City Council - Regular Meeting

I was coming back from St. George today, and so I was running on autopilot. We thought you were arrested on the trail for an unauthorized vehicle.

That could absolutely happen. That or in the river, one of the three.

A dog, one of those dogs. You would be in the river.

Okay, Ms. Maragoni, is the camera up and going? We don't want to waste any time tonight, so. All right, let's go ahead and call to order our Riverdale City Council meeting for Tuesday, June 16, 2026. Let the record show that all members of the city council are present, with the exception of Councilor Stevens. We have members of the public as well as members of the city staff here. We welcome all of you here tonight. We have asked Mr. Cody Cardin to lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Everyone, please rise.

for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you, Mr. Cardin. I've asked Councilor Hanson if she would offer our invocation tonight.

Our dear Heavenly Father, we're grateful for this opportunity to meet together. We're grateful for Riverdale, for the many blessings that we have to live here and to be able to serve the residents and the staff. And we're grateful for all of the many blessings that we have. Please help us tonight that we can conduct ourselves with decorum and that we can be patient with each other and that we can have open minds and hearts as we consider and ponder on what's best for Riverdale. As we make decisions tonight, we love thee and we thank thee again for all of our blessings and pray for these things in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.

Amen. Thank you. Counselor Hanson. Uh, when they have a time for public comment, this is an opportunity to address the city council regarding your concerns or ideas. No action will be taken during the public comment period. Um, We do ask you to try to limit your comments to three minutes. And if you do approach the microphone, please state your name and the city in which you reside. Seeing none, we'll move on to presentations and reports. Number one, the mayor's report. I have just a couple of things real quick. 4400 south is uh open i've heard varying reports some people say they're flagging it and different things but for the most part it is open uh we like to thank uh chief warren he made an awesome video about it if you haven't seen it i'd encourage all of you to go track it down it's online and uh he's incredibly creative and very talented and uh last time i looked at about 16 000 views so that's pretty good we shared it all over the county worldwide i think it started with the sand dunes that's why No, no, no. People wanted to know what that had to do with Riverdale. But our good staff all participated in that and made it really fun, and I think the residents really appreciated it. It took kind of a bad situation. It was something that took way too long and was really annoying, and it made it kind of fun. People are super excited about it. So thanks, Chief Warren. You put tons of effort and did a really great job of that. And I think I'll just save anything else for a different time. We'll go over to number two, city administration report. Mr. Brooks. Thank you, Mayor. Too many piles here to keep track of them all.

All the department head reports are in your packet, and I think most of them are here. Do you have any questions on anything that might have been in there from any one of them? Not seeing any. I would move on. Again, the status reports, the ones that I always turn to, our charts, our numbers, and taxes year-to-date are still looking strong and positive, so we like seeing that. We just hope and pray that it continues as good as it is, so nothing new on that. As far as on the budget, the... Current status, nothing jumps out at you. You're always going to find a couple of them. We're at 83% of the year, probably a little higher than that now. Well, maybe not, Cody, but either way, nothing to be alarmed at. We're in good shape. You'll always find one or two of them that might be a little bit high as of that particular time, but by the time we get to the end of the budget, we'll be fine. So nothing that's too concerning on that level. Um, employee recognition. We do have a few of them tonight, three police officers tonight. So they're all here. So, um, one of them that's not on your list in the packet officer Luigi, uh, was on here last month and he wasn't here. And so I asked Casey if he had, see if he could get him here for this month. So we want to recognize him. All three of these are sitting at 10 years. So we have Officer Luigi, Officer Phillips, and Officer Lovato. And I'll go ahead and turn some time over to Casey since they're all his guys.

Knock all three of you out. There we go. Okay. Well, all three of these guys, 10 years with Riverdale City. We'll start with Detective Penunzio. We stole him from Clearfield. He had about a year on the job there, a year and a half. And he's come over here to Riverdale and just done an excellent job. He's fulfilled a lot of our needs. He's been our NOVA instructor for eight years. He's supposed to be done. We get new ones, and he still fills in every single time. If we lose an instructor, he picks up the phone and calls me and says, hey, you want me to do it? And so he helps mentor the new instructors as well. He's just done a phenomenal job. He's been on the SWAT team almost 10 years as well, where he's had various assignments as a SWAT team member in leadership roles. And any time I can speak for all three of these guys, we have anything major. in our city. These three are right on the front lines and are very critical to our operation, ensuring that we get the job done. All three are either detectives or going to be detectives. So we'll start with Officer Phillips. As you know, he was our SRO at Utah Military Academy. He did a phenomenal job. The kids over there loved him. We were dealing with a lot of different type of more serious events there. When he went in there, he reduced it right down. The community over there just loves him. He's also one of our firearms instructors. So all these officers that you see, he's been an instructor for how many years? It's been like six years now. Oh, wow. So he does a great job in firearms. He's also a less lethal instructor as well. And he'll be moving into detectives here in July. And so he's done an amazing job as well for us. And like I said, he came from the county, had about two years in the county, three years. And he's been here 10. So we got a lot of experience out of these three. And on the end here, you got Detective Robert Lovato. He's... Born and raised with Riverdale. All 10 years here with Riverdale. He was a Marine before that. Had a lot of good experience in the military. He's a current detective. He serves on the ICAC. He's actually a lot of shuffling going on right now. He's replacing Luigi on the SWAT team here in the next couple weeks. So he's getting ready to go through some of that intense training. He's also one of our firearms instructors, less lethal instructors. All three of them are also FTOs, so they're responsible for training a lot of our new officers when they're not in specialty assignments. So I can't tell you how much I appreciate the job they do. And I know our residents appreciate the job they do. All three of these guys are always out. I mean, just this last week, these two were out with that lost, the young lady that ran away. We didn't know exactly what happened, but these guys spent time away from their families until 3 o'clock in the morning, making sure that little girl came home. And that's just one example, but it doesn't matter what it is that's going on. They're going to drop everything and leave sometimes their families to go serve other people's families. And so...

Some of the families here, you can see the Lovato clan.

I want to thank his wife and his kids for their dedication and the sacrifices they make. Let them know their dad is a hero. He does a great job.

He makes a big difference.

We've got Officer Phillips' wife that's here as well. He's also got some boys. They're not here. Again, we can't... I think the family is enough. And then Detective Penunzio's family, they support him. They couldn't do it without their families. And these three have a lot of responsibility within our department. So I just want to give them a hand and tell them thanks.

I think we have some certificates. Do you have three of them or just two of them?

I signed them this week.

I got hit. I got Luigi's, but still standing for a picture.

Yeah, let's get pictures. We'll get the certificates over to you tomorrow.

One of you stop Michelle on her way home. She'll have them. Just pull her over.

Well, let's just get a picture. It's all right. We'll get the certificates after.

Get in there, Casey.

There it is.

All right, and we're not done. Yeah, go ahead.

If I could just say a couple of words about our officers. I remember when all three of these guys were hired, and I was on the council, and I remember when they came in. And 10 years sounds just right because I have a daughter that will turn 26 later this year. And that means she turned 16 that year, and Officer Lovato was on the job about three or four months. And those two became very well acquainted to the point where she was like, Dad, this guy is harassing me. You need to do something about it. And she made a couple of pretty bad moves. She did. But he also gave her – well, I don't know that he's taking her, but he pulled her over for not signaling when she was leaving a roundabout. Yeah. That's pretty sketchy. But anyway, he obviously is, I mean, 10 years here. That's awesome. So he's pretty notorious in our house. Anytime his name comes up, it's pretty funny. Officer Lovato, just so you know. But I've made it four years and I haven't retaliated or anything. So that's pretty good. no we're thrilled with you but um luigi's great um he he comes in with lunch with the mayor stuff and uh in that SWAT gear and stuff and those kids you should just see him light up he's got his night vision and his helmet and his you know as he's got all the stuff and they just think that's fantastic and then officer phillips uh i saw him and his wife shopping here in riverdale a little bit ago and so appreciate him uh You know, he walks the walk and stuff, doesn't just talk it. So anyway, they're good. He's been here a long time, and I remember when all of them were hired, and I just appreciate all you guys have done. And I'm just joking with you, Robert. And they've all excelled. You can see they've just risen right up the ladder, and we just appreciate you guys. So anyway, but I had to get that in because my daughter will be so happy. Anyway, back over to you, Steve.

All right. If they've got to slip out, we'll keep rolling here. Two more I just want to pick out of our list. One being one of our department heads. His is not an anniversary year, but 12 years for Rich Taylor, who happens to be here tonight. So congratulations to Rich. That just blows me away that you've been here 12 years. I remember that day well. Rich was actually working for Farmington City at the time. He had been here. He worked here. Were you just in college at the time initially with Jeanette up there in the rec center? And so he had been here before and then left and was the main rec guy down at Farmington when Jeanette decided to retire. So we stole him from Farmington. And last but not least on our list, and this is an anniversary date, is our very own Michelle Maragoni. Five years that we've had her. So thanks to Michelle. And did you get your certificate? okay do we want do we want a picture you have to do a picture and to give a speech you want to give us a speech michelle okay anyway we uh we love having michelle she's uh not only is she really really good at what she does but she's just pleasant to have around and we just really love her around here so thanks michelle um our uh Staffing authorization plan continues as we had, no difference from last year. We're still hurting in the fire department. We're still down a couple positions. We had any progress on that? You got one? I'm filled up. Well, that's right. Yeah. But it's the same as we've been seeing for a few months. We get a guy leaving, it's not a real feel fast or a fast feel. And our community development report. I'll give a bit of time over to Brandon if he's got anything he wants to add on that.

Yeah, thanks to those of you who came to the May 8th Ken Garf Honda ribbon cutting. So that was exciting. Brand new building. It's beautiful. A couple things of note. We did get the CarMax site plan full application today. So they've been telling us that it might be three years, but they're moving right along. So we've got a complete application. We'll be doing that review now. We're working with the folks doing the development behind Krispy Kreme, the townhomes. We've talked about that a little bit. And also we're working with townhomes across the street from CarMax as well as there's work going on at the old R.C. Willey building. So just a few updates. Okay. Any questions for Mr. Cooper?

I don't know if you can answer. I've had lots of people ask me about EOS, but we don't have anything solid. Okay.

Nothing to report. Okay.

Okay.

That's all I had, Mayor.

All right. Very good. Any questions for Mr. Brooks? Okay. We will move on to consent items. We just have the one consideration to approve the meeting minutes from May 19, 2026 council meeting. Any changes or corrections to those meetings? Seeing none, we need a motion to approve. So moved. Do we have a motion? Do we have a second?

I'll second.

We'll have a motion and a second. Any discussion on that motion? All in favor say yes.

Yes. Yeah.

Okay. Any opposed? All right. That passes. Those minutes are approved. We did have a request to change our agenda slightly. We'd like to move item number 17, consideration of resolution 2026-24 regarding intent to annex into the Weaver Fire District for fire, EMS, and related services. Councilor Arnold?

Yes. Councilor Richter and Councilor Stevens, I had asked that kind of some discretion tonight to move the meeting along with the agenda that we've got. So, Councilor Hanson has asked for, like... Kind of a declaration between motion and the vote, if you have any comments or anything like that. But I would like some discretion to be able to push some agendas, items as we kind of get moving tonight.

Okay. Thank you. So we've had a request to move item 17 to the first item. To be respectful of Deputy Chief. taylor's taylor's time he's here from the weaver fire district and we felt like maybe it'd be better than making him wait all night so uh the council was okay with that during the work session so we will start with that item um so uh the item is consideration of resolution 2026-24 regarding intent to annex into the weaver fire district for fire ems and related services mr brooks

Thank you, Mayor. I haven't had a chance to speak with Weaver Fire District, but this doesn't, I mean, Roy's doing the exact same thing tonight. That's probably where the other chief is, I'm assuming. So I was on the phone with their attorney last week, and we discussed this. At some point in time, we have to submit a formal intent to pursue. That kicks everything in. That's where all the clocks start running on us and stuff. And so based upon our open house that we had and did not have one citizen show up that night, And I had a couple people approach me at the playground that night and I answered all their questions and stuff. And they seemed really good about it after they, you know, we explained everything to them. But I think just given everything we know, and we've already been meeting with them on numerous occasions, and we're moving forward on all this stuff, and we've approached you all verbally and requested permission to do all that kind of stuff. But I think it's just time. I think we're there that at this point it's time to move and to lock this thing in. I don't see any reason why we wouldn't, to be honest with you. Everything that we've seen thus far is looking good. We're going to... be able to duplicate services, our guys are protected. I mean, all the things that we were concerned about, call times, all those kind of things, we're not losing a thing. And I just think at this point we need to get a formal intent in place, and we'll still continue because I've been drafting a lot of those documents. There's all kinds of stuff in there we've got to go through. So we're well on our way, and at this point I'm just asking that the council give us this intent to move forward and formally do it and get moving on.

Okay. Any questions? Council Arnold.

Move to approve Resolution 2026-24 regarding the intent to annex into the Weber Fire District for fire, EMS, and related services.

We have a motion. Do we have a second?

I'll second.

Motion is second. Any discussion on that motion? Councillor Arnold?

Just to let you know, Chief Shelley contacted me, and one of his big deals that has always been is the safety of the members of the fire department, and he's totally in favor of this as well. He's watching it from afar and was expressing his complete approval with this. So just to let you know.

Thank you. Councillor Hanson?

Once we approve this, if we approve it, can we get the information out that we've made that decision and then maybe still plan a second open house? Because I just feel like people haven't heard it, and once they hear that we're voting on it, I think they're going to want it.

No, we still have time for that. There are certain delays that we have to go through anyway, so there will be a little bit of time period there. We're not that far out. It's not going to take that long. And we need to finalize everything with these guys so that we can come back and say, here's where we're at on this stuff. And there will be some little tweaks and stuff we may have to polish out before we get there. So, yeah, we'll have time for that still. Okay. Okay, Councilor Richter.

Yeah, and just express appreciation to our fire department as well as the fire district for the amount of time and effort. I know you've done a lot of presentations and answered a lot of questions about this, so I'm grateful for that. So, yeah, we're going into this eyes open. I'm grateful for all the time you've spent on it. So, thank you.

And Mr. Cardin as well. I mean, he had his preparation for that open house was unbelievable. Posters, slideshows, all kinds of information talking about how it would work with the taxes and how it would work out and benefit the city. And it was kind of too bad. It was a good presentation. It was a great presentation and really nailed it down just in really layman's terms to say this is why we need to really consider this. So anyway, thanks, Mr. Cardin. We appreciate you. Any other comments? Seeing none, we'd need a motion of some sort.

We have it.

Oh, yeah, we're discussing. Yeah, that's right. Okay. I'm out of order. Okay. So if there's no other comments, Ms. Maragoni, please poll the council.

Councilor Stephens?

Councilor Stephens? Which one?

This one?

Yeah. No. What was the question?

It was... It was a motion to annex... Intent to annex into the Weber Fire District. Yeah.

Councilor Richter? Yes. Councilor Anderson?

Yes.

Councilor Hanson? Yes. Councilor Arnold?

Yes.

Okay, very good. That passes unanimously. Thank you. We'll now move up to... Item 1 on the agenda, which is consideration of Resolution 2026-16, awarding a bid to Saunders Construction for the 2026 Water Line Improvement Project in an amount not to exceed $780,491.25. Mr. Douglas.

Thank you, Mayor. So this is just an aging line. It's a six-inch line. Currently, we're going to upsize to an eight-inch line and replace all the services to the homes on that. It's about three blocks up there, three and a half blocks. We're also going to add the services into the two properties that we have up there that we're going to sell, the surplus properties that we're moving forward on. We haven't used this contractor before. We have made several contacts with other cities and districts that have used them, and they seem to think they're a decent contractor. Their bid was really good. You see the high bid was over $1.4 million, so pretty good spread on bids. But we received a lot of bids, which is encouraging because that helps keep our pricing down when the guys are looking for work. So if you have any questions, I'll try and answer them.

Councilor Richter.

Yeah, just one. I noticed that there was a footnote about the excavation team on page 41 that it was inadvertently left off the email list for the addendum. Does that cause us any problems? It shouldn't.

We've talked with Steve and it shouldn't because it was a bid item quantity that was already on there. So it was just a change on that, but the dollar amounts were already on there. So they just didn't receive the second bid on the second addendum item.

Mr. Brooks? Yeah, I think we're fine on that. Yeah, we looked at it, so I think we're good.

Thank you.

Okay. Councilor Arnold? Move to approve Resolution 2026-16, awarding a bid to Saunders Construction for the 2026 Water Line Improvement Project in the amount not to exceed $780,491.25. Okay, we have a motion. Do we have a second?

Second. We have a motion. Is there a second? Any discussion on this motion? Seeing none, Ms. Maragoni, please poll the council.

Councilor Arnold?

Yes.

Councilor Richter?

Yes.

Councilor Hanson? Yes. Councilor Anderson? Yes. Councilor Stephens?

Yes. And Michelle, would you please use the microphone a little closer?

Thank you. Okay. That passes unanimously. Thank you. Item number two, motion to untable and consideration of ordinance 1010, adopting a bar use classification and designating appropriate zoning districts. Mr. Cooper. I have a motion to untable. Motion to untable. Do we have a second? Second. Any discussion on that motion? All in favor say yes. Yes. Okay. The item is untabled. Mr. Cooper.

Okay. Thanks, Mayor. And, Michelle, if you wouldn't mind pulling up those slides. During our last meeting, we talked about this a little bit, and you all adopted Ordinance 1009, which established the process for reviewing and classifying a new or unlisted business. This is the subsequent order. ordinance that we discussed in that same meeting that actually looks at a request for the implementation of a bar use in the city somewhere in a particular zone. At the time, we had an ordinance written that approved the bar use in the C3. as a conditional use, and that discussion revolved around what those conditions would be. And so I've revised the ordinance, and that's in your packet. So I hope you've had a chance to read that. There's about 17 conditions that I've listed in the ordinance that I think would be applicable to this. I've listed them here. Let me just briefly run through them quickly so we understand what they are. So the first one is maximum occupancy. Again, these would be established as a default. So additional conditions could be established during staff review for an existing location and the planning commission for a new location, as our ordinance currently reads. But these would be established at the ordinance level, so these would be applicable as a minimum to all bar uses in the C-3, if approved. So maximum occupancy, so despite the occupancy availability of the building, this would limit it to 200 occupants. So generally buildings and their occupancy are based on size and type of construction and things like that. This would automatically limit it to 200. And that would be established – well, that would be established by the ordinance, but the building official could establish it or the fire marshal could establish a lower number if that was appropriate for that location. There would be a condition number two for security personnel, so this would be Fridays and Saturdays beginning at 8 until closing. Licensed personnel would be required where 50% of the occupancy was reached, and the Planning Commission would have some discretion also to adjust those requirements, again, based on history of calls for service, any special events that might be there. those kind of things. And then we would require a written security plan to be provided to us and maintained by the establishment. Number three is liquor liability insurance. I found that this was applicable through a lot of different locations in the state. This is something that was new to me, so I did a little bit of research, and it's something that is obtainable by the establishment, something that's kind of par for the course anyway. We would just have that on file for us. For the establishment parking, no parking on public streets. All the parking would be required to be had on the property or as our ordinance already allows within a 500 foot distance of the property. So just to make sure that there's no parking on public roads around the establishment. The density limitation number five says no more than one bar use shall be approved for every 9,000 residents residing within Riverdale City based upon the most recent population estimate published by the state of Utah or the United States Census Bureau. So we can pick between those two. Sometimes they differ. We've discussed in the work session maybe amending that a little bit to say approve for every 9,000 residents or a portion thereof. That way the actual trigger is 9, 18, and so on. So that would be something that you might want to consider as you think about a motion. Number six is inspection authority. That just gives the chief of police, the code enforcement folks, fire marshal, building official, or any designee the right to access any licensed premise during business hours and do inspections. Uh, number seven is, is something again that is in place in other places in the state. Uh, it's emergency suspension. So, um, a bar license may be temporarily suspended by the chief of police or his designee without prior hearing where there's probable cause to believe violations of the city code or state law are occurring and conditions are such that the public health safety or welfare are endangered. So that would be up to the, um, that individual's discretion. Um, There's a notification. Again, it's essentially a 15-minute cure. So if the chief saw something that was occurring that was at risk for public health, safety, or welfare, he could... Ask that it be remedied in 15 minutes. If that remedy didn't take place, then an emergency suspension could be issued. It is only for that business day, so the next day that suspension would be lifted.

But it gives the chief a tool to deal with an issue right on the spot, basically close them down.

Number eight is really just something that is a reiteration of an expectation already established in the code that the establishment doesn't create a public nuisance, so no excessive noise, no disorderly conduct, no public intoxication, no fights or disturbances, illegal drug activity, no litter, and if there's any repeated violations of these conditions.

Again, those would be things that the chief could look at for something in terms of emergency revocation.

Noise control, same kind of thing. Number 10 is a video surveillance system. So that would be a condition of approval of the license, and it would be on all public entrances, exits, parking areas, customer service areas, those kind of things. And those recordings would be maintained at a minimum of 30 days and be available to law enforcement. EXTERIOR LIGHTING, SO WE WOULD LOOK AT THAT IN TERMS OF THE APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE AND WE WOULD HAVE THAT PROVIDED TO US IN TERMS OF WHERE THAT LIGHTING IS AND WHAT IT'S ACTUALLY LIGHTING UP AND IF IT'S ACTUALLY DIRECTED IN THE APPROPRIATE PLACES. EMPLOYEE TRAINING, THIS IS PROBABLY AGAIN SOMETHING THAT IS TYPICAL, BUT THERE WOULD BE A REQUIRED DOCUMENTATION OF TRAINING AND THAT WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH STATE LAW. Number 13, calls for service. I'll just read this. Where an establishment generates three or more police calls for service within... Any 30-day period that are determined by the chief of police or designated to be attributable to the operation of the establishment, meaning there's some connection between the call for service and the activity that's happening. So disorderly conduct, intoxication, assaults, disturbances, fights, and lawful activity, all those things that we mentioned before, that may initiate proceedings to modify, suspend, or revoke the conditional use permit. So again, that's something that would allow the chief to really have a handle on what happens at these establishments. Number 14 is outdoor activities. So if there's a patio or any type of area like that that's outdoors of the establishment, then those things would be prohibited just based on the actual location. 15 is just general compliance with state law, again, something that would be a condition for licensing. Let's see. So occupancy monitoring is an interesting one. That's number 16. The state requires all establishments to verify ID now, so that is applicable everywhere. And so essentially what 16 is saying is that – the identification scanning system would be accessible to the police department for a data-only type of inspection. So it's read-only. It's scrubbed of any information that might be applicable to the person who has the ID. So it's just meant to look at occupancy levels, both real-time and historical. And so that would have to be maintained in such a way that the police would have access to that upon request. And that's something, again, the state already requires of them, but that's just another level of connection to the police department in terms of their monitoring. And again, 17 is just the ability to revoke the conditional use permit and or the license based on any of these things. So that's the change from the ordinance that you saw in the last meeting to now. So I'd just give it back to the council for discussion.

Okay. Any questions or comments for Mr. Cooper?

Councilor Arnold. To approve Ordinance 1010, adopting a bar use classification and designating appropriate zoning districts as stated within the packet.

Do you want to mention that change to the density limitation, the 9,000?

Yeah, I don't know. I mean, the way it was stated, I think it works because there's – I mean, the way it's either there's already discretion in there for some reason. And so from zero to nine, we get one. Nine to 18, we might get two. So depending on the interpretation, I think that's.

I think as long as that's very clear in our minutes and in our intent. Mr. Brooks, do you agree with that? Yeah. I agree with that. Like, that's how we. That's how we do our tobacco shops.

May I clarify that? We have to have a second first.

I just want to make sure his motion, whether we need to adjust or not. No adjustment at this point.

We have a motion. Do we have a second?

I'll second.

We have a motion and a second. Now we can have discussion on the motion.

I'm okay with just leaving it because once I heard the wording, I think... I think it makes it seem like you can have one. It's more with a lower level of density population than if you just leave it and leave it up to interpretation. So I'm okay with it.

Yeah, and just to correct the record, I know it's not part of the motion, and Cody helped me with this. So I said, or part thereof, that's inclusive. So that would be, it applies to fractions or segments. So the correct terminology, had it been part of the actual motion, would have been no part thereof or thereof in whole.

So at 9001, we can have a second because it's a part thereof.

Or a part thereof if that was part of it, yes.

But it's not part of it.

It's not part of it. But it's not.

Just for the record.

Okay. If nobody has any amendments they want, it might be good with that.

Okay, so we do have a motion and a second.

More discussion? Chief Warren, you had some concerns last time. I'd like to hear from you as to how you feel this has addressed your concerns.

All right. So Mr. Cooper did a great job. We spoke before the last meeting. We've spoke since then. He's done a lot of research. And with all the conditional use restrictions on here that we've put in here to kind of give us some teeth in the event that we have a bar that comes into town and creates problem, there's plenty of ways that we can remedy the situation to keep our community safe. And so I feel like we've got more than enough tools with this conditional use to approve it, and it gives me the ability to come in if we need to shut them down temporarily, restrict them permanently, whatever is required. And I just would like to say, too, you know, we have a potential – applicant in here. Our job is to work with people to make them successful, to make it safe. And so I don't want it to be construed that we're trying to run interference with, with these types of establishments. We're only just trying to make sure that we can make these establishments, establishments safe and successful. And I think if they're safe, they'll be successful. And so I feel very comfortable from the last meeting from where we are now, there's been a few additions and everything I asked for. So I feel good about it. Thank you. So thanks.

And I just want to add, uh, cause we do have an applicant here. Um, The city, you guys did a good job of taking a long view last time. This is not for this applicant. This is for any bar that comes into Riverdale or any change in ownership that ever happens. You know, the second bar that comes, this is more of a sustainable way forward, I feel like, that protects the residents and protects the city and our police officers and everybody. So, yeah. Any other discussion on the motion? Yeah. Go ahead, Councilor Stephens.

Okay, and I think you maybe just answered it, but just for my clarification, under action item number three, consideration to approve local consent. Now, this is an ordinance that is not applicable to the applicant specifically, but is for the city. Is that correct, as opposed to number four, which is specific to

the applicant. Is that, am I reading that correct? That is correct. Yep. This is just an ordinance we're gonna have on our books, uh, allowing a bar use, conditional use.

Okay. So, so then in number four, um, okay. I guess the word cabin bar establishment, I'm not entirely where it's used on both of them is the, is cabin bar what we're calling this ordinance? Or is that the name of the establishment that's going to go in?

That's the name of the establishment. This ordinance is just 1010 adopting the bar use. Those next two would be to possibly consider a bar establishment license and then a license for a restaurant called The Table.

Okay, so by putting the cabin bar on action number three as opposed to saying this is a... maybe it's not worded correctly there on at least on the, on the agenda. I mean, I read the other stuff, but I just wanted to get clarification that this is an ordinance not specific to the applicant.

Yeah. And we're on, we're on item two right now. Um, for ordinance. Okay. Yeah.

But, uh, okay. Okay. So the untabling,

Wasn't that already done? We untabled and now we are considering ordinance 1010, which is a city ordinance allowing bars.

Okay.

So, all right.

So then three and four, I read those all three together and I was, I got a little confused as to what was specific and what was general. Okay. Thank you. Okay.

Any other comments? Ms. Maragoni, please poll the council.

Councilor Richter? Yes. Councilor Hanson? Yes. Councilor Stephens?

No.

Councilor Arnold? Yes. Councilor Anderson?

Yes.

Okay, that new ordinance passes with four in favor and one opposed. We will move on to item number three. This is consideration to approve a local consent for the cabin bar establishment license. Ms. Maragoni?

So the application is in the packet. Kelby Underwood over here in the pink is the applicant. She would be the general manager, right? And then we have Mr. Nesbitt.

I'm really not hearing. Can you please use the microphone?

Can you hear me now?

Not really, but anyway, go ahead.

Let me turn the volume up. Okay, it's as loud as it can go. We had the police department run the information. There are no issues with proximity or any criminal histories on the application. There are two separate ones because the state won't let them have a restaurant and a bar under one license, so it's two completely separate establishments. So this one is for the bar establishment. The next one is for the restaurant and it's called the cabin table so that's probably why it was confusing because it's untabled but this is the table so the first one is just for the bar side the second one is for the full service restaurant on the other side that cleared up

So we're on item number three. Item number three is just for the bar side. For the bar establishment license. Any questions from the council? Councilor Arnold.

I'm just curious. We don't technically or typically approve business licenses. It comes through you. But we do liquor licenses. So is this a liquor license?

This is just the local consent for them to take to the state and say Riverdale said we can do this here.

Oh.

After that, the state will give them their liquor license if we approve it here, and then they'll come back with their license and get the business license. So it goes from here to there and then back to here.

Okay.

And that's typical of any liquor license, beer, restaurants, whatever it is.

Okay. Councilor Arnold. I would move to approve local consent for the cabin bar establishment license.

We have a motion. We have a second. Second we have a motion in a second any discussion on this motion councillor Richter a quick question on the on the on the layout there There's an element.

That's just shared space. Does that cause any challenges with these two separate? Businesses under one and I'm not sure who to direct that question to But if anybody can help me clarify that Mr. Cooper about him to come and answer

Who would be appropriate to answer that?

They can explain the shared space. Technically, they are separated, and the plans that we've seen show this restaurant and the bar separated with two separate entrances and no co-mingling. But you can explain the shared space.

Yeah, let's have them explain it. Come on up to the microphone. It looks like it is on right now.

Yeah, because of the nature of it, there is no shared space, so they'll be separated. As a result, we had to build two additional restrooms for the the table, which are going to be done. So they have before where the confusion was, there's a little shared space because the restaurants will be shared. And that doesn't really work for the different things. So it'll be two new restaurants, totally separated. There, of course, will be doors that you can sneak through going to the other one. And the thing that they're going to share is the kitchen. But it's separated. And something else you'll like to know, when we did the intersection there, the negotiations for that gives the cabin parking at discount tire after 5 o'clock at night. So that's actually part of our parking as well. They didn't have to pay anything for the intersection. The negotiation was we could use it after 5 at night. it hasn't been because we haven't had the business but with the two restaurants we're using that one probably for valet parking especially for it but they'll be totally different venues and separated so it's a very nice steakhouse which is totally different to the the bar license which i hate but that's the reason we need it is because you have to walk around That's a venue where people can go to and afford to get something to eat, walk around and socialize. And the cat at the table will be where you can get a very nice steak if you're willing to end up spending that. But the average person can't afford a very nice steak. So I'd like to provide something where you can interact and it's affordable. So there are two different ideas and venues. But it's a huge building, so in order to make it economically viable, you have to have two businesses.

I believe I understand that. It's just on the drawings.

The real problem is we changed it as we're drawing it. It went back and forth and as you find out the rules, it changed some stuff now. The last drawing submitted to you, the table is going to be all the way on the other side initially and then putting in the The restrooms and things and the distance of the sewer lines made it a lot more expensive. So it's essentially going to be on the south side of the building. But they're totally separated. So the spiral staircase is part of the cabin. But the table will be the other side of it. And they have completely different entrances. And the entrance will be enlarged and reduced. So they're really two different businesses. We do share a kitchen, but that's the only thing being shared.

I suspect that's what it's referring to is the kitchen angle. Yes.

Yeah, and they'll go through a couple of different steps here in addition to the business license. They'll go through a conditional use permit process. Tonight's action was to establish conditions at the ordinance level, but we'll still do a conditional use permit application and then a plan review for their building permit. And so we'll ensure that all of the separations and the construction work is in accordance to the conditions and state law.

Councillor Hanson, did you have a question?

Okay. Any other questions or comments? All right. Ms. Maragoni, will you please poll the council?

Councillor Hanson? Yes. Turn it on. Councillor Arnold?

Yes.

Councillor Richter?

Yes.

Councillor Stephens? Councillor Stephens?

No.

Councillor Anderson.

Yes.

Okay. That passes with four in favor and one opposed. Item number four, consideration to approve local consent for the cabin table full service restaurant license. Ms. Maragoni.

I don't really have anything else to explain on that one. It's the same thing, just for the other side.

Okay. Full service. They will serve alcohol. At a table. At a table. It's different than a bar.

Yeah. So you can sit down and eat your food. You can order from the bar and have like a cocktail or a beer with your meal.

With your meal. Just want to make sure that's clarified. Okay. Any questions or comments from the council for Ms. Maragoni?

Councilor Arnold. Move to approve local consent for the cabin table, full service restaurant license.

We have a motion. Do we have a second?

I'll second.

Motion and a second. Any discussion on this motion? Seeing none, Ms. Maragoni, please pull the council.

Councilor Arnold?

Yes.

Councilor Anderson? Yes. Councilor Richter? Yes. Councilor Hanson? Yes. Councilor Stephens?

Yes. Okay, that passes unanimously. Very good. Thank you. And thank you for your patience with this process. We did not have that use in our city before, and so we appreciate you helping us figure out how that works. And best of luck to you. We'll move on to item number five, public hearing. We're going to do four items under this public hearing. And so I'll read what the items are, and then we will ask for a motion to open this public hearing. So the items for this public hearing are amending the Riverdale City budget for fiscal year 2026, proposed amendments to the Riverdale City Code 172, salaries of city council and mayor, and 17F6, salary of the justice court judge, C, non-reciprocal interfund activity, transfer of resources utilized by the city's general fund as provided by the city's water fund. And D, adopting the Riverdale City budget for fiscal year 2027. We would need a motion to open this public hearing. So moved. We have a motion. We have a second.

Second.

All in favor? We have a motion and a second. All in favor say yes. Yes.

Okay.

Very good. Thank you, Councilor Stephens. The public hearing is now open. Seeing no members of the public, we would need a motion to close the public hearing. So moved. Do we have a motion? Do we have a second?

Second.

All right. Motion and a second. All in favor of closing the public hearing, please say yes. Yes. Any opposed? Okay. The public hearing is now closed. We now need a second public hearing. It is for a single item, the proposed amendments to the executive municipal officer compensation schedules. We need a motion to open that public hearing. So moved. We have a motion. Do we have a second?

Second.

All in favor say yes.

Yes.

Any opposed? The public hearing is now open. Seeing no members of the public, we need a motion to close the public hearing. So moved. We have a motion. We have a second.

I'll second.

Motion to second. All in favor say yes. Yes. Any opposed? The public hearing is now closed. We will move on to item number seven, consideration of ordinance 1011, approving proposed amendments. to the Riverdale City Code Human Resources Manual Employees Classification and Compensation Plan 1-7-2 Salaries of City Council and Mayor. Mr. Cardin.

Thanks, Mayor. As you guys remember, or you may remember, we separated these two a couple years ago, so this is just your compensation as the mayor and council. I had Stacy help me calculate it, and so that's the proposed increase there with that ordinance. So if you have any questions, I can answer them.

Councillor Hanson.

What is it based off of? How did we come up with a number?

I believe it's based upon the average increase for the budget. For the employees? Yeah. Okay. Yeah. I think we took the – she helped me. I think it's the average increase for the employees or the increase of the budget. Yep. Just like we've done. Okay.

Any other questions for Mr. Cardin? Okay. Do we have a motion?

Councilor Arnold? I would move to approve ordinance 1011, approving proposed amendments to the Riverdale City Code, Human Resources Manual, Employees Classification and Compensation Plan 172, salaries of city council and mayor.

Okay, we have a motion. Do we have a second? We have no second. So that motion dies for lack of a second. Okay. Do we just move on, Mr. Brooks?

I mean, do we have to have a motion? What's that? Unless there's another motion.

Is there any other motion?

Do we have to approve something for the state one way or the other?

I don't. Not for you guys.

For the next one, yes. But I don't believe for this one. Okay.

I don't think we can hear you, Mr. Brooks.

Mr. Stevens probably can't hear you.

What we've done in the past, if you don't want to accept a raise, is we've made a motion to just strike that new language and just left it the way it was.

Anyone interested in doing that?

I would make a motion that we keep the salaries as is and...

Okay. We have a motion to keep the salaries as is. Do we have a second?

Second.

We have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, Ms. Maragonia, please poll the council.

Councillor Stephens?

Yes.

Councillor Arnold? Yes. Councillor Anderson? Yes. Councillor Richter? Yes. Councillor Hanson? Yes.

Okay, that passes unanimously. Moving on to item number eight, consideration of ordinance 1012. Approving proposed amendments to the Riverdale City Code, Human Resources Manual, Employees Classification Compensation Plan 1-7F-6, Salary of the Justice Court Judge. Mr. Cardin.

Thanks, Mayor. So this is the same thing, just for the judge. So Stacey calculated what that needed to be, and that's what's in here. We are required by the AOC to do this in an ordinance and provide it to them, and so that's why it's on the agenda as it is.

Any questions for Mr. Cardin? Councillor Hanson.

And I know last time we had to update it because the legislature dictated it. Is this one of those or is this just like a natural?

I think it's just a natural.

They send us a letter every year and give us a range of where it falls in. As long as we're in there, we're safe. And then by tradition, we've just matched it up with the percentage, same race that the employees got.

Any other questions? Seeing none, Councillor Arnold.

Move to approve ordinance 1012 as stated within the packet.

Okay, we have a motion. Do we have a second?

Second.

Motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, Ms. Maragoni, please pull the council.

Councillor Stevens?

Yes.

Councillor Anderson?

Yes.

Councillor Arnold? Yes. Councillor Hanson? Yes. Councillor Richter? Yes.

All right, that passes unanimously. Moving on to item number nine, consideration resolution 2026-17, accepting Riverdale City's certified property tax rate of 0.001386 as calculated by the Weber County Auditor, Mr. Cardin.

So just in case, like if you want a little more information on this, our current rate for tax year 2025 is, was .001414. So as I calculated it, the rate changed by .000028 or about 19.8%. So that means that home values would have went up by about that amount to offset that, which is interesting. However, the thing that's really good is based upon the changes of the state law, yeah, but that's what they calculated. Based upon changes in state law with calculating new growth, I was anticipating that our new growth was going to be very small this year. It's actually really good this year. Like our certified tax proceeds last year was $1,740,993. If you look at it this year, it's $1,811,447. So we actually got $70,454 of growth this year. Which is really good for the city. So that would be new developments. If you remember, we talked about that at our tentative budget hearing. So stuff such as Trader Joe's wouldn't be calculated into that. That could be impacting into the 19.8% the redevelopment. And that's probably what it really is because I don't think anybody's home or business went up by 19.8%. So that's probably indicative of that. But this would be indicative of new things that came within Riverdale. And talking to other finance directors, it sounded like a lot of people were like this or a lot of entities that their growth was pretty substantial this year. So that's a good sign. And we had a question in the work session from Councilor Arnold about the rate in the fire district. So if you remember, this technically is tax year 2026. So it goes from January 1st to December 31st of 2026. So we're looking at going to the fire district January 1st of 2027. So that's why we're adopting the full rate. It would be for next year that our rate would drop significantly by their proposed rate. But it would be calculated based upon this year's for us and this year for Weaver Fire District. So I'm happy to answer any other additional questions you may have. But that's kind of where we're at.

Thank you for that explanation, Mr. Cardin. Council Arnold? Move to approve Resolution 2026-18. Oh, wait, wait, wait. Sorry, 17, accepting the Riverdale City's certified tax rate of .001386 as stated within the packet.

Okay, we have a motion. We have a second.

We'll second.

Motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? Mr. Cardin, can we tell the residents we did a 19% tax cut?

Nice. Excellent.

Yeah, I don't think they'll see it that way. Okay. Yeah, how can we spin this, right? Yeah, very typical. But it's true. Basically, I mean, we got nothing.

Yeah, they'll pay the same amount.

They'll pay the same. But, yeah, like potentially. Our rate went down by 19%. Yep. Okay. Sorry. Okay. Any other discussion on the motion or questions? Okay. Ms. Maricone, will you please poll the council?

Councilor Anderson? Yes. Councilor Stephens? Councilor Stephens?

Yes.

Councilor Hanson? Yes. Councilor Arnold? Yes. Councilor Richter?

Yes.

Okay, that passes unanimously. Thank you. We're halfway done. Number 10, consideration of Resolution 2026-18, approving the non-reciprocal interfund activity transfer of resources utilized by the City's General Fund as provided by the City's Water Fund. The estimated value of these culinary water services is $100,000. Mr. Cardin?

So this is just the water that the city uses. So since the enterprise fund is basically like a separate legal entity, we just have to disclose that for our audit and things. And so that's what this is. There's a sheet in there showing how we kind of calculate that from all the water meters. If you have any questions, I'm happy to answer them.

I had one question. And you don't need to come up with the mic, Mr. Douglas, but do we have any that is unmetered? Any of our, okay. All the city's water is metered. Okay, good. That makes me feel good. All right. Any other questions for Mr. Cardin? Mr. Council Arnold.

To approve resolution 2026-18 as stated within the packet with the estimated value of the culinary water services at $100,000. We have a motion.

Do we have a second?

I'll second. Okay.

motion and a second. Any discussion on this motion? I had a quick question. Didn't this used to be $80,000 for several years?

Yeah, it did. And then it's always hard to guess because I don't know until we get to the end of the year and our rates have went up. And so we technically have to pay that higher rate too. And so if you look at it, we're like $84,000, but we use less water this spring than we have in the past. Like when I first started doing it, I'm like, oh no, is $100,000 going to be enough? So as our rates go up, like this will continue to creep up. So just to clarify, the city pays the higher rate? Yes. In effect, by doing this, yes, it's calculated at the current water rates. Okay, thank you.

Thank you for that. Okay. Any other questions or comments? Ms. Maragoni, please pull the council.

Councilor Richter? Yes. Councilor Hanson? Yes. Councilor Stephens?

Yes.

Councilor Arnold? Yes. Councilor Anderson?

Yes.

All right, that passes unanimously. Thank you. Item number 11, review fraud risk discussion for submission to the state auditor's office. Mr. Cardin.

Thank you. So you probably remember us doing this each year. So this is just a requirement by the state auditor's office that we present this to you each year. It hasn't changed since December of 2020, the form itself. and how it's done. We haven't changed anything internally. There is one thing we could probably work on, the credit slash purchasing card policy. We could probably work on strengthening that. Other than that, we about have everything and sort of just required to give it to you each year. So if you have any questions, I'm happy to answer them.

Any questions for Mr. Cardin on the fraud risk discussion?

Just to express our appreciation. It looks like a good report again this year. So thank you to you and the staff.

Okay, very good. Thank you. We'll move on. Item number 12, consideration of resolution 2026-19, amending the Riverdale City budget for fiscal year 2026. Mr. Cardin.

Hey, thank you, Mayor. So I want to just point out one thing. I think Councilor Richter had a question about this like a month ago. If you look at the monthly financial report, it looks like we're over budget in the stormwater fund. Part of that is because we changed how we're doing our budgeting. So we're actually supposed to do like a zero base budget in our budget. enterprise funds so before what we're doing is we're budgeting both for depreciation and capital expenditures so our budgets weren't balancing to zero so if you remember we changed that last year so we have a line item in there for for depreciation then we have a line item in there for capital expenditures and we have a negative line item to take it out so I don't review those until the end of the year because otherwise then I'd have little tiny bits and pieces of projects all year so if It looks like we're over budget in there. We really aren't. Sean and I both looked at it and talked about it. And once we take those capital projects out, we should be fine. So we've reviewed the budget. We're proposing a few changes. It was in the packet. We're running a little high on our merchant fees. That's indicative of just more and more people paying online and those fees going up. We're going to look at switching one thing, our accounting software. is doing away with a third-party merchant and bringing that in-house. So when we switch, that should save the city a little bit of money going forward. And then if you remember, we'll allocate some of those utility costs out to the enterprise funds going forward. But we proposed a $20,000 increase to help offset that. We're running at about $68,000 right now. So we're going to be over a little bit and we only have 60,000 budgeted. So we got $20,000 adjustment there. We never know where we're going to end up on grants and things. So we propose to increase the transfer of the capital projects fund, just to make sure we stay under that fund balance requirement. And then again, Rich has got some grant money. So we proposed to increase his grant expenditures account and his capital outlay as he's using some of that for senior staff. So those are the proposed budget amendments that we have. And the offset to that is just the capital projects transfer. So if you have any questions, I'm happy to answer them. But those are the budget amendments we're proposing.

Councilor Richter.

Yeah, just one quick question. Just be grateful for your thoughts on the change for the UMA. So that was a big change.

change for us i'm just interested in the thought on how that's going to affect us do we need to make structural changes anything there so that's more with the current year budget i can answer it right now though like so what we ended up doing is just offsetting that with like our sales tax so that's money that like we're kind of using that for a portion of the salaries um for that police officer that was there for like nine months of the year um i don't think so i think we're okay we did a budget increase you know like a few years ago and we'll just continue to monitor things but i think we'll be okay as long as like our sales tax continues to be good and things like we should be okay And that's mainly a 2027 item. Yes, because they did it through 2020 through the end of the school year. And if you remember, I believe they signed a three-year contract. So when Casey was working with them on the extension, I guess their enrollments dropped. They were just like, hey, we don't feel like we can afford this right now. And it's possible from talking to Casey that if their enrollment gets back up, that that might come back. But for the time being, it's down. So we just wanted to take it out of the budget. Okay.

Can we add something? Sure, come on up. I'll make it very fast.

I just want to note...

that when we put the officer in UMA some of you guys were on the council at the time we actually just absorbed it in within our current staff and we didn't add for that officer and we did that because I wanted I anticipated this may happen I wanted to make sure this was going to be a long-term fit before we added staff and so we were going to do a little bit more with less until we figured out if this was going to be long-term it was supposed to be long-term but things changed and here we are it'll be nice to have that officer back um to help fill some of the shifts because we were having to move people around to kind of make it work to to not add that officer so anyways i just want to give the background on that there's a chance that it could come back and if it does we'll probably still hold in this pattern just because of the uncertainty um those of you who are on the council and mayor before you can remember this conversation but i just want to give that background so thanks thanks

Any other items for the 2026 amending the budget? Or let's see, it's adopting.

Amending.

It's amending, yes. It does say amending, adopting, but it's for amending.

Councilor Arnold. Move to approve resolution 2026-19, amending the Riverdale City budget for fiscal year 2026.

Okay, we have a motion, we have a second.

I'll second.

Motion and a second. Any discussion on that motion? Ms. Maragoni, will you please pull the council?

Councilor Richter?

Yes.

Councilor Hanson? Yes. Councilor Anderson? Yes. Councilor Arnold? Yes. Councilor Stephens?

Yes. All right. That passes unanimously. Thank you. Move on to item number 13, consideration of resolution 2026-20, adopting the Riverdale City budget for fiscal year 2027. Mr. Cardin.

Thank you, Mayor. So I believe, it sounds like Councilor Richter looked at this, on page 215 of the packet is a list of all the changes we made since the tentative budget. So just to run through those really quick with you. So the first few were just some cleanup things that I wanted... The retained earnings in a different account for the first one. The second one, that transfer we were just talking about of the capital projects on the moving it to the general fund. We had added something and I hadn't got it added on the second line item in the water fund. The general fund transfer, I needed to reconcile that. So I got that fixed. Sean wanted to roll over $800,000 worth of projects in the water fund. I think what you talked about tonight, in case that doesn't get done by year end, so we rolled that over. He needed a new account for the DEQ, DDW, so like the Division of Drinking Water, so he can track those, so we added that. some of the fire station the one project for the bathroom remodel they don't know if they'll have that done so we rolled that over the changes um with our city administrators contract i put those in there and then just adjusting things for the uma and reconciling to the property tax so those are all the changes that we made from the tentative budget everything else is as we discussed that night so if you have any questions i'm happy to answer them BUT THAT'S KIND OF EVERYTHING.

ANY QUESTIONS? COUNSELOR HANSON?

I DO HAVE ONE, BUT IT'S MORE ON THE PAY SCALE PART. SO I WAS REVIEWING THAT A LITTLE BIT CLOSER THIS YEAR, AND I NOTED THAT THE COMMUNITY DIRECTOR POSITION AT THE TOP END OF THE SCALE HAD A 19.2% INCREASE THIS YEAR, WHICH IS FAIRLY SIGNIFICANT. But, and I just wanted to verify, that doesn't pass through all of the steps, right? It gets progressively.

It gets like prorated applied. If you remember, we survey like the bottom and the top and then it gets kind of allocated out.

And we're not topped out on that pay scale right now, right?

I don't believe so. And Stacy, usually if there's big increases like that, she'll like, if you know Stacy, she'll check them like 10 times to make sure that it's really right.

So somewhere across the board in the state, there's just been an increase in those salaries for that position.

For sure, yep. And then sometimes too, probably not in that one, if it's a position that maybe we don't have as many, if there's not very many people in the state that have that position, sometimes if one person reports that didn't report before or somebody doesn't report, it can have a little bigger impact. But those main positions that everybody has, it's pretty consistent.

Okay. Thanks.

Yeah.

I had a question. There was a lot of pages. I might have got this wrong, but did you leave the credit card fees the same? Is it $60,000 in the 27 budget again?

So remember, we moved money into the water fund. So we'll allocate those. Because if you remember when we added the fee for the credit cards, we can't do that on utilities. Okay. And so we were supposed to build that in. Right now we're paying for all those out of the general fund, so we're going to start paying for a portion of those out of the water fund. So I believe there's $30,000 in the account, $30,000 or $35,000 in the water fund. We'll just have to see what that allocates out to once we get going throughout the year. But, yes, like in total we should have money because we'll just put part of it more in the correct spot. Okay, perfect.

And then I had a quick possible favor to ask of the council to consider. One of the things I feel bad about the way we do our strategic planning now is we used to have a big budget meeting where we would get together early in the year, and the department heads would kind of present what they wanted to do, and the council would present some of their ideas and stuff. And this is pretty late in the game to be bringing this stuff up, but I did want to put it before you and just suggest it. In discussing some stuff with Mr. Taylor – We only have five swim nights. We used to have ten. They used to charge us $750 a night, and so the budget's $7,500. They doubled their price to $1,500 per night, and so we get five now. He's been very creative. Last year he got us some nights at Latent Surf and Swim, trying to do what he could with the money, to stretch it as far as he could. I would propose... that maybe we see if we can add one night back maybe add 1500 to the um the budget it's it's the same budget for the swim nights and the roy complex and in looking at it in the past years we haven't used a lot of the roy complex money um we probably wouldn't even need to add it in looking at the budget but just to be safe um i feel like six is just a little bit better than five uh I don't know. Five just seems kind of short, especially coming from 10. That's just an ask. I mean, if we didn't give me – I mean, pretty much the raise that I didn't get this year would pay for it, and the raise you didn't get would pay for it too. So that's one ask is that you consider that maybe we add one swim night or $1,500 into that budget. The other ask is – There's been discussions around the area of the county about fireworks. Roy canceled theirs at one point. A donor came in. I've heard some discussion about the Washington Terrace fireworks. And in those discussions, as I've sat back and listened at where I work and just in different places, the lore of the Riverdale fireworks has started to grow. They're quite spectacular. I don't know if you guys make it to those, but they are second to none. I mean, you get up into the park and it'll be the best fireworks show you've ever seen. But we are having to cut the time down a little bit each year because our budget stays the same. And so I talked to Rich about it a little bit. And if we could add even $1,000 to that fireworks budget, maybe we could, you know, we're going from 20 minutes to 19. And at some point, it's going to get a little bit too short. maybe just consider adding a thousand. I know it's just money that we're lighting on fire, but it actually, people literally come from all over. I'm talking to people from out west, the people at my work. I just stand back and listen, and they say, oh my gosh, you've got to go to Riverdale to see the fireworks. It's a big, big deal. And we don't want to lose that. We've got a little bit of a reputation now, and I would just ask that you maybe consider that change as well. But it's up to you guys. You guys are the ones that get to approve that. So 1,500 extra for one extra swim night for next year and 1,000 more for next year. You think we'll get a swing of that, Mr. Cardin? If you guys want to do that. Right out of the snow plowing menu from last year?

Yeah, and I think part of it, too, and Ridge probably has more, but with the Roy Aquatic Center, I think with it being under construction and stuff, our attendance is just rock.

The complex. Oh, we spent almost nothing on it two years ago. It swung back up pretty good, but it's still not to where it was, and we still have a little bit left in there, but... It's up to you guys. I would be more than happy to tell all the citizens the city council approved an increase in the swim nights and the city council approved an increase to the fireworks. It's your decision to make, as long as Mr. Cardin thinks he could swing it somewhere in the numbers. Anyway, as you make a motion, I would really like it if you could add those two things.

Any other comments? Council Arnold? I would be in favor of those two things, along with the mayor. Also, I asked if Ms. Maragoni could get somewhat of a bump in her salary. We've got a really good recorder, and I can't remember the increase that I saw for a position in Saratoga Springs, which is a popular city, growing city, and things like that, but it was enough that she was looking at it. Not interested in the drive, I'm sure, but I asked about this earlier. quite a while ago. I'm going to vote against the budget no matter what we say. I'm not going to make a motion because I think the way municipals, cities and governments, I mean, they're way out of control with the way they spend money. We're going to talk about a contract here. Later this evening that is disgusting, honestly. And, you know, I deal with the federal government, right? I use that all the time. And the numbers are not even close for people that have, you know, much more responsibility. than the things that are going on here in Riverdale. I think Ms. Maragoni deserves an increase and I do not think that some of the people of the city should make what they're making. It's not appropriate.

Can I ask a question? Yeah. I know Ms. Maragoni received all of her certifications recently. Is there some kind of commensurate percentage that would make sense to add on because of those certifications that would help justify her amazingness?

I don't think so. I think they've already been in there, and I think she's received additional steps in the past for those. And so I think these new certifications are kind of over and above the top. So I don't think so. But I don't know. I haven't looked at it in particular. I talked to Steve about it a while ago, but that's it. That's all I know.

And I'm... We just have a difference in philosophies on some of these things because I kind of come down that same path that you're at. I think if we ask these people to better themselves to make the city better, we should reward them for it. And so it's difficult. The position that HR takes is that we've got to follow protocol, which I'm not saying that's wrong either because we don't do it for other people. And so – if we do it for one and not the others, I mean, how do we select is kind of the problem we run into. So, um, but, but I agree. I, I, I don't know. I, I just always disliked that about Riverdale, uh, at least since I've been in this position because there, you know, we got rich, we got everybody in here picks up extra duties and stuff and we don't really reward them for it. We tell them that we want them to do this, but we don't really pay them much for it. Not in what, how much work it increases. So, Um, I've always felt that that was not how I've seen in my past and my history and other places I've worked for. They easily reward them when you do good things, but, um, we just, we stick to that policy is what we've always done traditionally. So.

Okay. Any other comments or questions? Yeah, I do. Oh, uh, counselor Stevens. Yeah.

Yeah. This is a little bit of an awkward conversation and I found it awkward a couple months ago when Council Member Arnold brought up by name the city recorder and also a raise for the excuse me for the planning commissioners and you know I don't know if that was acted upon or not but when you start talking about a by name person that's a little bit I don't know. It starts getting into an area that there's some I know we're transparent, but it's also very awkward because I really thought we paid by the position, not necessarily the individual. So if an individual does great, do we start raising their salary above what their position is set for? I think there's some maybe this is an hr issue that needs to be addressed in in a little bit different manner than in an open council meeting okay thank you let's see someone else is going to make a comment was it

I was going to raise my hand.

It's just a protest vote because if it comes down to two to two, I'll vote yes because we have to pass a budget today. Right, Cody? It's not optional.

Okay. Counselor Hanson, did you raise your hand too? I thought I saw something down there.

I was just looking up some numbers based off of those scale charts that we had to try to better understand.

Okay.

We'll take your time. It looks like There was a 9% increase in 2024 to 2025, 4% increase from 2025 to 2026, and a 5% increase from 2026 to 2027. And that's on step one, the low end of it, and I assume, hopefully, that that position's not at the lowest step. But I appreciate what Councilor Stevens said, and I don't like to undermine the policies of the city either, but if I could provide feedback separate from the budget, I guess I would say sometimes it's worth looking to see if it's time to change somebody's job title, if they warrant it and if they can meet those duties and expectations, but that's all.

Okay. Anyone else? If there's no other comments, we would need a motion. Council Arnold's not going to make it.

I will make the motion. Let's see, where are we at?

13, item number 13. 13.

To approve Resolution 2026-20, Adopting the Riverdale City Budget for Fiscal Year 2027, with the inclusion of $1,500 additional for a swim night and then $1,000 additional for the fireworks.

I'll second that motion.

OK, we have a motion and a second. Any discussion on that motion? Ms. Maragoni, please pull the council.

Councillor Anderson?

Yes.

Councillor Richter? Yes. Councillor Hanson? Yes. Councillor Stephens?

Yes.

Councillor Arnold?

No.

Okay. That passes with four in favor and one opposed. Item number 14, consideration of resolution 2026-21 to approve the fiscal year 2027 consolidated fee schedule. Mr. Cardin.

Okay, thank you, Mayor. So in the packet, if you remember for this agenda item, Brandon had a memo kind of explaining his changes. He's kind of changing the whole philosophy. with some of those fees, and then there's some that aren't on there. So if you have any questions about that, he can answer those specifically. The other ones are the public works ones that we talked about in the tentative budget. They're largely just passing the fees through, like the increase for sewer is based upon Central Weber's increase. The increase in the water is based upon the Weber, or sorry, Weber Basin water. And then the garbage increase is based upon the increase from Robinson or Republic. So we're just passing those through. If you have any questions, I'm happy to answer them, Sean or Brandon. Otherwise, I'd just defer to the packet.

Councilor Arnold. Move to approve Resolution 2026-21 as stated within the packet.

Okay, we have a motion. Do we have a second? Second motion and the second is their discussion on this motion I think that's correct.

Yeah something like that Yeah, that is very tough Any other comments or questions I

Seeing none, Ms. Maragoni, please poll the council.

Councilor Arnold? Yes. Councilor Stephens?

Did you say my name?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Richter?

Yes.

Councilor Anderson? Yes. Councilor Henson? Yes.

Okay, that passes unanimously. We will move on to item number 15, consideration of resolution 2026-22, authorizing the continuation of the pickup contribution for public safety and firefighter tier two employee retirement contributions to the Utah retirement system and a contribution to a 401k for non-public safety firefighter tier two participants. Mr. Cardin.

Okay, thank you, Mayor. So this, I believe, is the third time we're doing this. So Tier 2 are the newer firefighters and police and other city employees. And so if you remember how Tier 2 is structured, as part of that, if the funding ever went over a certain amount, then the employee would have to pick up the election. For public safety, the state allows us to go in and pick up that contribution for the employee so that that money is not coming out of their pay. So we've historically done that. This is a maximum, and the rates for URS went up by 1.25%, so this is just increasing that and then increasing. increasing it accordingly. And just to point out, and we've pointed this out every time, but once we do this, that's kind of the bottom that we can go to. We're required to do that going forward. But in talking to Chief, in talking to Casey and Matt, this is really big for their public safety employees because Otherwise, that's money out of their pocket, their employees. And some cities do this. Some cities don't. But it is an important benefit in their mind. So I'm happy to answer any questions you may have, but it's just increasing that. And then we have to provide this to URS showing whether we're going to pay the contribution or the employees will be responsible.

Do we vote on this every year?

Not every year, just when there's a rate increase. So I think the last time we did it was two years ago. And then the first time it came into effect was either 2020 or 2021. So this is the third time we've done it. I think included in the packet is the previous resolution, and it was in 2024. And the previous time before that was 2020. So it was for fiscal year 2021, and then I think for fiscal year 2025, and now for fiscal year 2027. Okay.

Any questions for Mr. Cardin? Counselor Hanson?

Do we have an estimated total for public safety versus civilian employees?

Um, I don't have that number right off the top of my head. Like, um, I just build it into the budget because historically that's what we've done. And then when I think we talked to you about it at the tentative, it sounded like that's what you wanted to do. So in my calculation sheets, I just included in the URS benefits amount.

I know that's a really big issue when, especially when it comes to recruitment on the public safety side. And it's hard because, you know, a lot of times the non-public safety is the treated opposite from URS which is really hard because that's why we provided the increase last time to try to compensate because theirs actually went up out of pocket also but we weren't legally though they would not allow us to cover that for them and so we did the 401k contribution instead so I see that you're suggesting that again I know a lot of agencies I think there's a pretty good mix of those who cover it and provide but they they don't allow us to provide the actual increase for the for the non-public safety. And I know some of them do just make them pay it, which is hard because it's already hard enough to recruit good employees and keep them. But I'm not sure how I feel about that, but I know that's just kind of the situation.

Let me ask you this. If they did not authorize this, Would the city continue paying a portion?

Yeah, we're locked into where we were. They're locked in. So this is just for the increase. This is just for the 1.25 increase.

May I add a comment?

Yeah, come on up.

All right.

First and foremost, I want to thank you for the past approval of this. It's helped tremendously in my recruitment and my retention. As cops sit around at break at Maverick now, it used to be Sinclair, sometimes with other agencies, and as we're looking to find police officers and firefighters, that is one of the main questions that come up. Do they cover the Tier 2 pickup for your retirement? And a lot of the cities that don't, that's a major sting for those employees because it's taking money out of their pocket every year. So it's just that the raises don't add up. And so we actually have had some really good bragging rights. Like, oh, yeah. This is just one of the benefits that we have that really makes it so we can recruit and retain good people. And then for the other side of it, our other employees, whether it be Public Works and everyone else, as we've proved things like this, the culture here at Riverdale is that we are treated fairly and we're all valued the same as employees, irregardless of our positions. And when we do it that way, it creates a culture of teamwork and unity. And so I feel strongly that we have to have this. From my opinion, it helps me so much in public safety, but also preserving that culture of unity within our departments with all the employees. So that's my recommendation. I know it's an increase that we don't anticipate, but I think it's a very good benefit to all the employees. So thanks. Any questions for me before I step down?

I had a question. Mr. Garten? Sorry. What's the total amount? I saw a bunch of percentages, but I don't think I ever saw the actual dollar.

I don't remember the exact dollar amount. That's what Councilor Hanson was asking about. And she wanted the split, but even the overall.

Right, you wanted the split.

Yeah, either way.

Even the overall. I have no idea what we're talking about. I mean, $10,000, $100,000?

Yeah.

$500,000? Not that much. Just kidding. It's okay. I shouldn't have said that. I know it's not that much. But I don't have a good feel for it. I really don't know.

I have a question.

Oh, yeah, go ahead, Counselor Stevens, while he's looking that up.

Okay. Yeah, I guess this is for Mr. Cardin or whoever. But again, my understanding of a Tier 1 was for public safety because you could retire in 20 years, much like military. You can retire in 20 years because there's a There's a lot more stress in the physical and so on. And the state did away with the 20-year, or the URS, I guess, did away with the 20-year retirement and created the Tier 2, which was 25 years. And as I understood it, it was pretty much exclusive for public safety, police and fire. Now, I guess I'm confused here where They talk about it in the contributions to tier two non-public safety slash firefighter. Who are they? And does everybody get a URS retirement at 25 years? Or is there a category in there? I'm not getting.

Okay. Are you done with your questions? Just so I don't interrupt you. Yes. Okay. So if you look in the packet, there is a whole page worth of different URS retirements. And so depending on who, and Riverdale City does not offer all of them. We don't even have people in all of them. Some of them are old and like 95% of the people are retired from those. But I believe it was July of 2011. Does that sound right? Either 2011 or 2012. The legislature was afraid that URS wouldn't continue to be sustainable, and so they cut all of the retirements, not only public safety, but also all the local governments. So it used to be that all the employees received 2% per year of years of service, except for public safety it was higher. It was so that they got 50% at 20 years. And then you only had to work 20 years, and you could retire as a public safety. And it was 30, and you could retire as a local government employee. They changed that. They reduced the benefit to 1.5%. So you actually get less, and then you have to work more years. You have to work 25 years for police and fire and 35 for local government. So since then, I believe they've increased the public safety rate. back up to two percent but the local government has stayed at the one and a half percent so everybody gets a lesser benefit um and even more so the local government where that one and a half is lower than the two percent um and so and part of that originally the rates were supposed to be lower so they actually urs needed people to continue to pay into urs to keep it funded so actually a portion of our tier two rates go to public to tier one it's like a to help continue to fund that. So that's why some of these rates look higher. They actually have like a 4% that goes to Tier 1 to continue to help fulfill that obligation. And so that's kind of, so it impacted everybody, Councillor Stephens, when they made those changes in 2011. It extended the length and reduced the benefit of all public safety and the regular so we have a mix of some of those but if you look at like 2011 forward we're getting where we have more and more tier two employees all the time so just doing quick and dirty math it looks like the one percent like in the police department it's probably about thirteen thousand dollars um so it's not like a ton of money but going forward as we get more and more tier two employees like that amount will continue to increase. We still have quite a few Tier 1 employees. I think I answered all your questions, but if you have no...

Okay, without naming names, give a job title of somebody who is a non-public safety Tier 2 participant.

So anybody who works for the city who started in URS after 2011. With a URS employer. So if you were vested prior to 2011 or you started prior to 2011, then you're a tier one. If you started after 2011, you're a tier two. So I really don't need anybody.

Go ahead.

So, like, if we have a brand-new public works guy, they could be a Tier 2. If we have a brand-new community development director, they could be a Tier 2.

Anybody that's… In the ordinance, it specifically says public safety and non-public safety. And so I found that. I'm just going… Well, everybody's at least 25 years, but it's – anyway, is that redundant to say that? Or is that a separate category?

Anyway, go ahead. It's a separate category for the non-public safety. So, and it goes back to that sheet of all the tiers. So there's public safety retirements, which are for the police largely. And then there's a specific firefighters retirement pool that's obviously still under that public safety, but they're separate. And then there's the regular non-public safety. That would be like the regular government employees.

Any other questions or comments?

Councilor Victor. Did we ever get a dollar amount?

So it's about doing the police department. I'd have to go through by employee by employee. But looking at the police department, like just quick and estimating, it's about $13,000. So then it would be less than that for the fire, and it would probably be less than that for the other one too. So you're probably talking like $40,000 or less, probably like $25,000, but I don't have an exact amount.

Let's see. Counselor Arnold, you were starting to – Raise a hand. I was just going to make a motion.

Any other questions? I guess we can talk about it in between. Yeah. I would move to approve Resolution 2026-22 as stated within the packet. Okay. We have a motion.

Do we have a second?

I'll second.

Motion and a second. Any discussion on this motion?

I have one.

I really need to be slow with you there. Okay. You think through it. Okay.

Well, I mean, I just wanted to say, I think it's a great thing that Riverdale does to match for the non-public safety. And I didn't want to put Chief Warren on the spot to say, are you willing to forego yours if we don't give it to everybody on the non-public safety side? But I would say as long as Riverdale is capable and able to match to provide that for the tier two employees to that small contribution, then I think that that's a good thing. Recognizing that there could come a point where Riverdale can't do that anymore, but if it's within that range, 25,000 to 40,000, and knowing what our surplus has been, then I think that we can handle it this year.

And this locks us in for another two years at this rate?

So it really locks us in for like ever. Right.

But only on the public safety, right? We can always change.

Yeah, we can probably change that. On the public safety, it locks us in. And I'm not sure on this increase. We talked to Stacey and I about a year ago, talked to our old rep at URS. And he was telling us he was hoping that they'd just do like one increase on this and then leave it alone for a long time. I don't know if that's what they did or not because I haven't been involved with that. But he was hopeful that they would just do this one more time and then kind of leave those rates alone for quite a while. But we'll have to see. I'm not sure where URS ended up on that.

Councilor Richter?

Yeah, and I think it's been kind of a theme on a number of these different comments. I guess the way I would describe it is a bit of a disconnect between the compensation schedules, whether we're talking about these benefit schedules or the overall compensation, between that and the revenue sources of the city. They don't connect at all, and so I find that frustrating. In any other world, there's some nexus, and there isn't here, and I find it frustrating. challenging to say the least. I would love to see if we can, as we look forward, I recognize that we have history with the models that we currently have. I just don't feel those models are sustainable moving forward. So that's just a general comment. I mean, yeah, I think we absolutely have to look at some way to, as things change and our revenue streams are certainly going to change, we have to have some nexus here so we can make informed decisions.

I would agree with that. However...

Into your microphone, please, for Councillor Stevens.

I would agree with that. I don't know whether this is on or... Is it? There we go. Okay. I would agree with what you said. But as you look at Riverdale City, especially with public safety, I've looked at other communities as far as number of officers in relationship to population. And we're so far out there that I know that people in the past have looked at that as a figure of saying, you know, Riverdale's overloaded with police officers, but our situation is vastly different now. than what other communities are faced with. And because of that, I feel that we need to, and yes, we need to get a handle on this, but we need to maintain the level of officers that we've got. We had three tonight that have stayed here 10 years that we've drawn from other communities. And if there's any way that we can accomplish this moving forward, I'm behind it because that protects the welfare of the citizens and both the residents and the commercial businesses by having such a strong force here in Riverdale. And so I agree that we're going to have to tweak it somewhere along the way, but I feel that this is very important that we provide that benefit for them.

I agree as well. I think that was a good thing to bring up. We had three 10-year officers tonight, all super high quality, super high quality. And yeah, you're not going to be able to keep getting that if we don't take good care of them. So anyway, any other comments or questions before we vote on this? Ms. Naragoni, would you please poll the council?

Councillor Anderson?

Yes.

Councillor Hanson? Yes. Councillor Stephens? Councillor Stephens?

Councillor Stephens, are you still with us?

Yes. I'm sorry. No, that's fine. I'm sorry. What was the question?

It is, let's see, this is the Resolution 202622 to pick up the contribution for the Tier 2. Yes, my vote is yes. Okay, thank you.

Councilor Richter? No. Councilor Arnold? Yes.

Okay, that passes with four in favor and one opposed.

I'm sorry, who was opposed?

That was Councilor Richter.

Okay, thank you.

All right, moving on to item number 16, consideration of resolution 2026-23, approving a contract for city administrator. Mr. Brooks.

Thank you, Mayor. What I submitted in your packet was what my understanding was that you directed me to do last time. I took the exact same contract and made the changes that you asked me. And then on the executive summary that I included on that, I noted where those changes were made. So that was what we discussed last meeting. Councillor Hanson has brought in another page tonight of some additional things and I don't even know what to say to be honest with you I haven't had a chance to look at them I mean I've been glancing at them as I've gone through the meeting here and I have some concerns on a couple things but I don't know what you want to do with it I just I put the stuff in there you asked me to put in and that's all I really say I mean if we want to address the other thing then I'll address that later so

Okay. Councilor Hansel, would you like to go over this document with us?

If it would be helpful, I'd be glad to. Yes. Okay.

And explain each item.

I did. I'm not providing legal advice. This is my own personal opinion, and I drafted it for myself.

Sorry, just one second. Councilor Stephens... Councillor Hanson has brought us some possible additions and possible amendments to the contract that has been in the packet by Mr. Brooks. You won't have a copy of it, so we will try and have her talk loudly and clearly into the microphone so you can understand. Okay, thank you.

I can take a picture of it and text it to you.

Okay. Ms. Maragoni is going to take a picture of each side and text it to you.

And maybe I'll just talk through why, what my concern was. And like I said, these are just suggestions. I wouldn't say that we need to adopt all of them. I think I just wanted to share them. On Section 6.2, this is where it talks about that.

These are the amendments.

Yes, this is on the amendments. About the discharge. Let's see. Terminate the services at any time. Okay, this is where we go into, let's see. Okay, just cause. That was this one. It talks about just cause and some different reasons of why the contract can be terminated as you go through Section 6. And so this was just an amendment to provide for the option that there could be reasons why it would be terminated. Right now it leaves it pretty wide open based mostly on there was one wording in there as you go through it about his knowledge OF WHETHER HE KNEW HE SHOULD OR SHOULDN'T DO SOMETHING. AND IN MY OPINION ON THE LEGAL SIDE, THAT'S PRETTY WIDE OPEN FOR AN ARGUMENT TO SAY THAT HE DOESN'T EVER KNOW AND WHY WE COULD NEVER TERMINATE FOR THAT PURPOSE.

MS. MARAGONI, COULD YOU PULL UP THE CONTRACT ON THE SCREEN FOR US, SECTION 6.2, SO THAT WE CAN SEE IT IN RELATION TO THIS AMENDMENT? Maybe you can highlight the changes and it will be easier for us to see.

Yeah, so this first one would be, I was suggesting a complete rewrite change. But like I said, any of this, and we could accept any or none of it, the main concern on 6.2 was the last two sentences. The actions causing discharge were within the person's control. and the person knew what conduct was expected. And that just kind of, in my opinion, leaves it legally pretty wide open to argue that if someone never told them that specifically, that you could say that they didn't know.

Mayor, could I ask a question here? I'm really bothered by this, to be honest with you. I mean, Annie can say that this is not an attorney giving advice or it's her opinion, but that's not true. This is coming from an attorney with an attorney's background, and she's now educating you guys I don't know that I've ever seen a situation in my whole career where a city councilman has taken the role of a city attorney in a legal document. And it concerns me because I don't know what problems that creates. There could be potential conflicts of interest. There could be all kinds of issues here. If we're going to rewrite that contract, then I think it needs to go out to an outside counsel. That's why I was very, very careful with what I did, and I did that on purpose because it is my contract. And I had shown you that contract. That's what we discussed, and that's what you guys agreed to, and you told me the spots you wanted changed, and I did. And I've highlighted those. Now we're deviating from that. I mean, we may or may not. I mean, there's parts. I told you that last time that I don't like this contract. But that's what you have. That's what you have. That's what we discussed. And that's what we debated. There's parts in there that I would like to change. And now I'm getting this laid on me five minutes before a meeting tonight, and I'm kind of going, okay, this is a little bit wrong in so many ways. And I just am really uncomfortable with just the fact that it's a city councilman who could potentially have this job at one point in time is now rewriting this thing. And I just think that it's got conflicts written all over it. And I'm really uncomfortable with her even – directing you guys because I don't think that's her position.

No, and I don't want to, and I agree. In our last meeting, I did suggest that we have an outside council review the agreement, and because we didn't have that opportunity, that's the only reason I drew up these possible amendments and additions to it just to...

There's probably some things in here that I would agree to, but without having time to look at. I mean, I can tell you in one of those paragraphs, there's two descriptions in there that... I've seen these my whole career, and I don't know that even the Supreme Court has given us definitions on them, and now they're going to be in my contract. I have problems with that because I don't think that's fair to me. And then to not even give me a chance to look at this I think is completely wrong.

Yeah, and I agree with that.

Council Arnold and I disagree because one of the things about a council and I learned I always say I've learned so much from you over the years that each one of us on the council has our own expertise of I mean I constantly talk about the federal government and things like that that I deal with and so Annie's she's a knowledgeable council member in these types of things and so her bringing her expertise to this is not as a lawyer, but as an educated council member. And, you know, we have two on the other end that are, you know, finance or where they came from. But I do think that having this sprung on you five minutes after, no, I was just kidding.

Yeah. That's my temperament.

If you want an opportunity to, I mean, we don't need a contract ratified today. Your salary's in the budget and all that kind of stuff, and we can get it back. So you can actually take a look at this, and if we need an outside counsel or something that makes everybody feel better, you know, so we have a better contract and you're comfortable with it and we're comfortable with it and whatever. I mean, I would propose even tabling it and giving you an opportunity to read it. You're not going anywhere, I don't think.

Maybe I would after these. I don't know. I've got to read them first.

I can get you a food order if you want one. I'm sure your friend was doing fine. Some of these things, while they might seem outrageous, they're not. I mean, they seem outrageous because they probably, I mean, the potential of them happening is like not even a single percentage point. And so to have them in a contract, I mean, it's... pretty absurd but but to put them in the contract the other way it's absurd to not have them in there because it's a you know we we didn't see um previous city administrator we had no idea that was going to happen and all of a sudden we were thrown for a loop with that one you know that it's like what you know we had a meeting and we're talking about Two relatives faking like they didn't know each other and, you know, things like that. I mean, it was weird, you know. And so to be able to have a contract that everybody's comfortable with, I mean, let's take our time.

Yeah, if the contract is that bad, maybe we should have a better contract. Like you've expressed in the past that it's bad.

Yeah, I don't like the contract. I'm fine with that.

Maybe, I mean, I'm just sharing some thoughts too. No, I agree.

Like I said last time, I'm not comfortable either. I just didn't want it to move forward when there's some things that are of major concern. In my professional opinion of how it's worded, just the wording. But I agree with Mr. Brooks that it isn't fair to him if he needs time to review it. And I think having an outside non-conflict person, if that makes everyone feel better, I 100% agree with that.

Yeah, I mean, I agree it's not fair to spring it on him. But, I mean, when I look at some of this and, like, I'm not an attorney, but just a clause to return the city property, that's something that probably should be in there.

And I wouldn't have a problem with that.

I wouldn't think you'd have a problem, but it's not in there. And so if it wasn't you and it was someone else and they're like, hey, I'm headed home with all this stuff, you know, so there's probably some value to some of this. Or maybe an outside counsel would come up with something different.

I think if we have the time and you need us to make some kind of motion to give the time for that, I'm open to that.

We do have several other council members that may have opinions, and I'd love to hear from any of them.

No, I appreciate the discussion. I think, from my perspective, I feel very much the same. I know, Mr. Brooks, you've probably been thinking about this for some time, and it came to us the last session. And, yeah, and it kind of pushed through pretty quickly last time we met. And while conceptually I felt good about where we were overall numbers, the overall discussion I left very unsettled. I think for a lot of the reasons that we've talked about, just because there just wasn't the time to go through it. So I'm supportive, but yet I think it's wise and prudent that we do this right. And if you're open to that, I would prefer that as well.

Councilor Anderson? I would concur with what's been said. My only concern is that we don't drag our feet. that we move expeditiously on this and that it's addressed appropriately and quickly so that relationships can continue to advance in the way that we all want it to happen. So that would be my only concern is that we don't let this fall behind.

100% agree. Councillor Stephens, do you have anything to say?

I'm good.

Thank you. All right. Any other comments? Uh, counselor Arnold.

So I would move to table the, uh, resolution 2026 dash 23, um, to give, and let's see with, you better have some stipulations, um, to have, uh, outside council put this together that, um, the council members and Mr. Brooks can, um, Have more of an opportunity to have input and then have an outside counsel of Someone specified in the discussion between the motion of who to look at it Because and hopefully within by the next council meeting I Does that seem reasonable to our attorneys?

Well, it's going to depend on your attorney, but I'm sure that they could get it done. It's not that complicated.

Okay. Who picks the attorney? Were you kind of getting at that a little bit?

Well, I was going to say, and we could have an amendment if we do a specific one, but, I mean, does anybody have one that?

Do we have one the city contracts with?

I don't know. Steve Farr has a big sign up that says he has a big settlement. Yeah.

None of us want a big settlement.

Oh, my gosh. I mean, do we go to another city, or what would be the protocol for this?

I mean, I could throw a name out that maybe Annie would be comfortable with. But, I mean, I know her, but so does Annie, and that's why. But there's an Amy Hugie, used to be a county attorney up in Box Elder. And she's also the city attorney for both South Ogden and the fire district, actually, and West Haven. But I think she might have just resigned from West Haven. But that's somebody that Annie would, if you're comfortable with that, I mean, Amy would know this. She's probably got contracts of her own would be my guess. But I know she could get it done fast. But I don't care. But that's just a name that I know you and I both know.

Do you want us to add that to the motion?

That's up to you guys.

I don't know if we can contact one person in a motion because then we're stalled by having one person in a motion. But with the recommendation of that attorney, and even with Stacey, I think with Stacey's research skills to see what kind of contracts are out there for city administrators, that maybe we can look at other cities and see what they're doing and I know you're in a very unique situation being the attorney and the city administrator.

And our contract is going to be different. I mean, just any – well, I'll leave it at that.

Well, and you know what? Argue your case.

Well, no, I'm just saying because you guys have been really clear on the severance thing, and I think one of the things that Annie put in here was an anti-severance clause, and you're going to find that most of the city attorneys have severances, so there's going to be differences in there. And I'm not even asking for that. I'm just saying that that's – That's factual. Most of the city attorneys that I talk to have severance clauses, and this one doesn't have it. So they're going to be different. I mean, no matter – any attorney is going to come up with something different too. So it's just a matter of whatever you're comfortable with. I don't care.

Did you have a question?

Are we in a general agreement on the terms? Or do you feel like there's some – Well, I thought that's what we did last time.

I took the contract and changed the exact same things you asked me to change.

Yeah. And now we're coming up with new stuff. I think we're talking about the provisions here. I'm talking about the overall compensation package. Are we in agreement there? And then we're just talking about just the terms to make sure that – I just want to make sure we're on the same page.

I don't want to do anything that – No, I think – I thought we were last time. That's why I'm a little bit surprised that we even had more. And like I said, I haven't read through them all. I don't know. This was just sprung on me tonight.

Well, I'm going to – so as part of the motion, I would say an attorney that the mayor approves. So if it's the one that you suggested or if she can't do it, anybody can suggest one that they know and would go to the mayor, and the mayor could actually approve someone to approve the contract, not even an attorney, you know, someone that – works this stuff and and that we'll turn it over to the mayor to kind of oversee the contract coming back that anybody can have any input in or and you can read it before and we can read it before and find out exactly what it is and i i personally think well i'm in the motion

You're in the motion still. Yeah. So it's with that. Turn it over to the mayor's supervision. To pick somebody. Yeah. An outside party to come up with a contract. Okay. Ms. Marigold, you want to restate that?

If you don't mind. This is what I thought. Okay. From what you said. You move to table resolution 202623 to have an outside council review the contract and to give Mr. Brooks and city council time to have more input. Contract to be reviewed by outside counsel by the next city council meeting. Outside attorney to be agreed upon by counsel and Mr. Brooks and approved by the mayor.

What was the Mr. Brooks when you read?

The last part?

Yeah, very last part.

Outside attorney to be agreed upon by counsel and Mr. Brooks and approved by the mayor.

Okay. I'm fine with that except for the by next meeting because as soon as possible.

Because I think, yeah, we're coming up with a holiday. I think the 4th of July is before the next meeting.

Just in case we get some sort of issue. But it's in everybody's interest to get it as fast as possible.

So if I just take that out?

Please.

Okay, so we have a motion. Is everybody clear what the motion is? We have a second. I'll second. Okay, a motion and a second. Discussion on the motion? Councilor Hanson?

I would say that the council, I think if we can entrust that to the mayor, I think that might speed things along between him and Mr. Brooks to select an attorney to move it forward. And I just wanted to clarify, I wasn't trying to change anything other than to fix some of the wording issues in there to clarify. And I'm open to whatever.

comes back on that i was not trying to remove a severance clause i just wanted to clarify it because it was a little unclear on it but but i'm okay with the mayor just i i had a procedural question so are are we going to come up with a contract and then they're gonna it's going to come before them and they're gonna maybe dice it up a little bit or like what's the procedural way that you guys see this happening and we're in discussion on our motion right now um like We get a contract and we bring it and they say, no, no, no, no, we're not doing that. Or you say, no, no, no.

Well, what if you gave me some time to talk to Annie just for some clarifications on some of these things and we could maybe just go with what we already had with some additions as long as we're in agreement on it. I'm fine with that too. I just want to look at them first.

Yeah, that's fair.

Saves us some money.

And if that doesn't work out, then we can seek counsel.

Yeah, because I really was just trying to fix some of those things that you'd already mentioned that were kind of weird.

And I haven't looked at this, but I like that one clause that I actually did look at. So there's probably some value.

I think with the pay that you're getting, we're buying that severance clause.

I'm not asking for that, Alan. That's not even on discussion.

You've done a fantastic job, and I have a problem with the amount, but you've done a very good job. So I can't say you're not worth it. It's just I'm a penny pincher. So anyway, you don't have to defend it or anything.

I'm not. The only reason I even bring that up is because it's almost a forewarning to you that If you dig your heels in on that clause, I mean, I've sat through one of these panels that was specifically for this. And if you did that, you may not get very many good quality candidates without that clause in there. I don't care. To me, it's not a big deal. I'm too close to retirement. I could walk away from this. I'm not even worried about it. But they won't. And it could affect future hirings is what I'm saying. And that's why I bring that up just because it will probably come into play. I think that came up with, was it Bill? And it got a little bit heated. I remember that. Well, I'll be careful with what I say on that. But that could have been a deal breaker for a lot of good candidates.

So do we want to vote or amend?

So I think it would be great if we could maybe amend the motion, if everybody's amicable to that. Or we'd have to vote no on it, I think, because it talks about you're ready to amend that. Let's have them try to work out. Councilor Hanson and Mr. Brooks can get together. And I don't want to put words in your mouth, so you can just say what your motion is.

And also, I mean, to Bart's point, to not haggle this out in an open meeting. I mean, it would be better to have a contract that everybody's kind of read and, you know, so we're not saying, hey, open city council meeting and we're like, no, on this and that. Yeah. No, I didn't want to see that.

So is it okay if the council contacts Annie individually with any concerns or things that they would like to see in it?

Well, nobody raised the issue, but I think she and I could come up with an agreement and bring it back that I think everybody would be happy with. I don't know if it's a big deal. Okay.

I agree.

I think that's probably fine, too. It saves us a little bit of money, and the two of you could come to something in the center.

Yeah, I don't think we're at odds. I think it's just talking through the wording.

Yeah, I didn't get that, the parts that I glanced over.

I think it's inappropriate for the –

counsel to be working through any that'll be seen as a that that's where that makes me as your city attorney that makes me nervous right so right but there may be some stuff that has to come up next meeting that gets kind of hacked out if they haven't had any input on it or feel like i mean if they had something they they could they could tell you reach out yeah send me an email that's fine maybe reach out to mr brooks if you have concerns okay that's probably more appropriate Councilor Anderson?

I was just going to say that we've got a motion and a second. We probably should vote on that. Yes. And then if that's a no, you know, depending on the outcome, then amend however we're going to sort this out.

And I think we are in the process of amending the motion.

I am in the motion.

Did the second agree with the amendment of not going to an attorney?

You were the second? No. I was the second. You were the second. Okay.

I'm fine with that, but I just was thinking for further clarification.

So he's amending his motion to just have Annie and Mr. Brooks work it out, and the second is fine with that. Any other comments or questions or discussion on the motion? Ms. Maragonia, please pull the council.

And I just make sure.

Yeah, let's clarify the motion. I'd be grateful. Thank you.

So for an amended motion, I just have moved to table resolution for Mr. Brooks and Councillor Hanson to discuss and came to agreement before bringing it back to council.

That's fine because the actual motion is to table it. Right. Yeah. You know, we typically don't say what's going on. It's tabled before the council. Yeah. That's true. So there's really no specifics because once it's tabled, it's off the discussion. Okay.

Okay with that. Second? Yes. Okay. So mainly we're having a motion to table. Okay. All right, Ms. Maragoni. Now you can hold the council. I was fine with that, yes.

Councilor Richter? Yes. Councilor Arnold? Yes. Councilor Hanson? Yes. Councilor Stephens?

Yes.

Councilor Anderson.

Yes. All right. That item is now tabled, and we will bring it back as soon as possible. We've already taken care of Item 17, so we'll move on to Item 18. We are two hours ahead of schedule right now, so discussion and consideration of Resolution 2026-25, adopting an updated city logo. Mr. Cooper.

Yes, thank you. We'll go quickly. This is simply a proposal to refresh our existing logo. It's been around since 2006. From my understanding and talking to Mr. Bruce Barrows, who was a spearhead behind the original logo, he's in favor of this refresh. I wanted to make sure that he had some input. It obviously represents our city well. It's worked well. And so there wasn't a need to rebrand in the true sense of the word. But I think there is, and I'm proposing to you the idea that there is a need to refresh, to bring... What is a dated logo is 20 years old, the typeface, the mark, those kind of things are dated. And so it's just an attempt at keeping the elements that have been working for us. The river, we've added some mountains to kind of give a better indication that that is a river instead of – Instead of how it's laid out now, you can see that the orientation is the same in terms of the R in the shape of the river. The typeface is a little bit different. Colors are the same. It gives us the ability to do a couple of things. This is called a lockup, meaning that you've got your mark, which is the circle, and the word, which is the word mark. Right now, we don't use our logo independent of each other. The mark and the word has to always go together because of the way it's connected. In this case, you can separate that mark from the word and use just that mark in different ways. So think of Nike. Nike has two logos, really, the swoosh and the word Nike. And they use that interchangeably in different formats and in different settings. And so it's things like that that give us more flexibility without losing the essence of the brand that we've been building through this identity over the last 20 years. So in the packet, I've just included what is being proposed as the official logo. I've shown it being used in different types of media that we would use. When the mayor saw this, he asked me to look at an implementation plan, as did Cody, in terms of how this might be implemented because cost is huge. Rebranding can be a massive, massive deal. It also can be a scaled endeavor. So I hope you've taken the time to read that. It talks about going through a process of digital implementation first. That's really easy. So signature lines in emails, all of our forms and letterhead and things that can be easily read. transitioned without a lot of cost. As we replace apparel, logos on vehicles, big things like signage on the city's streets and parks, those things don't have to be done now. They can be implemented. In my proposal, I put over a three-year process as we look at those things. So that's really the proposal we talked about as staff. There was some good feedback there. As I mentioned, I talked to Mr. Burroughs about this, and he was in favor of it. And so it's just a recommendation to refresh. I think it brings us to look and feel a little bit more modern. It helps me, selfishly, as I try to work with some of our branding materials in selling the city and talking about investment into the city. It does give us a... refreshed look and feel, a bit more modern. And so I do think it will be beneficial to us in the long run. So the actual process I'm proposing is to adopt it by ordinance. And in that ordinance, it does say that it's the official logo. We would I think there's a section in there that talks about the need to keep the existing logo around through the transition process. So we'll essentially have two logos as we move forward through the transition. I think they're close enough to where it's not going to cause a lot of confusion. It's not going to make people feel like they're dealing with two different cities, that kind of thing.

Questions or comments, Councilor Arnold?

I was just kidding before the meeting. I like it. There's a Riverdale, Idaho. So having the Riverdale City incorporating the Utah is a smart idea. We might need to put a few buildings and stuff by the river if you do Stringtown. We can adapt it. I have no problem with it. I think it's good to especially incorporate the Utah in there.

it's grown on me as well. Like when, when he started, I was like, man, Cooper, you just cannot sit still. Like, but he is, he's a goer and I hope you guys can see that. And, and I was like, we're not going to spend the money on this. I just, I don't know. I don't know. It was really grown on me and I really like it now. I don't know why all of a sudden it's just, I kind of caught the vision of it a little bit. And, I still, I like the, the paying homage to the R in the river to our old logo. Um, but I think it does look, it just looks a little bit more modern and fresher. And I'm sure the, I'm sure the digital, we've, we've made a lot of improvements since 2006 with imaging and, and I don't know, I think it feels crisper and I think it will just, I think it's just kind of an upgrade.