Cc - Regular Meeting

Well, welcome this evening. It is six o'clock and so we will go ahead and get started with our regularly scheduled city council meeting this March 19th, 2026. We're happy to see folks here. We're I don't know if I'm grateful for the warmer weather. I Okay, I would be grateful for warm weather. I'm not grateful for the hot weather that is coming. So that let me let me make that correction. Uh we're happy and grateful to have Pastor Kirk Probasco. Did I say that right? Uh from the Community Presbyterian Church. He is going to offer a thought reading or an invocation tonight. Following that, uh I will lead us in the pledge of allegiance. Kirk, if you'll come to the podium. Let us pray. Spirit of wisdom and compassion, we gather together today as one community, neighbors with different stories, different hopes, different ways of naming what is sacred. Yet we share this moment, this place, this time. And also we share the responsibility and the desire to seek the good of all. But we ask God in this hour that you would quiet our assumptions about each other and sharpening our listening of each other. Help us speak with respect and act with integrity. And remember, help us to remember right now that every voice in this room belongs to someone who loves Brigham City. May these decisions be guided by fairness and disagreements shaped by humility and our common life strengthened by the courage to care for one another. The courage to care for one another. Grant us the grace to work not as separate groups but as one people committed to this community to committed

to the flourishing of our whole community. Amen.

Amen. Thank you, pastor. If you'll please rise and join me in the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you, pastor. Thank you. I uh apologize if anyone noticed. I opened my eyes because you mentioned something in your prayer that I really appreciated. And I'm going to try and remember, quiet our assumptions of each other. Thank you, pastor. That I think that's more for me than maybe anybody else, but I sure appreciate you mentioning that. Thank you so much. Council, we have a Ouch. Five. By the way, if you put the cap on this way and then try and pound the cap on, it kind of hurts. We have five items uh or four four items on the consent tonight and would appreciate a motion to uh to approve consent.

Second. We have a motion by council member. Sorry, my hand is hurting this time. And a second by council member Jensen. Bless his heart. Do we It's gonna be one of those nights tonight. Started. I know it's true. Do we have any clarifications or questions on those consent items, council, before we go to a motion to a vote? All right. All those in favor? I.

Any opposed? Thank you. I failed to mention, I just realized to excuse Council Member Smith who wasn't able to make it uh and be here with us tonight. Uh, one of the things I would like to mention on the consent though is we are appointing two new members of our Bringham City Planning Commission. One is in attendance tonight, Miss Rachel Ecman. We appreciate Oh, we got two. That's right. I didn't see you, Jake. Uh, and Jake Barker who, uh, have volunte Well, who have accepted the invitation to be appointed to the planning commission. We appreciate you guys wanting and having the ability to serve our community. Thank you so much. We will move on. We have four public hearings tonight. And just as a p What's that? Yes, I just on the consent. Yeah. Nope, you're good. Um, when we have public hearings, they've been noted as a public hearing and the item. Once the public hearing, we'll have four individual opening and closings of these public hearings. Once uh we close each of these public hearings, the council is then authorized, if they would like to, to have an action on those items that we've just had a public hearing on. And so I just wanted to make sure that we understood that as a council and as the public watching. So let's start with our first public hearing tonight, which is the consideration of an ordinance approving the annexation of 5.59 acres located approximately SR13 and 2400 West into the Brigham City Corporate Limits. And we'll invite Mr. Mark Bradley to present. and council. Oops. Mayor and council. Let me just uh get

the slideshow then we'll go through here. Okay. The first one and there and and later on the agenda is an action item that would follow your consideration with the zoning. Here is the area that the mayor has mentioned outlined in yellow and as part of an annexation it extends the the city limits and so it would include the SR13 state route 13 and the Union Pacific Railroad rightway as well as 2400 West and so that area includes that 5.59 acres. It's really pretty straightforward as far as the it's one parcel and roadway and right away for railroad. This we'll discuss later, but it kind of shows where it's at on the zoning map and the general plan map. And then I'll go back to the annexation. Thank you. Council, do you have any questions on this uh before we open up this public hearing for Mr. Bradley? If you don't, we would appreciate a a motion to open a public hearing specific to this annexation. Any one of the four motion to approve

opening public hearing. We have a motion to open a public hearing to consider the ordinance approving the annexation of 5.59 acres on SR13 2400 West by Council Member Troxel. Do we have a second? Second. We have a second by Council Member Hip. We roll call into public hearings. No, I get confused. Um, all right. All those in favor?

I. Any opposed? Doesn't appear so. Thank you. We are now in a public hearing specific to this uh item and we invite those that would like to publicly comment in this public hearing. Please uh step to the uh um po the podium there. We uh would love to hear from you for three minutes. Public hearing is uh for those that live in Brigham City, own property in Brigham City, can vote and run for public office in Brigham City. Any that would like to make any public comment, uh we'd love to hear from you now. Council, seeing as though there doesn't appear to be any public hearing public comment in this hearing on this item, we would uh enjoy we would ask you to close this public. We close public hearing. We have a motion to close public hearing by council member Jensen. Do we have a second?

Second. Second by council member Jeff. All those in favor? I. Thank you. Motion passes. At this time, council, we can make an action uh motion on the public hearing that just took place. Mayor, I move that we amend the zoning map of Bron City uh to assign a zoning district. Hold on. Number one, Matt. I was reading number one. I don't think that's zoning. The the annexation is what we're doing. Public hearing. Public hearing. Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah, you were right. Yeah. If you'll if you'll make your motion uh specific to the Well, no. No, I don't want to. Okay. And that's fair. I apologize.

Isn't that action item number one? The wording right there. The 2400 West and Well, if you if you would if you'd like to wait until we have the second public hearing. Can we combine those two? I think we need to have two separate. Yeah. You need to take two separate motives. Yeah. So, we need Thank you for that clarification, council member. you. So, it' be specific to the annexation is what the motion would be. All right. I move we approve the annexation of the 5.59 acres as discussed. All right. Thank you. We have a motion by council member Jensen. Do we have a second? Second. Second by council member Jeff. Uh this will be a roll call vote. We'll start with council member and move to her left.

Robinson I an I. Jeff is an I. Matt and I. Thank you. Motion passes on the annexation. Next, we have a consideration of an or a public hearing for consideration of an ordinance approving the annexation of 495.17 acres located at approximately SR13 and 1200 West and the north side of the Brigham City Airport into the Brigham City corporate limits. Mr. Bradley.

All right. As you can see the exhibit on the the wall and on the monitor, the yellow highlighted are multiple parcels owned by Brigham City Corporation that is being considered to be annexed into the city limits. As we look, this is sideways on the annexation plat, but you can see there's several parcels again oriented back to the north direction here falls within the zoning. The zoning has color. The unincorporated area is the white area and and you can see the location on the general plan. We'll come back to this on under action items, but uh this is 495 acres of land that would be incorporated into the city limits. Thank you. Council, do you have any questions? Before you motion to move into public hearing, I would just like to uh publicly note that uh currently there are uh state statutes uh to uh allow annexation of property owners that don't want to annex, but tonight we're hearing from property owners that want and have initiated that annexation process.

Did I hear correctly that currently Brigham City only? Yeah, this is all city property. Yes, we're asking oursel and we have initiated the the uh application. Yes. Yeah.

I didn't know the north end of the runway wasn't in the corporate limits of the city until we went through this process. So, yep. Okay. That parcel when we did the runway extension was never annex in the city. I'm not sure why. All right. We would ask for a motion to open a public hearing specific to the annexation of the 495.17 acres. Moved. We have a motion by council member Hip. Do we have a second? Second. Second by council member Troxel. All those in favor? I.

Thank you. We now are open for public comment specific to this public hearing of the annexation of the 495.17 acres located on the north end of Brigham City. We invite those who would like to comment to please come to the podium. Council, seeing as though there is no public comment on this public hearing, we would ask for a motion to close public hearing. So moved. Council member I heard a snake next to me. I knew someone was coming. Council member Hip with a motion to close public hearing. Do we have a second? Second. Second by council member Jeff. Thank you. Uh all those in favor? I.

Thank you. It's uh P motion passes. Now, we would uh uh are welcome to make an action approving or disproving the annexation because it's up to council there, the legislative body, but a an action on this public hearing. Mayor, I'd move that we move forward with the consideration of an ordinance approving the annexation of the 495.17 acres located approximately SR31 and 1200 West, the north side of Brigham City Airport. into Brigham City or bringing it into Brigham City corporate limit. Thank you. We have a motion by council member Hip. Do we have a second to

open public hearing? No. To approve the annexation of the 495.17 acres as proposed. And we have a second by council member Jeff. Did I hear? Was that number two?

Yeah, he read two. Number three is a general plan. Mhm. Um, all right. We have a motion. Did we get both a motion and a second on that? Christina, did you get that noted? All right. This will be a roll call vote. Once again, we'll start with Council Member Choxville and move to her left. Robin I Matt I

thank you motion passes now we get to assign a zoning so we will uh hear from Mr. Bradley as he presents uh uh consideration of an ordinance amending the Brigham City general plan. Future land use maps change the land use designation from office light industrial to low density residential and medium density residential on approximately 74 acres located between SR13 and 1500 North between 1,000 West and Union Pacific Railroad. This is a different property, Mr. Bradley and I think that I may have worded it in a way incorrectly that it might have been the same properties we're talking about.

Yeah. Yeah. They're just all in that general area off of SR13 with three applications tonight. So, all right. As we move into the site, here is the the general plan future land use map. You can see the right in the center the proposed location with the black box. It's a pretty good chunk of air land along there just on the west side of the railroad. Here is a little enlargement to show that location. And we have Clark here uh representing Steuart Land Company that are the applicants and and he could address any questions that you have as well. But you can see that the twothirds north area they're proposing the low density residential and then the southside a medium density residential. The purple color is is obviously the existing land use on the map. Not it's not annexed in yet, but it's on our future land use as office light industrial. It's been designated that way for quite a number of years, but you can see uh again the location and what's being proposed. Um with that said, here's the parcel map. Uh you the the planning commission held a public hearing and their recommendation was a 5 to one vote. Uh there there were a number of concerns expressed u just how the the area is isolated from the other community with SR13 the railroad and then the challenges of of 1500 north. And so those are some things that would need to be addressed uh if this was to be accepted with the change to move. And so that one vote that nay vote was because of those concerns. Um with that here again is is the area on the and then they also provided just a general concept plan on how it could be

developed. it north is oriented to your right and so the lighter color is the single family lots the R18 R110 as you get into the the yellow area you do have an R16 uh so the smaller lots like beaten path and then along SR13 again it's concept plan so this is nothing that would be approved with your consideration but it's what they're showing how it could be developed and then they would have town homes so it' be a transition from from SR13 with town homes to smaller lots R16 to R18 to R110 kind of a the different size of lots again that's what uh they are showing with the concept here to give you an idea that that number of units again we're not approving the units but just to give you an idea I mean they're roughly around 300 overall housing units on that property all right so we go back I'll just go to the map so you have that in front of you. Um any any questions for myself or like I say Clark is here to represent the applicant.

Do you have any questions for Mr. Bradley? Just to retouch this is about a zoning change. The this is just a general plan amendment. General plan amendment. Right. Yeah. This it's not in the corporate limits of the city yet. So we can't do any zoning on it. Yeah. That will happen later. Yeah. So if you look the the red dashed line is the existing boundary of the city and so it does abut some of the the boundary right now.

That's one thing that's to this zoning change. There's going to be a lot of questions about the element of that. So let let's just remind you. So there's it's not a zone change, but it is a land use consideration that would initially uh provide for that zone change for that zone assignment. So the first step, the applicant is trying to change the general plan for the use prior to filing annexation because what just like the other two applications, once you get an application for annexation, you need to assign a zone and they're interested in a residential district or districts. But if the council is not supportive of it, then they'll know not to annex. But if the council supported then they'll move forward with their next step with the annexation petition and the zoning and then after the zoning would come the development of the land. But it's it's to give an idea of what they have in mind with those land use designations. That makes sense. If the land use or the zoning is approved, what type of um access or roads would be required for something like that for a medium density residential? The concerns in planning commission were like access and and

yeah, their main concerns is just kind of the isolation nature of the site. I think they're very supportive of a large um favorable area for housing, but just the challenge of of how that would connect with your north 40 with your other I mean you you kind of have it. Let me see if my arrow will show up a little bit. I mean, we do have a little gap between the railroad and North 40. So, we have city standards for both of those zonings. You can look right to the right of this to kind of to see how those roads laid out

going to be the the the the widths. We already have city standards on how that is applied within that zone is going to come back if you choose to to change the general plan and that all will come back as far as layout and then you'll be able to see the design of the roads then. So the question tonight is is do we re do we change the general plan to reflect what they're asking? That's the question before us tonight. So, the access to that right now is only across 1500 North where it goes up and over the railroad tracks right there and on a thousand west coming off of SR13.

Okay. Like I was saying in the beginning to say, yeah, we can support the change. We can give people false hope so all we want, but there's a there's going to be a lot of questions like kind of like what Robin's saying, there's that's a tough area. a spot not just I mean it's a small road and say it's you put 300 units there that's kind of there's a lotion done the developer will be required to build it to the standard requirements that and with any other residential development in the city

I realize that but it's it's just a lot a lot Well, is is there a general plan for residency um and not se and not separating the medium density with the low density? Yeah, it's council it be more of just residential just plain residential something like that that that would happen with the assignment of the zone. So Mark is showing you conceptual ideas here. The general plan, would it be in their medium density?

It it would. And if council's uncomfortable with that, wants to go low density on the whole thing, you have the ability to do that. Um, you could change the whole thing to medium density, change the whole thing to high density. I think that obviously the I think the main thing to stick to today is is the C council comfortable changing this from light manufacturing industrial to residential. It this has been that obviously not zoned to make sure we don't get that confused. This has been on the general plan for future land use for manufacturing light industrial

for more years than probably me and Mark have worked at the city combined. So it's it's been that way for a long long time. And I think, you know, if you've read your package, you got a ton of staff comments. A lot of the concerns. I think, you know, with the development, those things have been hashed out with the developer and the staff and and they'll continue to be as this moves forward. But I also look past that and and knowing that once you we move forward, I would say we move forward all the way to the end that this gets done. There's no way you're going to tell me that's going to be the last project we've done there. Once you start one years later, someone's going to add another a whole another development next to it. So, so you if we want to talk about this, it's great. I also know it's going to add later years down the road, someone's going to do the same thing. That's just how development goes.

So, the question before you council is do do you want to change the designation from light office industrial to this or to deny the application? So, where does this push our our light industrial then? It's pushing it further out west. Well, it's not really I know it's not pushing it, but but it's moving moving it. We've had it there for years. Um, yeah. So, obviously Light Industrial wouldn't be able to go there if we reszoneed it yet, right? That but it also is adjacent to current residential across the track. Yeah. The other side to to your point that the growth that's all exactly

that's what we're seeing and that's what the continuation but and currently is not being utilized that that particular section for light office. We all know this. So the owner is looking to if it's possible the whole state's always know the state needs more don't know developers the new owner mayor would you like and council would you like to hear from the applicant or

No it's just a public hearing I think we're okay Mark that's a that's what is before us now is just to open a public hearing and these are all good questions be considered during the public hearing if there's comments and then you can uh after and have more discussion before an action is taken and and ask more questions from Mr. Bradley. And if you'd like to hear from the developer after the public hearing, then we'll invite if council would like to invite them up. We'll we'll get them do that. So if you don't have any more questions before we open the public hearing, Mr. Bradley, we'd entertain a motion to open this public hearing. DJ,

I just want to share one more thing. We as city staff were sitting down over the last month talking about our current general plan and obviously the council is very aware we barely finished it and I I think you're all aware that we've got a massive residential development for our city that's you know through certain phases of entitlement and moving forward. But it it came to us that post that development that's all under contract and and being entitled. We do not have another single acre of single family dwellings in our entire general plan. So just making the council aware. I'm not trying to, you know, I'm just I'm just stating a fact that with the exception of that Aven Shores development, we do not have another single acre of single family dwelling in the entire city in a general plan.

Okay. Motion to open public hearing. We have a motion to open a public hearing. We have by Council Member Tots, second by Council Member Jensen. All those in favor? I

thank you. Motion passes. We are now in a public hearing for the ordinance to amend the Brigham City general general plan future land use map to change the land use designation from office light industrial to low density uh between SR13 and 1500 North between 1000 West and Union Pacific Railroad. We invite those who would like to comment. I'm talking fast. I apologize. Uh to please come to the podium and we'd love to hear from you for up to three minutes. Council, seeing as though nobody is twitching, we will ask for a motion to close public hearing.

Move to second. We have a motion by council member Jeff to close, seconded by council member Jensen. All those in favor? I. Any opposed? Thank you. Now, council, if you'd like to hear from Mr. Bradley some more or the development owner. Uh we would entertain with that request. You make the request though of what you'd like to do. Otherwise, we can move into an action. It's up to you. If the developer wants to share something, I'm fine with that. Okay. Is it I don't have questions, but if he wants to say something that that would have come in the public hearing. So, if you've got specific questions for the developer, that's what I would ask him to come. You want to say something that would have come up in the public hearing, Matt?

You have specific questions to the developer that you'd like to ask? I have a question. All right. We have the those have him come up. Yeah. Come up to the podium.

Hey everybody. Thank you guys for joining tonight. I'm Clark Conway. I'm with Steuart Land Company. Uh we're a land development firm that specializes in residential specifically. Um here in Odin we have projects throughout weaver and box alder county um Harry Pleasant View hopefully Breedom City Oden North Oden all the different municipalities appreciate you guys sharing our our application um our our intent currently with concept plan like you saw is to have a flow through of different residential types. Um it's a very big parcel or conglomerate of parcels of 74 acres. Um currently the concept plan shows uh just over 300 units which comes out to a net density of roughly four units per acre. Um the majority being single family lots. Um we actually did come to the city staff um on a preliminary basis for a preapp a while back and had some industrial in the area um showing kind of where the town homes are now. Um received feedback that it wasn't um necessarily um in the future eyes of the city. Uh we listened to that um and thought that we could put town homes on that SR SR13 to kind of buffer what is a U dot road and what is a substantial grade change as well. It's roughly 10 to 12 feet you drive past there um up a burm to this site. Um we think that buffers well on SR13 and also a small existing storage facility um to the west. If this state office light industrial an application were to go through on that, I would expect something similar could go there or a light manufacturing type warehouse. Uh we personally when we looked at this site didn't think that was a great um blend for the city and of course we pride ourselves um on supporting the housing needs of Utah families which is why our company exists. So, um, the issues that did come up in planning

commission to be totally transparent with you guys were were namely the railroad there, um, at the intersection of 1500 North as well as the UD do access point that exists now. Um, we think with our development, it's a good opportunity to improve that railroad crossing. Um, we know the issues that have happened at that crossing and feel that we're frankly the best way to help solve that. Um the UD do access will present its own challenges as working with UD do. Um we're not new to that game and are comfortable working with them. Um ultimately we we think this solves housing needs for the city and the state. Um we like to focus at the city level and we think it provides a pretty diverse array of housing options. Happy to hear any questions that you guys may have.

Council member H mentioned. Yeah. So I saw you had low density and medium density as proposal but also got the impression that could be negotiated. I think there is a a number of people who want to see more of the low density

housing. Yeah. And so just asking is that a possibility that that could be considered as all low density opposed to looks like it's about three quarters off from the viewing here low density. Yeah, it's certainly a possibility. So, uh, in with the medium density residential, uh, future land use map designation that allows for an R16, um, or either R17 or R7, which is a town homes at 7 acres unit. Um, so it's possible that all the lots there would go to an R16. And the low density, I believe that's an R18, an R110. Um, it'd be possible to extend that down. Um again because of the presence of UD do road that grade change and the small commercial shop we feel that town homes fit better there personally um we're open to hearing feedback on that certainly um we want this project to support housing needs either way um but we feel like it's a great area for park too you can see on the concept plan but again the concept plan like you rightfully mentioned is certainly open for discussions changes um it's just this kind of change from a darker yellow to a lighter yellow that is uh part of the request that we have to put in at this stage. Thank you. Time frame would look like um time frame would obviously be dependent on city entitlements. Um it would be great to break ground this year. I do think the railroad and the UD do access points present a timing challenge in a way. Um it would be awesome to break ground this year at some point. Um, obviously there's a lot of things that go into reviewing construction drawings, plaids on development this size. Um, that that would be our goal. Um, Ben Asel here, he's part of the property owner group

here. Um, it's in his best interest to close this year as well. So, our goal would be to get the entitlements done this year. Um, and allow him to move on as well. Um, that's our overall goal right now, but we're at the first entitlement of the of the game right now. Other questions, council? Thank you. Thank you all. Do you have any questions for clarification or anything for Mr. Bradley before we go to an action? Right. Not we would appreciate an action on this. I think it would probably be okay for me to mention that they're either accepting or nine. There was no modification. Not at this point. And this is for the change in the general So we um cannot call for the general risk without designating the medium and the low.

We have that design. What are the designations? I think what you're seeing the the medium density residential and R16. So that we could do 6,000 square foot single family dwellings like we've done it beaten path. Um and that obviously it would allow you know for more than that with the town homes. You heard the applicant talk about it. And maybe just to provide clarity to the council when they did bring this to the city of first time, essentially south of that black dotted line, they did show us leaving the zoning light industrial manu uh manufacturing office space.

Um honestly that that change was directly from the staff of feedback of the staff. We as staff didn't feel like those two being mixed across the street from the each other was a good idea. We had single family dwellings across the street from a manufacturing type facility. So the the feedback of that changed. It was um derived from feedback from staff to look at a full residential zone and we as staff were comfortable with a higher density up along that highway um as we have done just to the east of that already. So, but I mean that you know this council felt like yeah, we just didn't feel like it was a good idea to mix the residential in with manufacturing that right across the street And for my clarity, if we approve it down the road, we can adjust it 100%.

Yep. You you still have two items that will come to you on this. Following this, say paying on approval or denial, you'll get an annexation application. And with that annexation is a separate item that assigns a zone. And if if com council's uncomfortable with the zone at that point in time, then the zone can change if you know change however we want really. So,

well, I would make a motion for approval of an ordinance amending the Brigham City general plan future use map. Change the use designated from office light industrial to low density residential and medium density residential on approximately 74 acres located between State Route 13 and 1500 North and between 1000 West and Union Pacific. Hey, we have a motion by council member Hip. Do we have a second to that motion? Second. Sorry, who did that? Thank you. Second by council member Jeff Motorcycle. Sorry, I apologize.

This will be a roll call vote again. Again, we'll start with council member Troxel just because it's easier for for me to remember and move to her left. Robbins and I pass an I.

Thank you. Motion passes. Uh the last uh public hearing is consideration of an ordinance enacting Brigham City Code Title 5 consolidated fee schedule and repealing all ordinances, resolutions, policies, procedures enacting fees except that the ordinance enacting the current impact fee shall remain in place and the current impact fees chapter shall now be included in title five and renumbered. That's a good one. and we'll ask Mrs. Codddle, our city attorney, to present.

Thank you. I've been waiting for this day. I'm so excited. this uh was a really um exciting endeavor and really uh fun to put together and uh we do we did have so so just to clarify what we just talked about um title five is a new title to our city code and what we've done is basically just bring all the fees from all from all around all the various departments all the historical fees that have been put in place we didn't change those amounts we didn't change the fees we simply consult consolidated them into one document so that there will be ease of use. So now you can find those very easily. They're right on our right on our website all in one place. One place

one place. Now yeah the other thing that that does um besides great transparency and ease of use for our for our uh residents and citizens that also gives the opportunity for staff to know what they're working with. We did have um moments where we had a fee that might have been adopted by a resolution several years ago and we would have to go sort of find that fee and round it up to make sure we were in compliance. And so this will provide some efficiency and effectiveness as well for the staff. So we're very excited about this. I wanted to make clear on the record that we did not change any of the fees. You saw that the main portion has repealed all of the historic and as the mayor mentioned, we did not want to repeal the uh impact fee enactment. That's important to stay how it was because there there is a state law around that, but we just renumbered that and moved it all together so that all the fees are in one place. Um, uh, we also, I'm sorry, are adopting this with a public hearing. Although not all of these fees, in fact, most of these fees don't require a public hearing because a few of them do. We wanted to make sure we had a clean, nice, this is our this is our forever and a day time frame here. So, we know that all our fees are are properly adopted and effective and and u from this date on assuming that the council adopts this. And the second thing I would say is you'll note in the ordinance there was one sentence that talks about in between the time that you adopt tonight and assuming that you do that and we post I wanted to make it clear that the fees were still enacted during that time frame as well and this ordinance language does that and I'll answer any questions.

Any questions council for Mrs. Codle or Mr. Oiler turn his mic on. I think the only thing I was just going to quickly add is we are holding some adjustments um that need to be made. So, this is going to be back in front of you very soon. Just so the council's aware the entire fee schedule, but through the budget process, there are some that are going to be adjusted. Yeah, we're going to be back here in two weeks talking about power rates with this exact same ordinance. So, it'll just every time we make any fee adjustment, this ordinance will be in front of you every single time. Does that make sense?

We'll do it on that document. And we have talked about and and we'll try to implement that we do that um you know kind of in the in the standard form and in the standard time frame so that you're so you might see it often for the next few weeks while we get these things put together but then we'll kind of get on a a schedule and try to bring that to you in an appropriate um time frame and near near budget adoption time as necessary. The other thing I would say is this is a really heavy lift for the staff as well. each of the department heads. I had to rely very heavily on them and there were there was a lot of research and effort put forth by by them and by their staffs and um to get this ready for you and for the um public really big deal and took took a lot of time on their part. So I'm grateful for their help. question. Were all these feeds previously in code just through out or are some of these

great question now being coded?

And I knew I actually knew you were going to ask this. I love this because you I I had on my mind that that I need to address this and because you'll recall all of our other ordinance adoptions, I've had a matrix that says this came from section 38.001. So most of these fees were actually adopted by resolution and they included a big policy that went along with them. So they weren't codified in our in our ordinance. So they were properly adopted. They were adopted by resolution. They included a lot of um language but never published with our ordinances. So there was no need for the matrix um like you see in our other codes because because there were there were many many over many years that adopted these fees. And so we did go through that effort. The the um department heads went through that effort to collect all of that, but the matrix doesn't didn't work the same as the as the ordinance sections. Great question. I should have addressed that sooner. I'm sorry. Don't remember.

And like you said, nothing none of the amounts or line items were changed. No m. That's right. We just adopted straight across so we could get a good solid starting point. Y Motion to open public hearing considering the ordinance enacting Britain city code title 5 consolidated fee schedule. Thank you. We have a motion by council member Troxell and a second by council member Jensen. All those in favor to move into public hearing.

I Okay, you probably said I just All right. Uh motion passes. We are now in the public hearing specific to the consideration of enacting Brigham City Code Title 5. Those that would like to make public comment to that, if you please come to the podium, state your name and where you live, and we'd love to hear from you for up to three minutes. Council, seeing as though we don't have any public comments, we would entertain a motion to close public hearing. So moved. We have a motion by council member Jeff. Do we have a second? Second. Second by council member Hip. All those in favor? I.

Thank you. Motion passes. Now we can take an action on this public hearing. A motion to approve ordinance enacting bring city code title 5 consolidated fee schedule and repealing all ordinances, resolutions, policies, and procedures enacting fees except for the ordinance enacting the current impact fee remain in place and current impact fees after now be included in title five and renumbered.

Thank you. Mo, we have a motion by council member Troxel. Do we have a second? Second. Second by council member Hip. We will go roll call again and if it's okay, council member Troxel, we'll start with you and go to your left. an I repres.

Thank you. Motion passes. We now uh and I appreciate Thank you for uh your your patience. We will now move into public comments, which there may or may not be any, but this is where you can public comment on anything you'd like. We uh do reserve this to uh citizens of Brigham City that uh live and own property, can vote, or uh run for public office within Brigham City. Uh we invite you to come to the podium. Please state your name and where you live for the public record. We'd love to hear from you for for up to three minutes. Council, we will move on seeing as though there is no public comment to council member comments. If there are any, we'll start with council member Jensen and move to his right. I was just excited with the caucuses that we recently had to see how people get out and participate their local government.

That was nice. Thought that was great. All ahead. Okay. Thank you, Council Member Jeffrey. Uh just a reminder for those who those who don't know is tomorrow is a big day in the city with the ribbon cutting of the Biller County Community Campus for the Boys and Girls Club tomorrow. So, it's a big project for this community and this county. So, I encourage you all if you have a moment to stop by and attend. Thank you. At 1 p.m. is that it begins at 1 p.m. Uh, I would look it up on the website. I think I want to give people the wrong time because there's different things going on.

I've got 1 to two and then there's a there's a lunch before from 12 to 1, but the ribbon cutting is actually one one to two. Yep. There'll be some guest appearances. I will not divulge who that will be. Oh, they all know it's me. It's fine. He's kind of He is kind of fuzzy. All right. It's not DJ council member. Yeah. I just uh would say I had an opportunity to go up with the youth city council. Mayor had checked with me. He was not going to be able there. So, I made the appropriate regrets on his behalf. and they were moved that they were really sad that you weren't there. They do they do love you and what you what you bring to the table.

That's nice of them. But it's also great to see the young people out there and and see how they represent our community amongst other communities. It's a great bunch. So, I appreciate the opportunity. Thank you, Council Member Choxel.

Had the opportunity to attend um quite a few advisory board meetings this week. Um the leader meeting through the Department of Health. Um it's a coalition that works with the prevention services and with our youth around the area. Um they wanted me to announce the their part in the freedom 250 is um the discover. If you go to Freedom 250 BC, it's where families can um go online and they have like different types of activities you can do to earn prizes throughout the city and they're going to um revolve it around um 250 items. And to celebrate that, um the library board meeting, we had the opportunity for Tom Carter to come in and um kind of go through with the board on the new budgeting processes that um the library is now part of with the change in the tax. And I think that Tom did a fabulous job at having the board understand the processes that are necessary for that. um our library um wanted to announce that um there's been a lot of since there's been a lot of discussion around the new SMRS and the nuclear stuff that her um they have resourced a number of books um that people can um reserve and look more into the details of the new next generation SMRs. Um, I attended CADSA today, the Coalition Against Domestic Violence, and we had the great opportunity to have RAW, um, Restoring Ancestral Winds,

which is the Native American domestic violence group from Salt Lake, come in and talk about the programs that are available throughout the whole state um for um, all Native American citizens um, throughout the state surrounding being domestic violence and I and it was culturally um appropriate and offering um help with new c new hope crisis and to partner with them. And then the Utah State Advisory Board meeting today looking at um getting the word out on our our new um president of Utah State and looking into some more opportunities to recruit um students and to expand programs. wanted them they wanted me to announce that tomorrow there's a watch party at Utah State between USU and Villanova at 2:30. Pizza, treats, drinks if you want to go down and participate in that. And then yeah, Boys and Girls Club opening tomorrow at 1. Great opportunity for the community to see how all a lot of these um organizations work together. Thank you. Uh I appreciate uh Council Member Hip covering for me. I was going to go up with you, not so much for you, but I appreciate you going up without me and allowed me to attend our fireman's award banquet. Was a lot of fun and unscripted and which made it even funner. But I appreciate spending the evening with them. They're a great bunch of guys and I appreciate our chiefs. Um we will move on to our action items and our first one is an ordinance uh

consideration of an ordinance amending the Brigham City zoning map. This is going to correspond with a couple things to assign a zoning district to the land associated with an annexation petition located at the northeast corner of the intersection of 2400 West and SR13. Mr. Bradley if this will wake up after. Okay, on this one here it's just straightforward. It's uh it's adjacent to the R to the GC district, excuse me. Getting back here to the one on 2400 West SR13 planning commission recommended approval 30 on that vote uh with their recommendation to the council. Uh what takes place is after the council accepts the petition. Then the planning commission will hold a public hearing and get that ready for you tonight. So anyway, that's that's really it. Just to let you know, they recommend the GC general commercial district on that corner.

Council, do you have any questions? If not, we would uh love to have an a motion.

So, this is zoning for the annexation that we did in in public hearing number one. Okay. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion to approve the ordinance amending the Brigham City zoning map to assign a zoning district of land associated with an annexation petition located on the northeast corner of the intersection of 2400 West State Route. We have a motion by council member Hip. Do we have a second? Second.

Second by council member Jeff. I'm sorry, Jensen. Uh we will have a roll call vote on this. We'll move we'll start with council member Jensen now and move to his right. Jensen's and I. Robins and I. Thank you. Motion passes. Move on to our second action item which is a consideration of an ordinance amending the Brigham City zoning map. uh additionally to assign zoning districts to land associated with an annex position petition located approximately 1200 west and 13 SR13 and the north side of the bridge city airport Mr. Bradley.

All right. So this one actually consists of two different zones, the MD industrial district and a agricultural. And so you'll see on the general plan on your right how that is consistent with the general plan for those agricultural zoning districts and the industrial is consistent with the zoning for the airport and those properties along SR13 and the planning commission recommends approval. Okay.

Thank you. Council, do you have any questions for Mr. Bradley not or you're satisfied. We would appreciate a motion. Motion to approve the ordinance amending the Britain city zoning map to zoning district to land associated with an annexation petition located at approximately 1200 West and SR13 on the north side of the Brig City airport. Thank you. We have a motion by council member Choxle. Do we have a second? Second by hip and Jensen. They're so excited.

And this will again be a roll call vote. We'll start again with Mr. Jensen. Move to his right. M I Dave I. Robins and I.

Thank you. Motion passes. Our final action item tonight is the approval of a resolution authorizing Brigham City to enter into interlocal agreements for mutual aid with North View, Weaver, Tree Mountain, Ogden, and Garden Fire Departments. Invite Mr. Oiler to present. Thanks, Mayor. So, just real quick, interlocal agreements are it's required by state code that our council approves those in public meeting. Um but Sison's been very busy doing a really good job um badgering and getting the uh these agreements put together. Nicole's been reviewing them, but um this is simply just updates for some and new for others um to have some full-time departments available to come and assist our uh fire department when when we have um the need. Uh about two and a half weeks ago, we had a structure fired out at the Bear River Bird Refuge and North View Fire Department come and assisted us on that. Appreciate their help. Very professional, full-time department showed up in really good times there to to be there to help us. So, um these are essentially mirror images of each other with all of these jurisdictions and it's updates to some and obviously new for the two departments in Weaver County. So, any questions for me? Chief Wilson's here if there's any specific questions but council any questions and if you're satisfied

can you clarify what north view northview is in Weber County in Weber County. Yep. They're right on the very north end of Weber County but bucks right up to county. Yep. Takes care of Pleasant View and uh I can't remember it specific boundaries. Mark just ran into the door. It's because it's so hot in here. Mark, I can't even breathe. So, okay. Fine. He's fine. Okay. It's magical.

Um, yeah, just the the specific boundaries of Northview, I'm not 100% sure, but it it does a buck right up to the north side of us on the or north end of Weaver County, south end of Boxelder. Okay, these are not automatic. These are Hey, when we need help, Chief Sen gets on a radio and says give me some help. So, when you're ready, we should appreciate a motion and action. Maybe I will add they are reciprocal. We will be assisting these other jurisdictions and they need help. So, Again, it's a it's an agreement. It's not there's no cost that's incurred on either parties. It's an agreement to mutual aid societies. Yep.

Promisary. Yep. Well, I would make a motion for approval of the resolution authorizing Brigham City to enter into the interlocal agreement for mutual aid with North View, Weaver, Pontton, Ogden, and Garland Fire Departments. Okay, we have a motion by council member Hip. Do we have a second? Second. Second by council member Jeff. We will do another roll call vote for this resolution and that will start with Mr. Jensen and move to his right. That's an I. Jeff I. Robin I.

Thank you. Motion passes. We'll move to our single discussion item which is electric rate study updates. Uh we have Mr. Berg on the line and we will ask him and Derek and possibly Tom if called upon to help present. And this is going to be exciting. Take it away, Mr. Berg. It's good to see you again. Oh, it's going to be exciting. He happens to be down in St. George. He's in town, but in state, not in town. So, he was out down there and was lucky enough to have him zoom in. Well, good evening. So, I'm going to try to do a share screen here.

Okay. Can everybody see the title page of the presentation? Yes, sir. All right. Very good.

Okay. So, uh we talked uh not too long ago and I'm providing an update and some a little bit of recommendations, not completely final rate recommendations, but some recommendations um this evening to you and looking for maybe a little bit of feedback from the council here. So looking at the utility, here's some important considerations. One is we're assuming in the analysis some pretty aggressive um sales growth and and a lot of it well there's actually you've got kind of growth across the boards. You've got some significant uh new industry that you're you know contemplating coming into town. Also a fair amount of residential growth. And so those will be important considerations and and we'll I'll I'll refer back to that specifically in a minute when I look at operating results. But um but most utilities are not seeing the kind of growth that that you're looking at seeing over the next about four years. But what comes with that growth then is the assumption of needing to do some significant capital improvements because some of that growth is is fairly large. And so we've got some some fairly significant capital improvements and obviously uh growth will generate additional revenues, but you know large capital improvements also require money to to pay for them. Um, right now there there was a bond issue a while back and there's still we're we're under the assumption that there's 13.9 million of those funds that are still available. And so we're going to be utilizing those uh relative to helping pay for some of the upcoming capital. We've also assumed in the analysis because of the level of of of capital

and what we're seeing happening in the analysis is we're assuming an additional $15 million of debt to be issued by the electric utility in fiscal 28 which of course starts in July of 27. Also from an operating perspective with with the growth in sales and the growth in facilities, we've also uh have the assumption of the addition of an additional uh line crew to also be added in fiscal 28, which obviously would increase your uh your O andM expenses. And there's also within the capital improvements, there's a an additional truck uh built into the capital improvements for that line crew. And also because of the way that you handle with new load, we've got some sizable new uh impact fees that we're assuming comes in with that new load. So, we're going to be discussing then the capital improvements. We're going to be looking at the operating results under the assumption that existing rates don't change. It's important to look at that to to get an indication of what revenue needs we might have relative to making adjustments in the rates. What's ultimately more important really then is also looking at what happens to the reserve levels because that's where the capital improvements are done. That's where uh the principal payments on debt are showing and other items. And we'll go through those line items specifically. We're also going to talk about the cost of service um sort of a fairness um kind of issue amongst looking at the different classes of customers and then we're going to talk about some rate design um issues uh to think about going forward and I'm looking ultimately

potentially for some rate guidance from from you folks. So looking at the capital improvements and if you look down here at the bottom in particular for fiscal 26 which is you know we're well into there's about 15 million. In 28 there's almost 13 million and in 2030 there's over 15 million. A couple of the big ones are well it's the substations. There's the new core sub, the inner mountain sub, and then the Vcraft sub. So, those three are are a big bulk of the of the rather significant um capital improvements. But then that substation capacity is necessary to serve all of that new load that we talked about. I mentioned if you look down here on the miscellaneous line item, you'll notice that it's 500,000 every year except for 2028. There's 800,000. That's the additional equipment to support that new line crew is the 300,000 of of increment in the capital improvements in that year. So when we look at the operating results under the existing rates when you look at operating revenues you'll see that we basically have about 23.5 million the projection for fiscal 26 which is almost done going up to um you know over 38.5 million by 2030. So you can see a big driver in that is the growth in sales because again this analysis is done at existing rates. And so there's a there's a you know a significant amount of uh increased revenue associated with the increased sales. And we look at at what basically

happens in our our change in net position. and you know we've got relatively strong showing for 26 but then you know diminishes and goes negative and and and along with the low growth kind of starts to come up but essentially you know if you look at the the sum of 27 through 30 um it's a fairly good size negative number summing up those four years combined which in and of itself is an indication of the need for additional revenue. But then more importantly when we look at what happens with cash reserves. So we started this fiscal year with about 8.5 million. We add in the change in net position. You've got some existing debt principle. And so these payments are existing bonds that you're paying debt on. I mentioned that 13.9 million of existing bond funds from previously issued debt that's still available. We add in depreciation. That's a non-cash expense that's in the operating results. So those are funds that are available. Then we've got these I mentioned the fairly sizable impact fees um that we've got coming in due to certain of the growth where the basically the developers or the customers are paying uh a portion of infrastructure. Uh there's a small grant um that is expected. I mentioned the new debt issuance in 2028. This would be the amount of funds available from that. Then we've got new principal payments associated with the new debt that are in addition to the existing principal payments up above. And then of course we've got those capital improvements uh as it starts to um you know with the the sign significant numbers every other

year. So essentially what happens then is our cash reserves go from about 8.5 million down to about 4 million. Now you have a reserve goal of having your reserves be 50% of your operating expenses. And that's this line here. You can see that it's at 58% but then it starts to diminish and by 2030 we're at only 11% of operating expenses in reserves. And you'll also see because of increasing particularly wholesale power but other increasing expenses, you know, that reserve goal goes from just under 11 million up to almost 18 million by the end of the period. And so we're at 4 million with 17.7 million of reserve. So, we're short about 13.7 million uh from the reserve uh goal that has been established, which is 50% of operating expense. So, let me just pause to see if there's questions on any of this.

Thanks, Dave. As we pause council, any questions for Dave this juncture? They are intent on their viewing and listening, Dave. So, you've got their attention. I can just keep going.

So, what I'm recommending is in order to bring that reserve this end of period reserve level up to something close to the reserve goal and and and it won't quite get there, but get to a much more acceptable level. Um, what I'm recommending is that annual increases of 4% would be needed each year. So, uh, 4% in fiscal 27, another one in 28, another in 29, and then another in 2030. Now, what's important to to understand about that is that there's a lot of kind of whatifs that are built into all this. in particular. One big what if is all of that growth that's planned. Another what if is what are the actual capital improvements going to be? Uh and then there's there's some other things happening there, but those those are big items. So the recommendation is based on working with staff the best guess of where we're headed. But I'm not going to sit here and say it's a guarantee. It might be too much and it might be too little just depending upon what happens. Now cost of service I mentioned at the beginning. Basically it's a it's a comparison of on your major classes. This is the allocated cost to serve. So residential is 40.8% of the cost to serve and you get 40.4% 4% of your revenues from them, which means the difference between those is only 1.1. Now, you'll say, "No, it's 0.4%." But it's really 1.1% that 40.4 is 1% less than 40.8. That is very close in in cost of service

world. Um the vast majority of these numbers are are very very close relative to the revenues versus the allocated cost to serve. Uh there's there's a lot of assumptions that are made in cost of service and you can change them just a little and and change these numbers. The one that's sort of most out of whack, if you will, is this this demand group, but they're a relatively small group of customers. And so that when you're talking about 2.8 8 versus three. Even though that's a 6.9% difference, it's not that big of a difference. When you get into smaller sort of bulk classes, um that's a it those numbers can change dramatically with small changes in uh in assumptions. So, relative to the cost of service, I'm not recommending any class get anything more or less than the average of 4% each year. that I don't feel we need to make up any cost of service discrepancies here. Now when we talk about rates and in particular the the one of of particular interest normally but also specifically is the residential class. So I'm going to talk a little bit about about the residential class and the rate design. So, when you look at your existing rate, you have a a $10 customer charge. And then you have in the summertime, you have what's called an inclining block rate where the more power you use, the rate goes up. So, for the first 400 kilowatt hours, it's just under 12 cents. And then between 400 and 600, it's just over 14 cents. And then over 600 kilwatt hours it's up there I mean you're getting close to 16 cents.

Whereas in the nonsummer you still have that same customer charge but all of the energy is 11.68. Really the intent of this rate design particularly in a residential class is to the air conditioning load of the residential class is a big driver of why you peak in the summertime. And so it's not unusual then to to want to get a little extra revenue because those are sales that you're only getting for a short period of time over the summer. Yet you have to build all of your infrastructure because of those peak loads. And so this inclining block rate gets some additional revenue from that incremental sales due to air conditioning. Now talking about this rate specifically. So right now that that customer charge of $10. So for you folks your existing customer charge is $10. If I look at the cost of service analysis and the customer related costs allocated to the residential customer, a costbased customer charge would be $22.25. Now remember back here I said the allocated cost to serve and the allocated or and the amount of revenues you're getting from the residential class are very close. So what this means is that based on the cost of service study the customer charge is too low and then the energy charges then are too high because the total amount of revenue that you're getting from the class is about right. Now, just as a couple of comparison points, Rocky Mountain P's current residential customer charges $12. And just to show you that, you know, where things can be a little bit

different. Right now, Spanish Fork is at $21 and we'll just call it $2150. So, there's there's a fair amount of variation that you see. Um, and so one of the things is is how aggressive might we want to be going forward, if at all, relative to increasing the customer charge, knowing that that also impacts what we ultimately then do with the energy charges. And to help you, I came up with some different scenarios. Yes.

Council member Jensen has a question. Okay. on that. How do our rates compare with something like Spanish Fork? If you said our our monthly charges too low and then our rates a little higher, what is theirs? Uh Spanish Fork's energy rates are a little lower than yours. Okay.

Okay. So basically what that means is that when you when you have a higher customer charge and lower rates that rate is better if you will for low use customers because the customers who use lots of energy a lot bigger portion of their bill is impacted what the energy rate is. With lower use customers less of their bill is impacted by the energy and more of it is impacted by the customer charge. And I've got some numbers that will show how that works. Okay? And then I can tell you customer residential customer charges, I've seen them as low as zero. I I know of one utility in Minnesota that still has a zero residential customer charge. And I've seen them as high as $60 for certain co-ops, but even for like municipals, I've seen some as high as $30. Um there's there's a lot of variation around uh where different utilities have set residential customer charges. If I had to say there was an average, you know, it's probably in the neighborhood of $15, but you know, even Rocky Mountain Power, I can guarantee you that their costbased customer charge is more than $12. Um I would guess that this is the Utah Commission um deciding to want to keep that rate lower to benefit low customers. And that's not an unusual um goal for any utility no matter what their ownership is. Now if we look at and what I've looked at here is some different scenarios for looking at rates. Okay. All of these scenarios, well, the current rate is

what it is. The four options, all of them increase revenue from the residential class by 4%. But what this shows is how that how it's different depending upon what you do with that fixed monthly charge. So in this first one, each of the rate components, so there's three energy rates here in the summer and then there's the nonsummer. In this first one, it's 4% across the board. So everything, each one of the rates, the customer charge, you can see goes from 10 bucks to 1040 because 40 cents is 4% of $10. And if you were to do the math, each of these rates increases as well by 4%. Now, what if we got aggressive with the customer charge and and said, "We're going to go from 10 all the way up to 20. We'll double it." Well, the interesting thing that happens is if you were to do that, the energy charges would actually actually have to come down in order to have only a 4% rate increase. because $10 per customer is more than a 4% increase in and of itself. So that you would have to lower energy rates so that the customer, the residential class only saw a 4% rate increase. And even at $15, you'd still have to lower the energy rates a bit in order to have a 4% across the board uh for the entire class rate increase. Now, all of these options will impact different customers in different ways. And so then I said, well, what if we wanted to keep the energy charges the same?

what would the resulting customer charge be in order to have a 4% increase? And so if we left the consumption charges exactly the same, raising the customer charge from $10 to 1374 would have the same impact of uh would be a 4% then overall increase for the class. But again, it'll impact different customers in different ways. And actually my next slide will show you how these impact different customers. So I just did, you know, we've got the summer rates and then we've got the nonsummer rate. My bill comparison I just focused on at on the summer rate uh bill. So here I've got I've got usages of 300 kilwatt hours which is a pretty small residential 600 900 1200 and 1500. So I've got five different usages for customers. An average customer is is in the neighborhood of of the 600 and in the summer probably would be a little bit higher than that. So here's what happens. Now remember the 4% across the board and if you look down below you can see here this is what the what what the new bill is. The middle table is what the the change in the bill is and then the bottom is the percentage. So the 4% across the board, you can see that for a 300 kilowatt hour customer, it goes up by a buck 80, by 340, etc. But then you'll notice that because every rate component went up by 4%. Everybody would see a 4% increase.

Now, the second option is if I went to a $20 customer charge. Now again, here's the new bills. Here's the differences. Now, you'll notice because of that large increase in the customer charge, we actually had to reduce energy rates. So what happens is while there's an overall 4% increase in revenue, the larger customers actually would see their bill go down because they would save more than $10 on the energy charge because of their high usage, which would which would cover the $10 increase in the customer charge. Whereas the small customers, they actually get the biggest increase on a dollar basis as well as on a percentage basis. So like a small 300 kilowatt hour customer would see a 16% increase whereas you know someone who's at 900 it would be about break even and bigger than that they would actually see decreases. And then just at the 15% again, now the smaller customers see larger increases with the $15 customer charge. That 1,500 kilowatt hour customer is basically at break even. And then if I go to that leaving the energy charges the same, but I increase the customer charge remember here to 1374. Now the energy consumption doesn't matter a bit. Everybody's bill goes up by 374 because the only increase anybody would see would be the increase in the customer charge. But because the larger customers bills are bigger, their percentage is less.

And what you'll notice is this 600 kilowatt hour customer, they're close to 4% no matter what option you pick because they're in the neighborhood of an average customer. And that's just kind of the way algebra works um in this instance. So now I'm I'm really interested in some feedback around kind of what your appetite is for options on what to do with changing the residential customer charge going forward. I can tell you I've worked with a lot of utilities in the past who've had the same issue. And generally what I recommend is that not the across the board because you'll never catch up if you're only raising it by 4% a year. All you'll do is sort of maintain the gap. But I'm usually in favor of something closer to what's happening down here, but maybe even a little less so that you get a little bit more in the energy. Um is usually what I would recommend. But I'm I'm very interested in particularly looking at this, what some of your feelings are about about this issue and and how to address the residential rate.

Council feedback, questions, clarifications, mostly feedback. I think he's outlined four different ways to get to the same place. It's just how you'd like to see that on our citizens bills. I would mention that uh No, I won't. Dave is a fun guy, but he threatened me this week because I wanted to do something a little bit different to make a little bit more money. And he told me that he would personally fly out here from Minnesota, round up everybody in the rest homes, and come and protest me. So, hey Dave, the mayor's budget is still coming. He can still he can still do something later.

The that the 300 kilowatt hour customer is I used to always use my mom as an example because um when she was you know 85 and living alone in her home that's about what she used every month. So he made a good point. It made for a good discussion. So Dave, I just want to clarify this is um just for actual residentials and not raising revenue for the new growth or the capital improvement or well that difference. It's just a use.

No, what it really means is okay. So we'll talk about the other classes too. So, not just residential is going to get an increase. The increases aren't that the customer charge issue is an is an existing rate issue that that needs to go up, okay, relative to the energy rates. But the total amount of money that you're getting from the residential class right now is is just fine. Now, we need more revenue from everybody on your system in including um commercial, large commercial and industrial customers because of uh a lot of the investments that we're making. But there's a fair amount of residential growth in the projections as well. But this is really about how are we going to increase specifically in the residential class the rate increase the from a cost of service perspective. You know the $10 is lower than it should be but that doesn't mean that we should immediately jump to 20 bucks. It also there's there's sort of a lot of reasons for needing the rate increase and the 4% per year addresses all of those reasons. And this these numbers here are just the first you you'd have to do it again and again and again. Now, obviously, we're not going to go from 10 to 20 to 30 to 40 to 50 on the customer charge, but this just is an indication of of a process that you might do. And and that's why you know raising the customer charge by more than 4% and maybe the energy by less than that over time you start to make that customer charge catch up to where it should be. And a lot of times in in doing rate changes like that a little bit of gradualism is not a bad thing.

Hey Dave, if you would for me I think so I can answer Council Member Troxel's question specifically. Can we jump back to your slides? It shows our project, our budgeted project in the upcoming years, our expenses there.

Let me dive into this a little bit so you understand what Dave did from a maybe a layman term financial perspective. So you you see the new core sub there. So this is just the capital. There's an offsetting revenue and there there's a there's a corresponding bond payment associated with that. So, if we have one-time monies that are going to cover a one-time expenditure, although both sides of that equation are shown in this analysis, it makes no net effect to the customers that we currently have on the system. Your question regarding new growth is the rest of the customers going to make that 11.3 million payment for a new substation to feed some of the development on the west side of town. The answers that to that is not 100%. That substation will serve more than just one specific customer. So there's a portion of that that is allocated to current customer base, but the lion share of that project specifically will all be paid for by that one large customer that's going to hook up to that new substation. So when we went through this individually as staff and looked at all the next five years of all of our projects, we looked at that and allocated a percentage of each of those projects that are tied to this is a one-time thing. We're going to have an offsetting revenue, whether it's an impact fee, a development agreement, a bond outside, and covered each of those things individually. I just quickly on here we'll talk about, you know, something that's opposite of that. I think the easiest one is a new line crew. We're we're trying to budget in 2028 putting another line crew out there so we'd have a third line crew. 100% of the customer base will pay for that line crew, not just one specific because they're going to serve the entire city, not just new growth or new development.

Does that make sense? Any more questions on that?

Energy are Isn't there a bit of forecasting on future energy costs baked into this Dave? Yeah.

Well, yes. And in the there is a future. Now, if I go back to the to the operating results in the operating expenses here, obviously wholesale power procurement is is one of your operating expenses. But the other thing that's built into the revenues is your adjustment clause. So, as average wholesale power costs go up, the adjustment clause is there as a as an avenue for increasing revenues to help pay for that. So, um what the dollars that we have in the rate increase to a to the vast extent is is relative to the costs at the local system. about 70% of your operating expenses are wholesale power, but your local operating expenses are also going up. And so, you know, we've got to we've got to cover those those increases as well. Um, the other thing is is you'll notice here as revenues are increasing, you know, the vast majority of this transfer here is the transfer to the city, which is as a percentage of of revenue. And so, that's also, you know, going up. And so, uh, the adjustment clause takes care of by itself the increases, well, the combination of the adjustment clause plus the rate stabilization fund that helps take care of increases in power costs, but with all of these capital improvements are local. Oops. Those capital improvements, you know, are all local um expenses. And when we look here in the reserves, you can see there's still some of those impact fees which that we're expecting to get from you know some of that growth but then also you know we've got these available bond funds that we've already paying princ uh debt service on and then

an additional one here as well. The thing is in rates there's always there's al always socialism in rates that you don't you don't have different rates you know all right now we have a bunch of growth here and so we're going to build all of the capital improvements for that to them and then next time we have some growth we're going to do that again and pretty soon we've got you know 10 different areas in town with different rates. Um you know it it just sort of doesn't work that way. you think of like a a Rocky Mountain Power that serves all over the place, yet they've got the same rates across the entire um state in all the different areas they serve. even though when they make improvements, they're, you know, in different places around the state and in different communities that they serve

and are changes in impact fees into this or is that

just the current enacted impact fees? Further questions? Got one simplified for me. Would it be safe to say, Dave, that if we increase the customer charge, generally, correct me if I'm off base on this, generally that will more negatively affect those at the lower socioeconomic scale than if we were to maybe combine a focus of the customer charge with some adjustments in the actual regular rate. Not necessarily. And and here's why. Now, like it it it will impact lower use customers, but a lot of times when you take a look at at at lower income folks, that doesn't always correlate to lower use. In fact, a lot of times folks who don't have the the financial wherewithal live in housing that's not as good and not as efficient and and you know uh with with bad windows and and so on and so forth. Um they oftenimes have older appliances that are less efficient. Often times they will have more um more bodies living in their in their home. Um, which you know, I mean, I know for my house after my four kids moved out, I went from 2,000 kilwatt hours a month down to 800 just by having, you know, four kids move out of the house. And so that that correlation between between income and usage is not is something we've often thought about in our industry, but it's not

necessarily the case. Um, often times these these small are oftentimes older people when there's when there's one, sometimes two people, but they just don't necessarily kind of have a lot going on. They're not, you know, running the dishwasher very often. They're not washing running the washer very often. You know, they're maybe living with the air conditioner set at a little bit warmer setting to save money and they just don't use a lot of energy. But that but it it's still important and it's still important. I think rate shock it's important to you know I mean you could you could say you know Spanish Fork at 2149 they've got low income they've got fixed income you know small use folks one of the interesting thing is is that people are sort of used to what they're used to the tough thing is when you do something here and they see this 16% rate increase um because you've done it all in one fell swoop, you know, at the low end, you know, and it's really great if the if the headline in the paper says, you know, 16% increase for the the elderly with with decreases for the rich people using lots of energy, that kind of thing.

Dave, what what do you think our base uh charge should be? What I think is is that we should be raising the base charge moderately aggressive. Okay, 4% is only 40 cents, right? 10%, you know, when you talk about percentage obviously would be a buck. Um, if I were recommending, I'd be recommending maybe $2 increases in the customer charge, which would also then require some increases in the energy charges. You know, because remember what I said if we leave the energy charges the same, then we would raise the monthly charge the first year to 1374. Well, if we raise the monthly charge from 10 to 12, then these would go up as well. And then we'd raise it to 14 and the energy rates would would go as well. And then it'd be 16 and then it'd be $18. And so by the end of four adjustments, if we did it $2 each year, the $10 would be at $18. That's the kind of that that's the kind of approach based on my experience that I would recommend. And and looking at that chart right there, are we progressive enough in our rate increases for the higher usages or should that be skewed higher or lower? Well, here's the thing. Um, right now, all right, your your larger users are subsidizing the lower users. that that's what's happening with with that lower customer charge and then the energy rates being higher, but you it it's not something that you should fix in one year. And so if we if we raise the customer

charges by about two bucks, there will be some increases in the energy charges. Now, you know, on a cost basis, it's it's sometimes hard to really look at these inclining block rates, but one of the things we could do as well is if we raise this by two bucks and if these 11.1168 rates, we didn't raise them as much, which helps here, you know, with the lower end customer and raising these second and third tier and the sum rates a little bit more, you know, that that can help to level out some of of the impact um around that. I mean, then you're obviously leaning more on the larger use customers, but that's not necessarily wrong either.

Yeah. I mean, that seems like that people should I would think they would understand the the higher use customers should pay a higher percentage. That's when we're buying more. But that doesn't mean they will.

Well, and always what you know what the thing is is let let's just be absurd. Let's say this last block you were you were billing 25 cents a kilowatt hour and then these other other energy rates were were a lot lower and we still had the same customer charge then it would clearly not be fair to raise that highest rate because it's already you know if if my customer charge is too low and that highest energy rate is way too high when I raise that customer charge you know raising that high rate even more um probably isn't fair either. So there there's always a balance here because it's important to remember that right now the residential class as a group are paying the right amount of money. Any other questions the discussion tonight? So you're questioned out for Mr. Berg. We'll cut him loose.

Oh, he's got four more, five more rates to go through. Are you sure? Yeah. I'm just kidding.

All right, I'll I'll be quick on these. Um, so this is your basically I'm going to call it your small commercial rate. this general service known demand but actually you you sell a lot of power in that rate. Um with this rate this customer charge is a tad low as well. Um and then this energy charge you know this 1158 energy charge is lower than the 1168 um here even you know which is the all-in um rate for residential but I would see you know maybe being a tad more aggressive in the in the customer charge here too than with also then increases now there's no seasonality in their rates You've also got this this general service demand rate. The biggest issue on this rate, the customer charge isn't particularly and you don't actually have very many customers in this group, but this you've got this and this rate is interesting where you have a demand charge when your usage is over 10KW. And what is supposed to coincide is that when you get bigger then the energy charge goes down dramatically because it's then combined with the demand charge. So this looks like it's a big decrease but when you get bigger you get into this demand and then you get build the demand charge as well as this 5-cent energy charge. That 5-cent energy charge might be just a touch um low in and of itself. whereas um this first one is just basically the same as that rate and so I could see more increases in this lower energy charge here. um your general industrial which is some your sizable current customers and with more customers potentially

coming in there. Actually the balance of that rate on a just pure demand and energy is is and we sort of fixed that last time around and that balance is pretty good. And so we've really talked um through the items here about the the need for revenue increases and particularly um you talking about um on rate design. And so that's what I've got for you tonight. And then what I'll be doing then is coming up with a full-blown um recommendation for all of the rates over a 4-year period with information that showing how that impacts both the operating results as well as the reserve levels.

Hey, one more question Dave. Um going to that reserve level and we have it set at 50%. Does that change as we get up to that higher amount when we're when we're at, you know, 17 or 20 million, 30 mill, whatever? You know what I mean? Yes. Should I mean, in other words, should it should it be less of a percentage? Yeah. Is it okay to go 40% instead of a goal of 50 as the as the dollar number goes up quite a bit there?

You know, there there is an argument, you know, as you get bigger and bigger. Um the thing is is that some of the increase in in the operating expense that you see are because of inflation and because of things going up and then because actually your operating expenses of course now the wholesale power you know goes up you know proportionally with with your growth which is a which is a big part of the increase and actually will be less than 50% based on my recommendation that you'll probably be more down in in the in the low 40s by the end of the period. So, you know, I'm and I'm not going to say that, you know, that that's going to be too little. Uh 11% here that well, this 4 million is clearly too little at this point,

right? Um and you know, the bigger you get, you can start to to revisit that. Um you know, I'd be like 50% isn't too much, but 40% wouldn't bother me. How's that for an answer? That's a good answer. When I think one thing to add just it to me it's a a fact but maybe publicly state with that growth we have more infrastructure on the ground and the the increasing cost of that over time the you know you you look at

our number one and two transformers in the east substation they're over 40 years old the replacement of both of those things if we were have to do it right now over 10 million by itself to get both of those done. So, and those are the two biggest subs in the city. But you look at we're talking three new substations over the next four, five year, four years in this. That's just that many more millions of dollars worth of equipment that we've got to have cash on hand when stuff blows up and guess what? We have issues and things just quit and we have to immediately go replace them. So that's a counterargument to obviously there's a balance there. But with that offsetting additional revenue, you have offsetting additional expenditure sitting out there that stuff happens and we've had our fair share of that in the last two years. So

well yeah and if you look here you know it's like 16 29 uh 33 like $47 million of capital improvements in here. That's a that's a pretty significant investment on your general services rate where you were talking about it goes lower to the 04 over 8,000 the demand charge doesn't come in until above 10,000. So there's

no that these are different. The 8,000 kilowatt hours is an energy amount. The 10 kilowatts is a demand amount. So demand is your highest 15 minutes of usage at any point during the month. Whereas energy is the total of your energy demand is energy for a short period of time at $10.50 that you only pay that for your just your maximum demand during the month less than 10. So if somebody sets a 20kw demand, their demand charge is 1050 times the 10, not times 10,000. But that's why Dave, when we talked two weeks ago when we talked about could we talk about residential demand,

imagine 8,800 households trying to figure out what he just said, right? So yeah. No, we did talk about the time of use billing, too. We did. Um, I'm going to I'm going to put in some I'm going to put in the report some discussion around residential time of use and residential demand, not as recommendations, but as something for your consideration,

Matt, I think the biggest thing with that, if the council tells us that they're interested in that, I'm going to say right now that we have a minimum um of a year worth of software changes and equipment changes to make it possible. So, not saying that it's a bad thing, just saying that we we're going to have to work towards that over a period of time. It's we do not have the ability today if the council said next week we're going to start doing residential time use. Our software that we currently have out there is not capable of handling that at the current time. That that's okay. I just we're throwing it in the discussion though to get more information.

Yeah. And I'll I'll put a discussion about around those in the report. Thank you.

You got more, Dave? I got nothing more to say. Thanks, Dave. Council member Hip is wanting to keep going. Dave, what else you got for more? Well, what else would he like to talk about? I'm just glad you're there. How's it How's your bracket after after half a day. Don't Don't B don't even tell us. We haven't had time to even see what's going on yet, Dave. We got to look after work. Hope you're not a BYU fan. All I know is my alma moater North Dakota State got their butt handed to them today, but they were supposed to. So anyway,

I promise the mayor's office has not wasted one minute looking at it today. Thanks, Dave. Dave, thank you so much for taking your time down there in St. George. I appreciate what you're doing for us and how much time you spend with Tom and arguing with me. I do appreciate that. Hey, we'll leave the light. Lively discussions about rates are good stuff. Yep. Absolutely. All right. Well, council Dave, thank you. We'll let you go tonight. Have a good night. We'll keep going with our meeting. Okay. Yep. Good night. Thank you, everybody. Dude, you're tired. You got no stocks.

All right, council. We need a motion to move into a short close session. And that would be to discuss real property. Okay. We have a motion by council member Jens. Do we have a second? Second. Second by council member Hip. Uh, all those in favor? I. All right. Thank the folks that Yeah. Thank you. Save for all the cake. Thank you. None of those