Cc - Regular Meeting

Yeah, maybe.

All right, ladies and gentlemen, we welcome you to City Council, Brigham City Council today, August 20th, 2026 at 6 p.m. We're excited about tonight's council meeting. Of course, we always are on council nights because we get to be together and do things for the public and hear from the public. We will start our meeting off tonight, though, with a thought reading or an invocation by our friend Bishop Mike Arrington of the 20th Ward. Following Bishop Arrington, we've invited Councilmember Jansen to lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance. Bishop, if you'll come to the podium.

Our Father in heaven, we are grateful for this wonderful city that we live in. We're grateful for thy dunya's blessings. Father, we pray this night and this council meeting that thou wilt bless our Mayor, city council members, and other officials that they will be guided by thy hand and be blessed with thy wisdom. Father, we pray for thy guidance and that thy love might be bounteous within our city. Bless us with thy charity that we may be kind to one another. We may speak kind words and and have loving acts. We pray for any within our community that are struggling, that are suffering, feeling alone, that they may be recognized and seen by the end, by us, that we may support one another and lift one another up. Father, again, we pray for blessing in decisions that are going to leading our city and pray for these leaders. In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, amen.

Amen. Will you please rise, give the proper salute, and repeat the pledge with me?

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Now, it's not on the agenda, but this week, and it's not an action item at all, but this week on Monday, we remember it's the one-year anniversary of the tragedy that took place out in Tremonton when we had two officers whose lives were taken by a shooter. Our department was heavily involved, both fire and police, so was the county. All departments all across Utah came to support If it's okay, would you mind joining me in just a moment of silence to remember those individuals and the sacrifices they made and those sacrifices were made on their behalf in support of that department? Thank you. We are indeed grateful to live in a community that respects not only our emergency services, but our law enforcement. And I'm grateful for those individuals who sacrifice 24-7 to be at the call and to rush in when there's danger and when the time is needed. I appreciate them and love them for it and their families for allowing them. It would be interesting. I've been close enough to a lot of those families now for years. to understand the emotion a little bit, but to say goodbye at the door in the morning and then spend the rest of the day with a little prayer in your heart that they come home safe and whole. And I appreciate their families for the sacrifice that they make on our behalf as well. Council, we have two consent items, and one is the approval of the August 2026 City Council meeting minutes, and then the request to write off utilities due to being sent to collections. we would enjoy a motion to approve consent. We have a motion by, do you want to do that again with the mic on? So moved. Okay, we have a motion by Councilmember Hipp and a second by Councilmember Jensen. Is there any clarification or questions that need to be answered before we move to the affirmation? All those in favor? Aye. Thank you, motion passes. We want to recognize a new employee hire in our Power Department. That's Mr. Jeffrey Davis. who joined us as a power department tree trimmer. And of course, as a Tree City USA, it's important for us to maintain our stock, but also as a utility, we need to make sure that our lines are free and our roads are safe as well. We've had one crew. This year, we've added a second crew that will assist public works and power to make sure that our utilities and our assets are safe in that respect. And So we're happy to have Mr. Davis with us and look forward to his service in the power department. Our next item of business is a public hearing, and that's a consideration of resolution adopting the 2627 final budget. And we'll invite Jeff Schmidt to just kind of give like a little quick overview to introduce it. We had our public hearing, our truth in taxation last week, this last Thursday. And so we shouldn't need to say too much, Jeff, but if you just want to just kind of give a synopsis for the council, for the public, and then when Jeff has completed that, we'll ask for a motion to open a public hearing specific to this resolution.

Thank you, Mayor. So just as a reminder, this process has been extensive and has been ongoing for many months now. We've had a lot of great budget work sessions. We had our truth and taxation public hearing last week, and now we're almost to the finish line tonight. Um, there have been no changes since we published the approved interim budget from our June 18th meeting. And so, uh, unless there are additional questions, as far as, uh, tonight's public hearing, um, the final budget is ready and proposed for mayor, for the council.

Council have any questions? If not, we'll ask for a motion to open a public hearing. Don't move. We have a motion to open the public hearing for our adopting, resolution adopting the 26-27 final budget. We have a motion by Council Member Hipp. Do we have a second? Second. We have a second by Council Member Jensen. All those in favor?

Aye.

All right. So just as a reminder, we now stand in public hearing. Now, public hearing is a little different than public comment. So if you'd like to comment, During this period, it's going to be specific to the budget. If you're here to comment on anything else, we'll have public comments following this, and that's where it's basically open mic night. We'd love to hear from you, but it's the same kind of guardrails. We invite those that live within Brigham City limits, can run for public office, own property, or business in Brigham City. We invite them to comment. We'd love for you to come to the podium. Please state your name and where you live. And we'd love to hear from you for up to three minutes on our 26-27 final budget. Time is now yours that would like to comment. Council, I don't see any twitching. So I'm going to say that seeing there are no comments for the public hearing for the budget, uh we would uh entertain a motion to close public hearing we have a motion by council member smith do we have a second second we have a second by council member troxell to close public hearing all those in favor all right any opposed thank you motion passes we will move to uh the second i well the the second half of this item which is to remind or to uh state that the agenda item that is attached to your agendas on the back seat, on the back there, are intended to demonstrate the compliance with 59-2-919-4A and I and 59-2-924B, 248B, by providing a property tax impact schedule, and that's attached to your agenda. I just needed to make sure that you're aware of that and stated that in a public meeting. We have had a public hearing now on the final budget. We can take an action on that. We do have that down, Dewey, or is it? Right now. Right now. Yep. So, Council, if you have any discussion items on the budget that we've just had a public hearing on, we would invite you to address your comments to Mr. Euler, Mr. Schmidt, and possibly Mr. Cotter, but he's just supporting Mr. Schmidt at this point.

Well, I've had some, I mean, as I've been thinking about this for a while, talking with people, and we had talked about this in June a little bit, I'd love to see from my standpoint what the parks do next year with the increase that we've given them. And just full disclosure, as everything else goes, I wouldn't mind seeing us just using our fund balance to take care of the attorney so we can get one hired and then to see what we actually are spending for an attorney. This one here, that's my thoughts. I don't know if anybody else has any other.

I think that kind of rolls into my concern. I worry that if we currently approve a full-time attorney, knowing that we're looking for the caliber at which we've had, we're kind of rolling into more costs and higher costs. And is it maybe prudent right now to keep it at a contract position to make sure that we have legal services for all the different things that we need it for until such time that we could possibly find?

Yeah, I mean, there's a couple of A couple trains of thought there, at least from my perspective. To render the service that we are currently getting from our current contracted city attorney, I frankly would tell the city council that I need significantly more money because I'm going to be contracting with multiple folks to provide the same service that I'm getting today. So if By the way, we may be completely unsuccessful in recruiting and retaining a full-time attorney with the level that we need today, but I would say that my opinion through two years ago when we posted the full-time city attorney position and ended up hiring a contract attorney, and obviously this is an appointed position, so frankly, I'm fine saying this publicly. We have already done some preliminary interviews with some folks for a full-time city attorney position, and the current wage that is in the budget that you're approving tonight is insufficient to retain the quality of attorney that we need. So if we're talking contract attorney, we need more money than is what's in the budget to continue the same level of service.

Now, what's in the budget reflects what that attorney marked for a contract two years ago. She signed a two-year contract at Brigham City. Now, as we go out to look for a new contract attorney, those prices have gone up with wages that we'll be contracting and competing with.

Derek, can you, without, I don't have to have specifics because I don't want to catch you off guard, but can we demonstrate what we've spent, what our costs were, our attorney who was very successful with no complaints anywhere here and what we saw is maybe a measurable value add where we saw that attorney just for example save us potentially more than what they cost us in this last three years in any kind of example like that i think will help us and public understand i think the most measurable is you know if you look at it at the budget and

Every single city department has a professional and technical line that is in every single city department's budget. So if we have to hire outside counsel to defend a lawsuit, to mitigate a litigation, those are hitting those account lines when we hire outside counsel. I jinxed this. frankly, a couple of months ago, because I publicly said we have not hired outside counsel in the two years that our current city attorney has worked. We end up having a couple things pop up, and we have had to retain some outside counsel for a couple of items that I'm not going to publicly disclose. So the measurable is the amount of money we have spent as a city not retaining outside counsel because of the level of expertise of the current inside counsel. So that is the marriage measurable savings, although those numbers are not on one light line item in the budget that says this is what Brigham City paid the city attorney. When we hire outside counsel, those expenditures are scattered throughout different departments and funds of the city. And I think the other thing you know. Yeah, employment issues, liabilities. We have done a really good job on the last few years and having a really good in house attorney. Keep us out of situations like that. So I think those are also measurable, although they're hard to see in a budget. They're definitely measurable. So the amount of money we're spending on outside counsel is the most measurable. And, you know, if we go back to contract attorney and the level of expertise of who we can attract and retain to come and work in Brigham City, Utah, it will govern and guide how much additional outside counsel we hire. to be able to keep the wheels on the bus. So, thanks.

And our current, yeah, I'm going to reiterate some of the things that have been said. Our current contract attorney has been doing a very, very, very good job with Brigham City. And I wish we could keep her. But I wish we could because I have heard things that she has been very, very effective at and has helped Brigham City helps steer Brigham in a great direction.

So is there the latitude if we create this new line item for the full-time attorney? We have already kind of done that a couple years ago.

Two years ago there was a full-time attorney wage in the budget.

Okay.

We posted the position.

So we're not creating a new line?

No, it's just an additional, all it is additional amount. It's the difference between our current contract and a full-time wage, which includes the benefit package, Utah retirement, everything that we're required to do as an employer. It's only that difference that is in the tax increase, which has been part of the budget. Um, yeah, I, I would love to be able to sit in front of you and say, I'm a hundred percent positive that we can hire a contract attorney to fill Nicole's role, but, um, I'm going to be honest with you, I think there's less than a 1% chance that we're going to be able to do that with the wage that is currently there. Full-time is something we're going to guide, and we already have been. Like I said, it's an appointed position, so the mayor and I and staff have done some preliminary interviews, and we've frankly been unsuccessful with even the budgeted wages.

I don't have a vote on this, but I'll just continue to beat this drum, having been on the council. At the end of the city taking one-time money to absorb, in this case, from 2010, probably, to 2019, the absorption of electrical rates so they didn't raise for our community. And in 2019, when I was on city council, having to raise the taxes What was that? Was that a 50%?

Roughly.

About a 50% raise in order to catch up to what that one-time money was that we were spending. Because we were running out of that money, and we couldn't keep up with not raising the rates. So we had to raise our electrical rates and fill in the blank of that money that we had been spending. And so I would simply suggest that it's not prudent to use one-time money on ongoing expenses. that eventually has to be made up.

I don't necessarily want to get on a soapbox, but I think one of the frustrations that we as staff are seeing with the new rule, with the truth in taxation and the budget process, we've spent, and I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but we've spent six meetings talking about a city attorney. Brigham City's got a 90-something million dollar budget. And because of the way this process works, we have to talk about two specific things. And in old budget processes, when we're talking about an extra $100,000 in employee wages, it's a non-talking point. And it's honestly just a tiny bit frustrating for staff that the state legislators put us in a situation where we have to spend so much time talking about something that I feel like is an absolute necessity and a little bit trivial to have that many public conversations about something like defending your attorney with proper legal counsel. or whether additional monies need to go into our parks. You council can drive around and look at that. When you look at a budget process in total that starts in January and looks like it's going to end hopefully tonight, the end of August, there's a $90 million budget here, and there's a lot of things going on in Brigham City, and having proper legal counsel to defend us and help this city move forward is a must. To me, it's not a discussion point in a public meeting for six straight meetings, but the process by which we've been forced to have this through the truth and taxation, in my opinion, is what's caused all the public comment and the back and forth. It's just a little bit frustrating. So, you know, there's a lot of other things in the budget. And I feel unfortunate that we've had this much conversation about a city attorney. I don't like it. So it's a necessity and a must.

It is a necessity. And I may 100% understand what it is you're saying about the one-time money. I think occasionally, Uh, that, that is an okay thing. Would I do this every year? No. Or what I'm thinking, but, and, and yeah, we need to have an attorney and I think we can get with what we have here. I think we can figure out, okay, well, let's hire an attorney and see what that cost actually is over the next year, hopefully. So that's, that's, that's my thinking behind.

Derek, you mentioned that in the interviews, we weren't being very successful. Is that just because of the wage?

Yes, completely.

How much would you say that it would have to go up to, to hire a full-time?

To guarantee the level that we need, $240,000, $250,000 a year. That's the wage itself, not fully benefited. Well, it's in the budget.

200 even is in the budget, so.

But I agree we have a $90 million budget and in our last financial statements. I think all our fixed assets and stuff is over 250 million. If I'm not mistaken too, so we have to. Protect all those assets, it's difficult.

Councilmember Smith, it sounds like you're suggesting what lay it out. Yeah, as a motion. Well, that's up to you and see if it flies. Right discussion.

Well, that was my suggestion. My suggestion is let's take what we've already gotten in the parks for their temporary stuff, which was which was the $55,000. Take this $55,000 in this right now and not use it this year. And take our fund balance and use that for $129,843 left for the attorney and use our fund balance for that. Just one time and get an attorney. hired over the next year, so we know exactly what that cost is within that $200,000 time frame, which then comes out to a 0% property tax increase this year.

So when we say pulling from the fund balance, what's that number that we're sitting at right now, fund balance?

In our general fund, which is what these expenditures we're talking about, Give me just a second. Thanks. I can give you June 30 of 2025. I can't give it to you as of today. So. So, yeah, this is this will be a year old. which doesn't include the budget that's just ended. We just barely started doing journal entries to close our books for the current year end that ended June 30th, 26. Unrestricted cash in general fund was roughly 8.3 million. Yeah.

That's down from the, yeah, real, real life.

Some of that's bridge money. So, you know, it's, I mean, talking about unrestricted fund balance and a full year behind doesn't make me feel real warm and fuzzy up here because we have budgeted expenditures through the 25-26 budget year that were set to come out of that fund balance.

Well, saying it's bridge money, we've got to make sure we're aware we did complete the bridge, but the project isn't done because there's a road connecting American Way to the other side that still needs to be done.

Yeah.

If it wasn't in the bridge bid, it's independent of that that we have out for bid. Actually, we just awarded that now.

We'd be talking about if that discussion we're having were pulled from that fund. and we were to remove the $55,000, that would leave us about how much to have that zero balance. What would we be talking about? Somebody got a number?

On the tax rate or?

No, on the total amount that would need to be pulled, minus the $55,000, which wouldn't be funded, 129,843. Does that sound right? Tom's usually . Yep.

Tom's doing . That would be the $129,843.

Are you suggesting the $55,000 come out of fund balance?

No. I'm suggesting the $55,000. They've gotten $55,000 for that temporary help. I would love to see where that goes every year, see how the parks respond to that.

So that's not an increase. That's just leaving status quo of the current year budget.

Right.

Yes.

$55,000. Yeah.

So there'd be no change in parks temp wages from current.

from June 18th. No, that's their interim budget at $55,000. Their interim budget at $55,000 for temporary.

Okay, that's right.

That's an extra $55,000. The initial asking was $110,000. We had talked about this a little bit.

Yeah, I thought we had cut it in half.

Okay, so they have $55,000 right now that's in the interim budget.

Yeah.

They're just saying don't give them the other $35,000 that they requested.

Yeah, their ask was $110,000.

Correct.

So $129,000 to?

$843,000. $843,000.

To that come out as unbalanced? Unbalanced. That come out as unbalanced. Yes.

And again, not doing this. I know this is something. I wouldn't do this every year because, as the mayor pointed out, that's just taking something and putting an ongoing expense and pushing it down the road, and pretty soon you have a 65% property tax increase, and nobody likes that. But my feelings of just some of the things that we've done over this past year with some of the rates is to do this.

And I think we're also, some may be thinking, not only our city, but county costs. And there's a need for budgets to be increased, but there is a sense by many folks that, yeah, we need a little break. And we have an opportunity here, not as a continuous basis, like was said last meeting, we take a little bite from the apple so we don't have a huge bite that shocks us all. And you've experienced that when you were on the council before. I think what I'm hearing is that this is an opportunity to give a one-time chance for a little bit of a sense of a break to pull from that fund and to make the adjustment to parks.

Yeah, if I could just real quick discuss this. So if we take ongoing expenditures like the mayor talked about from one-time monies, which is being suggested, It guarantees you the mayor is going to put a property tax in front of you the following year. Remember how property taxes work. The next year's number will be identical to the current year number. We're starting next year's budget in the whole $130,000. So you will see that tax increase in through the budget process a year from now. So that it'll immediately come to you. And that's, you know, me being the previous finance director of the city. The council can do whatever it wants, but I think it's my job to talk about prudent financial theology. We have never at this city since I've been here funded ongoing expenditures with one-time monies. This would be the first I've seen a council do that. It's not the best financial decision on behalf of Brigham City, but I mean, you guys are elected officials. I think it's my job to tell you that it's, you know, not the greatest financial decision, and you will see a tax increase for that specific amount of year from now.

Yeah, 100%. I would expect you to say exactly that. Yep, that is 100% your job. Thank you.

Derek, when does our current contract with the lawyer expire?

It expired August 1st. We are on a month-to-month contract currently.

Okay. What are the costs of that compared to the amount we've set aside?

For the full-time?

For the month-to-month.

Yeah, the contract.

Is that needed or is it?

Yeah, the contract amount is significantly less than the full-time attorney would cost.

Mm-hmm.

We don't have those added benefits.

Are we going to pay for that? Sure. But are we missing services then that we need?

Well, I think it's important to understand too, the current contract we have is the provider has no intention of staying. She is doing it to get us to a full-time attorney. Right.

And so she's providing at this point month to month.

Yes.

And doesn't have to do that. No. Not required to do that. And doing it at a reasonable cost is what I'm hearing you say.

Yeah.

That's not an indefinite point.

It's no, it is. It's. Concerning obviously for us to staff.

OK, is there a motion or we still discussing?

I kind of agree with what Ryan saying that I would not.

This is.

not something you'd do every year for sure but we've also had water increase and power increase and i don't know that's that just seems like a lot if we add property tax on top of it too but i understand what derek's saying that'll come back next year it'll be this year's amount plus next year's amount so it won't just be a regular raise next year right yeah you wouldn't expect the 4%, you'd ask for more.

I can almost promise you that you're going to be having a power rate increase and a water rate increase here from now as well. Maybe. You guys get the monthly reports on what's going on with our wholesale power portfolio.

I'm going to throw the motion out there. I move that we consider the adoption of the 2026-27 final budget with the $55,000 that's listed for the Parks Department removed and our fund balance to cover the $129,843 for our attorney, essentially bringing the property tax rate for Brigham City's portion to zero.

OK. We've got to include in the motion the actual tax rate. We're working over here as quick as we can.

So this would take us to the tax rate, certified tax rate I believe of .001740 and it would generate the $3,846,456. To include that tax rate in the motion? Yep. Okay. With the tax rate going to

I don't think going to is the correct term, is it? Isn't that what it is, zero?

Adopting a tax rate of?

Adopting a tax rate of, okay. So adopting a tax rate of .001740.

Sorry, I just feel like if the public that's not in this room hears going to, they're still hearing a tax increase.

Yes, okay. Yeah, thanks.

Okay, we have a motion by Councilmember Smith. Do we have a second?

Second.

We have a second by Council Member Hipp. This will be a roll call. We'll start with Council Member Jensen and move to his right. Matt Zunai. Steve Zunai.

Robin Zunai.

Brian Zunai. Thank you. Motion passes. We will move on to the consideration of an ordinance approving the annexation of 87.74 acres located at approximately 1200 West between Highway 13 and State Highway 13, I must say. And 1500 North into Brigham, into the Brigham city corporate limits. We'll invite Mr. Bradley, our city planner to present.

All right. Mayor and council, uh, the annexation petition before you tonight is started back in June when it was actually filed. And it is quite a process to get to this point. If you could understand what our city recorder, Christina, does with the noticing and that timeframe, and then there's other steps that we have to take to get to this point that you'll see on action item number one later. But this is the area that is bound by the dark line, but it's hard to see on this map, so we'll just show a better exhibit. So the dark dashed line is the current city limits. The red line is the proposed annexation area. And that is by Stewart Land. We have Brad Brown here representing the company. They've been under contract with this property early on. In fact, you've even met with them when they went through a process to amend the general plan for the future land use designation on this property. Part of this annexation, just to be aware of it, there is actually a gap between the railroad And the city limits, I'll see if my, I don't think my, yeah, the arrow kind of shows a little bit on the screen. But it's where the rectangle bulges out there to the east a little bit. That piece is a property, a different property owner, Taylor Roberts, that the staff requested that the steward land bring in with the annexation so that there is not a gap in the roadway on 1500 North with those improvements that would need to take place. Taylor Roberts is his name, the owner. He's expressed interest of not being annexed. At one time he wanted to be annexed, so over the years it's changed back and forth. But as a staff, it's felt that that's pretty critical to have that uniform growth of that boundary so we don't have to jog like you see further out and as the city takes responsibility for the roadway and other improvements as they work with the developer. when they develop the land down the road. Anyway, with that said, that's all we really have as far as introducing this item. There is a second component later on the agenda, which is zoning.

OK. Thank you, Mr. Bradley. Council, do you have any questions for Mark?

I felt that during any annexation that I, as a council member, have always felt like it is upon the property owners to want to be annexed, that the city wouldn't go and force you to annex within our city. And so I'm concerned about if that property owner does not want to just put him in there and force him to. That's a big concern.

An annexation petition has to be submitted by property owners. And that is correct. The city couldn't go out and just start doing that. There have been some historically where properties have had to come in WITH THAT TO MEET REQUIREMENTS SO THERE'S NOT, ESPECIALLY IN THE PAST, BEFORE ISLANDS WERE MORE ACCEPTABLE SO THAT THEY WOULD BE INCLUDED. IN FACT, A GOOD EXAMPLE IS JUST TO THE WEST OF THIS, SOUTH OF THE ROBINSON PORTION, THERE WAS AN AREA THAT NEEDED TO COME IN BETWEEN HIM AND THE CURRENT BOUNDARY AT THAT TIME. AND THEY CAME IN. OF COURSE, THAT INDIVIDUAL WAS VERY AMENABLE WITH THAT. Anyway, that's a little background with that.

That property is currently receiving city services without being in the city. It will also be drastically affected by the road grade that is going to be required by UP on either side of those railroad tracks.

Road up?

Yes, to make it so that it meets their specifications for a crossing for line of sight. In fact, both those properties, even the one that is in the corporate synonym that's going to the east, is going to be affected. His current egress into his property is what UP is going to be requiring.

And so currently, as Mr. Roberts doesn't want to do this, is there concerns in what, I guess? What were the concerns of not doing, not being annexed?

I mean, you could open the public hearing and I didn't speak. Yeah, this is a public hearing.

It is?

OK. Yeah. All right.

OK. So we've already had the public hearing. No, we did it a couple of weeks ago.

No, this is a public hearing, Mayor. It's listed a little bit weird. But yeah, this is item number two is a public hearing approving annexation. She didn't restate the word public hearing in front of it, but yes, this has been noticed for a public hearing.

Yeah, it's in the public hearing section of the agenda, and the publishing of the property tax impact schedule has confused me, so I appreciate that clarification. Okay, so this is to open a public hearing for the consideration of an ordinance approving. Let me state that properly for the public record. approving the annexation of 87.74 acres located at approximately 1200 West between Highway 13 and 1500 North into the Brigham City corporate limits. Thank you for that clarification. So this is for a public hearing. Do we need a motion to open? Open public hearing, yes.

So moved.

Second. Okay. We have a motion to open public hearing by Councilmember Smith and a second by Councilmember Jensen. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? All right, we now are in a public hearing, and I apologize for my confusion. For the consideration of this ordinance, we invite those who would like to speak specifically in this public hearing to please come to the podium. Those that live within the affected area and those that live within the Brigham City corporate limits and own property can run for city office. We invite you to come up, state your name for the public record, and we'd love to hear from you for up to three minutes.

Brad Brown, I'm with the applicant. And I just wanted to, I've been in communication with Taylor. And so we're excited about this project. We think it's going to be great for the city. But the staff recommended that we pull that piece in. And I've been talking to him and texting with him the last few days. He didn't feel up to making it tonight. He has some health concerns. But his concerns, he doesn't want to, He wants to develop in the future, but he's concerned that at least the big one is, is he going to have to pay for any road improvements right now? And as I've talked with Mark, nothing right now he would have to pay. There might be in the future something reconciling some of the services and standards. That was his biggest concern as I was talking to him. And so I just want to make sure kind of his voice is recognized as well. Thanks.

Mayor, it doesn't look like anybody else is getting up. I move we close the public hearing.

Thank you. Motion to close public hearing by Council Member Jensen. Do we have a second? Second. Second by Council Member Hipp. He beat you by a millisecond. All those in favor? Aye. All right. Thank you. Public hearing. We now stand closed from the public hearing. Now we can go to an action item, which would be to approve the ordinance or accept the ordinance, approve the ordinance, approving the annexation.

Mayor, there was a question that came to my attention. On the agenda, it does reference 1,200 West. The second component has 1,000 West. I believe all the notices were published for 1,000 West. I'm not sure with the typo there, but it ought to just be clarified in the motion that it's between 1,000 West.

Yeah, it says on the agenda 1,200. Make sure we read the correct.

west street in our in our motion all right are there any other questions from council to mr bradley or discussed really quickly from from the one public comments that i i understand correctly so mr roberts is okay with the annexation um the road improvements would have to be put in over the railroad tracks and is that something that that they would be responsible for in the future so currently

It's still an engineering of what you sorry Union Pacific's going to require for roadway improvements along 1500 North. Historically. The developer will only be responsible for the portion of the roadway that's in front of their specific development. So frankly, if Union Pacific Railroad comes back to Brigham City, and says we are going to require improvements on both sides of this to allow this to happen, we as the city are going to be paying for the east side of those improvements today. And we would do a pioneering agreement with future development of anybody else in that area. But I don't know the specifics on that right now. And, you know, maybe just real quick, Council Member Troxell, you know, I feel like it's prudent as far as the staff publicly discuss it. Yeah, we as staff also do agree that annexations are at the request of the property owner. There comes times when that you as the elected body get to make the decision of yes or no based on the information you have. Because this is a public matter and was settled in court, I am going to remind the council that you have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on a lawsuit in this area. And Brigham City's control of that roadway and the improvements thereof and making sure that our engineer as a city takes into account the mitigating efforts that need to take place to keep us out of future litigation is very, very important. So I think all of you are on the council and involved with that. The settlement of that is in a public place now, and that's why I will talk about it right now. But there is situations where an annexation should be your decision based on all information and mitigating factors. And we at staff feel like that this area specifically is one of those.

Okay. Once you're satisfied, we'd entertain a motion one way or the other.

I would make a motion for consideration of the ordinance approving the annexation of 87.74 plus or minus acres located at approximately 1,100 west between the highway. 1,200. I'm sorry. 1,000. 1,000. 1,000. 1,000. 1,000 west between Highway 13 and 1,500 north into Brigham City corporate limit.

So we have a motion by Councilmember Hipp. Do we have a second? Second. We have a second by Councilmember Smith. This will be another roll call vote. We'll start with Councilmember Smith and move to his left.

Ryan is an aye.

Robbins an aye.

Dave's an aye. Matt's an aye. Thank you. Motion passes. We will now open up for public comment. And so this is different than public hearing. We invite you, the members of the Brigham City public, Those who live within our corporate limits, own property or business, or go to high school at Box Elder, we do allow that as well. Because we have some on our Youth City Council that don't necessarily live in the city limits, but they serve on the YCC, the Youth City Council in Brigham City, to come and speak for up to three minutes. If you'll state your name and where you live and make your comments.

My name is Jack Levitt, and I've lived in Brigham City for 50 years. Sixteen years ago, the mayor of Brigham City asked if I would take a look at the Brigham City property in Manoway, east of the reservoir, if it was suitable for hiking-biking trails. So the quest began. I was honored in this chamber a short time ago for this effort, and I certainly appreciate that recognition. About eight years ago, I approached Tyler Pugsley, who was the public works director at the time and who was providing excellent support for this venture and has been continued with Mike since he's taken over. And I told him I was getting a little old and it's probably time to give up this type of activity. He insisted that I continue and said that the city had purchased more property and desired to have more trails on that new property. He said the city would provide some help because I'm so old and agreed they would take him over the spray operation for the vegetation because the trail would be overwhelmed every year if it wasn't sprayed. To prevent the city from being burdened financially, I applied for and received a grant from Box Hill Tourism for $10,000 to purchase the chemicals. When this reached Tyler, he called me and says, what's this for? And I told him, he says, this has got plenty of spray, and he turned money back to Box Hill for Tourism. Four or five years ago, the Utah High School Cycling League, which is a nonprofit and operates on student fees and sponsors, approached to see if they could hold a race on this trail. Um, this event made it made the time and effort that I put in worthwhile to, uh, see these young athletes develop their special skills. These are kids that don't necessarily fit the mold of high school sports, but it's the fastest growing high school sport in city, Utah and beyond. gets these kids away from TV, video games, and phones, and learn a skill that they'll enjoy for the rest of their lives. There are many venues throughout the state, some of them like ski resorts, who spend hundreds of thousands of dollars building trails, setting up races, and maintaining the trail's infrastructure to charge the kids to use their course. Of course, the resort's paying for all the expenses. Brigham City has been unburdened in race preparation. Other venues don't charge the use of the course. Many cities, in fact, actually pay the league to have a race in their community. Cedar City, for example, pays them $7,500 to come and race there.

Three minutes.

The course in Manoway.

Go on, Jack. We'll give them one more time.

Want me to quit?

No, it's three minutes, but keep going.

All right. Coastal Mantaway has become very popular for spectators due to the fact that they're able to see a large portion of the race from one spot, unlike most venues. I understand there's a new resolution that involves a displacement of public fee, which would require the league to pay $5 per participant. This would amount to about $5,600. And we need to understand that the lake, the trail around the lake, and everything except the Racecourse itself would be open to the public. Still have access. It appears that the purpose of this fee is to discourage these type of events because it certainly wouldn't be to recoup effort by the city for preparing setup because the city doesn't prepare for the setup. The venue will be open to 2000 public spectators and anyone else wants to come and participate. So it's not closing off the public. I'm not sure this is a prudent way to add revenue to the city by charging high school kids to use the trail at Brigham city. Didn't build and doesn't maintain around 250 man hours per year done by volunteers building and maintaining these trails, which includes these high school kids that are writers zero cost to the city. except an occasional replacement of a hand pool that was originally furnished by the Rotary Club. In addition, the local coach spends around 30 hours using his personal heavy equipment to prepare the staging area and the access to the course for the parents and the grandparents to watch their athletes participate. Just wondering, will that now be done by the city? The cost for the preparation will exceed any possible revenue. Please consider giving an exemption to your resolution. One more quick thing. Also, I've heard that if the state park doesn't work out for the city, the city plans to close off these trails and charge to enter. Does the city also plan to fence off all the parks, pickleball courts, water park, et cetera, and charge a fee? These actually make more sense due to the investment and maintenance burden on the city. If the goal is to kill this trail, this will do it. The voluntary work will cease and the trail will return to its natural state. Kids will go elsewhere and ride for free. Thank you for listening.

Thank you, Jack.

all right uh phil phil dunson uh brigham city um owner home first time uh i do like trails as well i i used to live in ogden and i loved all the trails so any trails are good uh i i live north of pioneer park and uh we actually moved here and bought a house when there was no bridge and then the bridge started having its construction. I'm sure you guys have heard a lot of bridge talk since the bridge has been ongoing, but I just wanted to point out a couple things. Number one, I do love the bridge. It saves my wife a lot of time, and she's looking forward to school because she takes our kids to school in Ogden at our church, and it will save her at least 10 minutes every drive of her life, and so that's great. But one thing I did want to say is... The bridge did seem to take a long time, and the public sentiment seemed like that was true, everyone I talked to. But then I, from reading all your updates, was that it was finished six months ahead of time, which is a great thing. But I would propose that maybe you consider why was it finished so ahead of schedule? Was that quote or estimate correct? If the people think that, hey, it's taking a long time, but then the construction guys say, hey, we're six months ahead of time, I think there's kind of a disconnect there. And as a city resident, I just wanted to say that because I think the people kind of felt that way, at least the people that I talked to. And then the other thing is the ribbon-cutting ceremony happening before the bridge was even up and going. That was kind of like the cherry on on the cake for me, but I'm very grateful for the bridge. I know there's a lot of work that went into that, but I would just suggest maybe consider checking in with better contractors or quotes on those things. So.

Okay. Thank you.

Yeah.

Good afternoon. My name is Doug Christensen. I am actually not a resident of your community, but I am in this community. I'm a resident of Bear River City. I am actually running for an office in the county.

Doug, I need to stop you. This is a violation of a Hatch Act. by a candidate coming into a city facility and mentioning that.

According to the county, in an open forum, I can mention that.

I don't know that we can in a city facility.

Because I've been to seven of them in an open forum.

I don't, too. If you were a member of the public, you could speak in public comment and stuff like that. But according to the Hatch Act, my understanding is you can't do that in a public forum. Okay, well, like I said, it's the council's policy, which you stated, not allowing people, members of our city to publicly comment. I do appreciate you coming.

That's fine.

Thank you, Doug. I think everyone is aware of your campaign.

And that's why I just wanted to introduce myself.

Okay, thank you.

Have a wonderful night.

Is there anybody else who would like public comment? If not, we'll close public comments. And we will move on with city council meeting to our council member. And we do have on here this week, city administrator comments. We'll start with council member Jensen. We'll just move to the right. We'll end with Derek. I don't have any comments this week. Thank you, Matt. I think I'm good. Dave, thank you.

The only thing is I attended our library board meeting and We've sat a couple of new board members after the retirement of a couple of members that had served for such a long time and I just want to recognize Barbara Pullman who has been a member of different various boards throughout the city for the last 32 years is what she told me. And she and it just kind of brought me to thinking that Part of the community is being part of the different aspects and the different boards commissions or even organizations that do good in Brigham City with the Rotary Club or the Boys and Girls Club or YCC. And I just want to recognize that there's many many people that volunteer their time for a lot of different aspects of what makes Brigham City so great. We sat a couple new board members and had training on the Public Meetings Act by our attorney, Nicole, and recognized what a phenomenal job she did there. And our board members were very appreciative of that training that she gave us.

That's it.

Okay. Thank you. Councilmember Smith. Um, no, I don't. I mean, we just three weeks away from Peach Days is all so.

More than three, isn't it?

No, three weeks from tomorrow. That's what his shirt say.

Yeah, I have that ringtone too, and I was worried that it's not unlike me to to not turn that off so. Alright, thank you. Thank you. I thought I'm all whoo up here. Council member Smith. Thank you, Derek.

I had today, Mayor, I know there's been a few questions recently in public comment, and Mayor asked me to chat about a project just real quick in our Main Street corridor. Obviously, the city's always been concerned about parking in our Main Street to try to support local business and do the best we can to keep some of our historic downtown Main Street as vibrant as it Is it possible to claim, and I was going to go on the record tonight and publicly state that Brigham City did purchase a residential dwelling at 69 South and 100 West in that historic downtown. And sometime towards the middle of end of September, we will be demolishing that residential dwelling and planning to expand some parking in that area to provide more parking availability in that downtown area. So. That's the only thing I had. Thanks, Mayor. All right. Thank you.

We'll move on to our action items. We have four of them tonight. The first is the consideration of an ordinance amending, and this is in addition to what we've already taken action on with the annexation, but it's an ordinance amending the Brigham City zoning map to assign zoning districts to the land associated with the annexation petition located at 1000 West between 1500 North and Highway 13. And Mr. Bradley is all prepared.

Okay, so as mentioned, this is the second component of the annexation. So once the council accepted the petition, then between that time and the public hearing, we go to the planning commission. They hold a public hearing to amend the zone map and to provide a recommendation to the city council. And that's kind of one of those requirements with state law that the planning commission provides that recommendation. So as part of that request, Let me just kind of show really quick. Just as a reminder, back in March, Brad and his group with Stewart Land came before the city and went through the process to amend the general plan from this area from being an industrial to a medium density and a low density residential. And they provided this little concept plan to show that transaction from the possibility of a townhome smaller R-1-6 type lot down with R-1-8 and R-1-10. So that took place. And then as it's presented to the Planning Commission, here is the general plan future land use map. You can see the annexation area outlined in black. You can see the low density residential and medium density residential. And then the Roberts property that was kind of a remnant portion of the rural residential, that little sliver. And here is the zone map that currently is the city, the colored areas all within the city boundary. You can see this area is adjacent to all R18 in that area. And then, of course, to the west, there is the industrial MD. So going back to the motion really quick, after the public hearing and discussion by the planning commission considering it, they really The zoning that was requested for the main body of the land was very supportive with the RM7, R18 and R10. In the staff comments, there was concern and comments made whether it should be RM7 or an R16 and do a PUD. A townhome project requires a PUD and it could be done in the RM7 or the R16. The thing that really kind of Less than the concern about the RM7 is the RM7, the density requirements really govern itself. And so they're really going to overpack it with too many townhomes, and they could create that. But ultimately, they would have to come back before the process for the type of development that would occur. But the Planning Commission, their recommendation to the city council is a three to two vote. The two nays were specifically dealing with the Roberts property. One, the comment was, it was kind of like Councilwoman Troxell. They just felt like, hey, if they don't want to annex, why are we even considering it? But that's not the role of the Planning Commission, but that was the reason they voted nay. The other nay was the one Planning Commissioner felt instead of the R18 zone being applied to the Roberts property, that they could consider, that the Council could consider the RR1. But as noted in the motion, the reason, as it states here, it says recommending the R18 to be consistent with the existing R18 zoning to the east and south of that area. And so, again, I'll go back to the zone map. This is the zone map so you can see why the Planning Commission, those with the three votes, voted for the R18 to be applied here. This is what is recommended with the 3 to 2 volt. The RM7 on the south portion, R18 kind of in the main body of the area, R110 to the north, and then across the railroad track, the R18 with the Roberts property to be consistent with the zoning that's already in place through that area with North 40, the development there. I hope I've explained that. We'll see if there's any questions, but it is by ordinance again when we're amending the zoning map.

Council, do you have any questions for clarity or just plain curiosity for Mr. Bradley?

Yeah, Mark, with the southern portion of that being RM7 or R16, whichever one there, how many with the roads and the setbacks and everything else, how many Is there a quick way to figure out how many units can actually fit in that 23.7 or 23 and a half acres?

Yeah, really not right off without giving an incorrect number. They are, if you look closely on the concept plan, they're showing one row of town homes. And then it would be a public street. And then you get into the smaller lot. So the little light squares there are single family lots that they are showing. And that's what the city could hold them to when they come through with an application with the PUD. But I don't have that number right off, sorry.

Oh, 721 acres.

I mean, you basically can have seven, yeah, I mean, the seven does stand for that, but a lot of times it doesn't mean it equals that.

Right.

But in short, I mean, let's just, what was the acres there? You got the 23 that you were asking? Yeah, yeah. I mean, yeah, that's a high number. They're showing that'd be 161 potential units for 720 units per acre. Right. But that's because you've got a hillside, not a hillside, but there is a slope with elevation that they can only build so close to. There's no access that will be granted on it on SR 13, Highway 13. And then they're also showing a park area. Now, whether that there's no guarantee this is OF COURSE THE CONCEPT PLAN BUT THAT GREEN AREA RIGHT BY THE ARM 7 THEY'RE THEY'RE SHOWING AS A PARK THAT COULD BE DEDICATED TO THE CITY FOR A PARK IN THAT AREA FOR THOSE RESIDENTS SO EITHER EITHER EITHER ZONING REFERENCE RM7 OR R16 BOTH OF THOSE PART OF A PUD THE R16 IF YOU JUST CAME IN WITH AN R16 AND YOU JUST DID INDIVIDUAL minimum 6000 square foot lot you don't need a pud the pud would have to be that's the instrument to qualify for the townhome component or any kind of you know housing component with a project like that with flexibility so rm7 or the r16 if they wanted to do townhomes they would come in with the pud so it's probably more beneficial from a city standpoint from a staff standpoint to do an rm7 so that

there's a little bit of back and forth.

Yeah, I mean, the RM7 indicates that there would be support for townhomes along there. And that would be the main reason. Plus, it would be a, it's R16, you could have smaller lots right away than the RM7. But the flexibility comes with it. Again, the PUD.

Just changing the zoning to the R18. Does that change anything in what he's doing with it now or what he wants to do in the future?

Yes and no. As far as current animals, that was a comment he made at the Planning Commission. He wanted to be able to maintain having animals there on the property. And we've explained, just similar like Mr. Dickemore, when he was annexed in and it came in with the R16 to be consistent with the surrounding area, if they document those animal uses and rights, they can be grandfathered in with that and can enjoy that right. But we've explained that if once they go to develop that land and subdivide their land from one lot into two or three, that's when they surrender that animal right and would have to be in compliance with the R18.

I like putting a road on the general plan, right, over the top of a restaurant. As long as the restaurant's there and they sell it to another restaurant, that road will never be built. But the minute the use changes for that zone or in that land, now that road becomes viable. Same with those animal rights. Once he changes, for lack of a better term, the use, because now it's not just one lot, it's several lots, he's required to then.

So this is actually granting, if he says that he does want to develop in the future, this is removing that roadblock.

Yeah, he would. He's expressed interest. There are multiple little housing units there that we're not sure if they really are in compliance with the county right now and some items there that would need to be brought into compliance at some point.

And that's a great question that you're alluding to but not asking. But if he remains in the county, when he goes in to apply for a subdivision, the county is going to require his annexation into the city.

Correct. Yep. Yeah, that triggers it right away. The discussion, the comment from the one commission that voted nay, the RR1 could be considered. The council can consider that. It would just create that little gap. Let me just go back here. You'd have that little RR1. Let me go to the general plan. You can see the light color right there. they would have to come back with a rezone in the future if they ever wanted to. But, I mean, our one would allow an individual to potentially maintain animal rights with the development of the property, too. It would just have, it's a little over, it's about three-acre parcel, and if they created two lots, they could keep it within an acre or greater for that and continue with animal rights with that. That would be up to the council. The council could consider going with the Planning Commission recommendation R1A or apply the RR1 to the Taylor property. Taylor Roberts property. And I can go to any screen you'd like. I'm just trying to.

So essentially if you go to an R1A that piece helps him in the future as far as a rezone. Just take some steps out of his

It would, yeah.

Versus an RR one.

And right now, I mean, he wants to keep that. I mean, as Brad mentioned, he called and left a voice message saying that he's not able to make the meeting tonight, but he's expressed that, and so it went on the record. But again, the Planning Commission was very supportive with the three districts on the area west of the railroads. and had no concerns with that. There was a discussion point between the RM7 and R16, and I think they felt comfortable with that, knowing that the density was regulated.

Because of the slope coming down to the highway, that is, just say Niner North, that slope, they have to set back a certain amount. Yeah, that's a good point. So it's not going to be right up against my mouth.

Yeah, so as you're looking down on the map, it's coming straight down on the property line. But when you drive out there on the thing, the property line may be here, but the actual buildable where it flattens out because of the hill is clear back up here.

And we haven't seen a lot of that. Like Derek mentioned earlier, there's still a lot of engineering civil plans that would need to take place before we see the plans. But what one could expect, if you had a row of townhomes as a uniform type of fence along that, on the top of that slope, that would be more consistent. If you had individual lots, and I know that we've had a lot of discussions and some feel like, hey, it'd be nice to have individual lots, but then you get a variation of type of backyards and how that looks. And so that's one benefit of a row of townhomes in there is you can have a more uniform look and that can be a little more aesthetic with that transition with the housing as well. So there's pros and cons.

The other thing the staff kind of looked at in this area is there's not a lot of zoning in the city that's got an MD district next to single-family homes. So, you know, there is an MD zone right across the street here from 1000, and I think that's why we as staff were supportive of the idea of kind of a higher density and not having single-family dwellings directly across the street from an MD zoning that's currently in place.

in this specific location on that south end with just another quick question with the with the zoning that you have on there if that's approved are we worried about traffic going out onto um or north coming around down between on a thousand on a thousand is that west

Yeah, I mean definitely anytime you develop any kind of project like that, it's going to increase the traffic and and that was talked about early on with the general plan amendment that there was a lot of. Concerns that was expressed by the Planning Commission with that. But yes, that would and it's hard to say what would take place at time with 1000 West eventually need to be a traffic controlled intersection. I don't know, you know that's with working with you dot. But there's definitely, that would take place just like adding the Taco Bell and the traffic coming out onto Medical Drive is gonna increase the traffic.

That's absolutely a reality, yes. There's gonna be traffic there that isn't there currently and that was something that was discussed or at least we talked about during whether or not the zone should even be changed to allow for this over.

And ultimately we felt like 1500 North is going to probably take the brunt of that.

Well, I mean, we can sit here and speculate all you want. Human nature is human nature, so. But it has that option, yes, to get up to Main Street or 500 West. Is that 500 or is that 600? 500 goes all the way. Yeah.

Okay. I forget that.

And then eventually... way down the future of course we have on our general plan the 1500 going west and then hooking on back on to sr 13 as well so when development takes place out that direction or as okay once you feel confident that your questions have been answered you can make suggestions uh in a motion on what you'd like to see or approve.

I'm a little more, yeah, I feel a little better about the RM-7, knowing that with town halls it's got to be a PUD, a planned unit. I'm probably OK with that now versus an hour ago.

A lot of times we do that as a city right because they're going to put in a park and a PUD. There's an open space there, and so you, in the negotiations, say, okay, we'll give you a little more density because you're putting in a part that we don't have to pay for, just maintain in the future, but we don't have to.

Yeah. And a lot of my concern, yeah, some of my concern was I just didn't want another 70 perplexes, right? So that was just a concern I had.

I think Brad said he would commit to a certain number. No, I'm just kidding. But he is here if you have any questions. And there's no guarantee. We just never know until they come back with the plans on the layout and how everything fits.

And I think Brad had talked about a zip line from there to the softball field that's kitty-cornered across the highway and the railroad tracks. I'm sure you'd have to prove that.

I'm happy to step aside if you do have any questions for Brad.

What was that number you were talking about?

Okay. Will we entertain a motion?

Where are we? Are we still at one?

We're still at one. We're full of questions.

Motion to approve an ordinance amending the Brigham City zoning map to assign zoning districts to land associated with an annexation petition located at 1000 West between 1500 North and Highway 13.

We have a motion by Councilmember Troxell. Do we have a second? Second. Second by Councilmember Hipp. Because this is an ordinance, this will be a roll call vote. We'll start with Councilmember Jensen and go to his right. Mattson, aye. Daves, aye.

Robbins, aye.

Ryan is aye. Thank you. Motion passes. We'll move to our second action item, which is the consideration of approval of the appointment of an interim power director and we'll invite the mayor and derek to tag team this but mostly me because it's an appointed position um so we have an opening in our public power um we have identified an individual that we've actually had consulting our public power for the last it's been over a year now has me helping us with uh our our uh portfolio and understanding the world that we live in with public power. Kevin Garlick is his name. We can recognize him back there. Kevin is currently full-time retired, other than he has accepted to come out of retirement in the interim, as long as he finds it fun to work for us and help us. But just a little background. Kevin has been the public power director at Logan City, Bountiful City. and provost city and then he was also a vice president over generation or over generation for umpah which is utah municipal our agency our agency which is is sisterly to uamps except for umpah is an all-in project based organization so when they when they do a generation project in umpah there is no they they don't come to brigham city and all the cities that are part of umpah and say Would you like to participate in this? They say you are participating in this and we're all in it together. So he is well versed in generation and that acquisition, the technologies and in public utilities. We find I know that we are going to benefit immensely as Brigham City Power as we are in need of generation in order to supply future electric power needs for Brigham City. especially for economic development. And so we're going to milk him dry is basically what we're going to do. They're his experience and his wisdom as he helps us get to where we need to be as a city and as public power. Derek, would you like to say anything?

No, we just need a motion.

This will be a motion. But before you do, we'll give Kevin a chance to say a few words if he'd like to. Of course.

Mayor, members of the council, it's a real pleasure to be here and to be invited to join the Brigham City team and take my years of experience. Yes, I'm a very old guy, pulled out of retirement, but have been working with the mayor and staff for a little over a year and more recently being the U.S. representative for Brigham City. And again, my goal is to work with your good leadership here, working with all of you, along with you have a good power department with people that really are passionate in what they do, trying to keep the lights off and serve the public. And my role is to help kind of build on that work and then work with you all as we try to solve

the generation challenges that all utilities are facing at this time.

So again, I welcome any questions you might have, and if not now, any time. I'd be glad to sit down and talk about what you might have concerns about or things that the power department should be working on. Welcome. Any comments?

Council, do you have a couple questions for Kevin that you'd like answered or just are curious about? And if not, or when you're finished, I would very much like a motion to approve the appointment of the Interim Power Director, Kevin Garlick. Are there any questions for Kevin?

Great.

That is a great comment.

But after a year of being with us and consulting and with friends, he kind of knows what he's getting into. But at the same time, we are we're not reinventing the wheel, but we are going places that no municipality within the state of Utah or actually a lot of anywhere, maybe with South Generation that may be behind the meter without being able to connect to the grid. How do we navigate that? What does that look like to us as a city, and what does that mean for our future? So we're happy to have him to help us navigate that. He comes with a real expertise in that.

Well, I would just say I heard a little bit about your bio, and you've done extensive work in that industry. And the mayor has a pretty good record of recognizing talent and skill and has the ability to make those appointments. Yes. I'm sorry, I'd like to go ahead and make a motion for the approval of the appointment of interim public power director.

Kevin Garlick. Kevin, Mr. Kevin Garlick. Mr. Kevin Garlick. All right, we have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. Second motion was by Councilmember Hipp. Second was Councilmember Jensen. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed?

Thank you.

Thank you, Kevin. We've got to do the oath. Oh, yes, we do need to do the oath, and Christina will administer that. Thank you.

Okay.

He said this is a first.

Yeah. I've been appointed in other positions, but I've never had to take the oath, so I'm excited. This is Brigham City, Kevin. I solemnly swear I will support, obey, and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this state. I will discharge the duties of my office with fidelity.

Thanks, Kevin.

You're welcome. No, I can't hear you.

But he's going to be living in an apartment here in Brigham City. It's not a requirement.

It's not a requirement.

It'll make the commute better because he lives down in Utah County.

Yeah, I live in Provo, and so if I'm going to be here on a daily basis, I want to find something to do.

He's amazing, and we're happy to have him and honored to have him. All right, Council. We the next item before us is here and you notice that was a last minute amendment to our to our agenda and public notices because we knew about it, but we may have forgotten a little bit that the contracts for our con aways for the blue can expires this month and so we need to make sure that that we are doing that properly. So what we have before us is a resolution approving. the amended and reinstated waste services agreement between Brigham City Corporation and Econowaste LLC and authorizing the mayor to execute the agreement on behalf of Brigham City. And we'll invite Derek Palm to present.

Yeah, council. So this is just the agreement. So as you know, when we first instituted our blue can recycling program, Econowaste had been the provider. At that time, so Econowaste had the contract. We entered into addendum with Econowaste. The addendum was just for one year. So as the mayor talked about, that contract has come to its conclusion. There's been some different changes in that world, but we're going to continue to move on with this. Econowaste has been purchased by other parties inside that sphere. I think Republic is the one who now owns and operates Econowaste. So this contract is to reflect those changes. And it's good for one year. Republic had given us a couple options to look at. We wanted to enter into a one-year, multi-year contract. Staff was recommending at this time we just handle a one-year contract, re-evaluate the program. The city has around about 2,300-ish customers that participate in the Blue Can program, down about 500 from when it was about a year ago with the changes we made there. With that, that's kind of what the contract stands out with the Econowaste Republic.

Thank you. Do you have any questions? I will say that the staff from Econowaste and Republic have been tip-top on the ball and on top of this, and we appreciate their diligence in this and look forward to working with them for another year in our recycling in Brigham City. So, Councilman, do you have any questions for Mr. Roy? They are here. Ashley is here. Ashley is here from Republic and We can invite her if you'd like to, if you have any questions, to come to the podium, and she can answer them if you have any for her.

My only clarification is, in this resolution, it says reinstated waste services and not recycling, the recycling services. Because Brigham City does our waste service in-house. So could that be more clarified in the agreement?

Right, that's the terminology that they use in that industry to mean recycling.

It is exclusively recycling in the agreement. Is it? Yeah. Okay. Yeah.

And it defines what recycling is and what, yeah. So, would it be good for us to do that as far as the resolution goes?

Recycling services?

Yeah, reinstated recycling services.

We could. I mean, this has gone through legal review. Nicole signed off on it as is. So there was no concerns from her in that.

And no conflict between Brigham City Services and the recycling services. But you are the council, and if you'd like to change that to recycling, you're more than welcome to. In the motion.

Yeah, you can just do that by motion, council member. That would be just fine. That would make the record nice and clear.

Somebody needs to remind me that Nicole is on there. That totally startled me, Nicole. Sorry. I forgot to recognize. And I apologize. Our city attorney is online. So I'm sorry, Nicole.

No, sorry about that. Thank you.

No, that is not your fault. That is my fault. I'm the mayor, not you.

So just as a speculation, do we anticipate with the change, will that have any... Any potential to reach out again to the community who I think 500 down?

Yeah, we had not discussed that at all. Republic has definitely wanted to engage with our citizens and maybe a campaign like that if it was desired.

Dave mentioned in our meetings that it behooves them for at least nothing more an education campaign so that those that are recycling aren't contaminating the recycling community. and then it turns into waste. So instead of going to recycling, even though it's in a blue can, it is going to waste. And so perhaps that's why waste would be appropriate here instead of just recycling, because waste does cover both, according to Nicole's legal opinion.

It definitely does. Mayor, council members, thank you for having me tonight. Just to kind of speak to the change, Econowaste was a local company. It still exists legally. That's who you're contracting with. I represent Republic Services and Econowaste. We did acquire the company. I know in the past there have been concerns about recycling and where the material goes. A few years ago, there was a facility that shut down. I won't rehash it for those of you who are here. But now we own the transfer station that this material goes to, and we are directly contracted with another company. Legally, they cannot just go and landfill that recycled material. So, yes, there's always a little bit of contamination that doesn't get sent and recycled, but it is not, not, not, not going to be landfilled. And if there were any controversy like that, we definitely would be informing you, and you would know about it well beforehand.

Well, thank you for bringing that up because that was one of the issues that came up, as I recall, was a tipping fee associated with the discharge of what would have normally been considered recycling material but was instead processed into a dump. And then the city was then charged an additional fee, if I recall correctly, for that each time there was a tipping fee.

So that will be removed. I know one of the things we discussed in our negotiations with staff is there was $100 tipping fee in the contract. Now it's just the standard. It's $65 a ton to take it to the transfer station. We usually only do one truck anyway. So yeah, that $100 tipping fee is gone.

Okay, so that shouldn't exist. Yeah. Thank you. And the cost that's been worked out for the customer? So the cans.

I think that's number four.

That's number four.

Yeah. Title five, that's where our fees are. So that, yeah, so that'll be right after this. Yep.

Are those cans, are we seeing just, are we seeing any decline? I mean, I know we may have had some decline because we changed some of the rates a year or so ago. Since then, have there been

I know that I have been told that, yes, there is less people signed up for recycling. Staff did indicate to us it was important that for whatever we charge the city in this contract, in some other city contracts with Econowaste, they would charge the city more if there was less people participating. So that rate per can would be less. There's less volume. But for this one, we worked out that we are still going to charge the same rate per can. We would love to see more participants. But the rate for CAN's not going to go up if participation goes down.

So from your point of view and a business point of view, are you planning to do marketing to try to increase those?

We didn't discuss that. Yeah, we'd absolutely love to talk to the city about that.

We do. Once a year, we do an insert into utility bill, making sure that our public's aware of the program. And every single person that comes to City Hall that signs up for a new utility account They're giving a pamphlet about it, so we do notify the public of those.

I was wondering if Republic was doing it on their own.

All right. We'd love a motion.

Mayor, I would make a motion that we approve the resolution approving the mandated and reinstated waste services agreement with and authorizing the Mayor to execute the agreement on behalf of Brigham City. Do I need to put recycling in that anywhere?

Are we still good with the word of verbiage? Anybody want to change from waste to recycling? I think they're supported. Okay, we have a motion by Councilmember Smith. Do we have a second? Second. Second by Councilmember Jensen. This is not an ordinance, so this is not a roll call. So all those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Thank you. Thank you for being here. Now we will move to an ordinance. Just as maybe a side note, one of the things that a full-time city attorney, our contract that is done, but a full-time will continue to do, she's had a heavy lift as we've been recodifying and redoing our ordinances. We've consolidated all of our fees into Title V, and so that requires that we consider an ordinance amending Title V, the consolidated fee schedule, and related to the fees for recycling services that they are updated and we'll let... Eric. Tom's got that. Tom's got that as well. I need to look at this more and make sure that we've got the right people. I'm starting to get embarrassed now.

No, I see. Passing the buck, I guess. Team effort. Hey, Tom.

We're a team. Team effort. So, yeah, this is just in the review of the contract and different things that the city is doing. We are proposing that the rate for our blue can be moved to the $11.

And that's the actual charge for the can isn't going up, but the surcharge for fuel.

The can is going up a little bit. A little bit, okay. But yeah, it's just more or less to kind of recoup some of those costs that have been ongoing and that will be in this new contract as well. Okay. So, yeah, staff is proposing that we move that to $11 a can.

What is it currently?

Ten.

Okay. We have a motion?

I can't do all of these.

Okay.

Make a motion. Well, don't tell me, shall we? All right. Consideration of the, consideration of the ordinance amending Title V, consolidated fee, schedule related to fees for recycling services.

So a motion by Council Member Hipp to approve the ordinance. Do we have a second?

Second.

Second by Council Member Jensen. Because this is an ordinance, this will be a roll call. We'll start with Council Member Jensen. Move to his right. Jensen's an aye. Dave's an aye.

Robbins an aye. Ryan is aye.

Thank you. Motion passes, as I don't see any opposition. We thank the public and those that have been in attendance. We now have the opportunity and need to move into a closed session to consider... to discuss and consider the purchase and lease and exchange of real property, if I'm remembering right. And we need a motion. I move. We have a motion by Council Member Hipp. And a second?

Second.