City Council - Regular Meeting

certain motions speak to you and speak to my colleagues.

No, we're talking about names to use like when you order take out or whatever. What's your name? I used to use Joe Montana.

Are we ready? We're ready. All right. Welcome everybody. This is a regular meeting and public hearing of the Grantsville City Council. For the record, today's date is March 25th, 2026, and the time is 7 p.m. This meeting is being held at the Grantsville Grantsville City Council Chambers located at 429 East Main Street in Grantsville, Utah, as well as electronically via Zoom. I am Maya Mayor Heidi Hammond, and I will conduct a roll call. Council member Butler,

present. Dalton present. Skinner here. Thomas here. Williams here. All members are here and present. And next I have asked Les Peterson to uh lead us in the pledge of allegiance. Thank you Les for being here. When the command is given to render the proper salute to our flag present arms. Please follow me in the pledge of allegiance. I pledge algiance 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. You may be seated.

Thank you very much. Uh before we start our meeting tonight, um you may have all heard of a tragedy that has happened near our city. Uh two two individuals lost their lives um on at an accident on Parachute Lane and Mid Valley Highway. So we're going to start today with just a small moment of silence for them. Thank you. We wish our condolences to their families and associates. Um, our first item of a business tonight is public comment. If anyone would like to make a comment, please come forward. The floor is open to the public this time. And if you're on Zoom, if you will please raise your hand, anyone online, Alicia?

Okay. All right. I don't see any public comment tonight, so we will close that agenda item. Next, we have our summary action items. Um, item A is approval of minutes from the February 18th, 2026 city council regular meeting. There's no discussion needed. If someone would like to make a motion. Mayor, I make a motion we approve the minutes from the February 18th, 2026 city council regular meeting. We have a motion by Council Member Thomas. Is there a second?

I'll second. Second by council member Dalton. All in favor? I I you. Next is item B, approval of the minutes from the March 4th, 2026 city council regular meeting. Mayor make a motion we approve the minutes for from the March 4th meeting. Thank you. Is there council member Butler has made a motion. Is there a second? I'll second the motion. Second by council member Skinner. All in favor? I I Okay, thank you. And last C um item C is approval of the bills. Does anybody have any questions or comments or concerns on the bills?

I had a question um about uh just some payments for the firefighter stipen that we approved in our last meeting. Um I just wondering I know that we have quite a contingent of volunteer firefighters and we approved that in the last meeting. Um I saw maybe a little more than a dozen of those um stipens that were paid out in accordance with with what we had approved. Just wondering how many more of those are are there going to be um or is that or is that it for the year? That's it for the year. Okay. Thank you. For next year hopefully more.

So that all was um driven by participation then. Right. Okay. There's a a few of them that didn't meet the criteria this year to get the stipen. So hopefully this incentivizes them to get that next year. Thanks Chief Remick for that update on that. Any other concerns on the bills?

Make a motion we approve the bills as presented. We have a motion by council member Butler. Is there a second? I can second it. Second by council member Williams. All in favor? I.

Thank you. Um, moving on to item number three, a proclamation declaring April 24th, 2026 as Arbor Day in Grantsville City. Um, so this is an official proclamation that will be signed. I'm not going to read all of the item, but in 1872, the Nebraska Board of Agriculture established a special day to be set aside for the planting of trees. And this holiday is called Arbor Day and was first observed with the planting of more than a million trees in Nebraska. And Arbor Day is now observed throughout the nation and the world. Um, we have a wonderful tree program in Grantsville. The applications for that are due this Friday. So, if anybody is interested in purchasing trees, the applications are due in two days. So, I, Heidi Hammond, mayor of the city of Grantsville, do hereby proclaim April 24th, 2026 as Arbor Day in the city of Grantsville. And I urge all citizens to celebrate Arbor Day and to support efforts to protect our trees and woodlands. I urge all citizens to plant trees to gladden the heart and promote the well-being of this and future generations. So that I think will take care of that. Uh we will be celebrating with the students at the elementary schools on April 12th. Um but Arbor Day is on the 24th. So we'll look forward to all the trees coming in for the tree application. So that is great and we will move forward with that item. Item number four is a discussion and direction from the council regarding the sewer right study. And Aspen, are you the one talking with

us about that or is we have Robert here. Is Robert on? Robert is here. Hello, Robert. Hi. So, yeah, Robert with Enzy Engineering. Mike, did you send out the email to city council? I did. Yeah, they have it, but we probably should see if we can pull. Okay, let me get that PDF you you sent out with the map or the result the notes that

Yes, it would be the email that lists all the the stuff with that and we just received that today because the bid for the sewer treatment plant came in today and then um Robert Relle um updated the numbers for the rates based on that those numbers and then Yesterday, Alex had reached out to a lender that uh is possibly going to uh provide the bonding for this and gave us a kind of a general idea of what the rates are going to be. And um Robert's going to cover that, but they're saying the rates are now increasing due to the fact that there's the war over there in Iran that's uh creating some issues here and it's increasing the rates. So, Zans is advocating that we um take that into account while the longer we wait the rates might increase further. So, I think the rates that he was saying are pretty close to uh the 5% right now.

I think um Robert has those pulled up so I'll let you take that. Okay. Yeah. So, since last time we met, you know, we've talked to two different developments. So, we talked to Northstar and then Desireette and we've got this upsize cost on the See if I can get it pulled up. All right. Do you mind sharing your screen on Zoom or Oh, so I got to log into Zoom. Yeah. Oh, there it goes. Oh,

sorry. Okay, so that first bullet item you we talked to Desired who's constructing this Mac Canyon collector and then the West Bank interceptor which is from basically this orange line if you can see my cursor there to the northwest lift station. And when we talked to Northstar, their their intent is just to pay their impact fees and and their sewer flow goes through the West Street collector that connects here. So what we've done is we've got this upsize for and we've got two different segments for the Westbake interceptor. So we've added that cost into the impact fees and the sewer race study. That was point number one. And once I made a note here that once we get their engineers cost, which will be on contractor's bids, we'll update that. And to Michael's point, this was an email sent by Zans yesterday on just the various updated, you know, 20 year, 25 year, 30-year uh interest rates. And so what we've updated was we've updated with the 30-year loan at the 5.052% interest rate and then to maintain a positive impact fee uh fund balance and uh you know meet our metrics that we've discussed previously you know the 1.25% debt service coverage ratio and then the 180 uh days cash on hand. We can reduce the private bond amount a little bit,

not as much as previously because we've added that West Bank interceptor upsize cost, but what we're using in the calculation is the 28.4 million. And then with the the bid opening today, the the cost is 43,700,000. We've maintained the construction contingency. Uh we've got out of that comes the million-doll engineering loan which has already been paid and then we've got kind of these ancillary fees you know the 2.4 4 million for the design and construction management. The uh funding work that Jones Deil did in environmental inbridge gas service just extension of a gas line out to the treatment plant and then Rocky Mountain Power their their service uh out to the plant as well. And so updating that with, you know, everything that we previously calculated, the current impact fee for a 3/4 inch meter, which is essentially single families, uh, $5,950. And then it does go up slightly based on, you know, the increase in the the wastewater treatment plant and the additional West Bank, you know, upsize costs. And so what what we've done and we presented here ultimately what we're trying to get is kind of an average at least in this next fiscal year 79.25 monthly sewer rate. Uh so we kept the the base fee and then the usage fee and we've got a couple different options. We've got a, you know, lower rate, you know, at $40 and then

kind of a medium uh base rate. And really what this is reflecting is kind of a similar uh basically usage fee as as commercial and then a higher base rate at $65, but a lower usage fee. So, we just kind of tried to present a couple different options. Those can be tweaked a little bit here and there, but I mean ultimately you've got to pay, you know, for the wastewater treatment plant.

And you can see with all of these, we're trying to yeah meet the 1.25 25 debt service coverage ratio and then the 180 days cash on hand any questions what did we decide let's see the average usage of water from the months of November to December 5,36. Right. Right. Right. Y

So if that were the case, this last option, the low base rate option, which is $40 um a month starting in 2027. So if you know a household's at that average, so that's 7954. Still 70 bucks. Yeah. Yeah. So 75 if they're average. If they're average. Yeah. Yeah. But it does tell people who are lower. Sorry. What's that? I was saying it does help people who don't.

Yeah. Some that are lower. And then this is the max. And this is based on, you know, the meter data that we've had for last I think it I think it I mentioned it there, but yeah, it was November 2019 to 2025. So you'll see fluctuations in trailer, right? Just because with the different base rates and usage rates just because trailer has a larger range of of uh usage than single family. I have a question which is just like a generic I mean we've talked about this a lot of like why don't we raise the developers impact fees. So I have a question of if we were to do that perspectively that doesn't change the amount we need to get on a loan here right there's no like if we say hey we're going to raise impact fees for developers in the future that doesn't make us have less of a loan that we need to take right now. They they kind of end up going hand inand, right? Because we're projecting in the next 10 years like how many impact these are going to be coming in based on a growth rate which we try to be a little bit more conservative just so you know you don't not have enough money to pay you know

but that's just based on a fixed rate that we have right now. So like what I guess my question what I'm asking is if we were to raise those say hey in the future we're going to raise these impact fees for developer. I know there's only a certain amount we can go right there's not like we can't say hey you're going to give this cost essentially all to you but if we were to do that say hey I mean we already have a projected amount that we think it is but if we were to raise those put a little bit more on that I guess the problem with that is that we don't know. Yeah, we just don't know. We don't know and then we risk that not having that amount like we discussed. I mean, we look at impact fees annually and and we can definitely look at tour rates annually and adjust those accordingly. But but this number is taking into account those impact fees that we're expecting in the mix. Yes. Yeah. With the estimated growth rate

of what we have currently. Well, we were at around 2% this year and then I think um we're showing something similar for the next year then increase three and a half if I remember correctly and then and then kind of leveling off at four. And so if that like is higher actually then we just pay the loan back faster. Is that how then we can pay? Yeah, you'd collect more impact fees. Collect more impact fees. Yeah. And then and you could potentially use it to pay off the the loan faster or we could look at the rates again. I mean we're going to look at or or Yeah. not raise the rates as much. like there's yeah there's things to consider there. Okay. Yeah. And those show up here as you know other revenues in this in this spreadsheet.

We started um a discussion I don't know that we finished about if we switch to this usage um billing way I guess is it is it is there more cost to the city to do that? Yeah, Michael, have you talked about I guess looking at that and talking with staff, we are currently doing that with our businesses. So, we do have it already programmed in our system. It will just take the time to integrate that for all the other 4,000 residential side of things. So, okay,

we have staff already trained on how to do it for the 150 businesses that we have. We just have to upscale that. And again, we do want to look at getting the uh our meters upgraded to the AMI system and purchasing those towers. We did finally get the cost of those towers. We're going to need three to four and those are about $18,000 for the equipment. And then depending on the location where we can put those, if we already have a tower, like at the public works building, we will utilize that tower. will just be the cost of that that equipment installation. If we have to put in a like a power pole to act as a tower in another location, that'll be the cost of the installation of that power pole plus that equipment.

So, who's paying for that equ how are we paying for that equipment? That will be coming out of the water fund because it'll be also collected on the water data and then also that's what we'll use to calculate the sewer for those months of uh November to March. Yeah. winter usage. And so that will help us get that daily um calculation because we we already have all the meters which is really helpful for our city is we've been purchasing meters that can read all the data daily. We just don't haven't put in the towers in place to collect that data daily. And so we're going to look at implementing that right now

to help get that in place. And so we're we're pretty much there and can implement this usage fee pretty quickly. Right now, is it just radio read? Are you just going around? Yeah, we do the radio read, but all all of our meters that we purchased can can do that and can be backwards compatible to collect that once we put in the towers. Okay. And so, like I said, we need three to four towers, right, to do that. So, we're going to try to take pieces of that and see what we can in our water budget to purchase those at a time. and we have put a purchase request in for one right now on the public works building because we found that we have a budget in there for that and the next budget season we'll try to purchase the other two or three that we

So with those towers is it pre up like a staff member to not have to go out there and physically rear or direct I I just have a question and I'm not trying to be pessimistic but why are we why are we worried about monitoring those usage fees when we're collecting them anyways and we're we're gathering the data from November to March from the previous year to charge individuals for the next coming year. We only collect it once a month. Yeah, exactly. So if we miss So so you're collecting them once a month, correct? You get an average of November through March. Y and then that's what it's based off of. Yes.

So I mean you're collecting that data anyways. Why do we need to do it in real time on a daily basis? Uh it makes it more accurate and you have a better but we don't have to. If we don't need to if we want to. Yeah, I get the whole accuracy thing. But if we're doing it and we're looking behind and we're we're charging them for the current year, then it's a it's a twofold thing as well because it benefits this but also benefits your water thing as well because it can I understand that part.

It can help track whether you have like outages or your your broken lines in your house and things like that. So that's the other benefit is like a twofold benefit that we get the more notice to our residents when there is broken lines or things like that on their property and can respond quite quickly because right now if we know it we're months out before we notice that there's issues in their lives. You could have a move in move out situation where you're collecting data on somebody that moved out of the home and that data is being used on that piece of property. Correct. For a new tenant. Good. if not not talking permanent residence but

absolutely obviously we're not making any decisions on this tonight. This is just a discussion. But do we have any other comments tonight? When when will it be like I know we're kind of It will be on the agenda next Wednesday. Okay. Um I'm just with the interest rates going up, I think we're kind of I mean I know that kind of makes you nervous with what everything we just couldn't notice it because we didn't open them until today. We just got them and so it had to have the proper noticing. So

what we're looking for is whether or if if we want to use that usage rate or do we want to keep what our current base rate is right now? And if we do want to use a usage rate, do you want to use one of the proposed options here to have that presented next time or is there another variation that you want Robert to? Yeah, because what we can do is we can update the the actual study and then have that for the next meeting.

So you can approve the rates at that point as well. What we're we're hoping to do is next time we'll approve the contract bid and then because the next week is notice the bond for the the state in order to give the state 15 or $16 million we had to notice that one and so that's what that notice is about for next week to comply with the state requirements. So, it also like the the the rate um study on there and see and have that all approved and that way we're ready to go then to go secure that private bond. So, this 28.4 that we have here that that's excluding the 16. Right. Correct. Or right.

Yep. And the 28.4's got has these contingency line and the cost for those other Yeah. It's got the contingency and it plus all the other um the up size of that additional line included in this. Where is that in this? Yeah, I should have pasted that. Is that in survey design CM? No, that that upsize cost. It's uh let me get to it spreadsheet. Is that included in the 28.4 or excluded? It's included in all the calculations, but yeah, it's it's basically right here. And then here's kind of the percentages that would be I just wanted to make sure we weren't missing it.

Yeah. Yeah, we got it in there. Contingency. And then we did, like I mentioned, we did update it based on this interest rate that Zans sent us yesterday. So we updated the private bond amount I like the low base rate option. I feel that's fairest too. A lot of citizens have asked for for that. I think you want.

So for the for the average home, if I could just interject, for the average home, the low base rate with the 5,000 gallons used on average for those five months, $77 month for the medium 7775 and for the high 78.45. So it doesn't change. So it doesn't matter. Yeah. Yeah. It's going to be smoking is all that is. Albeit the single woman who's a widow who doesn't use hardly any water at all. Um maybe a thousand gallons a month, it does affect her. Yeah. Even less than that. Yeah. She Yeah. I mean or somebody who goes out of town for a month and is winter visitor whatever.

50. Exactly. Yeah. They would make quite less than that. Yeah. I mean, it does it it's almost, you know, $80 a year, you know, if it's somebody that a lower amount. Yeah. For a single family resident. $80 a year or $80 a month a year. A year totally different savings. Savings. Yeah.

I just think that's the only way we can I mean, yeah, we could say everybody gets paid charges the same, but then, you know, at least this is a little bit Some people are going to pay more, some people are going to pay a little bit less. Everybody's actually probably going to pay pretty close to the average of what it is anyway. So, it probably was this close to that number anyways. But, I mean, I don't want to tell like, hey, we're giving you a low base rate, but then really it's actually higher than something, you know, this is what we need, though. We're not going any higher than what we actually need. We're not going to say, oh, we'll give you this low base rate, but then actually it looks like smoking mirrors. That's we don't want to do that. This is just what we need though to cover these costs.

Yeah. I mean, you you need to hit because the city's mostly single family resident residential, you'll need to hit that average and and it's about I mean, you can see it kind of changes a little bit, but it's like we're trying to hit is 79.25. Yeah, somewhere in there. Here's a uh a what if question because we're going to have lots of what if questions, but what do you do to the farmer in Grantsville who brings home his cows, his 100 head of cows, and he waters them during the winter months and he uses 20,000 gallons a month, but it's not flowing to the sewer treatment plant. How do you how do you measure that? How how do you um I mean, how would we go about something like that? some really good question exemption because you're going to have a a few individuals that are are going to have that that you know obviously been around a long time.

I think you could put them on a base rate fee like if they were a new move in and then they'd have to come to council or have to come to a staff and we could make some agreement to do that and they would pay the difference in the like what the water overall fee would be then set their base rate for the rest of the year at that set base rate that we have and metrics of. So I think that might solve that problem because don't kid yourself. I mean it's just one example but you're going to you're you're going to have individuals that are having example like that. Same thing with an accidental that like we don't the meter freezes and it's our side or different things like that. Yeah.

Is the I'm I'm wondering I understand the fairness issue and and I like that. I'm wondering though, is is this going to be an administrative nightmare when you have all these different scenarios or somebody's leaking or somebody's got the person who brought the cows in and they're watering them and they had no idea that they needed to come and talk to this like then we're going to be going backwards in trying to solve all this. It sounds to me like it's going to take a lot of staff time or has the potential. I guess Christie, how does that handle? Like when they're only watering cows, they don't have a sewer bill. Well, they do.

Well, if they do, if it's at the house if it's at the house at the house. Yeah. It just depends if those is that a far out exception or is that going to be the majority and then Yeah, that would have definitely not going to be the majority. But I think that there's a lot of people in town who have horses, who have those like this isn't going to be like three people. This is going to be several several households that have these different I mean it it wouldn't have to be your horse or it could be all kinds of different livestock that you would have water usage but not sewer usage. So I don't I'm just throwing that out. I don't

I think the only then it's like then the everybody gets the same rate without the base. It's just you know we go back to the other one. That's the only way to say, "Hey, everybody just pays the same." Right. That would take care of that problem of But then there's the equality for the women, right? Exactly. Right. Or Yeah. But is it really saving? Are we saving them that much money? Yeah. I mean, I don't know. I mean, some people want to fix them income. Yeah, it is. It could make it could make all the difference. Yeah. I think you're talking 50 versus 80. But I also think maybe that's why getting the towers would be more helpful because we can monitor that, right, a little bit better to say, "Oh, wait. Why is this person using so much water? What is going on? Is there a leak? Are they watering something? Maybe we need to notify them. Hey, you're using a lot of water. What's happening?

It would give us that ability to do that. You do that. We do that. You do that already. Oh, okay. So, maybe not on a quick scale. It's delayed because you only have Is it delayed about a month? Is that right? Yeah. Okay. Um I do have a question. So, just educate me. Why did we go with a 30-year term instead of the 25 or 20? And how would that affect rates if we switched it to one of a 20 or 25 year? The rates would go up because then you're not got to pay it off faster. You got to pay it off faster. So your payments higher. Yeah. Because then uh let's see here.

Kind of right in here. Your your debt service, right? That goes up. That's more. So then your rates go up more. like a half a million dollars.

I guess I have an educational question, too. So, we've talked about even tonight raising the impact fees, and I know it can only be at a certain percentage. Where are we? Are we close to that certain percentage or are we well below that? Where are we? Well, so we've we've increased it about about $200 and it's and really it's it's based a lot of it's based on for sewer the what the capacity is of that line, what's remaining, you know, what's what basically in the 10-year planning period, what what those the new development coming in, what they're going to use of that capacity. So, you will, you know, as long as there's capacity in that line, you will have buying in the future for like the treatment plant, right? You got about a million gallons per day on average going into existing. So there's twothirds of the treatment plant that you can't pay for it all right away with impact fees just because you're not going to have that growth in the next 10 years. But as long as there's capacity and buy in, you can pay, you know, you can pay use impact fees to pay for that.

And when we say impact fees, that's can we only increase it for the sewer part for the developers? Maybe I'm do I because that's what you were saying. It's impact fees for the developers. that because they're buying into the sewer. So, we're saying, "Hey, we're going to raise your rates for this." Yeah. They're basically they're they're either building either the developers building it, the city's building it, but they're building projects. And then if there's any excess capacity in the any existing projects like sewer lines or any of that, then they pay for their proportionate share of those projects. Yes. And this the sewer impact fee. Yeah. Not the water or anything else. Yeah. say we can't raise everything on them and say you're going to pay a lot more because we want the money. We can only do it in specifically.

Yeah, we're limited on kind of how how we can raise it. We've got to look at a bunch of different things. Yeah. When was the last increase? Was it last? Sure. Last July, August, like the rate increase rate increase and the impact last July, right? July or August. And that's when this one would go would take effect. Yeah. will be in July. Just another educational question. The weird thing about talking about upgrading the Vegas Street sewer line is that's probably one of our newer lines. I mean, uh, let's see. Or the the north, let me get it open.

I would think that when the Walmart was put in, I mean, I remember that line going in. So, are we saying that that's already not big enough or outdated? So it's not it's so this West Bank will remove some capacity on it because the West Street collector that was going to Northwest interceptor and Hulie Street will be off of it. So there'll be some, you know, additional buy in on the north the existing Northwest interceptor. So there is some capacity in it, but not enough capacity for all the units that are going up up here, right? Like there's just not not enough at all.

Okay. So there still is some buyin cost for that Northwest interceptor. So the upsizing is that there we will have pioneering agreements and that will come before council here not too soon for those areas up there. And anything that's above and beyond what they have to pay for that the city believes we need to upsize is that would be the city's portion proportional share of that upsized cost. And so like if we want to upsize it to accommodate all of the houses below in ivory home and every other smaller developer, that's why we want to upsize it while it's there so we don't have to do it later and it's more expensive. And so that's why when we have these opportunities to do these pioneer agreements, sometimes it is really beneficial for the city to take advantage of that. Remind me what size the developers are required to put in and what are we upsizing to. So it's a it's a 36 inch and their capacity we we've calculated is about a quarter of that. So yeah, I I I don't have that. I can give you the size it would have been, but I don't have that handy right now. Yeah,

I think I heard you said Northstar was just going to pay through pay for it through their impact fees, but it was Desireette. What did they say? I didn't catch that. The Desireette development. So yeah, the Desert Development's essentially paying for the construction of Matt Canyon Collector and this whole West Street or West Bank interceptor, but not the upsize. Yeah, they not the upsize. Yep.

Back to the rates. I think that the heartburn that um I have um as a council member and as a citizen is is that the impact fee goes up 4.1% for 3/4 inch and the the uh the the rate for right

for um for a for individual homeowner if they use 5,000 gallons um goes up 43%. That's pretty discouraging. Anyone have anything else they'd like to discuss on this item tonight?

Yep. So why are and we're not increasing non-residential at all in any of these? It's going up at the same percentage. Oh, it is. Yes. 47%. Is your annual increase is that is that for the non-residential or for the residential? For both. Yeah. Yeah. Essentially, this does go up 47.85%, right? But you're there wasn't a usage fee. So it it it goes up from, you know, on average for a single family residential, you know, goes up that 47%. Yeah, that's what I figured. Yeah.

And I guess that's that brings up a great question because if we look at the non-residential, they're almost at $100. And do we want to adjust that to have a higher usage fee and a lower base rate fee as well? Yeah, this is what nonmet residential just on average based on the winter months would use kind of high or low average high.

That would be our like churches, school businesses. And so we want to make sure we don't overcharge our business. because we want to be yes accommodating to that because hopefully in the future we get more businesses that will help offset the residents costs and non-residential as a reminder it was not I mean the city's just well you mentioned the 150 there's just not that or something like between two and three but it's not going to be like that forever though that's the thing but we're not deciding that tonight like hopefully in a year you can readjust it So that's the question is

this is going to impact your your businesses and so they are going to that the 150 that are there right now they're going to be paying this. So, do we want to adjust it for them as well at this point? Keep them on that higher rate until we adjust it next year or the year after. I think that that definitely should be a point of consideration. And then whatever direction you want us to come back with on the rates for to present next next week, I think is what we're we're looking for. Right. So, sorry Michael, but were you suggesting go a lower base rate for the non-residential? Is that what you were saying? And then the higher usage.

I mean, it's the smok and mirror kind of. But it does. We're trying to come up with the same number just using different math. It's common core math, right? But we don't want to scare businesses away. So maybe we want to do the smoking mirror for them a little bit. Well, I think it's I mean if we're doing the same for residents, I think it makes the same I mean this the percentage is the same for both. Correct. Yeah. So I agree. Seems fair. We don't have very many small businesses in town. I'd like to make sure that we're not hurting them any more than we're hurting everybody else.

My thing is they're only the like 3% right now. So I almost said that it's not going to be much if you keep it the same right now or pretty similar to the residential side. But we can relook at this once we get more into we're going to look at this every year, right? Yeah. So, it just seems like I mean it seems like we've heard from the widow. Seems like we're saving the widow six bucks. In turn, we're charging the Hammond $6 more. And and so just we just haven't really heard from the city what's best for the city. And so, if I'm reading it right, we we really don't care. or we can do it either way.

Yeah, because ultimately on on average we're just trying to kind of those average I think from what R was saying the numbers were really like we're talking dollars here. It's not like somebody big of a deal. Yeah, I think with Yeah, because for the city we we have to pay the bill so that we don't get fined by the state. I think where we're at and so

we prefer to have it as low as possible for all the residents and our businesses and we're hoping to again I mean find other alternatives. We're going to go back to try to apply for the state because this proposed bonding will allow us to to callable any time so that we can go and try to get that refinanced or get extra funding for that. So that is going to be our our task at at the staff level is try to go after that extra funding. So if you do approve it next week and we go forward, we're still going to go after all the different funding. We talked to the state and the four uh house bill 492 is available. they have hundred million dollars in that one and we're going to go try and at least apply for it to try and get um difference. They did say that that is a lower interest rate. It's more of about a two right now and so if we can secure that that would save us millions in in the long run. So we are going to go try with this option with the the callable any time in this thing. I think staff would recommend that we do proceedings with this option right now is is the best we've seen and that we do be tasked to go and try to find other alternatives to reduce that in the future and then review this every year.

That when we met with the state yesterday regarding that um the application for that is due on May 6th and they hope to have um awards on that by midsummer. So that would be soon like we could readjust hopefully sooner than next year. And then that one and then we'll also try to reapply for the um the place we got the $16 million will go after that one as well. That um so these rates would start in July of this year, right? For 2027, correct? So between now and then if things did change we can readress this obviously and

could yeah yeah depending upon you know what we could get from the state in terms of and then you know next year you for a lesser amount that's correct and next year you may not need to raise it as much right yeah as far as the rates concerned do we look at multiple vendors for that or do we kind of lock in with one vendor you Um I'm curious. I mean we we chose Zans in this situation but Zans actually was through a diff he found us the loan through a different company altogether like a broker right now. So he goes out looks at the market and you have this

and I think with all these terms because they're getting the callable any time and this low rate and then it's like a set amount for that time period. He's saying that that's really good because going out on the market you may not you may get a lower rate but not callable anytime but you can't go refinance. So this kind of meets all your criteria right now and you can refinance a bond if rates go down. We could refinance and save that way too. Yes. With this one because any time absolutely yeah that would be important. Mhm. But for that you typically play a little bit of a higher interest rate to kind of cover that

usually. But that's why we're saying this one they've given us a decent rate right now before the rates go up. And so if we can act on that and start the process obviously between now and when we actually get all the paperwork in order and do that. There's going to be a difference between what it is. And so again, if we can get funding in the meantime, we'll offset that by that or wait until we get all the funding rolled in together and then refinance it all at that point. I mean, we're definitely going to look at this and try the best we can to reduce this as much as possible.

Okay. Anything else we want to discuss on the sewer rate study? So, I guess are we going to go with the low base rate? Actually, do we want to go with the usage fee? I'm assuming then and not just the back to the flat fee as a consensus. That would be my and I think we lose use the low base rate option. Okay. As well or anything? I I wouldn't I'd hesitate to go lower than that, but

And you want to adjust the the residential non-residential to not be so high on that base? the base because right now as is going to be a $100 where the residential base on the low rate would be 55. Do you want it to I mean we'll it won't do you want it exactly comparable or do you want it obviously a little higher for the commercial and we can have Robert adjust that so it's more practical that lower rate. I think it needs to be more practical. Okay.

So I mean with that average usage with what you have there I mean that's It's a $170 water bill for that average business, right? So, all right. Then we'll we'll look at the low rate and make some adjustments and bring that to council next week. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you, Robert, for all your efforts on this and Aspen today, the opening of the bids, and hopefully by next Wednesday, we're ready to move forward. I know this is a big a big investment for the city, but it has to be done. So, um, we'll close item number four and move on to number five, which is a public hearing item, a consideration of resolution 2026-15 approving a land swap between Grantsville City and Dave and Teresa Reed. Mayor Hammond, council members, my name is Susan Johnson. Um I live at 291 North Koulie Street. I've been a a volunteer with the Clark Historic Farm Group for 13 years since we started. And I'm here to make a statement on behalf of the executive board and the advisory board of the Clark Historic Farm about the land in question. We feel that this land is a view corridor to a very important historic and cultural site. Well, several of them from the ancient past. Stansbury Island, Lake and Lake Bonavville to the establishment of Grantsville farming in the salt plant and also to modern times families recreating together um and Clark Farm events with the natural views of Desert Peak, the Clark Farm in Stansbury Island. There is a tremendous opportunity to create a natural park, walking paths, benches, interpretive signing, signage, and open areas where people can connect to the past, present, and future Grantsville. This park would anchor and enhance the work that has already been done at the Clark Farm, making a more significant impact to preserve the feel of Grantsville among all the new growth.

Um, personally, a personal aside, um, I'm not native to Grantsville. We moved here, but we've lived here for almost 19 years now and, uh, have been fairly heavily involved in community events, and we've seen it change in the in the last 19 years since we've been here. And, uh, I mean, sometimes it's a little bit nostalgic to look back in 19 years ago to the Grantsfeld that was here and uh, and see how it's changed. But honestly, the Gross has brought a lot of really great people to Grantsville. But it's very important, I think, to preserve what there is left of the um history of Grantsville. That's one of the things that our group is dedicated to preserving. And um this area is this this land this this land that we're talking about is adjacent to our property, the Clark Farm, and it's already owned by the city. I mean, I think it would be such a an amazing opportunity for the city with a relatively small investment and could impact potentially in the future tens of thousands of people. So, I would urge you to take that under consideration when you make your decision. Thank you very much. Thank you. Anybody else that would like to make a comment regarding this um item or anyone online? see any other items. Is there somebody from the city staff that will be um presenting this item or are we just ready for a discussion?

I can present if there's any other questions. Does anyone have any additional questions? I know we've talked about this before. So, I guess it's time for a discussion. And are we voting on this tonight? Uh, yes. I do. Are we? Yes. I don't know. It is on the agenda unless you want to for Well, it is. There was a public comment I think that we got in the email that somebody said they didn't have enough time that we received that they wanted more time to look to redo this. Am I wrong? Yes, it has been noticed for 14 days. Okay. So, so we're allowed to make a decision. Sorry. We can make a decision. Absolutely. If we choose to. Okay.

Because there there has been some concern that this is the historic Clark Farm and that if you look from the historic Clark Farm down the the pathway that this back portion creates that view of that past historic Clark Farm. if we get rid of that or swap this portion that that deal will be obscured with a development or other things like that that's put on there. And so I I do want to point out that that they we met with them on site and walked through and looked at their concerns and we want to make council aware that that would be a factor that would be giving up is that view would be shortened to the backside of that property. And then the adjoining piece is not directly in line of the view of where the Clark Farm historically has been. Um, and that's uh I sure I'm not addressing it to what they their expectation is, but that is in a nutshell what their concerns are.

Um, I did go view the property as well, which is I'm I'm more of a visual, so this lot of maps, not super helpful to me, but driving it, what my concern is is, you know, the Reed property does have a lot of I don't know if it's a business or whatever these things are. There's a lot of vehicles, trailers, whatever. If that were to move, they were to move that closer. I don't know. Again, I don't know if it's a business, but if that were to be closer to the Clark Farm and that's what the back is of the Clark Farm or a development or something, it does your I mean, and I know that sometimes just development is, you know, the Clark Farm only has a certain area, but I would be concerned about that like, you know, being at event and that's what you're seeing is in your backyard is trailers and trucks and I don't know. I on the other hand, I don't know, you know, I get the point of leaving it as just a city park. I don't know that that's our best use of the land. Um, but I totally I mean I get what they're saying too. Maybe you know that view is is pretty it's nice. It's you know it keeps the farm feel more in place. I just don't know for the city if having it a park is the best option. But I do have concerns if that moves there. We are taking away that that view and it does again I don't know what the intentions are but that could I see how that could not be good for them and their business. I guess those are just my thoughts,

right? It was when when I it was it's very there's a lot of the deep dips in this land was a ride. So I don't know what we you know we talked about last time that the land we would be getting is in better shape essentially right than I don't know. Is it correct? It's flatter flatter. It's flatter. I guess I didn't go see the other side too well, but I mean it all slopes, but it is flat. Yeah, flat's relative, right? I I think Yeah, flat's relative. I think we are on Earth globe. So,

the the concern I have and I just um you know, we and I vocalized it, you know, when we when this came up for discussion early on is that it isn't a acreage for acreage. Um I know when we're talking about a roadway um or a potential roadway that would be done later um that those would align better um meaning the acreage would align better. I I the way the ordinance is written uh where that would be decided or that would be tied to a future product for the city. I don't know that I like that in my opinion. I don't like to if we're going to do an agreement, it'd be nice if it was clean and cut and and not something that would be hinged on something that could get transferred to another owner or to another owner or to another owner. And maybe that you know, I'm just saying maybe not happen, but that would just be something to think about in my opinion. So,

Rat, Derek, uh, Jeff, do you have opinions on this? Yeah, I have a question about the, um, the easement access on the norththeast side and whether or not that access is truly owned by Grantsville City or not. So, I had a question about that. I I I too went to the side and drove around there and saw that there was an access on the north end which I didn't know that that that existed. So if you scroll up a little bit on the right hand side or the east side right right there next to

Cliff Gardener. Is that where you're referring to and it doesn't show on the map there but there's definitely an access road. There's there's been an easement cut in there. I just was curious um as to whether or not that is Grantsville City's access to that parcel and if that access would continue and if um if the Reeds are expecting that access as well. Maybe

I believe there is an access. I think from what Shelby was saying and what she was researching it was a horse trail. So, I don't know if it's a full-blown road access. We'd have to look into that further. I believe the Reeds uh we as a city would want them to connect that those roads to make a cohesive development. And I'm assuming that I believe the Reed's intention, they're here and they can speak for themselves on that is that they want to sell the property to developer and we work the developer getting that access. But I think in transferring the land, we would want to make sure that that would be written in there that that would be an access point.

So in the property description, it in our property description that's it lists that access in as a trail as a horse trail as a trail. Yeah. Okay. And I believe Shelby was saying there is a distance for an access point. If we need to, then there is that land available. We could look at that. But there is right now an axis, but it's not like very large. So that war street could potentially be come straight down, extended through. Correct. Mhm. Either way. Either way, whether we do this or whether we don't.

Correct. You can see that uh Cliff Gardner, I mean, he's got his fence moved all the way over. I mean, I don't I mean, his boundary line is not where his fence line is. So that's what I saw there was just just the access and if this is not the right time council can we can hold off on doing this and wait me again how we acquired This parcel, this particular parcel I guess Shelby was the one who presented. Zoom would remember.

I do not. Do you remember, Bill? This particular parcel is part of the Clark Farm. Well, how did Brownsville City obtain this piece of property? They purchased it from Joe Cage. Okay. He's the one that built the subdivision down there. He bought the Clark farm from the Clark, one of the Clark's nieces. who inherited it. She sold it to Joe Cage. She also sold all of the Davenport and Northwell property that they owned to Joe Cage.

I'm curious if this um property was deed over to us due to open space for the development that this Palamino Ranch, right? I don't know the answer to that, Rick. I mean, that would make sense. I mean, did we did we think of that in the early 2000s um when these were being built?

I I don't know the answer to that question, but it would make sense to me that that's how we inherited the land essentially was it was due to to open space and that was the intent behind it. So, Yeah, if that's the case, we would need that information or at least I would before I'll vote. So, okay. So, then I recommend that we table this until we get that information, bring it back on the agenda,

unless someone feels otherwise. I don't. Anybody else have any comments before we any other concerns or questions you want us to bring back? I think just specifically the history of it because if it was if if there was an agreement based on open space and we're selling it or breaking that agreement from prior councils. So there there's a lot of big lots down there with all those homes. I they're all one acre, some are halfacre parcels, but majority of them are acre plus. And I mean there really isn't a there isn't a park no

anywhere near there. And I'm just curious if that was the intent behind there. And and if we move that up to the south up the up the up the slope or the slight hill to the south are we taking that away from what its intended use would have been or for those citizens. Has everyone had a chance to go down there? You said you went and you went, Derek, you went. You live there? I live there. You walked out in your basement. Just go for a little walkabout. We do every free night. So we walk up through the cemetery. So yeah, there were actually quite a few people walking when I went when we went

on that on that parcel of ground. Huh? Around the cemetery and on that access road. Interesting. On Rafal Lane then going down. I've been down there several times and I think only one time has there not been at least one person walking if not multiple on those trails. So we need more trails.

There will be always more trails. There there was no one there when I went though. But that was middle of the day. So I'm sure people have to work. But I when I drove down around there, like I just saw a lot of potential what the city could do with it. It's not the best terrain, but just the natural feel of like the pathways that are already there and the curvature like you could put, you know, ponds in just there's a lot of stuff that the city could do with that. And I just I it would be really hard for me to want to do the swap after going down there and seeing what it it really is looks like down there.

Yes. Got it with you. Yes. But but I would like to know what the intention was. Yeah. we can look at the history and see how we acquired that parcel, specifically that parcel, and if it was due to the the development um surrounding it to the east and to the north. Um I think it would be good information for us to have. I'll get that council. I'll make a motion we table um item number five, which is resolution 2026-15.

I'll second. We have a a motion to table by council member Butler and a second by council member Dalton. All in favor? I I

Okay, we will table item number five. Number six, discussion regarding an interlocal agreement between Twilla County School District and Grantsville City. Should have a paper there. As you all know, um the school district has been using the city's park for the eternity of Grantsville. So, um it yesterday I was there at the at the fields. There were baseball games going on, softball games going on, soccer game and tennis, and there was a volleyball game in the gym. So, you can imagine what the parking situation and the traffic situation was on Cherry Street. All of those were school uses. Obviously, they can use the gym in for the volleyball game. That's nothing to do with us, but we've got to figure out some a new agreement. This is just the traffic is just not safe and the usage for the fields. I think when I was growing up here, this worked out just fine. But 30 years later, it's a different Grantsville than it was then. And the number of residents there are three. How many did they did they tell us with the Grantsville baseball? Did anybody remember the number they shared with us? I believe 350 kids.

Little League. Yeah. Signed up for Little League. Something right around there. 50 48 or 50 52. 52 for the older for the older division that want to use the the high school builds. Yeah. So, 52 kids signed up for uh baseball that are between the ages of 12 and 15 and they do not have a field to use because the high school is using the field. I understand the need for the high school to use the field. There's not another option. So, how do we how do we move forward with this agreement? They are waiting for us to return the agreement to them. So,

so the discussion was is that this this uh agreement would be in we don't have a current agreement in place. This agreement was drafted by the district.

Um and so the the goal was one to get an agreement in place for the current year and then determine as a council or as a city what we want to do for subsequent years. Um Heidi mentioned that this has become increasingly more difficult with just no playing space obviously and so um the conversations were had you know what are you know from from the district level what what specifically does what what is Grantsville asking and so um what was discussed is they could continue to use the fields for this year but next year they'll have to find another place to play. So, um and that that goes for the soccer the soccer area, it goes for the softball area and for the baseball area. Now, all of that obviously is up for discussion. It's just, you know, it's been it's been a shared success. I guess you could call it a success because it has been. Um it's pretty amazing the programs we've been able to to come out of Grantsville um both, you know, with the limited space that they have to play. So, but what's become more increasingly harder to manage is the fact that it is a city facility and everyone wants to use it and not everyone can use it when the school district is using it. So, and it's just become more of a conflict. So are are by with this are we just saying hey you can use ours and we can use yours because it's saying that we're going to have access to the their school

as well. Just a little just a little more background on that. So the little league football program for Grantsville has used the back practice field um for forever and 12 or 13 years 14 years as long as it's been a little league.

Yes. And so this year they are planning to take because there is such limited parking in the high school parking lot, they are taking the portables out of the parking lot and they are moving um kind of more of a permanent pod system. It will be eight or 10 classrooms onto the practice field of the high school. So just um just behind the high school onto the practice field. So, they have now um informed the Little League football that they will no longer be able to use um that area. And so, now they're without without somewhere to play, which is a problem we've still got to solve. Actually, I did speak with Are they going to go with Desireette Peak?

They are. They did secure the Desireette Peak for next year, but his So, they'll have to go off and on with Desireette Peak. Yeah. They only get four games is what but but they have worked it out where they can go there for next year and make it work. But they're I mean obviously I think they would love a place in Grantsville to be able to do that. So something that the current president and I had a discussion about. So Okay. Anyway, but but I guess what I'm saying like what I'm reading here like we can use, you know, this the gym and stuff or the socialable in our stuff and then, you know, we're letting them use the cherry the parks for that. Yeah, for the socialable they pay for it specifically. Um

the city does or is the city does? The city sponsored event. Oh, they Yeah, there it comes out of their comes out of their little Miss Grants. So Miss Grantsville and Little Miss Grantsville are the only things they are not charging for. Is that correct? I believe that's the one in here and that's the that's the only sponsored city sponsored event. So it said something about police training too. But yes, we don't have a inter interlocal agreement with the school. We never have as a city and so we felt that was important to actually get something in writing to kind of sort out liability and different things like that.

Okay. So but um I know like do we have the right of first refusal on these fields? Like if it or we just saying hey you right now the baseball fields are taken over by them right that's what we're saying I think the district refusal so we don't love this language this is what they this is what this is what they proposed to us okay and so we're asking for for council's input on what you would like to see and how long you want this to be do you want this to be a year and then say your offer failed or whatever that we're going to have a separate agreement later how does the council fill and want that relationship together.

I feel like this needs to be very temporary just to get something on books right now so we have that on paper, but I feel like we need to do something more permanent, you know, like a plan. Like a plan. Wow. It's just Yeah, we need a plan. I mean, like I I think right now we have a problem. Staff is in agreement. I'm just saying I think right now we do need to get something figured out because right now it's a problem and so we need something but I think it needs to be temporary until we can get an actual plan

because I think how it's written is how they've it's kind of how it's been in the past and so if you want to make any changes to how it's been we can make some red lines and that's kind of what the discussion is is what do you want to see in that okay it's a year what do you want to see right now and then what do we not want to to do in the future after I so I have a question might be for Christy too. We can help. I know in the past the high school teams really maintained those fields for a while or did a lot of work on them. Is that still true or is the city are we mowing it doing everything? I know the coaches during season. Okay. Both teams.

Yeah. So currently the district is mowing and taking care of the fields variation in parts of the fields. Yeah, just the fields themselves. Just the fields. Just the fields themselves. Yep. Just the big field, softball field, and inside the soccer field. So no, at the start of the year, the softball team and the baseball team and they did it this year again because I was I have a kid on the team. No, they fertilize ariate during season and then we take it on and those we probably want to insert a map with this to kind of define those areas a little bit better.

Yeah. So, there's some service that starts out the gate, the teams provide some service, they try to get it ready and um that took place. But yeah, the the overall the that is one thing that they are currently doing. you know, they're fertilizing it and I mean, we're watering it with our water and everything. So, I So, it's really just fertilizing and mowing essentially, right? Because we're still months for three months. Yeah. Did you have a question there? Well, I think the the thing that causes all heartburn is 2A, right?

And just this whole district shall have first right of refusal. And I understand for games that are scheduled and for for practices. Um, but I think both Eric and I can attest to the struggle between um really practices ending and them lingering, especially on the softball field and then baseball teams trying to to to get in a practice or to start a game even as games start on on those dates. And I think we've worked really well together, at least the the those bodies that govern um the uh the baseball league, the little league baseball league um in the past in coordinating games to not be on nights when they're going to have games and go late. Um but just to to have a to have a coach and and I love our softball coach, but to have a coach tell you, "No, you can't get on my field until this time right here." and you know we've you know given them plenty of time. They they started at 2:45 or whatever

and we can't get on that field until 5:15. So it has been a struggle in the past. Um it's I mean what was that 10 years ago when we were involved? Yeah. So well baseball and softball season are super intense as far as scheduling as well. You know that we know what that schedule is going into from the perspective of little league. I guess just like the

I understand, you know, superseded and first right of refusal. Um, but there's needs to be some sort of language in there that talks about collaboration. Um, or or something to that effect, I would think, to where it's not it just sounds like they're the the end all be all, the almighty um iron fist, so to speak, where it's our where it's, you know, it's our property. And I understand that it's their property as well, but I don't think we use their property as much as they use ours. No, we use it for Miss Grantsville and Little Miss Grantsville to not be paid. The other every other time

you have to pay. Has to pay. So why that's sitting in there? So I guess you want us to write it more reflecting the that it's more of a Grantsville favorable contract. That the city park belongs to us. That's what we want it to I guess for the for right now. work. Is there a timeline you want this to last for a year and then all the other things kick into effect? I Yeah, I think it might be worth saying the comment that was made in the discussions is there's a high possibility they won't sign this agreement anyways. So, um they we haven't we haven't put any comments in this so far yet.

This was their draft. So, I just I'm just I'm just stating what was stated. So I think because I think it's just good to know. Um not saying I agree or disagree with my my opinions or anything like that. This is what they presented. I wanted to present it to you. I'm wondering why that comment was I think I mean I think historically there's just been a hey this this is this is how it's been done. Yeah. And they want to keep that way you know the handshake.

I'm trying to find the right words. Um it was yeah this is just kind of how it's worked and now it's become more difficult meaning you know that we've become more difficult maybe as a city to and and I'm and I'm trying not to offend anybody or but I I I'm just stating kind of what was stated. Um

and you know the the the hard part in this whole thing is that is that that actually didn't come from the city side originally. came from the district saying that, you know, we now the little league is the little league has created an issue for us and we need fields. We could use the park for fields, but we can't use the park for fields because there's soccer games going on on the on the on the fields. So, um, which creates the issue, which compounds the issue. So, it's it's pretty complex, but I think I think the and you my opinion is that we we ought to go through this and if there are things that we don't agree with, we we can redline them and present it back. I think the ear the quicker we get an agreement in place, the better off. There isn't really anything that that specifies. I I mean I was asking questions if so if if you know we have a baseball player that breaks his ankle in a hole water hole is he going to come after the city or is he going to go after the school district

and after the city that's yeah because we own it right but we're but who's maintaining it? Is the school district maintaining it? Yeah. But is there agreement? No, there's not agreement. So none of those answers are great.

Um and so I think we do need something in place and we should have had something in place. quite frankly, they should have pushed to have something in place. The school district should have pushed to have something in place. So, one, getting that in place, then two, deciding as a as a as a city, you know, what do we what do we want to do for next year? Um, you know, so it it is a little bizarre that like Miss Grant still gets to use the high school for free basically because the mayor knows to say you're using my baseball fields. But they did charge a socialable original bill was between $10 to $12,000 and that for one day that didn't include turning the air on you have to pay extra for air

which they didn't do on Saturday. No, it was really hot. So I mean that's just but but in the school's defense we did get it lower. We negotiated. We did I don't even know what we did. We did something and we got it down to half that I think. But it's just bizarre,

right? Another thing to point out is when the little league football was using the practice field for a games, I believe the charge was 575 to 600 a Saturday to use those facilities. So why then are they using the fields every single day at no charge? Now, I know part of that was because we were using the restrooms and the concession stand for the Little League football program and but I don't know that the 575, which is what I think the number was, is quite equating to paying to use that that little facility for that amount of time. whereas all year long they're using those facilities at our park, three different fields, and not paying a penny. So,

well, the other thing that that's happening, and I'm I'm really surprised that that White Chapel isn't just barricading off their parking lot like because it has become a permanent school parking lot and it's not fair to them either. So, so if you ask like what's their backup plan if they don't use our fields to send where would our high school the comment was made we have other facilities we we would we would take care of it. I don't know if that means they would go up to the junior high and you know would spend a couple hundred grand to make that a playable surface for the baseball team and then I don't know I don't know that on drink that's already a problem there

I was just told that it wouldn't be an issue they would options yeah so I don't know if that means we would share we'd bus our kids to

to Desireette Peak to share the field with them I don't you know in bowler share their facilities or if it meant you know we'd share it with Tilla. It the the hard thing is is with there's just has never been a plan. And that's the frustrating part I think more than anything is is there doesn't seem to be a plan. Um, and that if they were looking ahead and looking to purchase a new school, which I'm sure we're in the Q4, should be in the Q4. Um, they could at least just purchase the ground and they could put two fields in a in a restroom facility there and it would then they could build the rest of the structure later. At least at least our kids would have a place they could play on. So, and this affects this is I have I have two boys that have gone through that program and I have one that's there now. So, telling telling my son, hey, sorry, you're going to go you're going to go play in Tilla or whatever to that. So, anyway, but it's the right thing to do in my opinion.

We are trying to focus on parks. We are building a park with small fields, right? And there's probably enough grass there to play football on, I think. Well, eventually when we get to the next phases there will be. Yes. But we're we're a little ways from that. I maybe Yeah, we are, I guess. Yeah. And that's hard because we have a park, but we can't use it for any of the like we can't put a can't put a little league football over there because schools using it. Those fields, the little league uses a small field, but like the larger field now has become an issue and softball fields could become more of an issue, too. Well, and in the fall you have the high school girls soccer team on the field, so you couldn't use that for

for football. For football. Yeah. For a little big football. Yeah. It's been a fight for a long time with no answers. But I mean, typically we've been a community that's just rivaled around our high school, right? We rally around that. We we've rallied around that. Well, and I made a comment that like it's our park. And I don't mean like that. I just want to clarify. I'm saying we can collaborate with them. I'm not opposed to that. I'm not saying like get off our park.

I'm saying, but I feel like we're kind of they're kind of like, hey, this is what we're do. Maybe it's because this is the first draft and we need to come back with a draft. I think we could collaborate and I think that would be fine. I think I think the problem is too is we're just becoming bigger. We have bigger little league teams. We have bigger high schools. It's like, you know, now it's just become a problem where we need to get something on paper. And that's exactly the problem. It's not that we don't want to be collaborative and we don't want to work together and we don't want to cooperate. We just simply are running out of space for both entities to use the same the same place and we're deficient on parks already. Yes, we are.

So, having one that we can't allow, you know, h having one that gets used most of the time also makes that compounded. So, are we voting on this or should can we just discuss so we can review it and maybe give some proposals of what we think should change? Yeah, you can email me those. Okay. We are going to try to um get back to them in the next couple weeks. Our goal. So, um the term on this agreement as it's written is five years. Yes, it is. Yeah. Yeah. I think our understanding when we met with them would put this as a year and so this hasn't been updated since we talked to them.

It's five years. Yeah. And if we wanted to ex extend a year or do another one for a year, we could do that, too. So, we we just get a lot of comments about the girls coming, but let's preserve who we are. Well, that is the socialable on Miss Grantsville and our high school, right? It's all a part of it. It's all a part of it. Preserving who we are is that's the probably biggest part of it. So, well, and I think what Jake said too, we'd like to keep the high school here. I mean, people don't want to drive to, right? We're not saying we don't nobody wants to drive to go see some, you know, their kids play at a different a different place. So, I really like my 22nd commute to So, so they wrote this.

Yeah. And they included that the social can use the facilities for free and then so I think use scheduling I think for the season, whatever the season is. I think we have to put a time just like we talked when we ran it like if We had an agreement like we got the field at 5, but they'd go to 5:15. We'd have games start right at 5:15 to try to get in two games before it got dark and they'd still be on there just dragging their feet and we'd have to be the second game would go short. We get two innings, three innings maybe. I think we put a time in there and then on like a time for each team like you want it

like the high school 2:45 to 4:45. You get it two hours a day during the season of February to wherever and then the city gets it after. But don't they maybe this has changed but they used to have their varsity games and then right after the JV game completely different on game day. We're just talking about practices. That's where the most contention happened was because you have two converging teams coming onto the field and then you have a high school team that is wanting to leave on their own time. So is this a problem? Like this baseball season starting right now, right?

Oh, we're well into it. Joe, I think we should even do less than a year because we need, like I said, we need something tempered, but we need to sit down and because now we're going to be coming in the same spot next time and we're trying to come up with agreement when we're already like it's like, you know, we're trying to decide where a kid goes to school. We need to do that before enrollment starts. Like the end of the 206.

Yeah. Right. Like we say, okay, let's let's start talking about this before so we're not coming upon the season saying because right now I feel like we're kind of a little bit under pressure to figure this out. And so I'm like, let's let's sit down sooner or like keep ne negotiations going of like I we think we should do something. One, it would tell us it's kind of like a temporary agreement. We see how we like it. How is this working? What needs to be fixed? Do we need to adjust the times? Do we need to say, you know, what's not working? And then we can sit down and look at again. So every year they have a meeting with all of the coaches and the school district is there and Christie

was there this year. So we have representatives from the city and they kind of collectively try to figure out how they're going to make it work. And so there's there's concessions that the coaches give to try to, you know, in that process. Um and and they have been really good. I will say like the the they want kids on the field, you know, as well. Um but they have, you know, a team to coach and no place to play. So, but it's been a it's been a really good shared working relationship with everyone. It just it's just like sharing some sooner later.

But when you come out of those meetings, do we have an agreement? Is it like, "Hey, this is what we're going to do." No, it's we need an agreement. It's we need an agreement. It's not working. It's not working. It's not working. The last Yeah. Every year it's the same discussion. Yeah. Like I said, I think it's good to be collaborative, but it sounds like we're doing a lot of talking, but not a lot of actual plan.

Well, and the the high school coaches need to be commended because um they're put in a tricky situation as well. Any other school in the district? Uh you say the softball team lingering as an example you used Rhett. Uh any other team in the district um if they have a big game that week and things weren't looking great at practice, they can practice as long as they need to. They don't have the issue of hurt you got to be off by 4:45 because we got to fit in two more games tonight on this field. So, it's it's really quite impressive how long this has worked and the collaboration that has taken place all these years to make this work, but it just seems to be that every year it's getting just a little trickier. So, I guess I think at this point my suggestion is please make any comments or suggestions on these, email them over and this will obviously be another discussion item in the future.

Christie, do you have anything you want to add on that like for the end of the week or week? That would be helpful because we would like to get it turned back to the district and keep that negotiated because I mean if we wait too long the season's going to be over, right? Essentially over that, right? I guess liability wise because we don't want anything happen before we have something in place.

I have one quick question Christy on paragraph F, the costs to F. The district shall pay the custodial and technical expenses incurred during city use of district. Sorry, I'm just reading this making sure I'm reading. Okay, so with the restrooms, they aren't the park restrooms. I'm sorry, I'm on the wrong paragraph, but are they paying anything to maintain the restroom at the park? No. No. Okay. So we use their they let us they pay the custodial expenses within two days of the year

and then we pay all them for three months essentially. Is that right? Okay. So we want to see something like they'll pay during the three months they'll pay for the

those facilities. And I get I get a text about every day about are the bathrooms going to be opened at the park? I don't know. Go check. But it's it's a constant it's a constant question of what's it it's just time to be able to be on anyway. Anything else on this item? No. Okay. We're going to close item number six. Item number seven, consideration of resolution 2026-16 amending the Grantsville City fee schedule regarding rodeo ground rental fees.

Who is presenting this? It's your cows. It's the rodeo crop.

Um, okay. So, currently in the in our fee schedule, we have $100 rodeo rental fee. No one knows what that means. So, no none of no one's been charged. Um, it's very vague. It is it $100 to go ride for five minutes? Is it $100 for the day? Is it There's no It's Yeah. So, basically, we haven't been collecting any fees for that. It's in it's been in our fee schedule, but we haven't been collecting it because no one knows how to charge it because it's big. So, um, we did some research on other local facilities in the county and outside of the county with other cities in the Salt Lake Valley and what they do. Um, and this is what's being proposed uh instead that would allow us to actually get some clarification and uh begin charging a fee and collecting it. Um there is a difference for resident and non-resident. So they would have to provide like proof of residency when they're booking. Um it does in um for things such as like the 4 that practices there. Um, we did put in a disclosure that like nonprofits, clubs, and other special circumstances would be encouraged to contact city hall um so that way we could get a contract in place for them for the year. Um, so that's something that they could contract um and negotiate with Michael just a different terms for their practices rather than having to charge $50 twice a week for their practices because we don't want it to become burdensome on the 4 club. So we're just looking at the part in green right here. That's the only thing we're talking about.

Yeah. Okay. Yep. everything else the rest is just what our fee schedule for other things. So is that half a day for 4 hours? Is that for one person? Is that for 100 people? That's just to reserve the space. So like if I wanted to reserve the space for 4 hours, I can use it for myself or I can invite all of you to come. I get to use it however I see it. It's not contingent. I we didn't put in there like what are you using it for? Mhm. So, so if someone wanted to just host a fullblown rodeo all day long and I'm a resident, $100.

I'll come to your rodeo, Red. Sounds fun. Yeah. Yeehaw. We had a survey. A lot of people want that. So, if you want to put one on the Facebook the Facebook comments were pretty Grantsville days rodeo. Yeah, I think we should. Yeah, I think this is good. I think we should try it like this and see how it works. And then if we get problems with people are like, I'm going to have a party on the rodeo grounds. We're going to have a, you know, Yeah, there's like, you know, I mean, to be sure, they could have been doing that for free up until now. So, well, but we're right next to the PD, so probably that'll get shut down pretty quick.

Well, here's here's a concern I have. I didn't realize and until the last three months how much use there really is on the rodeo grounds each day. Um nearly every single day that I'm here, there are people back there just riding their horse and and I I hate the idea of saying you've got to pay $50. Yeah. So just clarify this is just to reserve the arena. So if it's not Thank you. If it's not reserved, it's free for open ride. If it's not reserved,

it can be like your park. You reserve the park pavilion. Okay. But you can go use it. If it's reserved, if it's just available, right? You can do that. It's a reservation like a park. Got it. Yeah. That way you know you got Yes. Question I had was regarding the tractor. That's my question. Okay. Some guys just wanted me to go drive a tractor. That's what That's right. Well, um I don't Yeah. What? Explain that maybe.

So, if they need So, if they wanted to like if the 4 is doing their year end rodeo, like their show or whatever, and they want the arena dragged between events, they're going to need to use the tractor. So, this would they would need to have if if that's the case, is that is that how it's been done in the past? They've been using it willy-nilly. There's been no key to the tractor or anything like that. So we got here, we got a key installed so no one can just go start it and drive off. And so liability wise, they can't drive it unless they're a volunteer. So if they do want to use the tractor, they'll have to go through our volunteer process, get signed up to do that, be trained on it, and then they're able to use the tractor. Otherwise, they'll have to bring their own tractor or a rake.

Okay. But like our like our team does like maintain the arena. So it's not like it never gets worked as is. So if they don't need it specifically like between barrel racers or something else, then they don't need to it won't be used, but it would just be the ground as it was last worked as is. Who who's training them and making sure they can drive the tractor? And two, are they signing anything that says if I drive this through the fence or the whatever that they're liable for it or

there'll be a liability form through the insurance company. So that's something that we've talked to the Utah local government's trust with and that's who is our insurance. So it would be and that's part of the application form is that they'll provide liability. Again, if it's a full-blown event rodeo, they'll provide that liability for that. And remind me who does somebody contact to reserve this. Uh that would be Alicia's office. Okay. You, Alicia. No, don't call Alicia. There's actually a form online. Okay. And then it goes to Gina. Okay.

She she does them all. She does that. All right. But thanks for So, I guess you feel like those fees are too low. Do you want to increase them? I'm not the biggest fan of the nonprofits just coming to negotiate because what if you like the 4 better than the you know the little writers club or whatever and they they talk and you gave one $25 that the mayor. We probably should have both just in case one of us are not available. Yes, I think.

But no, I agree. If you want I mean if you don't want to put any leeway because the question is do you charge them per day and there's multiple days they do it and then it cost them too much and they can't do it. And so that's the idea is like do you just charge them one and then or charge them the whole thing and don't do it back and say but advertise Grantsville as at your event. Yeah. I mean it's not like a hard no for me. It's just I could see maybe someone someone thinks that I mean like nonprofit's going to use it to have it done. I don't know once it becomes more popular hope hopefully. I think right now I don't think anyone the only time I've been over there is to to watch a 4 one and I was actually glad that they were

using it. Yeah. So, um or unless you want to put like a because that's the question is if you lock it down for a longer period of time for a lower rate, how do you someone else could take it during the 4 time just to do their rodeo? So, how do you manage that? So, we're Yeah, somebody's going to have to So, that's why there's coordination on that. Coordinated. We're hoping for that event. We're just talking um if they did it for like what four days then it's just that amount of money and so that makes it impractable for them. Do we want to prevent them from doing that and giving us the power to negotiate that? That's again it's not going to be lifechanging for the city.

Well, in the past have we not charged them anything before? Right. I think we should keep it the same. I mean like if we haven't charged them in the past I think we keep the nonprofits. But I think this looks good. Yeah. I think it's a good The only thing is just the use of the lights. That is something that I would think would be separate if someone wanted to utilize it at night. I mean, they just turn on they just turn on the lights. I mean, those are metal halli lamps. Those those suck the juice

and then turning them on, you're going to have that initial cost per month fee or whatever for the power company. So they get pretty pricey when you turn on lights. So we can look at that as a a separate fee if you want to have that added right now. Would it include the lights as as is? I guess we don't know. Well, it be for free. If it was just show up, right? Yeah. Yeah. And unless all the lights are on one meter, it's going to be tough to would have to figure out which meters they're connected to and then I guess read them before they start or just do a flat usage fee. I think a flat light fee. Yeah.

Is what you're going to have to do. And what would that be? $100 a night because you're probably going to spend more than that. Has it ever been used at night? Oh, yeah. To be sure though, if they're using it at night without reserved without a reservation and they turn the lights on, then I don't really know how we would Yeah. I mean, then they're still just using the lights for free. Yeah. I guess you lock us on period. If you want to use Maybe we could put quarters in like the vacuums of the car wash.

You're not going to want quarters. dollar bills. $100 bills. Let's put a donation bucket next to it. Does um does the high school rodeo club use this facility? Do we want to put that in the last agreement we just talked about? I I don't know. That's why I asked. I don't know if they use it or if they go up to the high school. I kind of think they go to Desert at Peak, but I don't know that for sure. I'm wonder are we creating a problem here? like people like shoot now I got to pay because I want to reserve it or I think we don't know what we don't know and so like

well it's free free right now and so we want to actually start having the ability to make it functional know what we're actually going to be charging for and if we do make that motion you can make the motion to include utility payment line in amount or I mean if you're I mean it's free now it's in our fee schedule to be at $100 but if you're wanting to not do anything we could You could propose we just take it out, but I think we can't include it in our fee schedule as it is and just because there's nothing it's in there at $100, but we're not doing anything with it, right? No direction. No one knows how to charge either.

But I also think it is beneficial for somebody to be able to reserve it and say like, "Oh, I hope I can go over there and have my, you know, I want to go do this thing." It would be nice for somebody to reserve it. I mean, they can do that now, but like you said, we just don't have any clarity. So I think this gives some clarity and we can but I do think we should charge for the lights too if it is going to cost us. Sure. Do um can I also do we want to specify like half day 4 hours because somebody could say oh I want it from 8 to noon and then somebody else could be like well my four hours started at 9 and you know I mean I mean we do have a calendar but I don't know if we want to get into that. I don't know. Just a thought.

I think Gina would have to deal with that when they apply would want the time and the and the the time or the date and time that they are going to do it. So that way there's no overlap. Yeah. Yeah. No, it'd be nice to be able to get some dollars to put toward I mean there's been a lot of discussion of a rodeo and very positive discussion and you know there's the grounds are going to be in need of not that $50 is going to do much out there but I can bring it a lot.

It's not a profit center really and quite frankly it shouldn't be in my opinion. I I it is a benefit to the residents and trying to find a balance there so they can use it and yeah anyway so I I think this is a a great move in the right direction. So do we want to put something in there? So, like if we do the rodeo, if Shelby does it, like since they're splitting ticket fees and stuff like that, do we put something like if it's like that, we wave this so you don't have to pay the daily thing because we're kind of working together or is that going to be a city sponsored rodeo? It would be a city sponsored. Okay.

Okay. Never mind. Ignore what I said. I do think the utility I do think we need to address utilities because that obviously I probably if they ran the lights for an hour a year, $50 isn't going to cover the lights. Yeah. Do we do we know what the lights cost per hour? No. We could have we could have to figure Well, we'll have to figure that out. We could approve it as is and then bring that back with the um uh

with that information. Okay. I think that's add that to as another line item. All right. If there is there any more discussion? If not, um, if someone would like to make a motion. So, I make a motion we approve resolution 2026-16 amending the grants city fee schedule regarding rodeo ground rental fees. Have a motion by council member Butler. Is there sorry, Williams? Is there a second? I'll second the motion. A second by council member Skinner. All in favor? I I.

Great. That passes. Thank you. Item number eight, consideration of resolution 2026-13 adopting the 2026 municipal white wastewater planning program report. The city has to fill out this report every year and part of the report asks when it's been um approved by council. So, we've actually already submitted it saying that this is the date that you would approve it. It goes through and asks general questions about um our fee schedule, about emergency plans, about your future planning,

and this is required by the state. How many lines of sewer you have, miles, excuse me, do they know how many hours? We've talked about sewer in the last. No, no, they don't. I'm assuming that you've gone through this. Um, you probably assisted in filling it out, but it's it's accurate. I mean, I look through. So, Marcus, Aspen, and I all three of you. Okay. As much as any discussion. No, this is just a report, right? This is just what we're saying. This is what we have. Yep.

All right. Mayor, I move that we a motion that we approve resolution 2026-13 adopting the 2026 municipal wastewater planning program and WPP reports. Thank you. All right. We have a a motion by Council Member Skinner and a second by Council Member Butler. All in favor? I. Thank you. Thank you. Item number nine, consideration of resolution 2026-14 approving a wildland fire management cooperative agreement. That's you, Chief. Now, one's mine.

All right. Good evening, Mayor, council members. For the record, my name is Fire Chief Jason Remick, and I'm here tonight to request approval for the 2026 cooperative agreement between Grantsville City and the Utah Division of Forestry, Forestry, Fire, State Lands for Wildland Fire Protection. This agreement is the framework that allows our crews to pivot rapidly initial attack and wildland fires within our response area while also ensures we can quickly access the state resources up to and including incident management support and aviation when an incident grows beyond our local capacity. Um this is how we make money off the state when we go out on wildland fires. They pay us, they pay the fire department, they pay the city.

Great. I think that's another thing we do every year, right? Yeah. Yeah. And this is a fiveyear agreement or fiveyear agreement. does I this question probably doesn't pertain to this agreement at all in any way, shape, or form, but I just had to clarify the discussion that's been had at the state level to change areas that are designated as fire zones. The wooi, that's totally different.

I just wanted to make sure that wasn't okay. because I Anyway, yeah, totally different conversation. Okay. All right. Is this just a standard? Is there anything different in here that you guys No, this is the same thing. Just then we get paid back for when we go out on the state lines. And if we break a truck, they fix the truck. Okay. Does what they pay you increase over everything or does it kind of stay the same all?

It's kind of went up and up a little bit. I mean, they pay pretty good when we go out on fires. So, our tender is what makes the money when we go park it out and they use it for weeks. And I got a feeling this year we're going to need it. Yeah. I mean, money is great, but I just rather not have any fires. So, I I agree. I would rather not have fires. Last year was very slow. So, we might not have any fires. There might not be anything to burn. Might all be dead. just dirt.

Is there anything in this agreement? You've I mean obviously gone through this go through it every year. Is there anything that has changed or anything we need to be aware of that's different or anything that concerns you? Not at this point. No. And obviously Michael and the attorney will be signing the agreement. I will not be. And we've reviewed it. We don't have any problem with it. Right. T correct. Mayor, I'll make a motion. We approve resolution 2026-14 approving a wild wild land fire management cooperative agreement. Okay, we have a motion by council member uh Dalton. Do we have a second? Second. Second by council member Butler. All in favor? I. All right.

Thank you. Thank you. Thanks, Chief. Item number 10, consider consideration of a proposed revision update to the city's annexation policy plan. Thank you, Bill. Hello, everybody.

Great meeting. Thank you very much. This is a proposal to update our Excuse me. Oh, that just got me. Um, our annexation policy plan. An annexation policy plan is not required, but it's recommended that cities have them. And if you're going to have them per state code, there are some requirements that we have to follow, including some noticing requirements that uh we just found out about. And so we'll bring this back to you in midappril u for an actual approval. But since it's on the agenda and it's a good idea to warm you guys up to what is in the document anyway um this is uh a good time to talk about it. Um but we just can't take any action on it tonight. So uh this item is uh a statement of policy. It's a a a what it's saying is in essence this is where we anticipate the city to grow out to in the next 20 to 50 to 100 years. And really what it means is as a property develops anywhere within the annexation area, the city has the first bite of the apple, the first right of refusal on whether or not we accept an annexation petition into the city. Um this covers three main areas. Area A is on the northwest quadrant of the city that extends from the Broken Arrow uh area all the way north and includes Stanbury Island. Um area B and it's a little hard to read on that but that's this mostly the sixmile ranch area uh the area north and west of Mid Valley Highway. And then area C is the southwest quadrant of the city and it's mostly open space and would be anticipated to remain open space with large lot kind of development. And the reason why the city would want to entertain this kind of thing is is uh

a couple of reasons actually. Um, as we look to the future and as areas continue to feel pressure to develop, uh, the city would want to have a say in how that develops and what that looks like. We would want to make sure that the infrastructure costs are being borne by developers, not by the city. We would want to make sure that th those that infrastructure as it goes in meets city standards as well. um it would uh we would apply things like zoning regulations and and other things out there in th those uh to be annexed areas. And so while this is not anything more firm than this is area that we anticipate annexing into the city if and when that time ever comes. Um, it still is our our, like I say, our bite of the apple to say this is where we anticipate annexing property into the city. One other thing I want to make clear, nowhere in here is the city on the hook for any kind of infrastructure development. We're not paying for roads, water, sewer, or any of those other kinds of connections. the developers as they annex into the city would have to hook on to at their cost our our existing system and pay impact fees um that would uh help offset the impact on our existing infrastructure. So um I just want to make that clear. This is not us saying we're going to go grab this land and pull it into the city without any kind of funding or or anything like that for infrastructure. So, is this for somebody that wants to annex into the city? They were saying here's the plan of if you want to do that, here's what you have to follow. That's kind of the way this is.

Yes, that's exactly right. And which areas the city is designating as

you we would entertain that. Yeah. So for example, there are some properties obviously uh that are either in Erdo or Tilla or you know maybe even that area between area A and C that we would not consider to be areas uh that we would annex into the city. Um but the areas A, B, and C are definitely areas we would consider if they could bring the infrastructure in with them. We would consider that. Does anyone have any questions on that or have anything they want to discuss regarding the annexation plan?

Stbury Island seems like a far-fetched I don't know. I just that just seems like anything on the other side of I80. I I just I just don't know if that's something we need to look that far out into. If someone wants to create a city on Sansbury Island, then more power to them. I just And I'm not saying we'd annex that in. It would have to be a decision, right, at a at a different council at a different date. But I think what this does, if correct me if I'm wrong, Bill, it just means that we have the the first right to it, the first bite of the apple. You mentioned that. I get it.

I think what we would like to avoid, and this is just me speaking uh for myself, but what I think we would like to avoid is a situation like Eagle Mountain where they developed way out in the middle of nowhere to avoid the costs of coming into a city and they formed their own. And um now I mean you've seen what has happened out there. Um it's crazy.

I was just out there. It was crazy. It's an it's it's not very well done. I'm just gonna Yeah. And we want to avoid that kind of thing. So, Stanberry Island, yes, probably not in our lifetime or my children or my grandchildren's lifetime would that ever develop. And the other thing is that I think it's about twothirds of the island is owned by the BLM anyway. So, it's it's highly unlikely that would ever develop. But there are other industrial type uses out there that one could see wanting to develop out on the island. Things like salt processing or or mineral mining or lithium. I know that's a big one, too. If that were to come out and they had enough horsepower to get our services out there or wanted to, you know, flom onto our ability to provide services, that could be something that we would want to consider at that point because that would be a very nice tax base kind of income revenue source for us and we'd want to consider that. So again, um the uh just to make another thing clear, the planning commission did review this map. This was their recommended map and the the policy plan as written and so they voted to make a recommendation for approval of the annexation policy plan. So,

Bill, just for education, really, this question has nothing to do with this, and I've just been pondering our earlier two or three times since I've been on the council, we have discussed paying an upcharge fee to increase the size of the line. Given the the growth that we know is happening, why wouldn't we just require the the upsized line, if that makes sense?

Yeah. There's there's a there's a delta between what a developer requires for a development, say it's a 12-in water line, right? and the um what we can anticipate as a city with engineering and careful planning and and anticipating the zoning and everything else that's going on. Maybe we want a 15 or an 18 inch line, right? We pay the difference. So if it's that's what I'm asking. Why are we doing that? Like well because it for for a couple reasons. It's much much much less expensive to pay for that 6 in difference in the in the waterline size. increase

and and it's only one trench at one time and as opposed to having to go in again in the same vicinity and either put in a separate line or rip the road back out 10, 15, 20 years later and put in that 15 or 18inch line that we should have done when they first did it. A prime example is um Dorvy Home water line that goes up to our new million dollar tank, right? uh they only needed I think a 12 inch line and we upsized it to 16. We're only paying 100,000 for that and they're paying a couple million to put in the line. There's an efficiency. We can't require it. And so we pay the difference between that and then we get that extra

capacity capacity that we can comm but anyone that ties to that then they pay that's the impact fee that we can charge then we yeah we recoup those costs. So the Vegas straight line Yep. The city obviously didn't pay to upgrade that line when it was put in. We should have. We should have. Yeah. Yeah. But it's it's hard to say. How do we plan better or is that does this help us?

Well, without false modesty, that's why you hire a guy like me to come in and help. No, I'm being serious. If you hire a guy like me, I'm not saying me necessarily, whatever. but uh someone that can has the the experience and foresight to look forward and say, you know, guys, we're we're paying $3 million to put in this sewer line. If we paid another $500,000, it would service not just this area, but every other area in the vicinity for the next 100 years. And that cost is only getting more expensive. And because the developer is doing it right now, he's paying the lion share of it and we're just paying a a very minor upsizing charge. Yeah. Which we we've done enough.

Yeah. I like your answer. Good job. Yeah. Thanks. Perfect. So, we're not we're not approving this. We cannot. Right. No, but if you do have questions or thoughts or concerns, let me know. And if if I've missed something or I I misspelling or whatever, let me know, please. and and we'll make those adjustments as necessary. Um but uh we feel good about where this is going and and um the planning commissioner recommends approval as well. So um that's where we're at with that. Perfect. Thank you. Yep. Any other items of discussion for that? Are we ready to move on? Okay.

All right. We'll close item 10 and move to item 11. consideration of ordinance 2026-17 approving amendments to chapter 2 of the Grantsville City Land Use and Management Code. So, if Shelby were here, and she's not, bless her, she's taking care of some family things and yeah, she that's wonderful. um she would go through this line by line and I'm prepared to do that if you'd like, but my style is more of to open it up to questions and or just give you a general overview of what's going on if you have uh any concerns or thoughts that way.

Yeah, I think will you give us the overview and then we can ask questions.

Okay, perfect. So, uh, chapter two is our definitions chapter of the ordinance, and I think that's pretty obvious. Some of the things that were in there are better placed where they're closer to the uh, questions of concern. For example, most of the ones that are in red that you'll see that are deleted have to do with our sign ordinance, which is in chapter 20. So those got removed from u this chapter and they will be placed in chapter 20 when those changes are brought before you in a couple weeks. Um there are other things that were in here that needed a little bit of tweaking uh just in the name of clarification and um just yeah and so you'll you'll notice there are a few minor little tweaks here and there but then the larger ones are the are the big definitions in green that if you could go down I think it's there's like a conditional use permit definition. Um,

keep going. There's dozens of them. Keep going. So, yeah, there you go.

So, there's community garden. We didn't have a definition for that, although that was a a use in one of our use tables. So, we wanted to define that concept plan. This is an interesting one because uh state code does not require a concept plan, but if a developer wants to, this is where it's defined as to what we're looking for. Um, and then conditional use permit. We kind of flesh that out here. We've got it separated out into conditional use and conditional use permit. So, those are are the what you see in green there is all new information. And there are several of them that are like that. So, this was um proposed through obviously planning and zoning and they vetted through this the last

it's been several months really three meetings. Yeah. At least. And we're just talking definitions here. So, we're just defining these some of the correct terms. Any of the red ones that are outlined, we're taking those out and putting them in different chapters just so they fit with Yes, that's right. Okay. So we're not like taking them out completely. They're just going to be placed move to like I said most of them are going to chapter 20 which is our sign ordinance and all of the sign definitions didn't make sense here. Let's move it to chapter 20 where it's a little closer to the to the action as it were. Like we have electric awning sign is taken out percentage. Yeah, that makes sense. That looks like a lot of legal ease.

This was approved unanimously by planning and zoning. Yep. Do we define the front yard? Kind of. It looks like it. You had to go there. Corner lot. Corner lot. I see the corner lot. I didn't see the front. Yeah. Corner lot. Um lots rather than yards. Um just one thing on number 96, family food production. I'm not going to get into what we talk what they all went into, but it says 96 and then it says 104 next to it. So, I don't know what um that was a mistake or keep going. 96. Go up. It's on page 51. Sorry. I can

on my Oh, it's there on my Oh, the numbering page 51. You just had it. It go keep going down just a little bit. It's under family. There you go. There. I think the numbering is off. I think it's it was meant to be 96. Yeah. that whole it's just 96 but it was prior to that it was 104 so we just need to take up I I can change clerical things like that yeah those are dimminimous changes that don't affect the

yeah is this just to give more clarification for like are we having issues with this is just put more things we do actually have a few somewhat significant issues with some of these definitions. Uh, a lot of what's driving this is um clarification for staff so that when someone comes in and says, "I want to do family food production." Well, what does that mean? Well, now we know. We can point directly to this. Um, and we can help guide residents and applicants to say, "This is what's allowed. This is how many chickens and geese and whatever else you get to have."

Um, and we I think we even squeezed a horse in there, too. I think. Yeah. Yeah. So, you get to have a horse for family food production. I don't know what that means. I'm just going to leave that to your imagination. Um Well, I can give you an example. Well, I know you can. So, it it doesn't say that you're eating the horse. It just talks about Well, but you know, your son's going to Paris for a couple years, right? Maybe he'll have a hankering for it.

I don't know. Anyway, um again, the the idea was to help provide that clarity for applicants as well as uh staff to uh know exactly what is meant by family food production. Employee was another one. What does an employee mean? Home occupation is a very large one.

A home occupation is a big one and uh it it is of necessity a a big one. Um, a home occupation really should be something and the example I use for it is like the little old lady and my this is my sweet mother when I say it who has a quilting machine in her basement and she makes and sells them on Etsy or wherever and ships them all over the world. But the the UPS guy comes once a day and brings her fabric or whatever and then they take the quilts that she's already prepackaged and and hauls them away. And other than that one delivery a day, you would never know that there's a thriving million-dollar business going on in my sweet mother's basement. And there's not. She's She does do quilts, but she doesn't make a million. Um she could. She just Anyway,

the Amazon guy would be the same. Yeah. What's that? The Amazon guy delivering would be the same amount of traffic. Yeah, exactly. So, is that is that is that on page 63? Is that micro? I know we we had a discussion. Yeah, that was that was one that we'd already approved. So, I'm not sure if it shows up in green again. Did we not have MDA? We we did not. And so, this helps again to define those terms and provide that clarity that we're looking for. It's a lot of work for our community development team to do. No, a lot of clean up. Appreciate it. And when he says team, what he really means is Shelby. And I better give credit where it's due. 179 MDA.

That should have been corrected to say often between developer and the city, not landownerclient. The MD is not it's not an agreement between the developer and the land owner. We can change that. Yes, good one. Yeah, thank you. Oh, yeah.

Other questions? I do want to shout out for Shelby for real. She is phenomenal. uh she's a huge asset for our department and for the city and I uh she's my right-hand person and I I we couldn't do what we need to do without her help and her expertise and she's awesome. So, thank you Shelby if you're listening. Thank you Shelby.

That's a big one right there. Overlay district. Y

do we feel like we've I guess this is a staff question. Do we feel like we've addressed everything? No, but we'll be back.

This is a a constant I mean really it's a constant iterative process. you'll see when we're in front of you in a couple weeks with the big the big one. Um that it just it's it's always going to be a little something. And it's not just responding to deficiencies that we as staff note in the code, but state code changes every year, the regulations that we're required to deal with with case law coming out, um national Supreme Court decisions, and it's just it's a constant state of revision. And um in and on one hand that's just job security for me and Shelby, right? But on the other hand um it it is a constant revision to make sure that our code reflects the needs, desires, and goals of the city. And that's that's the importance of it.

Tyson, from a legal standpoint, are you good with this? Yes, we we've been through this several times. I was able to quickly note that one in the NBA. It's not the first time I saw that. That that's something that I they've been glaring for for a little while and um that there were not other issues like that that were um standing out. We we've gone through this several times.

Any other questions or Yes. Go ahead. Are we good? He was going to motion. Get a motion. Yes. Mayor, make a motion. We move to uh move to approve ordinance 202617 approving amendments to chapter 2 of the Grantsville City Land Use and Management Code. We have a motion by Council Member Thomas. Is there a second? I'll second the motion. And a second by Council Member Skinner. All in favor? I. All right. The motion passes. Thank you. Thank you to Shelby and all those others who were involved in that NBNZ. Yes.

And planning and zoning because they have been through this extensively line by line. So, thank you for pointing that out. Um, we will now need a motion to move into a close session. Mayor, I'll make a motion we move in move into a close session. Is there a second? Second. Second motion by council member Dalton, a second by council member Butler. All in favor? Thank you all for your attendance. Thank you.