City Council - Regular Meeting

It's a dream. 14th chapter. Thank you. Thanks. Good to start. 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 4th and the time is 700 p.m. This meeting is being held at the Grantsville City Council Chambers located at 429 East Main Street in Grantsville, Utah, as well as electronically by Zoom. I am Mayor Heidi Hammond and I will conduct a roll call. Roll call. Council member Butler

present. Dalton here. Skinner here. Thomas here. Williams here. Thank you. Next, I've asked Les Peterson to conduct us in the pledge of allegiance, please. When the command is given, would you please salute the flag? Present armed. 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. To you may be seated.

Thank you very much, Les. Appreciate it. Um, our first item of business tonight is public comment. The floor is open to the public to bring their concerns to the council. If anybody has something they would like to address with the council, if you'd please come forward and state your name for the record. And if you are on Zoom and would like to make a comment, you're also welcome to raise your hand and um, they will let you speak.

We do have Christa McFarland. Okay. Uh Christa McFarling, as was just stated, um I just wanted to take a second to thank the council um for all the information that you guys provided at the last city council meeting about the sewer information and for how graciously you guys took all of our feedback. I know a lot of it was hard to hear, especially for a council that wasn't all in place. um when the information was provided to the city in 2019. Um I commend you guys for how gracious you were in taking our feedback um and the efforts you guys have done to try to um make us aware of what's going on. That's appreciated. And then just encourage you guys to continue to look at all avenues of financing and options for financing that you know could potentially not require such an huge increase in the residents. um which I feel like you guys have been doing, but just want to encourage you to keep looking into those other options. Thank you guys.

Thank you very much. Anybody else that would like to make a comment?

Yes. Um Lisa Lingwall and I have I have a few things I'd like to bring up. um because I've asked one council member for some answers to this question and I never got a reply. So, I'm still struggling with the fact that the city council waved $360,000 worth of impact fees to Soulbergs when it didn't appear that they even tried to negotiate a better a better way or better price on that because it doesn't feel to me like as a citizen here that uh the um the income revenue or the tax revenue that's going to be generated from the new store. It doesn't feel like it's going to be that much more in revenue because the prices at Soulbergs are very high. People can't afford to go and do their regular shopping there. They just go there when it's an absolute necessity for the most part or a really good sale. Those are the only two. And so to me, it just feels like that should have been either negotiated better or we shouldn't have let them like threaten us that they weren't going to build the new store if we didn't wave those fees. So that's my number one problem. And so my question is if the impact fees don't cover a sewer system, then what do they cover? Why aren't they charging the developer fees to help cover the updated sewer systems? Because I also heard that they're planning to raise garbage fees. So between taxes and sewer and trash, we're going to be priced out of our properties basically.

And so um I would like an answer to that question. If the impact fees don't include the sewer, then what do they include? Um, and the other thing is that we sold $18 million worth of our water to the Johnson, I believe it's the Johnson property, uh, development. So, why aren't we using that for instead of parks? We need sewer more than we need parks. And so, I'm wondering why that those fees aren't going towards that. those in that income isn't going towards that. And um the other thing is that I read today that this should have been done 8 years ago. So why wasn't this funded and started eight years ago. So I'm just as a cons concerned citizen all of these things are just not adding up to me and why we're all as new. We're I'm two years in here and it just feels to me that I I wish I wouldn't have moved here and I know everybody probably also wishes that I wouldn't moved here too but you know your your farmers sold their fields so that it isn't my fault that development came out here but I am paying a very steep price by having moved out here thinking we were going to be have less less fees out here have a better lifestyle out here and we're getting taxed to death on our properties. So that that's that's my feelings on it all. Thank you. Thank you for your comments.

Any other um members of the community that would like to make a comment? Jeffrey Downward.

Yes, Jeff Downward. As I spoke in the last two meetings, why are we charging or why is there even proposed charge the same amount for every household instead of by water use? I have done research the last since the last meeting and I've got 15 to 20 cities that base their sewer price off the amount of water that's used. It's a simple process. I got a friend that's in the utility department in Lehi. He said it's no doesn't take any longer to charge those fees based it on the water use than it does uh to charge water. So that's my biggest concern. Two, I shouldn't have to pay with me and my wife the same amount as somebody that has 15, eight, seven kids or family members in their in their family. My daughter's a single woman in Grantsville. Why should she have to pay the same $110 a month for sewer when it's just her using the sewer system minimal? I don't understand why there's even an issue with the discussion of why it isn't just proposed that way and be done with it. I don't get it. And again, I never did get my answer from the guy who was putting in the process is if there was a cheaper way to build that sewer plant and accomplish the same thing. Seems like all these architects and these these engineers want to show their uh high dollar amount so that they can make more money off the citizens. It's completely wrong. And that's all I got to say. And I've said my piece three times now.

Thank you,

Alicia. Are there additional comments online? Not that I can see. Okay, we will close uh the public comment and move to agenda item number two, which is the summary action items. Uh the approval of the minutes from the February 18th council meeting have not been completed yet. So, we will have those for approval at the next meeting. So, we will move to the approval of the bills. Um, does anyone have any questions on the bills? Mayor, I make a motion we approve the bills. Is there a second?

Second. Sorry. Second. All right. We have a motion by Council Member Butler and a second by Council Member Williams. All in favor? Right. Um, agenda item number three. Consideration of ordinance 2026-13 approving a reszone for certain real property located at approximately 519 West Main Street from the A10 zoning designation to the CS shopping commercial district zoning designation and this will be presented by Shelby. Yeah, Shelby Moore planning and zoning administrator and then we have Ross the applicant.

Okay. Um this was presented to planning commission and recommended approval um by planning commission last night at our last meeting. This is to reszone from A10 to CES commercial shopping district. Um if you'll scroll down to that map,

the zoning map one more. You can see the northern parcel is zone CS and so he wants to reszone the southern parcel um to CS and expand that commercial um area. Currently it is undeveloped um and was used as a junkyard as we all know. Um so on the north is residential development um to the south is a mixeduse residential um development. To the east is commercial property or zoning properties and to the west is residential. So it does match our future land use. Um the northern portion of the property is designated mixed use density supporting a mixture of residential and commercial uses and the corridor along Main Street supports commercial development economic activities. Um are there any questions? I'll just bring up what was brought up last night, planning and zoning, but uh would you just share with us with with this council um your intention on on what you're going to utilize this?

Yeah, almost one acre of land for Yeah. RV storage. No structures, no nothing, just storage. And this is just directly behind where Rosa Automotive currently. Yes. Okay.

Um I I have some questions. I you know it it doesn't have to do with this. It'll have to do with conditional use permit down the road. So Okay. We won't get into that right now. Okay. So you want to leave that alone? Yeah. I think we should leave it alone. It's just after change. So thank you. Anybody else have any comments or questions? The parcel to the west of it is so the parcel to the west of it. Um I'm going to actually walk up there.

So this is A10 to the west of it. This portion here approximately is CS. And then we have A10 here. And then this is RM15. That's Applewood or the Applegate Apple. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, you can see in the zoning map along this whole corridor is see us. Same thing here. Then we have a little chunk that's

So this piece right here is eight. Yes. And it's already it's being used for this utilized for the same purpose, right? Is that a piece of property tied to this propert different different different owner? I think there's I mean just for history purposes I mean it's all used to be a a junkyard down there for years and years and how the parcels got divided up and and how A10 lost its luster um for this junkyard and and how we have a 93 acre parcel that's yours right that is zoned A10 that is not 10 acres right

so that's a little bit little bit of a head scratcher right that's what I was trying to hear Yeah. So, I mean, it it really kind of cleans it up. It it is congruent with what we're trying to trying to accomplish right there and and really kind of cleaning that up. But, I do plan on buying the rest of that. So, yeah, I'm sure be great. I will just say this in in in preface to any sort of conditional use, um there may be some requirements to keep things cleaned up too right there. So, absolutely along Main Street especially. So, and and where it ties against residential on the back side.

Yeah. The interesting thing about about the backside, there's a there's a there's a concrete fence there, a block fence um with a iron rod iron um top to it. So, we'll see what the owners of that do, but and it is built up a little bit. They brought in a lot of dirt. So, all right. I need a motion. Make a motion to approve ordinance 2026-13 approving a reszone for certain real property located approximately 519 West Main Street from the A10 zoning designation to the CS zoning designation. We have a motion. Is there a second?

I'll second. We have a second. A motion by Council Member Butler. A second by Council Member Dalton. All in favor? I. Right. Motion passes. Thank you. Thank you.

Moving on to our favorite item of discussion. Item number four, the discussion and direction of the sewer rate study. And we will not be making any decisions on this tonight, but just wanted to give an update on the progress and different avenues that are being explored. Is there somebody who's giving it for discussion? We have Alex from Zans on the line if you have questions financially in regards to that um loan life bond wise thing. And then Robert, we did send out the initial email that we received from him this morning because we did have the public and the council express interest in creating a utility fee for the residential side and that was sent out earlier this morning. we get that in the packet we were set today. Definitely want to publish that. If we have questions on that, Robert can answer some of those. It does kind of adjust some of the fees uh um at least downward and kind of give that full balance. And so we want to open it up to council that they they have questions in regards to that. Robert can answer a lot of those or we just kind of want direction on what the council would like to proceed going forward. There's a lot of legislation that's unknown at this time because the legislation hadn't officially closed which actually somewhat directly affect what we're doing here like the 501 we thought we were grandfathered out of that but turns out according to what the state has reviewed we're not. If that one passes, then uh the $60 million that was given to us but or hasn't been given to us that's been allotted to us will actually trigger the 501 legislation. So then we have to increase the rates up to that legislation. That one was going to take effect May 6th, but I've talked to um Bridger

Belinder and he has agreed that he's gonna if it does pass change effective date to be July. So that way we if we do move right now and secure that we won't trigger that. But if we go back and try to get any other funding further in the state, it would have to comply with that 501 legislation. Okay. Does anybody have any questions for Zans or Robert? Who's the individual with Zans? That's Alex. Alex. And he is on line right now. Can you guys hear me?

Yeah, we can hear you, Alex.

Okay, good. I I have some questions just um just for understanding with the council and and really what the drivers of this are financially from a from a bond perspective. Um, I mean obviously the costs and the and the amount of the bond is is big and the and and the the rate in which the which we get from Zans for the bond, but talk to the talk to us the the council about the importance of the debt service coverage ratio and the importance of that and really that being one of the drivers um in regards to to the table that we see and and how it affects um the rate. So, and how it affects the bond rating as well.

Sure. Sure. That's a great uh a great question and it really I mean it's one of the main drivers. Um, anytime you issue a revenue bond such as this, um, whether it's the state of Utah, uh, drinking or the, uh, water quality board, which part of the funding is coming from them currently, or whether it's out on the private market side of uh, trying to get somebody to uh, purchase a bond, they need to see uh, enough coverage average. Um, meaning the revenues coming in need to be at or even above what the annual debt service payment will be. And the kind of the minimum standard requirement with that coverage is 125% or 1.25 times coverage. Um, that's the minimum. So, for example, if your annual uh if your annual debt service payment is $100,000, you need to be able to show the bond purchaser or the lender uh that you have $125,000 available to pay it back because not only do they want to see that you have enough money, but they also want to see that there's a little bit of wiggle room there. Um and so um if you're able to get a higher coverage ratio, one and a half times coverage or two times coverage, um that certainly enhances the credit of the bond. And so often times um the more coverage that you have, you might get a lower interest rate because

it's a better credit in the eyes of the lender. And so the the water quality board who's already allocated as as Michael mentioned earlier$16 million, they've required a 1.25 times coverage uh for them to release that 16 million. And um having you know done this for many years now, I know that any any other bond purchaser that we would uh approach for the remaining, you know, 30 million or whatever that number ends up being, they're also going to require a minimum of 1.25 times.

Yeah. So that's that's why the the increase in the uh rates or the the sewer rates are necessary in order to generate enough revenue to meet that coverage covenant. Does that does that answer your question, Councilman?

Absolutely it does. Alex, it got a little jumbled in my head how just how it all works. Um, I mean, we approved we approved for you to go out and shop and try and find us a $49 million bond. Correct. But but in all the numbers, if we have 16 million already and if we have 5 million in cash approximately already, why isn't the bond for the difference approximately 28 million? Why is the bond for 49 and and how does the 16 and five affect that or how does it work?

Sure. So the 16 and five absolutely will downsize the amount of additional bonding that the city needs to uh incur. And so if if the overall bond or if the overall sewer project is um you know 50 million, I don't know exactly what that number has come in at or will come in at, but if it's 50 million, then we'll certainly get 16 of it from the state of Utah's water quality board. So that'll that'll decrease it by 16. So now we're what looking at 36 million. And then if um you say there's another 5 million that can be used for the project, that would downsize it to 31 million. Um certainly in in working with Aspen and Michael, um they they and us as the advisors absolutely don't want to borrow any more than what we have to borrow. And so the the additional bond will only be for the amount that is needed to complete the project. And although the city council has adopted the parameters resolution uh several weeks ago, we haven't yet started shopping around for the additional because we don't know what that amount is yet. We have however had conversations, in fact, Aspen and Michael and myself. We were on the phone with um with the with Ken Hoffman, who's our contact over at the at the uh water quality board, and we said, you know, is there any chance that we can get additional funding um above the 16 million that we currently

received or the city received in authorization or allocation last year? And Kent's reply was this year uh this funding cycle, no. However, um we could pursue additional funding. And he said, and I'm not sure how it will go because we've you've already approached the the state once for this project. So, you know, I'm not saying they they will give you more money or loan you more money, but you certainly could come back June 30th and reapply. And then we would go back in front of the board in August at the end of August and we uh would find out if we could get additional uh you know subsidized interest rate bond money which is essentially what the state provides. Problem with that is we won't know until August. I know that you know this project is we're trying to get this project going. We did ask we did ask Ken if we were to pursue a market bond outside, you know, for the remaining amount, whatever that amount is, and then we came back to the board, the state uh water quality board for additional funding and we received that, could we use that lower interest rate money to pay off the higher interest bond that we would then have on the books? and he said, "Yes, you could do that. You'd have to kind of show that there's other projects and things needed and you'd have to show a a need to do that, but that's certainly something that I think Michael and Aspen were interested in because at the end of the day, they want to keep the rates as low, the sewer rates as low as possible and our annual debt service payment on the bonds as low as

possible." Um, so so that's a possibility. In order to do that though, we would need to make sure that the additional bond that we uh that we used for the remaining amount, uh we'd have to have flexible call provisions, meaning we'd have to be able to prepay that um sooner than, you know, early without a penalty. And I and I think I you know we could negotiate with certain purchasers, certain lenders that would provide that flexibility so that if we are down the road able to get lower interest money uh that can be used to pay off the higher interest bond, I know that it's the city's intention to absolutely do that. Sorry, that was a long-winded winded.

No, that was very informative actually. I hope that answered his question. A grant or anything. So, that is factoring in part of that equation. So, the only thing that right now the city bring to the table is that rate that we paid or done a couple years ago. That's that 5 million. So, that's what we're bringing to table. Everything else has to get bonded out. So that's what we're saying. The the state bond is the 60 million that you plus that the the private bond is the difference between those two. However, the the state bond is a different interest rate.

Much lower. We wish we wish we could do the entire project through the water quality board and pay a 75%. That would be Why don't you ask your boss? Well, are you my boss? Zans isn't loaning any of the money. Zans Zans isn't isn't the lender here. It's the state of Utah and then it's the and then it's whoever we negotiate with to purchase because I'm acting as an advisor to the city and helping put this whole project together. Zan's Bank cannot be the lender,

unfortunately, because under my regulations, uh, they view that as a conflict of interest. And so, this secondary bond won't be done through Zion's Bank. I'm just going to be the adviser to help put the deal together along with Aspen and Michael. Yeah. Thanks, Alex. Which we're very appreciative of.

Yes. Thank you, Alex. I I have a question. Uh, in your conversations with Ken, is there any strings tied to the 16 when does the 16 offer come off the table? Is the 16 on the table the entire time frame? And yeah, I'm just I'm in my mind I'm I'm pushing back and forth on this to to see if it's worth a a request, a second request to the state for after we come in with a number. We know what that number is going to be once we get those numbers back here shortly. I was just wondering if there are any other strings that are attached to that federally Davis Bacon wise. Um any other any other things there that we've got to

Yeah. or or tie to it?

Yeah. And that that's a great question and that's something that Michael and Aspen and I talked through last week or maybe it was earlier this week when we last spoke. But you know getting that lower uh subsidized interest rate of 75 over 30 years uh does come with some strings as far as what you mentioned Davis Bacon, Build America. Um and so you do have to comply with some of those regulations. Um, however, we we tried to anticipate what the interest rate would be on on the market bond. And if we said, hey, you know, cuz nothing nothing is locked in as far as the city with the 16 million. Um, the the state's going to keep it allocated for the city as long as we need them to. We did ask Ken if that would expire and because we're going through a lot of this and trying to figure out the best manner to move forward and he said no that money is yours if you want it. It's not going to go away. However, we could say, "Hey, we don't want it." And the problem in doing that is now you've lost the 16 million at 75. And even though there are some uh strings attached as you put it with perhaps uh some higher cost because of build America and things like that the the difference in interest rate between a 75 uh% interest rate and let's say a 4% rate or I think we were estimating on the additional bonds somewhere in the four four and a half% rate. uh Michael and Aspen and I did the math and it would cost over the the 30-year period, it would cost over $10 million

in interest cost by having that higher interest rate. So despite some of those um kind of ownorous requirements that you have to comply with state money or federal money, the higher interest rate that you'd have to pay on a more traditional bond would be far would far exceed the cost to have to comply with those. And so it in my opinion would seem uh not a good idea to relinquish any of that 16 million. In fact, we want to get as much more of that as we possibly could.

Thank you for that excellent um analysis on that question because that's something I've wondered about as well. Anyone have any additional questions for Robert or Alex? Is Robert on the line? Do we want to have Robert walk through the um the possible um the base fee and the possible usage fee that he was emailed out to council today? Yes.

Robert, could you um walk through that with the council and if you could have him show up on the screen so that like they can see him. And this is for using like just paying for what you're actually using base fee and then you actually like they're suggesting those other city do we've gone through and I've asked Roberts to have his company do that analysis for us. So we are paying him to do that right now so the council can have that option for them and so this is the preliminary initial presentation that he has in regards to that. Okay. Thank you. Are you able to see my spreadsheet? We are.

Okay. So, yeah, we looked at it based on what the kind of the weighted average is for residential and it's it's kind of listed here, you know, 5,36 gallons per month. And that's based on November uh to March from November 2019 to December 2025 water usage. Uh, and really what we did is we, you know, we looked at the, you know, assumption that we're going to have a, you know, a 26 million private bond, uh, in addition to, you know, what Alex covered, you know, the 60 million, you know, water quality board funding. And then there's also that 1 million uh, engineering loan. So yeah, we basically looked at and all we've really changed here is we're still on average, you know, it's trying to hit that 75.04 fiscal year 2027 uh, you know, fee to get, you know, at least, you know, the 1.25 debt service coverage ratio. and just set, you know, we've we've increased the base fee about uh a little over 8% and then this uses fee is just kind of making up for the rest of that, you know, based on, you know, per per thousand gallons. And in that email I sent out earlier today. So like in fiscal year 2027, so that'd be in July, you know, 2026, the uh this would be what and let me zoom out a little bit here. Yeah, this would be on average what somebody for that's has a single family home, multif family home, uh, you know, if they live, you know, lived in a trailer and then non-residential, what

what they'd be paying with this usage rate. And if they use less, you know, they they'd obviously pay less. If they pay, you know, if they use more, they'd be, you know, paying more. Uh I I mentioned it in my email, but for trailer specifically, just because they got to, you know, run water in the winter time, uh with the usage, a residential usage rate, it would be, you know, more uh for them monthly and then annually. Yeah.

Um, Robert, this is this is Councilman Butler. Um, so just a couple questions on on the table that you you sent us and it's kind of above where they're showing here on the screen. Is there a reason why we wouldn't start the Right. What's that? This one. Yeah. Is there a reason why we wouldn't start the usage fee per thousand gallons um uh immediately in 2026? Is there I mean or is 20 2027 fiscal year I guess starts June 1st. Yeah. Okay. So yeah, be in July. All right. So I answered my own question after I started thinking about it.

Great. Um and obviously you're basing these numbers. This is what's derived from the the chart that you had below that that really is driven by the debt to service charge ratio. Um and this is this is our worst case scenario type situation. Correct. I think you mentioned that before, but I just want to make sure that we correct like like Alex mentioned, if if you get additional funding through the state with a lower interest rate, then you know, you may not need to increase in the future as much. Um, so that's Yeah.

Okay. And if the city were to outlay cash in regards to this um this project and pay that down or make the the debt less, then that would affect all this as well, right? Correct. Yeah. If you were able to bring more money into the, you know, your cash balance

in in a certain way, then you potentially could. Yep. So, going back to the the chart up above, and maybe you answered this, or maybe it's obvious in the notes, but you know, the base fee being $58 um per month and and that is for the usage of of how many gallons of water as the base fee. So that's just the that's just the base how the city calculates this and and this is based on you know how the city calculates it based on non-residential but the base fee is just the base fee you pay and then for each,000 gallons it's it's this you know additional amount.

So if I use 20,000 gallons of water in my house I'd pay $58 plus 60 and some change. Yeah. 20 times 3.21 to a citizens to a citizen's point. Um you know the the the base fee is the base fee but the the usage um in a particular household could change from home to home. Right. Yeah.

How many other municipalities that you work with currently have you seen them utilize this approach? Uh most of them do have a just a kind of a base fee, but a lot of them do have that usage fee for, you know, non-residential or commercial. And there and there are some that just have a straight, hey, here's our base fee regardless of, you know, residential or, you know, commercial. And then and then they'll have a usage fee. So there's it's kind of I mean it's kind of split. It really depends on the the city, but there are, you know, there are, you know, quite a few examples that do have a usage fee.

So, essentially, this this approach is kind of like a toll for flushing your toilet or leaving the water on while you're brushing your teeth or taking a 10 minute long shower. Dang. Right. Yeah. Y or if you have a water line break in your front. Hopefully it's on the other side of the meter. Yes. Outside the the average average month. Yes. If it's outside,

shut it off. Shut it off. I I I guess the the question I have maybe on top of this would be, you know, what infrastructure would or what what would need to happen within our city with our current staff to make a move of this nature to move to a usage fee and like what does that entail? I know there's been a lot of discussion about it. Um

haven't dived into all the ins and outs, but we'll have to change how our our system. We have meters right now that can collect daily, but we don't have the uh recepted towers yet. We're looking at getting a quote on that. We're I was told that we need to put like six of those receiving towers in throughout the city. each of them probably be like 30,000 each. And then we could get instant data from those meters and start using that effectively so that we could catch those water breaks a lot sooner because right now we only collect that when we do our meter reads once a month. And so we probably want to look at doing that to help make sure everything is in line, but we wouldn't have to do that right away. Uh in our staff, we'd have to figure out changing things in Cassell, how we're collecting, and then billing and changing all that. that uh the noticeification process explain the average of what we're getting from the the months because we are obviously not going to charge people their usage in the summer because for the sewer rate that's going to be way higher than the the winter average months and I believe Robert that you had it from November to March is the average is what you have that at.

Yeah, that's correct. That's how non-residential is currently being built. And so if the city does pass that, we're going to try to get that figured out before July when we do implement that if that's the case. So would that be um implemented? We would use this last year's November to February or November to March readings. Uh yeah, again that's another discussion we'd have to have, right? Assuming that's going to be the case. We do have that data. And then it would be updated each year.

That reading and then I was told we could decide when we want to implement that, but I believe that's probably going to be one month. We would take the reading and then implement it in July. So that way you would have that average and then it won't take effect again until the next July. So if you were really good that December when you realized that it still wouldn't kick in till that next July and then we would just monitor that each year and it would be adjusted each year. We can monitor that. That's what I'm saying with other meters and things like that. It would make our system more effective just because one problem with

without having the daily reads because I mean it's like okay well we don't have those $30,000 towers yet. Let's take the information on, which we can, but we're basing on averages based on usage. So, if a house sells and it's like a family of six lived in Granny Smith's house before Granny Smith moved in, we don't have accurate average data for a single person. And we can't get that without Bailey Reeds. And so, she'd have to be there for a while before we're able to actually charge her appropriately. Granny would be paying for the six kids. It's Yeah. So, it's just that would be a problem that could come up as far as like homees.

Some cities instead of going off what that house was, say I bought my house in April, you start at a a base. So, like the average, you'd say, "Okay, average is 5,36 gallons." That's what you're getting build for the first until you can establish what that winter. Yeah. And and you just start off fresh like that. So, and new new builds, everything. We don't know what they're going to use, but for that first time, the usage is the average. And then the next time when we gather that data, it can go up or down. And we can definitely set something like that. Outside of the towers, is there a I mean, do we have software systems to be able to accommodate a move like that or do we've got are we got to purchase new software to probably have to purchase some software?

No, we don't need new software. So, and the meters are already the type of meters that could end off this AMI service. Okay.

I think One thing other thing just to keep in mind is that even if that house kind of based on that house bill 501 if that does pass even if it doesn't implement in July until July excuse me we would want to be closed on bonds before then not to trigger the requirements for that 501 because that would be required to get the $16 million bond and we can't close on that one separate from a private bond. But doing something like this would take us a month or two to implement into new billing and get started. And so we would just need direction soon in order to be able to have that in place before we need to be closing on these bonds. Just another consideration.

It would be nice to know what the cost of the the build is, right? For that's the that's one of the drivers. Um, so, so, Robert, this is Councilman Williams. When I looked at these numbers today, I thought to myself, well, these numbers are better. I I have in my head when you presented to us a couple weeks ago that by 2035, our base fee for residential was close to $100. It was right around $100. So, so what's changed? These seem better to but what's changed?

It does look better, right? But if you do, if you are an average, you know, user for residential, right, you would still be paying that $100, right, at at the end on 2035 because that's the base rate and then you're going to times it by Oh, this is moving to the usage because we were looking before the usageful high water or low water users. Yeah, a little bit more equitable, right? But they're still the average person's still.

All right. Yeah, I'm sorry. I'm I'm on board. However, if there's a home that utilizes culinary water to, let's say, water their yard and they use, you know, $100,000 gallons of water in a given summer cycle and that's an additional $321 that that individual is paying for sewer usage, not just necessarily water usage, right? No, because it's only calculated from Nove or December to March. Assuming they're not watering by water. Okay. Okay. Hey, we might be soon. Turn into Phoenix. We might not have a lot of water. I'm not complaining. It's all good.

Okay. So, we're just going to measure the average in the winter months. And that's why we're wanting to know because right now we only do it once a month. And so, if we missed a month, it skews the average. So that's why if we do this way, we're going to want to upgrade our water meters uh data receiving to collect it daily. Okay, I see that on note too, but I was I was looking at it from I guess I just glossed over. It said November 2019 to December 2025. And so I thought it was that entire

it says for the winter months really skew I got very good that's better. Well, my my question is it looks better, but really with the usage, if we're doing average, isn't it essentially the same if you're the average user? I mean, I think that's what he was just saying. If you know, we was 100, but then if you add the usage, so if if I'm not saying bad or good, I'm just saying this looks better and it is fair for people who don't use as much water, but for the average user, it's probably close to the same. About $9 a month. Yeah. It's a little less because you're suppleing everyone else, but because the higher users are going to pay a little bit more. Yeah.

Well, one of the key drivers, I think we we we alluded to it a little bit earlier, but is the cost of the the plant number one. Um, obviously the interest rate if we can if we can buy that down and obviously it's if it's a hope um you know those are those are key drivers and if there's a an opportunity for us to pay down the loan as well. So that affects it. I mean I I I mean you've ran the numbers a little bit on that doesn't affect it an extreme amount but it does affect it. So

right that's is if you do wait we have to see what 501 says because that's a triggering thing that you have to increase on that one I believe not only the sewer but you also have to increase your water rates to be qualified for that. And so because of that $16 million we haven't locked in yet we will be triggered under that 501. And so that's the problem is if you delay too long, you may be triggered under that and be forced to increase the rates up to whatever that statute is requiring you to do. And then it's going to be out of your control because then the state will tell you what the rate is going to what's the fill on that bill? Um

70%. Uh it's right now at this point they a lot of people are supporting it. I know the league is Ken Ken Hoffman, if I if you don't mind me chiming in, can you hear me? Yes.

Ken Hoffman from the state from the water quality that I was referencing earlier, he he certainly made it sound like on our call with him on Monday that that was that was going to happen. Correct me if I'm wrong, uh, Aspen and Michael, but that's that's that's the feel I got with, uh, with, uh, Ken, and I know he

state. So, but we'll know in a few days. We'll know in a few days. How how would that impact how would that bill impact the ask a potential ask to go back in June to ask the board? You'd have to comply with that if you you just have to comply with the new law.

Yeah. And so if you comply now with it, then you can go back and ask or if you wanted to wait, go back and ask. You could go like if we got the right bonds that has the initial pay off any time, you can get like say you want to use some of the water credit funds at that point and then get other funding sources. Then you can refinance at that point. So we can proceed now with how it is. Lock that in and then get other options after the fact as well. I think at this point that's almost what the staff's recommending is that we lock that in so we don't have to be abiding by that 501 higher rates unless we choose to at that point it makes beneficial sense to do that

lock in 16 which essentially would just tie us to whatever comes with that federal funding. Yeah because it is federal fund that 16 is a pass through through the state is what I found out. So that's why we do have to comply with all the federal rules. Okay. So how to lock in the 16? Can we do that separately or this all has to be done through this same pass? Lock in the 16 unless they show that we have the full amount. We have to do everything. We've asked them that question. They confirm that they won't do that. Well, someone just reminded me when are when are bids due? The end of the month, right? March 20th or 4th?

March 24th. No extensions, no major agenda or anything like that. Extended it two weeks. We're holding to the date. No. Can you tell us how many bids we have currently? Can't say. Not until we open. Yeah. None until they're due. Yeah. So,

Robert, this is Council Member Dalton. Hey, can you just go walk through the what was it 12% or 12.8 8% that uh for the impact fees what can be used tell me how that works again to that yeah so that 12.8% 28%. So based on projections and I'll kind of go back to that part of the spreadsheet. So ba based on what what we're projecting in the 10-year planning period uh and the uh capacity of the plant which will be 3 million gallons, you know, and and that's basically the average day flow. Uh that's where that 12.8% goes. I I don't have that spreadsheet open, but that's, you know, there's only a certain amount. I guess I could do the calculation here real quick, but you've got uh times 200. So So you've got roughly it's not quite 400,000 if I remember correctly, but you you've got almost 400,000 uh from new development in that 10-year planning period. And it's just basically taking that divided by your capacity. That's where that 12.8% 8% comes um when when you do get past you know this planning period and and moving forward you know once the new wastewater treatment plant is constructed you will have and if there's excess capacity you know you will have that impact fee that is calculated in in for what what we call buyin costs. So you will have future you know development as long as there's capacity in that plant paying for paying impact fees for that and then any you know debt

service associated with that as long as there's excess capacity in the plant. Robert does that equation take into account any spike in growth? I know historically we've anticipated 5% growth and I know last year obviously we were down significantly like 3%. Um and I know that's why we look at these like 11% growth in one year for economydriven craze. Um what how I'm wondering do we hurt ourselves where that is averaged in in that situation or how does that well yeah that's why we look at impact fees annually

so we can make those adjustments. Okay. I think you you you're trying to take a conservative approach in those regards. Yes. With the growth projections because we've in the past, right, we've looked at them with higher growth rates and then it's and then you don't collect the impact fees, right? And so then it's it's kind of a then you're catching up. But yeah, we got to get it as accurate as we possibly can.

Yep. Robert, I'm I'm going to speak to an elephant that's over in the corner of the room. I don't know whether it's north,southeast, or west, but um you've been involved with the the city for how many years now um in in working these these fees? Uh let's see. Yeah, I I did work on the 2016 and then and then there was kind of a gap. Um but we didn't do any updates till 2022. Okay.

Yeah. So my my point here is I mean hindsight's always 2020 but you know for previous leadership and in 2018 2020 I mean knowing that this is coming we've been hearing about you know this this expansion um you know coming for quite some time and um would it have I mean obviously helped had we incrementally raised those rates over the course of time during 2020 2021. I mean, we really didn't raise rates until fiscal year 2025, right?

Um, July of 2024, which three of us here were, you know, just new council members. Um, albe it just six months, right? So I mean just yeah I I think it's tough right I mean it's tough you know politically sometimes you know when when you don't you know and there and there's a process right when you hear about it in 2019 you can't just right away

go oh well that it seems like you know we got to raise them this amount because the treatment plant's going to cost this amount you know there there's a process right you got to get the funding you got to go through the feasibility study you got to figure out what the best option is for for treatment to to determine that cost and then you got to do the you know the rate study which was done you know right after the feasibility study was done in 2022. Absolutely. I mean there's just that process and that's why it takes process. Yeah. Absolutely. I mean this Rome wasn't built in a day but Right.

Okay. But to answer your question, yes. I mean it back back when it was first brought up, you know, we first knew about it, city could have, you know, increased started increase rates then. If I remember right, the rate increase in July of 2024 for fiscal year 25 was a significant increase. It was. Yes.

Let's see. I think that shows up kind of in that table here. Yeah. The these were the last two years. Yeah. Hey, Robert and Alex, thank you very much for your information and updates and all your efforts in trying to help us out in making the best decision possible and getting the best bang for our buck with this. Um, does anyone any other council members have questions they would like addressed?

All right. Well, we'll we do need direction on to proceed with the the usage side. Is that what's the council desires are instead of just the flat rate? Is that the way the direction that I want to go? You not want to decide again there's that that timeline we have. Do you want time to think about it and get back? Because again, if we want to proceed and go ahead. We can get the rate study on the next council meeting because I believe that's the 25th and the bids come in on the 24th. Do we open them on the 25th? We're opening on the 25th. There's a public it's published all so we possibly could know them at that night's council meeting and so could make So actually our next council meeting is scheduled for the 18th. Are we moving it to the 25th?

I mean we could so that we have that information might be a wise decision. I think so based on all the moving components in the timeline. Yeah. If Yeah, I think decision sooner than later. So, I'd like a little more time to review this what we just got in the email today as far as like because I'm just looking at it. To me, it kind of seems like it's the same. I mean, people are going to be essentially paying the same, but there is people that will be paying less. So, there's a benefit for those people. So that's just

I I just question as a whether or not the number and Robert I think you kind of discussed how you came up with it, but is the is the number on the usage fee is it equitable? Could that number um move up and the base rate move down is Yeah, you can always you can always do that. Yeah, you can always have a lower base fee. I I would hesitate on moving it too far low, but Oh, I I yeah, I I certainly understand that we would want to do that, but but yeah, you can you can adjust it in that endeavor that

I think from my standpoint, I think it makes sense. Um, I mean I I have a large home and is it fair that uh a you know an individual that has two or three people in their home pays the same amount as someone who has eight um in terms of of sewer usage. Um, so if it is something we can implement now, like we, you know, won't take I know eventually we'll need those towers and stuff, right? But you're saying we could do it now based on the numbers from last year and we have to probably discuss how that looks going forward. Um, like the couple things we talked about if somebody moves in and how do we deal with all those things, but if we could implement this now,

I don't I think it does seem a little more proportional. I I know it's a shift from how we've operated in the past. Um, but I feel I, you know, we talk about fixed incomes. I know that's on everyone's mind in this whole process. I do think that helps level that field for for, you know, single widow on a home versus and having to pay a higher rate specifically versus, you know, 10 people in a home. And so I I do feel that from a level of fairness, I think that's a it's a good approach. My opinion, anybody else want to give direction on that?

I like the usage fee, but I also think we need to look at raising impact fees as well. I know we can only use so much of it, but we need to look in the future. This plan's only going to last probably 10, 12 years the max. So, I think we need to look at increasing both. I think you said we could do that, right? We can look that in the future, but for right now, there's only a certain p there's only a certain amount we can assess to them right now by law, right? Like I think we're maximizing that amount. I think that we're at like what we can

Robert, are you in in the impact fees for a new home build? Are we maximizing the amount that a a new build can be co we could be charged for a sewer for a sewer impact fee? Yeah, we are. And and really it's it's based on for the wastewater treatment plant, it's based on that capacity in that 10 year, right? And and Brett, we kind of we we discussed it, right? If you increase that if you say there's going to be more coming in, then you know it could potentially impact the impact fee. Then if you don't have that growth, then you're not you're not collecting the impact fees you were anticipating, right? And then it really then you have to refund, right? Yeah. Exactly. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. And so all of this can change basically if we end up getting a grant from the or more bonding from the state that we can pay back like when we look at this next year, we could say, okay, our base rate can actually be lower. Like we can look at this each year, right? Yeah. As we go forward. So that's I think right now there's a lot of unknowns that we're all saying, well, what if we get this? what if we get this? But we have to kind of make a decision and move forward and then look at it as we go. Yeah, I think it'll need to be re reviewed annually definitely and we we'll all hope that we can lower that down in any way possible. So,

right then I will continue with that. We'll act like that's the the pathway forward. We'll try to get Robert to refine that. Do you want more variability, a higher usage and a lower base rate or have options on that? I think options. Yeah, we'll make sure there's options. All right. Anything else we need to discuss on this matter?

Good. All right. Thank you, Alex and Robert, and thank you staff for all of your continued work on this um issue. All right, we'll close item number four. Moving on to agenda item number five, a discussion of a potential land swap between Grantsville City and Dave and Teresa Reed. I want to scroll down and show the map. Which one?

Yeah, actually show show that one. You'll have to zoom out. So, this is a proposed land swap um with Dave and Teresa um and with Grantsville City. And Grantsville City owns 20.47 47 acres that runs north and south that you can see is highlighted there in purple. Um, and then Dave and Teresa have two parcels combined that total 14.47 acres. Um, as part of the proposed land swap and agreement, a condition would require that if the Reed's property is subdivided in the future, Wrathal Drive must be fully constructed across the Reed's property um, in accordance with the Grantsfield standard. So you can see the blue circled in blue would be the extension on what is currently the city's property and then in the yellow um further to the west would be the full extension on the remaining parcel of the reads. In the orange um is highlighted both parcels of the reads that would swap with the um parcel highlighted in purple to the north. And the purpose of the land swap is intended to realign property ownership in a manner that supports long-term planning goals. So instead of having um landlocked property essentially here um this would open up and make the reeds property available for um to be subdivided. Um it improves land management efficiency and provides clearer development patterns in the area. the parcels are adjacent to developing areas of the city and may play an important role in the future infrastructure and connectivity planning. That way we don't have roads that just dead end and have no future, especially if the city has no intent on developing that. Um although the city's parcel is larger um the acreage alone is not a sole factor in evaluating a land

exchange location and access development constraints and infrastructure planning as well as this you know something that the um FFA or the 4 may be able to utilize and or an expansion of the cemetery to the west. Was there any questions? And then Dave and Tracer are here as well. And before we can do this land swap, there will have to be a public notice of of that. Right. So tonight there won't be any decision made just correct update on information. Yep. Yes.

Yep. Just a discussion and um guide the applicant and staff. So Wrath Hall Extension is made up of approximately 9.4 4 acres in the area highlighted in blue with a projected overall length of um 1100 ft or 1,084 ft and 1.74 acres. I had a question when I walked the property. Um I I couldn't tell if there is a well in that roadway where that roadway is currently drawn. There is. There is a well. It's an old well. Okay.

I believe Mr. can actually speak to that. Okay. There's actually two of them. Okay. And will you please state your name? I know who you are. State your name. Okay. There's actually two old wells there. The one that you don't see that's over by the fence. The whole time I was growing up, that well free flowed and there was a marsh down through there. The other well, I've been there for 64 years. I've never seen a drop of water come out of it. But I went and looked at them both tonight. took pictures of them. Both well casings are 100% rotted away. They got holes this big or bigger in them and sort of full of sand. Yeah. Well, and the other

according to the state, they're only 60 ft deep, so they're not even close enough to the water to pump any water out of them anymore. Okay. They free flowed. That was before they built the reservoir. Once they built the reservoir, it dried right up and quit flowing. And they aren't even on the they're not on the list on the the parcel list. Okay. Okay. Thank you for that information. Thanks.

The my two questions were simply so doesn't this just Wrath Drive will dead end? I mean, we're button up in the back of the Russell's house. It's essentially a deadend circle, I would assume, there. Correct.

Well, um, if we had the full map, I should have, um, screenshot the full map, that could actually connect into 600 West. Um, and then which is near Old Lincoln Highway. So, there is a potential that that could extend through. And then and then I liked it for possibly expanding the cemetery and all that, but I worried about my FFA kids and 4H kids. I really couldn't vision dropping that in the middle of houses, more houses. Where where would you envision that happening, Shelby? Just for me. I mean, that's that's your vision.

Don't send them to my house. They can they can they can come to your house and farm up. So you're you're talking the FFA farm that they're wanting to to do. And I think that would go if I'm I mean maybe they have a different idea, but I think it would make sense that it would be in the Dave in Dave and Teresa Reed's property the swapped piece. Is that correct or in the our current piece on the north side because they want to have access to that and so they would ra drive their facility. Okay.

And so yeah, you'd have a housing development if that gets developed out to the north and then anything below that would be preserved in grants cities. The Clark historic Clark Farm and getting the 4 and the FFA there you'd have that. they taking care of that farm and I know they've been in talks and want to create a lease with us for that property in that area there and this would give you that contiguous land uh to have that you are there it's less land but it's more contiguous what is less rough than that northern piece there as Jesus. I guess what we're looking for from council night is whether we should uh I mean you can put it up for sale if you want to. We have to go through that notification process continue on with this land swap and do the notifications on that. That way we get this uh adjoining property if the council determines that equal value to do this kind of thing. I think according to the Tyson that this land fall under that equal swap right here.

Does anyone have any direction they'd like to give the staff? So obviously we would this would require a survey. Yeah. And so whatever direction we're talking and that's the quote that's in the packet, right? Correct.

So just one more time, the the total amount of land that would be swapped over that we would be um giving up so to speak would be 20 point what acres you click on that north parel 204 20.47 and it reads two parcels not not that one that one yeah 10.2 plus 4.49 49 a little over 15. So there is a five acre difference but there is about an acre.94. Is that what you said? 0.93.

Um a total of 1.74 acres. 0.94 is just the portion that's on Grantville's current parcel. 1.74 in roadway. Yeah, approximately. But part of that's on our already on our piece, right? Yeah. So the reads would be giving up the difference between those two and then the possible road would going up to connect. Yeah. Well, absolutely. But that's that's down the roadways, right? Yeah. But I mean that that amount could be another two acres. Correct. Um in the event that they would decide to to do something with that one way or the other. Absolutely.

Yeah. So, like I said, potentially sixes, right? Maybe not out of the gate. No. But in the long term, certainly would be. Right now, there's nothing on our property. Do we have plans for anything on that property that we have? Not at this moment, unless the council has We have plans for a lake. So, water. I wish we had a flowing well. Had a flowing well. Good fill. That's it. We're going to hit water. We could use a few more flowing wells.

Um I Yeah, I think I'm in line with kind of what Jeff Councilman Williams mentioned as far as, you know, um what does that do logistically? I think, you know, in making this type of a decision, we're trying to look look down the road. Um, I do like the idea that it it it allows for more uh I would say back frontage to the Clark farm and the benefits that the Clark farm has to our community. Um, but yeah, I think that would just be something that, you know, how do what do we envision there? What what is the what is the endgame in that area? Yeah.

Thinking outside the box. It's a unique area. When this gets developed, they'd have to give us so much in open space, right? Yeah. Could we use that open space for the FFA4 kids? Would that be allowed? But that would be down the road. That'd be way down the road. Oh, yeah. I think the intent is to utilize it what what we have right right now where the green is utilize that for that for that immediately that's one of the one of the main drivers for all this I mean one of the drivers

zoning zoning same parcel parial zoning configur I didn't tell you I'm just curious I would think they're both A10 but probably both A10 I'd be shocked if they weren't both A10. But I thought one acre. What's that?

I thought we looked at that, but that's a good question. That property is um A10. All of it's A10. All of it. Okay. for the surrounding lots.

Yeah. I I I'm just the only other component that I have in my mind is, you know, the residents that live along uh Rathol Circle,

Rathol and you know what they anticipated there being behind them from a city standpoint versus someone who doesn't own it. So, um I I don't know what the purpose of the original, you know, what the original intent of that purchase was. Um maybe be good to kind of know some some history there, but in my mind, it does make more sense to block it versus a lineal piece. So I think we could make that functionally better and not have impact on other adjoining properties if we were to do that. The only thing that I've I'm struggling with in my mind is the disparity in acreage. So and I know it is clo could be closer to wash when we when we bring those other items into play but market rate difference on something like that. which we might have trouble with if it's look at the legality of the swap's different than payment type.

Yeah. Can I make a suggestion? I don't know if Tyson can speak on this, but obviously there's a difference of approximately five acres. They have to provide open space and so I don't know if there's an agreement that could be made where they have to provide that five that additional five acres that we're lacking plus the open that they have to provide. So if they owe us 10 acres just out of their development, then they would give us 15.

Yeah. And then there's there's other components to it too. If they're if they're paying for the cost of the survey, it would be portion put into the equation as well. Um I don't know. Um I know we have we have them here tonight. I don't know if that would be something that that we I don't know. Can we speak on that? This is a discussion. Yeah. I mean, we're not we're not voting on anything.

So, I Yeah, I'd maybe like to know if that you know, if two two and a two and a half or three acres of maybe what a joins the parcel or what join what will adjoin the city parcel if that could be open space or incorporated, you know. Yeah, if we could have some open space there. I don't know. I'm I'm just talking out loud right now. So, it's not making a lot of sense probably. You'd have to they sold it, you'd have to like record like a deed restriction type attachment to something like that or would you have to figure out how to attach that to the property?

I don't want to muddy it. I don't know does Dave Dave and Trice do you even know what was been and you're agriculture people so I think you'll think this is pretty cool but the FFA 4 as there becomes less and less agriculture you know the livestock kids kids can't raise animals anymore for the for the livestock shows. And so they came to us and wanted a parcel or piece of this land to put in a facility where kids could raise animals,

which is becoming pretty popular outside of Utah. And there's few like Pac and Santa Quinn have already done it in Utah, but it just allows those kids to have a hands-on project. So that's what we're worried about. You know, just trying to visualize. We've had neighbor kids raise stop show animals at our farm. Yeah. Just because they had nowhere to do it. Yeah. So that's that's I mean we're just trying to visualize that still fitting in. Um if that makes sense. We were really on board with in making that more continuous or usable piece as a block piece. Yeah.

Instead of a long narrow piece so that you have more options of of use for that. Um and uh in all honesty that ground that our ground that we're giving to the city is 10 times the ground that is below it. Yeah. So mostly because of the sink holes from the water level going down the lower part of our farm. I've been building sink holes for 20 years. The Clark farm is full of there on the lower piece. It's because of the nature of the land there because it used to be an old marsh. Oh yeah, absolutely. Yeah. I move sprinklers down there as a kid. Yeah. No, I that is an accurate statement. There's a difference in between the two parcels. Thanks for bringing up. That's important.

Yeah, I've driven that and it is Yeah, they're very correct on that.

I Councilman Williams hit on this. I there I think there's other things you from you could have a community garden in that location. And I think there's some extensions of the Clark farm and how what's there and keeping that looking like a farm and not like a development is very important in my mind. Um I yeah I if you if if you're asking what my thoughts are on it, I think it makes sense um to to to push forward. Could could you just zoom out on the GIS map just a little tiny bit so that we can just get some perspective? Okay.

Um maybe just a little bit closer. Sorry, I'm so picky. Yeah, just just test just a little. There we go.

So, I mean really from Rathol Drive to the uh the Bates home right there, which is our parcel. It's 1550 ft from there to there. And really the width of the the the Dave Reed parcel is is about 500 feet. So, you know, at any rate, if there were ever, you know, something that that needed to come into to play in terms of building a road down through there, um, you know, and that would be deed over to the city, we would get that that land and it would be three times the amount of the acreage that we got from from the reed. So, that would be, you know, nearly another three acres, which, you know, they'll be You know, it's it it it really is so close to the five acres that it's it's within the threequarters of an acre is pretty much what it is. So,

you're referring to the road. Yeah. I mean, something's got to happen, right? And guess who owns that when it's all said and done? Unless it's a private lane and you have one residence at the end of it. I mean, I guess that could happen. Could more power to them if that's what they want to do. But if that makes sense to everyone just Yeah. It's just so close to a wash that Yeah. but I can see it. Yeah. So is the consensus then that we want to move forward on posting this as it's got to be a public hearing that's got to be posted 10 days. Is that

I think it's 14 14. Okay. 14 days. Is there anybody who is not Um, so no cost incurred by either party prior to that. Correct. Right. We're not surveying. We're not doing anything. We're not you'll you'll do the surveys. Public hearing. Public hearing first. Public hearing first. Yeah. Let's see what the let's see what the citizens say. Okay. Agree. I think overall it makes sense though. I mean, it's essentially the same swap when we're talking about that. Plus, we're also sounds like we're getting a little bit of better quality acreage that we can use stuff with. So, and it's contiguous more to what we have already, right? So, I think it makes sense.

Okay. Anybody have any final comments? Nope. All right, we'll close that discussion then. Thank you. Moving on to agenda item six, consideration of resolution 2026-12, amending the fee schedule for garbage and recycling to modify the date of the annual 2% increase from January to July. Aspen, can I ask a question before you start? Absolutely. Um, this 2% increase, is this something that we're charging or is this what the company that we contract out?

No, this is our current fee schedule that Grantsville City has adopted. This is already currently in place. Um, and to address the public comment earlier, it's not an increase. I'm not proposing an increase to what's already in place. I'm just um in fact I guess in a roundabout way they'll get 6 months at a lower rate without an increase of savings I say with air quotes. So um basically right now our garbage rates increase on a 2% annual increase every January. That's currently the fee schedule that's been adopted. Um and then water and sewer increases in July. I am asking that we have garbage move to July and increase in July in conjunction with water and sewer. So that way the increase happens once and that it's easier on staff. Residents don't have to wonder why their bills going up again in January and again in July and again in January. There's just an annual increase that happens in July. Um, with that, the increase for calendar year 2026 for garbage already happened. So, garbage rates went up in January of 2026. So, if this does move forward, I'm proposing that we don't increase garbage until July of 2027. So, there wouldn't be a second garbage increase for the calendar year of 2026. Garbage would just lapse for that. It would be this rate for the 18 months until July of 2027. So that's all that this is asking. I'm not asking for there's no increases happening. I want to make that very clear. Just continuing with the same fee schedule that's already in place.

Yes. Just aligning it with the sewer and water schedule. Yes. And we're not approving necessarily all these rates right here because obviously the rate for the sewer is shown on there. Is that the new 5360 a month? Yeah, these are all current rates right now. So that's the current sewer. So it's not touching anything other than just moving the garbage schedule to happen in July and the next one would happen in July of 27 rather than January of 27th. Does this do anything to change the budget or what our numbers are bringing in or just we're saying this? Not for currently um because have the money from January.

Yeah. So this budget year for instance that we're in right now, fiscal year 26, ends on June 30th. And so the budget for this year is already in place and approved and the increase happened in January as was budgeted for this year. So we're on schedule with that. It would impact how we're going to be budgeting for 2027, but we're in that process right now. so that it won't impact a future budget other than I'll and if anything it will make it easier because I'll know that garbage will be this rate for the our entire fiscal year rather than switching partway through which it does right now. So it'll make that a little bit cleaner as well. Yep.

Yeah. Okay. Mayor, I make a motion to approve resolution 2026-12 amending the fee schedule for garbage and recycling to modify the date of the annual 2% increase from January to July. We have a motion. Is there a second? I will second motion. A motion by Council Member Butler and a second by Council Member Skinner. All in favor?

I. All right, that passes and we will move to agenda item seven, consideration of ordinance 2026-14, establishing an annual stipen program for members of the Grantsville City Fire Department.

Hello, Mr. Mayor and council members. I am Chief Jason Ramik, Assistant Chief Eric Strawber, Assistant Chief Steve Clark,

and we would like to change our um volunteer appreciation line item that's currently in our budget to a yearly stipen for the firefighters. Um we do have a percentage they have to make on calls every year. We do have to make so many meetings a year and so much training a year. So, this would be a small appreciation to the firefighters for saying thank you um for what you do. First step to going to a paid on call paid department. Questions?

Can you go through what's currently being done? And obviously just for currently for like a stipend Nothing for the firefighters. The administrative is on a monthly stipen, but that's for administrative side. That's not responding to calls. Completely voluntary. Yes. Just want to make sure that was clear. Going to walk them through the anonymous item. Yeah, that was my question. I didn't look at it. I didn't see it. That's step two. Let's see. I don't think it

I don't think it's on this. So, let me find it here. So, the way it breaks down and these guys accused me last night of not bringing my reading glasses and I brought them with me so I could read it. So, so I I do think you know this this minimal minimum call participation yes is is obviously important, right? Yes, that is that is a piece of it. That's not all of it. That's a piece of it. The attendance is the other part, right? uh meeting attendance and training requirements and acknowledging all the SOPs also that's all. Can you also state the number of calls that were received last year last year? 384 last year.

Thank you. Yeah. So I'll just why you're looking like this because I have them in my head. So for our firefighters that are 12% it was 46 calls that they had to hit for that um is the baseline. Um so double that for the three of us for the year for the chiefs and our five lieutenants were in the middle. So I know the firefighter number off the head. That's one I've looked at a lot. That's why I know it's 46. So half of that 23. So is that 69 calls for the lieutenants? Yeah.

So as of right now, do you want if we were to implement this what it would be or just a schedule fee? What are you looking for? Well,

because obviously it can change from year to year. I have both. I can do a schedule fee for what we're looking at. So basically a firefighter, we have 25 firefighters. If they all made 12%, that would be $250 a year. We have five lieutenants at $350 a year and three chiefs at $400 a year equals to $9,200. We have $10,000 in that line item in our budget right now currently for last year's numbers because this would be 425, not 26. This would be last year, so March of roughly March of this year. Obviously, we'll have to figure that out. But we have one firefighter, that would be the 250. One firefighter at $500. One firefighter at $550. One firefighter at $700. One firefighter firefighter at $800. Two firefighters at $1,50. One lieutenant at $350. One lieutenant at 650. one lieutenant at 850 and the three chiefs would be a 750. And ours would never go up or down. So the more more calls the firefighters, lieutenants go on, the more money they could make, but that's a yearly, not a monthly. Remember that's a yearly check. That's not monthly.

I understand. Can you remind me what the line item is called right now? firefighter appreciation and that's already in the budget. It's in the budget. And what are we normally doing with that firefighter? This is the first year we've ever had it. So that's why we're trying to do this with it. Okay. To appreciate our firefighters. So this is a line item in the budget for 2026. And how much have we how much have we utilized thus far uh of that line item? $89.17 if I remember off the top of my head. So, God bless it. No,

I like it.

Um I I like it as well. Um, we appre I appreciate what our what our fire department does um in in serving and uh it was nice to be able to have the opportunity to tour our our facility. actually tour Twilla's facility in that process and and just see the the areas that you know where we've got some deficiencies and and um you know and those come down funding and and all the other things. Um but I I appreciate what uh what our volunteers do to protect the dollars and protect the costs and and on that side of it as well. So I I feel this is a great move in the right direction. The the you know the the other components of this there's I I do have a few questions like how do we how who's how it's being tracked and who tracks it.

So it's elaborate elaborate a little bit on that process in our first system. It's tracked everything gets entered into there. pull a quick report and it shows and we do have everything every month it's ran so it's on the front table people know where they're at anybody that goes in the station can see where the whole department's at perfect so it's track through the system

so I have a question then if if they have this stipen and they have to be at uh 12% and now this your stipen is determined by your participation and now they're every call. I I realize that's not feasible, but let's just say that now they're at every call. And now what happens if you're go above your budget of the 10,000? So that's where we break it down. They won't make that much money because that's I mean this is for last year. So this is already set in stone. This budget is So obviously I did ask for more money in our next budget for this. So we go if we go above that we still have wiggle room.

It's broken out according to how many fire department there are. And so the stipen would only be like 250 for the entire year. They can't go more than that. It's not how many calls they show up. It's just they have to hit the minimum. They have to hit the minimum to be eligible. Okay.

And maybe because I worked this. So just so you understand some of this, right? So we kind of said and and the chief said that minimum at that 250, 350, 400, right? That's we're looking at that would be the base if everyone made it regardless of they're 12% or there are guys that were nearly 60% last year. If they all made it, we really don't have any way to reward the guys at 60% because we're rewarding everyone. Reality is not everyone's going to make it. That's we hope. I'd love to have every guy stand behind me all, you know, get something. But really what we want to do is at the end of the year we go through and look at and say okay the council has a loted x amount if we get you know 10,000 whatever how do we then look to break that up right and so as I did it for this year we looked and said okay what's what makes sense where was it you know kind of a per call number that started to work and as we went through looked at that then could put in everyone in you know percentage brackets you know 12 to 16 20 to 25 and as we plugged guys in there it worked out pretty well. Comes out to about $5 per call that these guys win on it, you know. So,

I was just doing the math and that's what I

Yeah, that that's where it's at. It's about $5 per call again because I didn't want to do it five times the number of calls. I wanted it to be a little cleaner than that as far as, you know, so we weren't you weren't getting, you know, $5 or, you know, whatever. So, that's where it at. And we would do the same thing going forward. We'd look and say, okay, what, you know, how many guys made it? If it's everybody, yeah, it's going to be that that 250. Um, and I'm gonna say from the chief's perspective, I think that's a problem we'd love to have is to know that every guy on the department was in good standing, hit the numbers, and then we can come back to you and say, "We need more, right?" Because this cuz the stipen worked. It incentifies the guys to come respond to that, you know, call. they had to get up at, you know, 2 am to go put batteries in someone's smoke detector, you know, for the 10th time in the month. So,

let's hope that's not the case, right? You'd be surprised how much that is what we're doing. So, so if I pay each of you $5, you'll come and switch them out in my house. How many does it take? No, I we do it for free. So, this is a shift from how we've always operated. Um, you know, maybe it would be good to kind of talk about um what we what you know, I I like I think it's good to know what neighboring cities are doing and how they're doing it. Um, you know, fire department is quite a bit different because we have a county involved. So, maybe elaborate a little bit on that if

city is going to a paid on call um starting in July. I believe it's July or January. I think it's July because that's when they got approved. Um, Rash Valley does a monthly um, stipent um, uh, Spanish or not Spanish fork, but Price does a monthly stipent. Twilla and North Twil obviously they're volunteer and they have a full-time um, Stockton doesn't do anything as of now, but they are going for a stipened also. And Bern and Terra, they they got like four firefighters. Yeah. one actually. Yeah, maybe two between the two departments and it's free.

Yeah. So, so in order to get the stipen, which I think's great and I'm all for it, but they have to meet all of these other things you put on here. Yes. So, if they miss one, so if they miss meeting attendance, 35 hours of their training instead of 36, then if they then they don't get their certification either. So, it's all rolled into certifications also. It just it's crazy. $5 a call. Yeah. But that's just the call. It's not including the training time. I I know. I mean, you couple that in there and then the meeting. Well, they're already doing it right now and they're doing it for not $5. Absolutely.

So, so just I I'll say you brought it up, right? The if you look at the minimum that guy that's going to hit the minimum, right? So, average call and I looked at a lot of the data to put this together. um you about an hour and a half is the average call time, right? So you think of

that, you know, so that 46 calls an hour and a half away. And again, we have some that are a little quicker. We have, you know, we had a structure fire that was, you know, 15 hours um this last summer. Um with the training hours and our meeting attendance, it's about 140 hours would be the minimum to make this. So you end up with just over a dollar an hour is what then if we need to calculate that and as most these guys back there are like yeah we're way above that. I mean we're averaging over a 100red hours of training um as a department that doesn't that doesn't include your fireworks shows and your parades and everything else.

We thought we were dedicating a lot of time. Right. Yeah. Well, I just have to say I appreciate it. My dad was a firefighter growing up. It's not an easy life. So, I appreciate all you guys do. You guys are doing it for free. I just want to say thank you and I appreciate it. Thank you. If I if I need help, I appreciate I know. Nice to know you're there. Absolutely. Any other questions? We appreciate our firefighters. I have one other question. Is this a is your time uh a fiscal year year or will it be January to December? So our numbers run from January to December. Okay.

So that's why like this one would be for 25 get paid in March. The next one would get paid next March and that would be from January this year to December this year because that's how our call okay numbers run. Okay. So March is the month. March, February, March. I mean obviously it depends on who's cutting the check and when they can work time in to do it. firefighter appreciation month. Then we'll call it. Thanks, Chief. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks. Thanks,

Mayor. I make a motion we move to approve ordinance 202614 establishing an annual stipen program for members of the Grantsville City Fire Department. I have a motion. Is there a second? I'll second. We have a motion by council member Thomas and a second by council member Dalton. All in favor? I I.

All right, that will pass unanimously. Thank you very much to our fire department. Thank you for coming tonight and thank you for all that you're doing for our community. Appreciate you. Um, we'll move on to agenda item number eight, council reports. I know some of you are still waiting on those, so no worries. Have a few things to talk about with you after. So, um, Rhett, do you want to start? Um just council reports in regards to um uh you know planning and zoning. We we met last night and um maybe Shelby can help me a little bit with um the proposed uh work meeting schedule. I I think we don't have it set in stone, but we are going to need Shelby left, did she?

Yeah, she didn't. She disappeared. Where'd she go? Um we do have some joint work meetings that they're going to be proposing um a little bit later possibly this month and um potentially one or two in April. So um we'll just communicate that via email and potentially via text to the group. But so just to go off of that, so the master transportation plan, they're ready to present the first I guess findings findings of that. We wanted council input because that was part of the requirement contract that they would meet with you. You could get your input into the traffic plan and then they'd go back and adjust from there.

Right. So the public openhouse for that master transportation plan is scheduled for April 30th. So they are asking us to either come to a planning and zoning meeting on April 14th for that to be presented or planning and zoning could come with us on April 15th. Um but one of those two nights I guess we're just I know at least one um planning and zoning commissioner couldn't make it on the 15th. So our meeting but was available on the 14th. So I don't know what our um availability is on the 14th. 14th is actually better for me. But is it a Tuesday? I'm good 14th. Anybody have any

problem? I'm good. All right. Sorry to cut you off, Rat, but thanks for bringing No, I just I mean, you obviously have a little more information than I do in those regards. There were some other meetings that were discussed. There were. Yes. Um and so we'll just need to be prepared for those. Yes. Those additional work meetings if you know if we want to attend um those. So,

um that's my report for planning and zoning. Um library board, we met in the month month of February. Um I think I reported that actually. Well, maybe I didn't because it was the day after we met um the last time I was here. Um everything's um on track and everything's going well with that. Um historic preservation, we meet next um next Thursday on the 12th. Okay. I did want to take just a moment. I I don't know if now's the time or if we want to wait till afterwards, but there was just a few comments um you know during public comment that I'd just like to make some some some comments about. Please, please. That was great.

Yeah. Just um so, uh Kristen, you know, made some some nice comments in regards to um us, you know, working and and trying to be diligent in in regards to the sewer rate fee, and I thought that was great. Um Lisa uh talked a little bit about the the Soulberg's um impact fee, and just, you know, for clarification, I mean, that impact fee was specifically for transportation. and it it can't be used for for sewer um in those regards. So, and that the the fee was not completely waved. Um the fee was reduced, albeit a significant amount, but the fee was reduced and they still had to pay what it ended up being $160,000 in regards to the to the the fee that they had to pay. They were asking for that to be zero. Right.

Correct.

Yeah. Um I I think that I think we addressed everything um in regards to Jeff Downard's um comments um in our discussion with the exception of the the the architecture of the sewer treatment plant which um you know it's I mean we we we we hire Aqua Engineering to to um to design the plant and and they've done you know as good a job as they can. And I don't think it's goldplated by any means. Those typically aren't because it's a sewer treatment plant, right? So, um, but a lot of the equipment that goes into those are are certainly expensive because they're process driven and and, um, and don't require a lot of I mean, they require monitoring from computers, but does doesn't require, you know, human monitoring necessarily all the time. So, um, which decreases the cost over the course of the of the, um, of the plant. So anyways, um I just thought that you know those were a couple things that we needed to to to address. Um and then just in regards to the water credits, I I don't know if you know the individuals that were online, you know, caught the fact that, you know, we are we are weighing that in and um and and looking at that that option as well to pay that down. So anyways, we're doing all we can to to you know make it so that we can not only decrease those rates um from what they were projected a couple weeks ago um but also um you know doing our due diligence to keep us in compliance with the state of Utah and the EPA. So, because I I think we all know that there's would be nothing worse than to do nothing and just kick the can totally down the road and be negligent and then, you know, have to pay $25,000 a month. And it's pretty simple math, right?

A day. 10,000 a day. $10,000 a day. That's your 25. Yeah. So, $3.6 million a year,

which I mean that's And you still would have to do it eventually, right? So yeah, I mean we're definitely in a in a quandry. And in regards to Derek, I mean, we talked about this a little bit earlier, but the impact fees, we are maximizing that amount. And we we typically we've we've battled back and forth even last year on even transportation um type impact fees and and the adjustment of that. and and I I think that Robert and his team, you know, do a great job of leading us in the right direction and making sure we're maximizing that amount for the impact that development has, you know, coming into our city. So,

thank you, Rick. some thoughts.

Um I I I believe you mentioned this to start the meeting. Um but being I know it's not an assignment, but being connected with the Veterans Park Committee or at least attending the Veterans Park Committee that did go out uh to bid today. I I just wanted to say thank you to the staff that has kind of gone through that more than once and twice to try to figure out how, you know, we can reduce the budget on that. I just want to thank uh our employees for doing for doing that. Um and and hopefully we'll see what results we can we can get out of that specifically. uh regarding the uh yeah maybe along those lines if anyone wants to encourage anyone to to go get on to our website and you know more numbers we get the better prices hopefully we can get in that aspect. So um it's it's out there. So uh if you know a good concrete guy or good electrician uh we need some we need some help on that. Anyway, um school district uh we're in talks and have we'll have an additional meeting there uh going through the uh agreement or draft agreement that we have in place or don't have in place regarding the uh Cherry Park and uh looking for potential solutions there. So, there's some meetings ongoing and we'll be able to rem report more on that as those start to to become more formal. Um, and then I think that's it.

All right. Thank you. Go to Jeff. So, both my meetings are next week. So, okay. We're gonna wait on pins and needles to hear what's

what's going on next. And then uh Derek and and Britney, we're still working through those and we're we're ready to make some assignments. So um my council report tonight uh the ULCT conference, so the Utah League of Cities and Towns conference is April 22nd through the 24th. If you in St. George, if you would like to attend, please let me know as soon as possible and we'll have the have that um taken care of. the light at Hell Street and Main Street. I did get word from you, DOT that that is supposed to begin construction in the next two to three weeks. Have you had any further updates, Christie or Bill? They were out there today.

They were out there today. Wonderful news. Okay, so just looking at it or out there on the corner. Just getting prepared. This is going to be a big one. These lights, they're big. It's a lot of work. I'm not making light of it. Sorry. No, I'm glad it's happening. Fine. So, right. And it it obviously changes our our our community. Um two stoplight town. A we are moving to a two stoplight town. Are we ready for that? How long will it take for construction? Do you know? It'll be a couple months. Yeah. So, anyway, this directly impacts me as I'm going over.

Yeah.

Okay. Uh the flowers um are ordered and growing for the Main Street flower pots. So that's exciting for me especially. Um March 17th is the Utah Inland Port annual conference that we have been invited to attend because we do have inland port properties in our community. um if you'd like to attend that, we do need that um information as well. If you're able to attend on the 17th, we are having uh a lot of vandalism at the Cherry Street Park particularly. Would would you say that particularly there or is it really just everywhere, Chief?

It's mainly there. So, we had the bathroom open one day one day and we were already done for. It was just toilet paper. Yeah. Or one day. Maybe we should install some bedets.

It's an idea, Derek. It's an idea. Byp. Yeah. You just put a coin in. It gives you Yeah, maybe coin operated amount of toilet paper. That's so frustrating. It is so frustrating. Yeah, that's quite the usage fee, guys. That is going We'll pay for the sewer treatment plant with the usage fee of the toilet paper at the park.

Uh I don't know what to do about the vandalism at the park. Obviously, cameras and all kinds of things have been discussed, but nothing seems to be putting a dent in that problem. But if you happen to see anything, please say something. I think that would be the message to the residents to if you see something, report it. Um,

can I say something along those lines? I know there was a meeting on this specifically, Christie. Thank you for being there and representing the city in that and working with I think I that's a really a joint effort uh across the board with the school district. the school district was there. um the the actual you know the coaches and those um thank you for working with them and trying to you know whatever we can do to find a solution there if anyone can come up with a better approach over there to try to I know that's been an issue for years many years actually and so you know it's a it's a school next to a park and and u you know we've even put more lighting in that area I and so with the we've added lighting in that area to and and doesn't seem to have solved the issue. So anyway, thank you for being there.

Um the socialable is in March on the 21st. So um any support for that would be great and thank you to all the volunteers who are working tirelessly um in March to make that happen. um t sorry tickets can be purchased here at city hall. So if anyone online or here in the audience is looking for that they can be purchased here. Uh like like Jake mentioned the veterans park is out for bid. We're hoping to get as many bids as possible so that to hopefully move down the price. And I think that is everything. Um, Michael, do you have anything that you need to bring up?

Yeah, I think one main thing that we we probably let the county be aware of is that the state has set the hearing date for the water contestation and so we are having we've contacted the initial attorney that submit the application. He has agreed to represent us in that hearing. Battle when they did their hearing, it took them nine hours. hoping to not be there nine hours. And so we have hired that attorney as well as Brad Rasmmanson who is here with Aqua to help represent that because we feel that need that we need to secure our rights for that water. And so uh to really show that we are going to throw uh serious attention and resources at giving that good hearing presentation there. It is contested by one entity of the save the Great Salt Lake. We are We feel like we have some pretty decent arguments in that regard because our affluent water doesn't we believe go to the lake at all. It is all diverted to other locations and so we feel like that in and of itself makes it so we have to create arguments that way. So we want to secure those rights and get a further briement on that as we get closer or council wants to talk.

What was the date of that you said? March 19, I think the state offices there. Okay. Any other staff members have anything that they feel needs to be addressed tonight? Just from school. We had a meeting about the vandalism. It's not only just it's trash that they leave everywhere. The trash is everywhere. Yes.

Had you talked to your the school advisors? They used to have an inschool suspension where they the students would have to go with the custodian and clean up trash seminary building, baseball park, stuff like that. But that was taken away with my meeting in the with the school resource officer officer today. I learned that that would be their students making the garbage. That would be a great way to help clean it up and save on staff if they can bring back that back. But u now was that a school program that was taken away? Yeah, we can't punish we can't punish kids anymore. Yeah, I don't know why. Sorry. And I don't This is just a preliminary discussion today that was brought up. I No, I think it's a fantastic idea. We'll we'll bring it up

and then every every day our school resource officer is going to call if the patrol is available and just walk through that during lunch, high hours and stuff like that. So, there is a we'll try, but we can't be there all the time, right? We're trying to curb it, but that would help if they're cleaning up their own stuff as well. No, I appreciate it, Chief. the extra presence over there I think was is is a great you know we got to find other ways you know so thank you all right um I need a motion to adjurnn I make a motion we adjourn second all in favor

yeah not bad at elements.