I created a table of contents and there's some in

[37:51] your packet. The first one is actually just a very draft rough outline that

[37:55] wasn't supposed to be in the packet. It's the more formal one and so what I've

[38:01] done is I've outlined what I think your code should look like and so most of

[38:05] these are provisions we already have. We would just be fitting them into a standard

[38:09] format but typically if you're looking at your packet I think this is on page

[38:14] 24. I don't know if we have access to that. We have it up on the screen.

[38:19] Okay, so what I had done is I had done an actual code and I had kind of copied and pasted

[38:26] the initial codes that we had, but that was hundreds and hundreds of pages long.

[38:30] So I asked her to take them all out and I think what she did, it created this error bookmark.

[38:35] And that's where the page number would be. But basically my thought here is if you have it up on your screen

[38:40] is that general provisions, that would basically be a section where we would have common definitions,

[38:45] so we'd have the same definitions throughout your rules. We would also have rules of construction

[38:50] about how provisions read together, like any normal code. Two would be officers, missions

[38:56] of the board, board governance, how conflict of interest would work. A lot of this we already have

[39:01] in your rules of order and procedure, but you know, it's something we probably want to update.

[39:05] board and staff relationship, expenses and compensation, how the budget works, voting again.

[39:11] A lot of this stuff we already have, but it would be organized a little bit differently.

[39:15] Same thing with Section 3 regarding meetings.

[39:17] Or would be your personnel policy, which we will update soon, too, as your code of ethics,

[39:23] which we've adopted, but we would have it in a section.

[39:26] But we don't really have, and we should have as a finance section.

[39:29] There are some templates we can use from the auditor's office, which I would like to put

[39:32] in here and work with Dave on that. Six is your procurement policy which we've adopted

[39:38] which we could put in here.

[39:42] Seven would be, actually I think it might be a duplication

[39:45] here in personnel, we probably take that out. Eight, we probably need to have a social media

[39:50] policy. I have some templates that we could include but this is typically what they would

[39:54] look like. Nine would be our water regulation section which is pretty much the way it structured

[40:00] Now, that's what it will look like in table contents.

[40:03] 10 would be your Rhodes regulation, which we also have.

[40:07] We would just break it out like that.

[40:08] 11, I'd just like to have a common appeals provision

[40:11] so that every appeal someone files goes through the same process.

[40:15] And then we would have several addendums.

[40:17] And these are all the various forms that we're required to do.

[40:19] And most of these are based upon the state auditor's form.

[40:23] So we have the ethical pledge form,

[40:24] the annual conflict of interest form,

[40:26] your declaration of candidacy form,

[40:28] a credit card holder acceptance agreement for people that are signers for the credit cards,

[40:32] and then a credit card missing receipt form. Again, those are all auditor form templates

[40:36] that we can just include. So most of these I said are largely policies that you already have

[40:42] or just reform adding them. There are some that we would need to prepare,

[40:47] but I wanted to see if this organization and structure works for the board,

[40:50] and if so, if I can continue to populate this and put together a cohesive code,

[40:56] and again, what we would do is when this is done, we would delete all of your current rules and

[41:00] regulations and replace it with this one uniform code. Who's right now? We have like resolutions,

[41:06] regulations, then you'll prove on something and that it's... No, you have regulations and you have

[41:11] resolutions and there are two separate things. This is all of your regulations, but anyway, it does

[41:18] get confusing and to have them on separate documents makes... It creates confusion, they're not consistent

[41:23] and it would just be better to have them all in one place.

[41:29] Okay, so I will proceed in populating this and putting together a code. There will

[41:34] be some sections. We'll need you review, but that's what we'll do then. Thanks, guys.

[41:39] Thanks.

[41:41] Okay,

[41:45] so what I did is I black this out just so you might have already seen it anyway. But the

[41:53] whole idea is that you're not voting on something that maybe you know someone, but I'm just

[41:59] going to give a quick intro on this. So, Laura works or owns a company that used to

[42:05] be a tenant on Division Street. So, they didn't own the building, there is a landlord, and

[42:10] they did a permit back in 2021 with the county, but not with the service area. So, this was

[42:19] kind of before I started, this is why they created this. My position was to kind of over

[42:23] see the permits because with one person staff or one and a half person staff, it wasn't

[42:28] getting done. So she did not know she needed to permit through us. And then she went through

[42:35] the whole process. She's no longer a tenant here anymore. She bought her own place. She's

[42:40] doing her own thing. But the landlord has an open permit with the county or there is an

[42:45] open permit with the county in regards to this tenant build-out, okay. So they're asking

[42:53] us for a water letter. We can't provide a water letter on something that we haven't

[42:58] permitted, we haven't reviewed, or anything like that. So speaking with Laura, she's trying

[43:02] to resolve this for the landlord who's trying to close out this permit with the county.

[43:07] If you look at our current rate and fee for her to go through this process, it's a $20,000

[43:12] permit fee. And this was a remodel that was done four or five years ago now.

[43:20] Are fee is $20,000 for a non-commercial per-array fee schedule right now. Non-commercial permit is $20,000.

[43:29] It's non-commercial.

[43:31] It's non-residential.

[43:32] Sorry.

[43:36] It's not going forward. Why would we just cancel this and then understand?

[43:41] Well, because basically the way it works is that people permit, they're supposed to permit

[43:47] with us first, then they go to the county.

[43:49] They go to the county and they say, I have a letter from the service area that there's

[43:54] water and we have their approval.

[43:56] But this was before we started working really close with the county.

[44:00] So they went through the whole process and it's now when they're trying to close it and

[44:04] they're going, well, where's your water letter from the service area?

[44:07] And I said, well, I can't provide a letter because we haven't reviewed this at all.

[44:10] So what I proposed when she came to me to say can we close that like how do we

[44:16] resolve this? I said what if we go back to the 2021 permit fee rate and fee

[44:22] schedule at that time it was a $2,500 fee and and I said I don't have the say to go

[44:31] against the rate and fee. It's not my decision to do that we would have to go to

[44:34] the board. So who's responsibility is this when the landlord or the tenant?

[44:38] Whoever put the permit in, so it would have been her as the tenant.

[44:43] What are you cancelling or withdrawing the permit?

[44:46] You still have to have a permit.

[44:49] They've already did the bill?

[44:51] Yeah, they've finished the construction for the tenant improvement inside the building.

[44:57] They have just moved on.

[44:59] There's no law.

[45:00] Her renter there. So this construction got built really without our review to make sure that the water, water and stuff was connected correctly.

[45:09] And what's the statute of limitations on something like that?

[45:14] It hasn't run in this case.

[45:20] So it's really doing work.

[45:22] Well, now I have the plan.

[45:23] Now I've seen the plan.

[45:24] She's filled out a permit given us the plan.

[45:26] So now we've seen it.

[45:28] So I said, you know, what my suggestion was when we spoke was $20,000 to go back for something five years ago.

[45:38] makes no sense. And then I pulled up the rate and fee schedule from 2021 and it was $2,500.

[45:44] And I said, you know, I can ask, present this to the board, decide what they want to do,

[45:50] just because it's not my decision to go against what our policy in rate and fee is.

[45:55] And we need to do something because they need to close out the permit and she needs to be

[46:01] lots of water in order to do that, so something needs to be done.

[46:05] How much work are we actually putting in, so people want to plan or could we put in a

[46:11] couple hours and we just charge it 200 bucks or something?

[46:14] Well, the fee schedule in 2021 was $2,500, but we need, my vote is we go and just pretend

[46:22] it's where we review those plans in 2021 and go with it's $2,500.

[46:28] It's a hard time charging for something to do, you know?

[46:30] but they did, they did the rebuke.

[46:33] I know, but we didn't do anything at all.

[46:37] I'm just saying, what do we actually charge them to?

[46:39] But I understand we're saying,

[46:40] but I just, if you look at like a permit

[46:43] of any kind from any agency, it doesn't always correlate

[46:47] to true time spent, like a building permit

[46:49] that cost you 200 grand in the house,

[46:52] they're not doing 200 grand

[46:53] with the work at the county level.

[46:55] Like I think that's really good.

[46:56] Yeah, I just don't want to go with the, I don't know.

[46:58] I'm just saying, I'd rather charge less

[46:59] Yes, instead of just going with the flow and saying, oh, this is the right.

[47:03] We are charging less, we're not charging in the 2025, because I say it's five.

[47:09] So, you're involved, right?

[47:10] I did.

[47:11] I was involved in this.

[47:14] It's her business.

[47:14] Yeah, she was.

[47:15] I did.

[47:16] I was a tenant with my company.

[47:19] And we did the belt out.

[47:20] It's just a landlord basically telling you you have to pay the permit.

[47:24] Yeah.

[47:27] Now he has no attendance and so he wants to get it all out.

[47:33] Which of them will have to pay it?

[47:35] That's what I'm struggling with.

[47:37] Well, they think that's a gray area and knowing who he is, he won't pay it.

[47:43] So, it's ultimately in my name, the result.

[47:47] I took out the company.

[47:49] Did he personally or you as a member of your LLC?

[47:52] Yeah, me as a member.

[47:54] So you're a remodeling?

[47:56] You could do monitoring or yeah, it wasn't built. It was a warehouse and we put in office space, okay.

[48:05] So it was built out.

[48:06] We wasted timber because our permanent home was slow getting built.

[48:10] So now we're on floor scale.

[48:14] So how many hours did you put in the room?

[48:17] How long?

[48:19] Because that's only,

[48:21] or is that crew we have anyway?

[48:23] Well Chris, well, what happened was we were contacted by the county.

[48:26] Yeah, we've had a few conversations with the landlord that the homeowner will the landlord

[48:32] I don't know

[48:35] Three maybe total at this point the way I look at it is

[48:40] When I whenever I'm doing permitting it's always just fair and consistent to everybody

[48:44] So everybody goes through the same permit process everybody pays the same fees

[48:48] That's the way we look at it. So we're not like doing deals of okay

[48:53] This one pays this amount. This is this is what the rate and fee is

[48:56] So, are they connected to the water?

[48:59] Yes.

[48:59] You were connected already.

[49:01] Yeah.

[49:01] So, it's just actually the permit late.

[49:04] They never permitted to us.

[49:06] So, we just found out about this.

[49:07] Yeah.

[49:08] And when was the work fully completed?

[49:12] I mean, I kind of like your idea of like,

[49:15] I mean, I don't want to encourage that for future people

[49:18] that we're going to revert back to, you know,

[49:21] like an old rule.

[49:23] And I'm not saying that against you,

[49:25] but do we set any precedence by saying that or it seems like this is kind of an interesting

[49:31] unique back pattern and maybe we could just say that we'd revert if they should have done this

[49:37] that going forward, you know, if there's other people in this situation, we probably will not make,

[49:43] you know, we have to look at a case by case. Yeah, we have to look at it by case by case. However,

[49:48] whatever, you know, I do like the idea of reverting that to the 2021 and doing the 2500.

[49:55] You have an attorney that could answer that very question. There's no reason for us to try to change.

[50:01] Nathan, what's the legal advice?

[50:08] I don't think it's really legal advice. I think it's a judgment advice.

[50:13] Well, just like you hear the attorneys on a real time, Nathan.

[50:20] He's listed here. He's on mute.

[50:24] I got you. I was trying to say this is something that I did

[50:28] mention to him. So he is aware. Like I make a weekly list of things that I want to talk about.

[50:34] And this was my suggestion. He kind of said the same thing. Not to speak for Nathan. But he kind of

[50:39] said the same thing. Like I think that's actually an interesting way to look at it is revert back to

[50:44] that 2021. There's a former contractor. I know there's a time when we're going to

[50:50] sub a county for stuff and then all of a sudden we wound up.

[50:56] Sorry guys it took me a while to find my

[50:59] to find this to click the mute but my understanding of this situation and this is something we

[51:05] I think it's kind of a glitch in our fee schedule is really the issue because under state law with

[51:11] fees. We can't charge more than what the service is. And I just think the way our fee schedule

[51:17] was set up for a different situation than what this was. And that's why the fee is so

[51:21] high. And so I think on one hand, I don't think we can charge $20,000 under state law because

[51:27] it's far in excess of what one of our services would be. And it's just kind of one of those

[51:33] things we want to fix when we do the fee update. So my personal opinion, I don't think we can

[51:37] charge $20,000 under our current code anyway, in which case the $2,500 as of what is in

[51:45] 21 would make sense. Now that said, if this were a situation in which the fee that

[51:50] our fee schedule produced was commensurate with the amount of work, I would recommend very

[51:56] strongly that we just do with our current fee schedule is so we don't encourage people

[52:00] to try to not go through the front door. And I'm not saying I wouldn't do anything wrong

[52:04] here but in this case where I don't think that the fee is allowed under state law and it's a glitch

[52:10] and how our fees get to work. I think that going back to what was in the books in 2021 makes sense.

[52:17] So to someone on emotionally making a motion. Yeah, that would be something you need to vote on.

[52:26] Okay.

[52:28] There are motion to be heard.

[52:31] We will make a request.

[52:34] I motion that we implement the 2021 fees schedule.

[52:42] All in favor?

[52:44] Aye.

[52:44] All vote.

[52:46] Thank you.

[52:47] Five to one.

[52:48] And I just do a roll call really quick just because there was a consenting or dissenting.

[52:53] Sorry.

[52:54] So for that.

[52:55] Yeah, he's was Derek Eric Caroline Caroline David and Scott was a May so that motion passed

[53:08] a hold on I don't I think just my word is jamming you know I don't text I don't text

[53:14] me he voted yes I don't if you want to speak you can unmute yourself he did text me

[53:28] so we'll touch base tomorrow okay and we'll get that resolved thank you for

[53:33] coming thank you so much and I appreciate that so I just want to make for the

[53:37] recording David made the motion Caroline's second did the vote was six to one

[53:43] six with with Otto is there anything we can do to like prevent that from happening

[53:48] in the future because Joey's tying it up like huge okay but that's what the

[53:55] These scheduled update would do.

[53:57] See, we've always gotten the water rates done by

[53:59] road water, but these other fees haven't really been

[54:02] studied.

[54:02] And that's what that proposal would address.

[54:05] I wanted to and our.

[54:07] So when I was hired, just so you have the information,

[54:09] Caroline, when I was hired, it was really to take over

[54:11] the permits.

[54:12] And so they met with the service or they met with

[54:14] the county the summer before I started.

[54:16] I started in September 23.

[54:19] And there was 34 permits identified that people were

[54:23] building stuff without permits. So that's why they brought in a full-time person to oversee it.

[54:28] I think it's gotten a lot tighter, you know, like obviously I'm paying attention to things. Same

[54:33] thing is property transfers. These are things that I take care of that don't really fall through

[54:38] the cracks as much anymore. In Summit County, I've already introduced the AOT members. We're deciding

[54:46] what what what do we need permits on so on when we're a contractor and all of a sudden Summit

[54:52] County was like, well, do you have your service this year at the

[54:55] flat? And it was something that it never existed. And so it just

[55:01] sounds like it was right in that time where there was a rule

[55:06] made, but nobody knew there was a rule. And then now they're so

[55:11] there's a small gap of window where one doesn't know about the

[55:15] other. He's totally right about that. So some counties better

[55:17] about directing people and saying, you need to do this step

[55:20] before you come here.

[55:22] And that's something we're always working

[55:23] with some in County on.

[55:24] Then there used to be not a good relationship

[55:26] or just no communication and that's gotten better.

[55:29] So I think with that.

[55:31] You also need to take an account.

[55:32] There's probably not gonna be very many permits

[55:34] that are five years old that haven't closed out.

[55:38] Yeah.

[55:38] So.

[55:39] Yeah, I haven't seen this before.

[55:41] This is the first time I've seen this situation.

[55:43] So when it came to me, the first thing I went back

[55:48] and looked at the building,

[55:49] that when the building was built in 2012 and I said that's the only permit I have when

[55:54] the building was built.

[55:55] So then Laura and I started talking and then I said can you present me with all this

[55:59] information.

[56:00] So we have it for the record and we have it for the files and everything like that.

[56:04] So we have the documentation.

[56:08] If I may, I was on the board for eight years and I was chair for a good period of time.

[56:15] And this is not a new problem.

[56:17] That problem was very seriously looked at,

[56:20] communicated with the county.

[56:24] And we're lucky if there's only one

[56:28] that needs this type of resolution.

[56:30] We're very lucky because the county

[56:32] just totally ignored Silver Creek for a lot of years.

[56:37] So it could happen again.

[56:40] I hope this is it.

[56:41] It's not new.

[56:42] So I appreciate what you're having to do.

[56:46] All right.

[56:48] So Chris, you want to screw up with water roads in front of us?

[56:53] Sorry, so far RFP for 267.

[56:57] Okay, so I wanted to bring this before the board.

[57:00] Last year we put out an RFP for the snow removal.

[57:06] And I need to know the board's input because we have it set up so that we can

[57:11] auto renew if we would like or if you guys would like to put it back out to RFP was such a light

[57:20] snow year were very under budget from our current contractor. So yeah, so if we go out to bid,

[57:35] said, I know for sure that the rates will go up from what we're currently locked in

[57:40] at. Because he he wanted the job and he put some very low numbers on there.

[57:53] There's a couple of places where he damaged the road that I've made him aware of that he's

[57:58] going to fix here this spring, where part of our contract is we keep the blade up two

[58:06] inches and leave snow on the road. To protect the roads, they dropped it right to the asphalt

[58:12] and made a few damages, but he's aware of it and he's going to take care of those.

[58:18] Other than that he's going to do that right now.

[58:19] Yeah, very responsive for the few storms. The one storm was a little intense if we all remember

[58:25] remember that one. We didn't really have any issues at all during that sort. So Scott.

[58:32] Nope, I never got my question. Okay.

[58:35] So I need direction from the board if you want me to reengage or if we want to put out a new RFP.

[58:42] Everybody who wants to go with a new RFP.

[58:53] and then those are trails. Okay, so I have in the packet I believe everyone's seen

[59:02] for trails. We have prepared a we've control plan here with some rough dates and so forth.

[59:15] The biggest key here is when we go to do some trail volunteer days, I need some assistance

[59:26] and actually would like someone from the community if possible to lead the volunteers.

[59:34] As we do some small projects on the trail and mainly in those parts.

[59:39] So the equipment being provided is need manpower.

[59:43] Yeah, mainly manpower in anything like the chain saws and stuff will let the professional crew do that.

[59:50] But you know it's more cleaning the brush out of the way.

[59:55] Fill in the single tracks or horse tracks and stuff.

[1:00:00] Like that. So in the past, we've had people bring pruners and stuff. I've kind of steered them away from bringing their chain saws because I don't need people way, wave and chain saws around and weed eaters. It's easier to keep them very limited. So is there anybody that would like to volunteer?

[1:00:24] What's the timeline you're looking to do it?

[1:00:27] The date I have up there is May.

[1:00:30] Sorry.

[1:00:31] May.

[1:00:32] I think it's at the bottom.

[1:00:34] Jody, is there a way we can put out towards the bottom?

[1:00:38] Do we have a monthly community?

[1:00:40] Is it not right there?

[1:00:42] Yeah, right there.

[1:00:44] Do we have any kind of monthly community letter or anything like that?

[1:00:47] We have the quarterly newsletter, so yes.

[1:00:49] I have one lined up to send in early April and this is something we can absolutely mention there.

[1:00:56] I do sparingly send out like last email blasts.

[1:01:00] I try to keep it so it's not too many and people read them.

[1:01:03] But that is something that we could include in my last website.

[1:01:09] We have a handful of residents that want to volunteer or ask them to help.

[1:01:14] So we haven't done a volunteer day since I've been here, but I know that they've done them in the past.

[1:01:20] So yeah, in two weeks, you want to post a schedule.

[1:01:25] Yep, starting in May.

[1:01:27] Correct.

[1:01:28] That would be the first time back on.

[1:01:30] There's somebody wants to volunteer with this.

[1:01:33] And I would coordinate with them.

[1:01:35] And then we would, we would set a date.

[1:01:38] So we can reach out to Sally.

[1:01:43] I'll do some work.

[1:01:44] I'll do some work.

[1:01:45] My husband has already tried to do some work with that little creek that runs through

[1:01:52] the middle of Louis Park with his shovel to divert some of the water that runs through.

[1:01:57] So I'm sure I can go and tell him to do some of the work, but just depends on the date

[1:02:04] if we're in town or not, but I'd be happy to also, and one other thing I wanted to mention

[1:02:10] is that the Utah Office of Outdoor Recreation has like a trail maintenance, a trail-through

[1:02:16] work request form, and they can request trail-through work throughout the state.

[1:02:23] And so that's something we could consider because there's a couple other sections of our

[1:02:34] And I think I want to submit that they're really good at like rebuilding the upper bridge

[1:02:42] That's kind of in bad repair in upper lowest park if those that go in upper lowest park

[1:02:49] We need to kind of really get that repair and they're really good at that kind of stuff that those crews

[1:02:56] But we'll I'll have Dodie pull the form and we'll see what we can submit and get I think you know

[1:03:01] that would be helpful. I will come up with some dates and we'll go ahead and start that public notice.

[1:03:30] So that's a good slide.

[1:03:32] Thank you.

[1:03:33] The backflow.

[1:03:35] Okay.

[1:03:38] So,

[1:03:39] Jody's really the one spirit that's got the information from Swift

[1:03:44] Comply. Backflow prevention and the inspections are

[1:03:49] required by the state,

[1:03:50] it's state law.

[1:03:52] And we have slowly implemented it and educated over the past few

[1:03:57] years. For most people, they're accustomed to this on the irrigation system, on commercial

[1:04:03] buildings, it's on the fire sprinkler system, and those residences that have fire sprinkler

[1:04:09] systems. But we're mainly concerned about the irrigation currently. This whiff comply

[1:04:17] is a company that would help us streamline this. They keep all the record keeping, they

[1:04:24] send out all the notices, the legal notices, and everything so that we don't

[1:04:28] necess a specific date, and they continue to engage with our customers until

[1:04:33] these inspections are in compliance. So, because everybody know what the

[1:04:38] backflow is. It's basically, it's required for the connected, not required for

[1:04:44] the well users, but anybody with irrigation has to have an annual backflow

[1:04:48] inspection. So it's been in our policy, it's state law for quite a while. When I

[1:04:54] started, we first our big project was get the meters wells metered. This is the

[1:05:00] next big one is to get us compliant with the backflows. So what we need to do is

[1:05:05] we implemented a Chris Ken as a water operator for our system. He can actually

[1:05:12] inspect and do the tests. And what we put into the rate and fee last year is that he

[1:05:18] He will do it, I think it was $99, and then you're doing an auto, we'll just come and do

[1:05:24] it every year for you.

[1:05:26] So there is a forum on the website where you can sign up for that.

[1:05:29] There are two or three people who have signed up for that.

[1:05:32] This website or this is the service area website where you can sign up for that.

[1:05:38] There are other outside providers who do this test.

[1:05:42] What we want to do is kind of get a good list of people that we recommend that know what

[1:05:47] what we look for from the testing and kind of provide how we want.

[1:05:51] What happens now is that people are just randomly sending me backflow tests.

[1:05:57] Most of them aren't here for care.

[1:05:59] I have to like look up and see what the addresses and say, that's not ours.

[1:06:02] This is where you need to send it.

[1:06:04] But what's really cool about this SWIFT comply, and Carrie, I don't know if you remember when

[1:06:08] we met kind of about my position, her first question was, I remember this theory.

[1:06:13] So you said, what software could you use?

[1:06:15] would you need to make your job easier and I said sweat comply. A lot of the

[1:06:22] water districts around here use it and we met with Park City Water who uses it

[1:06:26] so what happens is say I'm just gonna use Justin as an example you need to do

[1:06:31] your backflow test you're contacted and there's automated letters already so it's

[1:06:37] like 90 60 30 days what they do is they go right if you don't have your backflow

[1:06:42] set up, it's a water shutoff. This is again where we need to look at our

[1:06:46] rating fee because our water shutoff to reconnect is $2,500. The city, Park

[1:06:52] City, is $75. So we'll have to look at that number there, but the whole idea is

[1:06:58] that these letters are all auto-generated. My concern is with my work

[1:07:03] code is that I won't be able to stay on top of all of it and this kind of does

[1:07:07] all of that. So that everything is done timely and everything like people aren't

[1:07:12] forgotten and it's just more automated. There isn't expense to it. We have, and Vince was

[1:07:19] doing a lot of meetings and stuff before he left. I think they started us at like $5,000 a year

[1:07:26] and which was more than we were even spending on HubSpot which is our CSM. So we got it down to

[1:07:31] $2,500. If you look at the information that was in your packet, they presented a 5% annual increase

[1:07:39] which I question. So basically what they'll do is as a resident you have to

[1:07:44] submit your testing, you pay $15 to submit it. It offsets our costs that we

[1:07:49] incur. So the cost would be $2,500 for the year. There's a one-time setup fee. So

[1:07:55] we're looking at about $6,500 to kind of get this up and going. The way we were

[1:08:01] going to implement the backflow was kind of how we did the well-metering, which

[1:08:04] was like education, education, education, and then we're going to ramp it up.

[1:08:08] And then we'll start having like we'll have to implement the violation fees, you know, if this isn't done

[1:08:13] You get notices kind of how we do water shut-offs

[1:08:17] Until we get everybody on board and compliant kind of how we did with the well-meetering the well-meetering

[1:08:22] We had to implement really big substantial

[1:08:25] Violation fees to get that project done. It was unpopular, but it was successful

[1:08:32] So I'm not understanding the year one's cup cost

[1:08:36] You're two, three, and beyond is $2500.

[1:08:40] Did you say there wasn't a scheduled increase?

[1:08:42] They had that, and I did ask her about it,

[1:08:45] and she did update this.

[1:08:47] This was what I emailed you today

[1:08:48] when I sent the picture of Jim's memorial.

[1:08:52] She did send me an updated sheet

[1:08:54] because I wanted something in writing,

[1:08:55] so instead of the 5% increase,

[1:08:57] I said, that's more than our COLA.

[1:08:59] She kind of scaled back on it, but yeah,

[1:09:03] there is a one time setup for you

[1:09:04] to kind of get all the accounts set up and everything like that.

[1:09:07] So it would be a new software.

[1:09:09] Like I said, we spend 35 hundred a year on HubSpot.

[1:09:12] This would be another thing for us to use.

[1:09:15] So we were just kind of looking for some direction.

[1:09:17] We've done some research.

[1:09:19] There's a lot of water companies that use it.

[1:09:21] When I first started looking at this last year,

[1:09:25] I mean, I think when I first started looking,

[1:09:26] I think the cost was like 7,000.

[1:09:28] So they've come down quite a bit.

[1:09:30] We've explained that we're very small entity.

[1:09:31] We have 218 connections, so they've kind of worked with us on the price.

[1:09:36] Can you quantify how many hours this would save you?

[1:09:42] You mean like the last two weeks or in general?

[1:09:47] Yeah, it would, you know, I think more than anything, it's just the timing to make sure that everything like is going out as it should.

[1:09:53] Because you can like set everything up to automatically generate.

[1:09:57] And so there's value in that where right now I kind of have a spreadsheet with like everybody and then there's just no way I can stay on top of it realistically.

[1:10:07] I'm sorry Chris, what do you need access to to do the test?

[1:10:13] Just your backflow prevent it's it's typically out near the street.

[1:10:18] Okay, so typically, but I'm going to find, I've been called out and they've been in

[1:10:25] people's crawl spaces, which is against the code, so I've had to say, hey, you've got

[1:10:30] to move it outside that kind of stuff.

[1:10:33] So there's no telling what I'm going to find moving forward as we start to implement this

[1:10:37] more and more.

[1:10:38] So when were these construction year, when were these put in?

[1:10:44] Your irrigation system was put in so they could have been as recent as this year as in a new construction.

[1:10:53] Well, I guess what I was saying, were they doing this 20 years ago?

[1:10:57] They were required 20 years ago.

[1:10:59] Okay.

[1:11:01] I just signed up for it so easy and I did the annual election.

[1:11:04] Did you do it on the forum on the website?

[1:11:06] Yes.

[1:11:07] Does that interface with Polaris?

[1:11:09] No, but it comes to me so I get the e-mail.

[1:11:11] I just figured out how to do the forms.

[1:11:13] So that's kind of something that Nathan was saying we have to do now is get forms on

[1:11:17] our website.

[1:11:18] I'm not sure I can get all of our forms, but there's a couple of them which is like

[1:11:21] snow cloud violations in this backflow preventer.

[1:11:25] That this way it'll come to me and then I can at least get it start getting scheduled and

[1:11:30] I'm trying to get a system going, but I'm just struggling a little bit with it.

[1:11:34] So I'm hoping to get this to kind of boost it and help me keep it really going.

[1:11:40] one more thing, Dave. I also need your water on, so don't think I'm going to show up next week to do it.

[1:11:50] Scott, if you just signed up on a, until you turn your sprinkler system on, I can't test it.

[1:11:55] Because it's a pressurized vehicle.

[1:12:00] Okay. Good, now just a discussion.

[1:12:03] So if you guys are good with it, then I can be forward with a contract or at least kind of keep the ball rolling to move forward.

[1:12:13] I would love to get your temperature on it.

[1:12:16] I think it's cool to do it.

[1:12:18] Thank you.

[1:12:21] Thanks for having me.

[1:12:22] It takes us to second public comments.

[1:12:34] I guess I probably out of leave. I've got three grandkids at home that are waiting for me.

[1:12:39] I just want to thank you very much for all you do. I know exactly what it's like.

[1:12:48] Thank you for your privacy.

[1:12:50] And I have a very good friend of Chris, so anytime you want to get something to me, you can go through them.

[1:12:59] Thank you.

[1:13:01] Good evening.

[1:13:02] Thank you.

[1:13:04] Thank you.

[1:13:05] Thank you.

[1:13:06] Thank you.

[1:13:07] Thank you.

[1:13:09] Okay.

[1:13:09] So that's access to both.

[1:13:12] Yeah, session.

[1:13:14] I motion to move in a closed session to discuss the character professional competence

[1:13:18] or physical or mental health of an individual pending or reasonably diminishing legislation

[1:13:22] and or the sale or purchase of real property percent.

[1:13:25] Can you talk about it 5-2-4-2-4-2-4-2-5, do I have a second?

[1:13:31] Second.

[1:13:33] Okay.

[1:13:34] Do you want me to come back in?

[1:13:37] So this is Joe or water. Oh, I think you want to talk about Joe's hair to talk about the bond, the bond stuff.

[1:13:48] Yeah, yeah, I was just taking the other part, but yeah, yeah. Okay, so this is auto. Who's this? I don't know who this is.

[1:14:14] I can just take them off.

[1:14:22] I've never done that before.

[1:14:24] That's mean.

[1:14:25] Okay.

[1:14:26] I took off the person that didn't identify themselves.

[1:14:29] So we're just going to take them off.

[1:14:30] And we're going to end this recording.

[1:14:33] Did she just end this recording?

[1:14:40] Stop recording.

Audio, 17 March 2026 Service Area 3 Public Board Meeting

Transcript