City Council - Regular Meeting

We've got Lansing products, which I go all the time, and Wellrite lumber I go all the time, and I didn't even know you were there.

It's a good thing.

All right, Ms. Maragoni, are we all set? All right. Okay, we'd like to call to order our Riverdale City Council meeting for Tuesday, July 21st, 2026. Let the record show that all members of the city council are present, as well as members of the city staff and members of the public. We welcome you all tonight. We have our Pledge of Allegiance by Councilor Richter tonight. Councilor Richter.

Please rise. Thank you.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you, Councilor Richter.

And I have asked Councilor Anderson if he would offer our invocation tonight. Thank you.

Our Father in heaven, as we assemble together in this meeting tonight, in like manner that our founding fathers did in the establishment of this great nation, we seek thy guidance tonight as we counsel together and seek to create a community that will meet the needs of its citizens and represent them fairly. We're grateful for the opportunity to serve them and the trust that they've instilled in us. and pray that that will help us to live up to that trust. We're grateful for those men and women who serve in our community, who serve as citizens, and humbly pray that thy blessings will be with them to protect them, to keep them safe, and to direct them in a manner that will best suit the needs of our community. We're thankful for All that we receive and ask a blessing upon our citizens that we might unite together as a force for good, that we as neighbors and friends can seek to create a better life and a better community for our families and our friends and neighbors. Father, for this we humbly pray for and ask in the name of our Savior, Jesus Christ. Amen.

Amen.

Thank you, Counselor Anderson.

We now 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. If you approach the microphone, please state your name and the city in which you reside and try to limit your comments to three minutes. Seeing no members of the public, we'll move on to presentations and reports. For the mayor's report, I don't have a lot to report tonight, but Chief Hennessey and I have been talking about fire restrictions a little bit, and so I'm going to have him come up and explain his assessment of the situation and where we think we would land.

We on? Just checking. Yeah. All right. Thank you, Mayor, Council. In conjunction with just talking with the mayor, like we talked about, our conditions out here are what they are. It's pretty dry. The humidity is pretty low. The temperatures are pretty high. We're seeing a lot of fire activity in the afternoons pushing into the evening. As you know, yesterday we had some pretty significant events that were not suspected as firework related. And I mean, these accidents happen, we're all trying to be pretty proactive around the grass and the fuels and things out there to not catch anything on fire. But I feel confident with our initial plan and sticking through with it. Hopefully we get a little temperature drop in the next day or two. We have some extra staffing on for Friday and Saturday. That's the main concern. But historically, we don't see as many fireworks over the July 24th as we do over the 4th. So we're really hoping our citizens are proactive. They wet their lawns if they want to have a display, and hopefully the outreach we've put forth will have us have a safe holiday.

Thanks, Chief. So we'll just go in with the map we usually use and the same restricted areas we always have. And the other thing I did want to mention, we were discussing it a little bit beforehand, but we put a post out on social media, but I think it's something that you guys could understand. It might help if residents approach you. We were talking about it a little bit beforehand. So there's two transfer stations now. There's the Weber County Transfer Station, which we're all kind of familiar with. It's been there forever and is now run by Waste Management. And then there's a new transfer station called the Ogden Transfer Station. And our hauler, after we contract tonight, will be going to the Ogden Transfer Station. Now, Waste Management has contracted with a lot of cities in the area to be their hauler and take their stuff to Weber. And when those residents want to take their residential waste to the transfer station, the Weber County one, they get a little bit of a price break because they're a contracted city. I think it's $20 for them. If one of our residents tries to go to the Weaver County, it will be $27. And then it's fees on top of that. I think that might get you up to 800 pounds or something like that. So you pay $27. Now, if we go to the Ogden Transfer Station, they will match that $20 fee and let our residents dump for $20. So I think we don't want anybody getting shocked or anything. It's already hard to take stuff to the landfill or to the transfer station. We certainly don't want to encourage people to just dump it wherever. I'm worried that we might have that a little bit. So getting the word out that we have a deal with the Ogden Transfer Station is probably helpful. It's on Midland Drive. It's a great facility. I went on a tour one day. I'm just blown away by how efficient they are and how they have this big floor and they just push it all off into these trucks. It's crazy how fast they unload everything. Would you take these guys on a tour if they came out there? Man, it's an eye-opening thing. It would just be time well spent to be like, wow, this is cool. I mean, if you like that kind of stuff at all, it was really fun. Anyway, just so you know. Ogden, yeah.

Will you be addressing that in the newsletter, depending on how the contract might be granted tonight?

Yeah, we probably should in our next newsletter. The one's already done, I think, that's going out August 1st. So we'll have to get a little thing in there encouraging people to go to the Ogden Transfer Station. We are open. Oh, yeah. And neither place is taking hazardous waste right now. Oil, antifreeze, that sort of stuff I think I heard or read.

No. That's going to be a possibility in the future, yeah.

And so most of your auto parts stores will accept that. Right. Walmart will take oil. Most of them will take that kind of stuff. And so batteries, I don't know, like, yeah. Yeah. Okay. And that's all I have for the mayor's report. So we'll move on to the city administrator or administration report. Mr. Brooks.

Thank you, mayor. The department heads reports are in your packet. Anybody have any questions on anything specifically there? I have a couple of them that are absent tonight for other conflicts, but that financial report in there is Cody's. That is as of May 31st, which shouldn't be a big shock to you because we just come off our budget, so most of that stuff would be familiar with you. But in summary, we, as of May 31st, we're in good shape and continue to be. Um, the one chart that I always refer to is the total combined sales tax for the year to date. As of this month, um, year to date, we are in as good as condition as we've been for the past five years. So we continue to maintain our pace with that. Um, as long as the economy stays strong, we're, we're sitting well with that. So any questions on any of that stuff or any of the department head reports? Um, We have our employee recognition. A number of people there I just want to point out. Lynn Wright, Sergeant Lynn Wright, 23 years. Steve Whetton with the fire department has 12. Travis Dolly, 9. Sherry Brown Taylor, 9. And one error we had on there was Sergeant Schofield. It states that he has 10, but in reality he has, or it says nine, but he has 10. So we have a recognition award for him tonight. That's why he is here with his little helpers and his better half. I'll put it that way. How's that? So if we could maybe have the mayor come up, we'll give him his presentation in case if you want to do that.

Just real quick, Mary. You can come down if you want. I might talk too long.

I've known the chief long enough. I'm going to sit right down.

Thank you. I just want to recognize Ryan, Sergeant Schofield. He's been with us for 10 years, had a couple years at Weber County Sheriff's Office and Syracuse PD. He's done a lot of great things for our police department, our city, and obviously our residents. Very highly skilled detective. Prior to Being promoted to sergeant, he was in the investigations division. When he was in there, we had a lot of high profile cases, ranging from cyber kidnappings to homicides to some serious sexual assaults. And he was my go-to guy that I could depend on and I could give him a task. And I didn't have to give him a lot because he's self-motivated. And so he's just a great asset to our city. And I know these three ladies back here behind him mean the world to him. There isn't a day that goes by in our office when he's not pulling out his phone and showing all of his friends, his cute little daughters. And so he is definitely... A great father, a great husband. We want to thank his daughter and his wife, Casey, for donating him and the sacrifices they make to our city. And like I said, we're just lucky to have him and his family as part of our family here in Riverdale. And we want to tell him thanks. So thanks, Ryan. Want to say a few words?

No, I just love this city. I love working for Casey and the police department. Best thing that ever happened.

Cool.

Just a certificate over there.

Yeah.

All right, so we got 10 years here. So that means you get a cool certificate, but even more cool, you get kind of a gift card thing. So that's awesome for you. So we'll tuck that in there. I don't know why, but I deal with Officer Schofield more than most of the other guys for some reason. And I really like him, so I don't know if they just send him, or he's got a problem, can you go deal with him? You know, because anyway, he always solves my problems. It's just somehow it's always him, which is great, because I really like him, and so it works out well. And so I just appreciate all you've done for us. And hopefully we'll get you for a lot more years. And you've got some little kids, it looks like, that are going to be around for a long time. And that's super exciting for you. And we want to do everything we can to get you home with them every night. So anyway, appreciate all you do. Thank you so much. Yeah, there's that for you.

all right as part of our staffing authorization um let me look here no it looks like we got it down i know sean just got a new hire so he is fully staffed we're still just short uh firemen still so um and i know they're working on that and uh Beyond that, we're good to go. Community Development Report. I'll turn some time over to Brandon if he just wants to give us a brief update on that.

Yeah, just really quickly, thanks to any of you who came to the Walmart anniversary. They celebrated 35 years in Riverdale in June. So it seems like 100 years ago, but it was just a few weeks ago. So that was fun. There was some cake, and they did the Walmart cheer, and the squiggly was the highlight of the cheer. A couple of new things on the report. The Slick City Action Park is going next to Chuck E. Cheese there. That's an indoor slide park. It's kind of interesting. So I think that'll be a nice addition to that area and augment what you do at Chuck E. Cheese in terms of family entertainment. So they're currently under construction. And then although we don't have a permit for EOS specifically, the developer is working on the building, the core and shell, to facilitate the EOS tenant. And so we expect them to come any time. They did start advertising, so I thought I'd include it. And they have signed a lease. I verified that with the developer. So we'll have a new gym in town, which I think will be really good.

It looked like a spirit was going into Joanne's. They're putting their sign up today.

Yeah.

Perfect.

That's all I had, Mayor.

Okay. I'm going to backtrack just a little bit. I wanted to mention Mayor Pro Tem Arnold went to the Pollo Loco on Friday, and I loved it. He didn't make it. He did not make it there. Okay. All right. Well, anyway, did anybody make it to that?

I unfortunately had to cover for him, so that's why I knew he wasn't there.

Oh, shoot. Okay. It went well. Sorry. I didn't mean to put you on the spot. Oh, you're fine. I meant to mention it.

Life happens.

It happens. It happens. I was out of town, and so we appreciate all the city employees. How'd that go? Do you want to give a little report on that?

It went well. There weren't a lot of people. We didn't have a real big crowd.

It was kind of organized by the Spikers, right?

Yeah, it was run by the Spikers, and it was – It's an odd eight-year anniversary or something. It's a little bit different that way, too. But they were excited, and I think it went well. We got a free meal out of it, so we were happy.

We're glad to have them. Yeah. They fit our chicken image. Yeah, just another one. Capital of the world. They play their role. All right, thanks. All right, with that, we'll move on to consent items. Number one, consideration to approve the meeting minutes from the June 2nd, 2026 council meeting and regular, or sorry, we have two sets of minutes, that's right, June 2nd council meeting and the June 16th council meeting. Are there any changes or corrections to any of those minutes?

I had sent some corrections in, but I believe they were sent out.

Yes, those were sent out. Hopefully I already received those. Okay. Is that in the motion? Let's put it in the motion now with the corrections that Councilor Hanson put out. So we do need a motion to approve.

Move to approve the meeting minutes from June 2nd and June 16th with the changes that Councilor Hanson submitted.

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

I'll second.

Any discussion on that motion? All in favor say yes. Yes. Any opposed? All right. The consent items are approved. Let's move on to action items. Number one, consideration of resolution 2026-26, renewing a contract with Robinson Way Services for garbage and recycling services. Mr. Douglas.

Thank you, Mayor. So this is one we started on last council meeting and we didn't get very far. Kind of our standard agreement that we've had in the past. We did discuss that they have changed ownership. So it is now owned by Republic, but it still will be ran as Robinson Waste. The contract's pretty much the same as we had. We still have kept the spring and fall cleanups that will be, they're specified to be at the curbside. I think the residents have really enjoyed that. That's been huge for us. It's more work for them. But I think for the residents, especially where people have what seems fewer trucks and stuff all the time, it's a lot easier for them. Christmas tree pickup's still in there. All the dumpsters for the different buildings. And Robinson's here if you have any questions for her or if you have any questions for me.

Councilor Richter. Just a quick question. On the resolution, it looks like we have it for one-year renewal, but in the contract it's showing two years.

It should be a one-year renewal following the two years. Is that not?

So in the contract on, yeah, three, it says two-year period commencing on July 1st. The resolution just says one year from the date of renewal. So I just wanted to make sure. So we want to do the two years that stated in the contract.

Yeah, just clarify that when you make your motion on that.

So for its period, two years? Yes.

Okay, any other questions or comments? Councilor Arnold. I'd move to approve resolution 2026-26, contract with Robinson Waste Services for garbage and recycling services for the period of two years.

Okay, we have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. Motion and a second. Any discussion on that motion? Ms. Maragoni, please behold the council.

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

Yes.

Councillor Stevens. I didn't even see you come in.

Yes.

Okay. That passes unanimously. Very good. Thank you. We're happy to still be with Robinson. So it's been a long, productive, good relationship.

Thanks for coming in. It was a teeter-totter. By you being here, it just... That put us over the edge.

We did not know if we would do it. Okay, item number two, consideration of resolution 2026-27, approving an interlocal cooperation agreement for shared heavy rescue team. Chief Hennessey.

Yeah, the agreement's in the packet. This is a refresh on the last five years we've been in this agreement with the county. They provide financial funding for our heavy rescue team. So what Riverdale sees out of this is we see we have a truck, and then we receive some financial stipends for the guys, as well as overtime reimbursement through the county. We have specific... rescue techniques, which is swift water and ice rescue that are not covered under a region plan. So the county pitches in and helps support that because it's a good county resource. We're in cooperation with this, with Ogden City, Weber Fire. Northview, South Ogden, and Roy as well. We're one of the main what we call contractors. Riverdale is with the truck here, and this is just an agreement that we will provide and keep qualified people at our station to respond for these emergencies if needed. Rope rescue, trench rescue, confined space, and vehicle machinery disentanglement. Any questions?

From what I understand, the guys really like the heavy rescue program. Yeah.

Yeah, it's a big draw to Riverdale. You could ask any one of our firefighters because it does, you know, we have all these, our EMS and our fire certs and the heavy rescue certifications are kind of a step above that. It's more challenging, I should say, to obtain those and keep them, you know, certified and all the challenges come with those technical rescues. They love it. They enjoy it. And fortunately for us, it attracts those type of people, which we like at our station.

Okay. It mentions contract commander for us, and who's representing us and taking that role for us?

The contract commander is we have a lead from each city, and right now we've got our Captain Wett, and he's over the heavy rescue team.

Okay, good.

Thank you.

Great.

Thanks, Chief. Okay, any other questions or comments? Councilor Arnold.

Move to approve resolution 2026-27 as stated within the packet.

We have a motion. Do we have a second? I'll second. Motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? Councilor Hanson, we're good? Okay. Ms. Maragoni, please poll the council.

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

Yes. All right.

That passes unanimously. Very good. Thank you, Chief. Item number three, consideration of Resolution 2026-28, amending personnel policy chapters 9 through 16. Ms. Como?

So the end of April, I brought you the first half of the policy manual. Now I'm bringing you the second half of the policy manual. So, again, we had this reviewed by an employment attorney based on our liability insurer, Utah Local Government's Trust. They asked us to do that. And these are the recommendations that the employment attorney had.

They're interesting. I mean, they just, funny how they just change back and forth, you know, the things, but.

They also corrected, like, uppercase letters and lowercase letters.

Yeah, it didn't get real deep.

They made me feel kind of dumb.

It's good. It makes you feel good that it's up to date, though. Any questions or comments for Ms. Como concerning the personnel manual?

Councilor Arnold. I would move to approve Resolution 2026-28 as stated within the PAC.

Okay, we have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. Motion to second. Any discussion on that motion? Councilor Hanson.

Yeah. Sorry, I did have some discussion. As I was re-looking at those, the one I was curious about is reasonable suspicion, 13-12A on page 125 in the first packet. Under our policy, it looks like we kind of only allow for us to follow up with drug testing for safety-sensitive positions.

Yeah, that's Utah state law.

Okay. Okay. I didn't see that in the state law, and it just makes me nervous just because I maybe have had issues with non-safety, but to be able to have the opportunity to drug test if you have reasonable suspicion of even non-safety sensitive, that was my only concern, but If you guys feel that it's in the state law, I won't question that. But I didn't find it in the state law. That's all.

We can't go more strict than the state law?

Not in that situation. We probably wouldn't want to.

No, we'd want to be careful. I agree with that. Yeah.

Okay. I'm not familiar with state law, but federal law, that's the way it is, too. You can show concern for the employee, but you can't take them into a drug test or anything like that. Okay.

Yeah, no, that was just my only concern. I mean, I think there's a good handful of policies that have been existing for a while that we've kind of discussed on and off that maybe at some future point warrants having a sustainability for long-term fiscal. But I think at this point everything looked good to me. So that's all I had.

Okay. Any other comments? Okay, we have a motion and a second. Ms. Maragonia, please poll the council.

Councillor Hanson? Yes. Councillor Arnold?

Yes.

Councillor Anderson?

Yes.

Councillor Victor? Yes. Councillor Stevens?

Yes.

Okay, that passes unanimously. Thank you. All right, number four, consideration of Resolution 2026-29, authorizing the limited use of funds secured under the financial guarantee agreement for the Coleman View Estates subdivision. Mr. Cooper.

Yes, sir. Thank you, Mayor. I've provided a healthy write-up in your packet, but if you don't mind, I'll just give you a brief summary. And then we have Mr. Thaddeum Falls here from Goldcrest Homes Anderson Development, and he can answer any specific questions that you might have. So as you know, Riverdale City Code 1021-6 requires that we collect a financial guarantee for all of the improvements associated with the subdivision. And so when the Coleman View subdivision was approved, we collected that escrow money. We did that in the form of multiple letters of credit that spanned over Phase 1, 2, and 3. And so there's a number of documents that we track. And typically when an improvement is complete to the satisfaction of the city based on an inspection, then we release that portion or that line item of the escrow dollars back to the developer, minus 10%, and we keep that 10% for a warranty. So that's standard practice. That's facilitated through state law. It's precedent across the state, essentially. The developer is asking now that we change that process and create a new process that would allow us to release to them a portion of the escrowed funds for improvement guarantees to them prior to the completion of the work. in order for them to use that money as down payments for deposits, mobilization, and other supplier requirements to actually complete the work. So this is outside of our policy, outside of precedent, and really puts the city at risk in the event that those improvements don't get completed, then we have spent that money that was otherwise set aside to complete those improvements. And so there's a lot to that. I'd invite Thaddeum up to make the request formally, but in the packet we have recommended denial of this request.

Any questions for Mr. Cooper before we have Mr. Paulson? Yeah.

Do we even have authority to do this? Several times when we've looked at changing things like this that's in our procedures and, you know, the – we've had to change that to give us the ability to do that. Like even if somebody has a, wanna question their water bill or something like that, we've had to, bring it in to give us some sort of appeal authority. And from what I read, I couldn't see anywhere where we even have the authority to even grant the request, even if it's presented to us.

I mean, with anything the councils have, you have all authority, basically, if it boils down to that. But it is contrary to our policy. And that's why, as a staff, we just look at this as this isn't even an option for us. And we express to them, if you want to request that from the council, you've got to take it to the council because it's written up just opposite of that. So it would be very unusual. It's unprecedented. We've never done it.

The collection and the purpose of the funds is set by our ordinance. The administration of the release of funds is generally administrative. And so, as Steve just said, we didn't feel comfortable making that administrative decision, and therefore it's before you. I don't know if it requires an ordinance change, but it is, if you choose to do something like this, it is outlined in the resolution. So you can make that decision by resolution.

Councilor Stephens? Okay. How many phases to this? Three. Three. Okay. So in theory, and I've seen this with developments, not just in Riverdale, but outside of Riverdale, where they complete it like a multi-phase, and they complete it hypothetically of like the first phase, then that could be released. Or the second phase, and as that is completed to satisfaction, then that can be released. Are any of those phases to the point where they could be seen as completed?

Yes, and the developer has requested releases already, I believe three. And so we've released already a portion of the collected funds for the improvement guarantee. The request to prematurely release funds prior to construction being complete applies to mostly phase three. There's some phase two stuff in there.

Oh, I get it. So this is not for the whole project. This is just for –

It's for work not completed in mostly in phase three.

In phase three. I got it.

Yep. And so phase three, interesting point, phase three is where most of the amenities of the subdivision are located. And our policy requires that those be completed in the first phase of the subdivision. of the development unless they're bonded for. And so in this case, those improvements were bonded for to be done in phase three, but now they're asking for essentially a premature release to use those for down payments and deposits.

On the same project?

Uh-huh.

Any other questions?

Yeah. Just reiterate, what we're holding is a line of credit. We're not actually holding the asset. We're holding a line of credit. so that we can collect on it? Is that how it works?

That's a good question. So there's different forms of how we can collect an improvement guarantee. In this case, we've accepted a line of credit from their bank. And so when there's a release made, we verify the improvements are complete. And then we just email the bank to say that this amount has been inspected and can be released. I believe, and Thaddeum can probably clarify, I believe in order to receive that line of credit from their bank, or excuse me, letter of credit, they have posted cash. So when we say, please release this amount, then they actually get cash back that then they can use to- So the assets are-

Essentially, we're holding the line of credit. The money is in the bank, but we have access?

All we have is a letter of credit stating that a certain amount of money has been set aside at the bank of their choice to be used for certain line items in the project in the event that those items are not complete. And so we can draw those at that point. And they're real funds, yes.

Okay. Mr. Falls, let's have you come on up.

It's such a long walk from the back. I probably shouldn't sit there. I apologize. For a record, my name is Thaddeum Falls. Do I need to say the city I live in? Is that still required? No? Okay. Excited to be here on behalf of Gold Crest. Typically, before I go up to the council, I don't know the city's recommendation. So knowing the recommended denial puts me in a different position where I'd like to just inform and allow you guys the opportunity to review the process that we've proposed. As Brandon suggested, we have a letter of credit that we have formalized through Bank of Utah. To add a little more history, when the development started, we anticipated installing all of the improvements before recording and or building any units. Due to market and the desire to begin moving product, we elected to bond for the outstanding improvements that existed at that time, which at that time we were north of $1.2 million. Now, we are 90, I would confidently say 99% complete with Phase 1, 90, probably 6% complete with Phase 2. All of the public infrastructure that the city will own and maintain, minus the sidewalks that the city does not want us to install for the time being, is majority installed. So everything that's coming before you tonight is a request on behalf of the development regarding the open space area and project enhancements. The reason being is we were... Sorry, I'm not the best public speaker, so at times my breath gets away from me. So if you don't understand what I'm saying, please let me know. Currently where we're at in the work, we have subcontractors that are requesting 50% deposits to begin mobilization and the commencement of this work. Due to the bond or the finances already being set aside or committed to the city for said improvements, we don't have access to that capital unless it goes specifically to these improvements. paying the deposit and then paying the subs again creates a duplicative situation, if you will, where something that costs $100,000, which has already been paid, is now costing us internally $200,000. That being said, we've run into the situation where for this specific project, the capital projections that we anticipated needing for the improvements are running thin to the point where Goldcrest Homes to avoid delayment and delivery of these improvements, which are committed with the development, has requested that we create this process. And when working with staff before coming today, I thought we were on a pretty similar page that this wasn't a negative item. And maybe denial doesn't mean negative. It just means let's consider all options. But Collaboratively, we suggested what could we put in place to ensure that the city receives these improvements? How do we make sure that your guys' security remains or your position remains secure while we can find a way to effectively get these improvements in and public record or not these improvements? We've got over $100,000 of concrete work. We've got pickleball courts. We've got playgrounds. And these materials, these items to be able to construct and to deliver before our deadline of our development agreement, which suggests that we'd be concluded by the fall of this year, those items that are of significant value we need to pay for, In order for those to be delivered in that timely manner and seeing that we're getting so close to this point and the funds for this specific project not being readily available to knock this all out of the timely manner we suggested, well, we have intimate relationships with the subs that we've... been able to work with through the past and have brought to the table. In fact, I provided all bids for the scope of work for all items that are being proposed. I've delivered those to the city, and if I'm not mistaken, the subs have followed up with me suggesting that the city's reached out to them to verify they are real people, they own real companies, they have active licenses, insurances, and etc. What we were proposing was that we could from this money that's already being set aside to ensure infrastructure completion takes place, that we could have a scenario in which we could draw the 50% deposit just for the work and not the remainder of the 10% warranty or pay for the entire item of infrastructure until everything's been inspected and approved by the city to satisfaction. Where we can provide additional security in that agreement, we would be completely open to discussing. All of these subs have workers' comms, license numbers. They're active, registered with the state. I would love to answer questions. I think I've thrown so much at you in such a quick time. I'd love to know if anybody has thoughts or if I've missed any items that Brandon feel would be respective to go over or to further elaborate. I would more than happily do so. Mr. Cooper, did you have a comment?

Yeah, I tend to agree with most everything that Emma said. I appreciate the clarification. Regarding the duplication of the cost, as you mentioned, if you bond for $100,000 and then you construct for $100,000, you're essentially paying twice. The state is very sensitive to that. And so they've created a statute that we have to follow. And some of our rules have been changed in the recent past to follow that which allows developers multiple options to secure those improvements one of which he mentioned that was that you can actually put those improvements in prior to recording a plot and there is no financial guarantee required to be paid to the city and so that was the initial path that we were on so there was no financial guarantee collected and There was no plat recorded. They were just putting in the improvements. And then the verification and the security that we had that they were completed correctly was the actual approval of the plat. That was changed at the discretion of the developer based on what Thaddeum just said in terms of getting product out and marketability. And so it's at their discretion that they have elected to be in the position where there is a duplicative cost in terms of having to escrow that amount and then pay for those products. for that actual work. So that's not a requirement by the city. In fact, the state has created options for them so that they can avoid that. They've elected to do that for the various business reasons that Thaddeum has mentioned. I did reach out to some of the contractors, just wanted to verify some of the things I felt that was appropriate due diligence. There was some feedback to me from some of those subcontractors that currently had work IN THE SUBDIVISION AND WAS WAITING FOR PENDING PAYMENT. THAT PENDING PAYMENT WAS ACTUALLY COMING FROM CURRENT, FROM THE BOND FUNDS BASED ON A CURRENT RELEASE THAT VATTIM HAD PUT INTO PLACE. AND SO THAT, I THINK, fortifies the position that we're taking as staff in that if Subcontractors are still waiting to get paid prior to additional work moving forward then releasing our security and the ability to make sure that people do get paid and Complete the project prematurely is probably not in our best interest Any questions or comments

Council Arnold.

I have two. One, I just don't think that we have the authority to do this without having something in writing that says that we can do this. And two, if we do it now, why don't we do it for everybody all the time? You know, I mean, anybody can walk in here and say, you know, it has nothing to do with you guys. I mean, anybody can walk in at any time and say, well, You know, in July of 2026, you did it for Goldcrest Homes, so why wouldn't you do it for everybody else? And then our statute and the state's statute means nothing.

So... Yeah, just elaborate on that item, and I concur 100%. What we've come to the table with is not a request for a new policy, kind of a blanket policy, if you will, to go over the city's current statutes and ordinances. Rather... The request is coming in the form of our – when we finance – the technical term of the agreement based on the letter of credit is called a financial guarantee agreement. We would just ask that that agreement has a lot of items that say you can and you can't, and this is an area that wasn't specifically – mentioned. For that reason, we thought it was a creative proposal to be able to work through the delivery of items that the city is already anticipating and sees forward coming in these lump sums, if you will, for the bonds that we put in place. So this isn't a policy change request or necessarily a new city code amendment. This would just be an amendment to the agreement that we put in place previously. A great question.

Is that true, Brandon? I mean, is it just part of our agreement with them or part of the statute?

Our agreement follows our ordinance. So, again, you're not changing the ordinance. We feel like you have legislative authority to, by resolution – instruct the administration to follow a different process. Um, so that's what we're requesting. That's what that is requesting. Um, it could then also mean that the agreements amended, that's fine too. That would be a good way to memorialize this. But in this case, it's before you as a resolution just to allow for this to happen administratively. Um, Precedent is a concern. I addressed that in my transmittal to you all. But in the resolution, I believe that I included a section that outright said that this does not establish a precedent. It's a case-by-case scenario. And so however that stands in time, that was something that I wanted to make sure got in there so you didn't feel like that. or anyone else felt like they could come and expect the same treatment.

Councilor Richter.

Is it an overnight proposition? I mean, do we release the entire line of credit, or is there a – I'm just curious if there's other options, if you're talking about a portion of this Phase 3 completion and a portion of the credit. Does that make sense, steps, or is it kind of a –

If you'd allow me to kind of state the interpretation, then you let me know if I'm getting close. So when we request releases, typically, as Brandon mentioned, it's upon completion of improvements, right? And that's when the entirety of that line item that's been bonded for, let's say, asphalt roads, those are 100% in. We would request a release. And the city, based upon an inspection approval, would suggest, okay, we can release 90% of the funds. We need to maintain 10% for warranty that will last a year past our acceptance of this infrastructure. That's when the release scenario becomes all or nothing. What we're proposing today would be a deposit release request for these line items, amenities, playgrounds, Specific landscape improvements that are 50% deposits. They're intensive. They are intense capital infusions, right? It's not cheap, but that would allow us to begin the work as a city already. handles the inspections and releases, they would just receive the bid, verify that the subcontractor is legitimate, it's an appropriate source. If we needed to have a type of provision that would suggest Goldcrest would back that in the event that a sub were to not participate or something along the lines, we'd be open to having these conversations as well. But did I kind of help clarify?

Councilor Anderson.

As I read through this proposal, I saw that staff had recommended that we deny the request, but then saw how this was to be structured down so that it would be basically the deposits in order to engage in those different aspects. My concern is that normally with a typical development, developer comes in, says here's our plan, here's what we're going to do, we're going to do X. The city's requirements then are then to step in and say, okay, you have met this requirement so we can release and have this property now available for sale. The roads can be recorded, all of these things. This proposal for me appears to be adding additional steps where Goldcrest is now drawing in staff to be able to monitor, gauge, EVALUATE. YOU HAD TO DO SOME OF THAT AS YOU ALREADY DID WITH VERIFYING THAT THESE ARE CONTRACTORS. AND I JUST SEE THAT THAT'S WITH THE ROLES THAT THEY HAVE WITHIN THE COMMUNITY AND WITHIN THE CITY, THAT'S TAKING THEM AWAY FROM, YOU KNOW, THEIR NORMAL SCOPE OF BUSINESS IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE GOLDCREST HOMES. That's for me is a consideration that I feel uncomfortable with because now we're having to step in and manage with Goldcrest, you know, these procedures to make sure that these things happen. So I kind of concur with Mr. Cooper's opinion to deny this. So that's where I'm at at this point, but let's discuss further and maybe I'll change my mind.

I very much appreciate the transparency, and if I may, recently I submitted a Gantt chart or a scheduled estimated time of completion for when this project would be completed. There would be no further administrative review. That schedule was subject to us being able to pay said deposits and have work scheduled to commence. As this process has extended or prolonged itself, so have said improvements. We have not been able to schedule and or plan for those items. Our development agreement suggests we'd be done by the fall of this month. If we could have stuck to that schedule, we'd be concluding before the end of August. Right now we're starting to get into September, and as we continue to figure out how to navigate this path, it will just go longer. And we did not want to not fulfill on our behalf of the agreement. Again, just looking for a path forward to be able to satisfy everybody at the table, not only us, OURSELVES AS AN ORGANIZATION. WE HAVE OTHER BUILDERS THAT ARE WAITING TO SEE THESE IMPROVEMENTS IN WITH EXPECTATIONS. WE HAVE A CITY, WE HAVE RESIDENTS THAT ARE LOOKING FORWARD TO ENJOYING THE AMENITIES AND WE'D LOVE TO DELIVER THOSE IN A TIMELY MANNER AS WELL. COUNSELOR STEPHENS. COOPER.

LET ME JUST STATE IT AS I SEE IT. TELL ME IF I'M OFF BASE ON THIS. WE COLLECT THIS BOND OR IN THIS CASE IT'S A LINE OF

Letter of credit.

Letter of credit to ensure the work is done.

Correct.

They want to release the letter of credit so that they can finance the work to be done.

A portion of it, yes.

A portion of it. Okay, so we're giving up that which we are... I mean, worst case scenario, it doesn't happen, then we're on the hook for it. Well, I don't know if we are or not, but the whole gist of it, it sounds like that Goldcrest is in a financial pinch. And I get it. I've worked with enough. It's an ebb and flow. But I... I don't think we should be giving up our – this is standard practice, that you hold this until it's completed, not to release it to finance so it can be completed. It doesn't make sense.

It's effectively changing the financial guarantee from a guarantee of improvement to construction financing.

Yeah.

Okay.

So you're accurate there. And it increases the risk. So for real numbers, and you might have to correct me on the actual request. I don't think it was... totally clear as to what that request might be. But right now we're holding roughly $810,000, and that is to effectively guarantee the completion of a few of the sidewalk and other improvements like that, but it's all of the landscaping across the whole project and the amenities, which were essentially required to be installed during phase one, but were bonded for in phase three. And so if the request, as I look at it, for the premature release for these down payments and deposits equals about 200,000-ish, let's say 100 to 200, then that effectively reduces that amount that we're holding to ensure that the completion is done by that amount. And so every day that the project doesn't get complete, the money that we are holding, the 810, weakens and weakens and weakens, right? So... If this project, we're relying on bids that were renewed earlier this year, so they are fairly fresh bids, but those bids don't last forever. And so every day that goes by that the project's not complete, then even the money that we're holding, if we gave up nothing, becomes less and less effective to complete it in the event that that was the case. So by reducing that, it just weakens our position. And so that's up to the council if that's the position you want the city to be in.

And just if I may, the financial guarantee that was posted obviously came from our organization. The city is the one who authorizes the releases on said mechanism or bond mechanism. The monies that we'd be using, we keep using this term financing. We've already posted the bond. The monies exist. Releasing from that would not be to finance a loan or other opportunity to then pay for. This would be a bond to subcontractor transaction. Goldcrest could have their name involved on a check. a check memo or something to make it a little more binding, if that's how we'd like to see it happen. But this would just, as you've mentioned, the money set aside to ensure the completion of said improvements. Us paying those deposits for the improvements to be made is virtually completing said improvements as well. So we're steering towards the same goal. And in the event that we don't complete said improvements, the same monies that are set aside, as Brandon mentioned, MENTIONED BECOMES THE CITY'S RESPONSIBILITY TO IMPROVE SET ITEMS AND AND JUST RESPOND TO BRANDON'S MENTION ON THE BIDS HE WAS CORRECT A COUPLE OF THEM WERE DATED BUT EVERY BID THAT I SENT TO HIM WAS IN THE CONFIDENCE THAT I'VE ALREADY PERSONALLY HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH SET SUBS WHO WOULD RESPECT THE SAME BID AMOUNTS THAT WERE REFLECTED FOR PUBLIC RECORD

Just for point of reference, I ran the numbers here real quick. It's about 210,000. Okay.

Counselor Hanson.

I just wanted to comment that I do appreciate it's a difficult position that Goldcrest is in, but it's hard because it's just not the purpose of the funds, and it isn't the city's obligation to take that level of risk on, and that's why it was set up this way. And based on that, I would make the motion to deny the request at this time.

Any findings?

And so the resolution was to approve, I guess. And so, okay, we have a motion to deny the request. Do we have a second?

I'll second.

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

Mr. Stevens?

For clarification, a yes is a no?

Yes is an denial of the request.

Then yes. Councilor Anderson? Anderson?

Yes.

Councilor Arnold?

Yes.

Councilor Hanson? Yes. Councilor Richter?

Yes. Okay. All right. I appreciate your time. Thanks for coming tonight, Thaddeus. Of course. Thank you for having me. All right. We will move on to item number five, consideration of resolution 2026-30, awarding a bid to Skyview Excavating and Grading for the 2026 Road Improvement Project in an amount not to exceed $821,746.14. Mr. Douglas.

Thank you, Mayor. So this project would start where the concrete ends on 300 West going to the west. down around the corner to the city line, which is about where the road goes into the old mall parking lot. We would resurface. We're actually going to take the road base out on it, put new road base in, put new asphalt in. There's also a little bit of curb and gutter that's missing on the west side. We're going to put that in because of storm drainage issues over there that we have for two reasons. One, the daycare has issues with stormwater. and a big pond in front of there. And we're thinking that with the curb and gutter and with adding some storm drain piping that we can take care of that for them. We're also gonna add sidewalk from the daycare back to the corner. So the daycare would now be connected to the existing sidewalk going to the east. And so that would kind of interconnect them. We won't do sidewalk on the unbuilt on property. It would stay as it is until somebody develops it. And we have used Skyview before. They did the project here in front of the city office and going to the south. And they performed fairly well on that. They used Parsons for paving on that. It went fairly well. So I would recommend that we approve it. Any questions, we'd answer them. Mr. Douglas.

I sure like seeing all those bids. That's amazing.

It's nice, actually, we're getting back below the engineer's estimate again, and when you start seeing them kind of numbers of bids instead of onesies and twosies, it just helps the price so much. Counselor Arnold.

Move to approve resolution 2026-30, awarding a bid to Skyview Excavating and Grading for the 2026 Road Improvement Project in the amount not to exceed $821,746.14. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Second.

Motion to second. Any discussion on this motion? Ms. Marigold, please pull the council.

Councilor Arnold?

Yes.

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

Yes. All right. That passes unanimously. Thank you.

What was the time frame for that project to finish? I should have asked before. Fall completion.

Okay. Item number six, consideration of resolution 2026-31, approving a professional services agreement with civil engineering consultants, LLC. Is that correct?

It's PLLC.

PLLC. PLLC for city engineer services. Mr. Cooper. Thank you. Sorry about the P. I forgot that.

As you know, in this case, CEC, Civil Engineering Consultants, has been our contracted city engineer for some time. Their contract expired recently, and so we issued an RFP soliciting qualified firms to provide those services. We received a couple of bids. We had a selection committee. We reviewed those and found that CEC was indeed qualified, and so this contract is – is essentially the renewal of those services with a few changes, as you can see in the contract. The biggest one is the term. The initial term is for two years with two two-year renewals. So that was something that we felt would be appropriate. And also, the fee schedule has been updated. Obviously, the old contract was operating under an old fee schedule. So that fee schedule is revised and would be under scrutiny on a yearly basis. And so even though the contract terms go every two years subject to renewals. The actual fee schedule can be looked at every year. And Mr. Todd Freeman is here today to answer any specific questions.

Does anybody have any questions for Mr. Freeman? Council Arnold.

Move to approve resolution 2026-31, approving a professional services agreement with civil engineering consultants, PLLC, or should I say LLC for city engineering services with the change to PLLC that should be changed in the packet, from the packet.

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

I'll second.

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

Councillor Hudson? Yes. Councillor Stevens? Yes. Councillor Anderson?

Yes.

Councillor Arnold? Yes. Councillor Richter?

Yes. All right. Very good. Welcome aboard again for a couple of years. Yeah. Thank you. Yes, I can keep. Well, never mind. All right. Item number seven, consideration of Resolution 2026-32, approving an agreement between Riverdale City and South Weber City for the special rate discounts for qualifying residents of South Weber. Mr. Brooks.

Thank you, Mayor. Excuse me. Mr. Taylor would generally handle this, but he couldn't make it tonight, so I told him I'd pinch it for him. This is just the same agreement that you've seen, like with West Haven and different things. It's just South Weber City instead of the others. So same contract, same terms, everything. They've actually been doing it. We just hadn't gotten it written up yet. So it's been working well. Our numbers are up with every one of those cities. So Rich is really excited about how well that program's been working. We're going to continue to outreach, especially in some of the Davis County cities that are already coming here anyway, so we might as well start doing agreements with them.

Who's driving this? Is it the pickleball senior citizen center? Is that the driver? Is that the biggest users?

No. I don't think so.

They don't play pickleball at the senior center. That's the rec center.

I think it's more the lunches and the programs at the senior center. Exclusively the senior center. Right, right.

Good question. Anything else?

Just a quick question. I just wonder if that's a typo. So it says Riverdale offers the promotional January membership at $30 per year. I thought it was $15 for the promotional to January and $30 after that promotional period ends.

I don't remember how we read it. I was almost thinking what you were saying there.

I think there just might be a title in number two there.

We can make that correction if you want to make that.

It says something about 15 later. 15, yeah, for January, and they want to extend that to South Weber, which makes sense. Right, right, right. So they'd have that option in January. And it goes to 34 for months later. Okay. Yeah, it just looks like that just may need to be corrected in Section 2.

Any other questions?

Councilor Arnold. Move to approve Resolution 2026-31, approving a professional... Oh, sorry. There we go. 2026-32, approving an agreement between Riverdale City and South Weber City for a special rate discount for qualifying residents of South Weber to use our Senior Citizen Center with the change that Councilor Richter talked about with the $15 price during the promotional period change that... It was talked about.

Okay, we have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. Motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? Ms. Maragoni, will you please poll the council?

Councilor Hector?

Yes.

Councilor Arnold?

Yes.

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

Okay, that passes unanimously. All right. Item number eight, motion to untable in consideration of Resolution 2026-23, approving a contract for city administrator contract. Do we have a motion to untable? So moved. Motion. Do we have a second?

Second.

Motion to second. Any discussion on that? All in favor say yes. Yes. Any opposed? All right. The item is untabled. We can now discuss the employment contract for the city administrator, Mr. Brooks.

Thank you, Mayor. This is probably the longest contract negotiations in the history of the city. I know it's certainly been for me, so we're finally here. The last meeting that we could do something, not including the previous one... You had given us directions that I sat down and meet with Councillor Hanson, which I did. We discussed things, and I think at least the consensus, and correct me, Councillor, if I'm wrong, is I think the best option at that point was just to poll everything that we had brought up in that meeting. and revert back to what you'd kind of approved the previous meeting to that. So it's going to leave the contract in place that you voted on and approved. At some point in time for the future, we will rewrite this, but at this time, I don't think it was appropriate, and I think we're good. I mean, it's the same contract I've had for four years, and nothing's come about that's been a big deal. So... And that's what the changes that you guys directed me. And so all those would be included in there, the ones that you had told us on how you wanted it written up. So all those changes have been made. Councillor Hanson, do you want to add anything different to that?

Yeah, I would say we had a good talk. We kind of reviewed what the previous motion had been. And I'll admit, when I reviewed it, I was surprised about the wording of it. I personally did specifically say leaving the rest of the contract in place, and I didn't realize that when I brought the changes to the following meeting. I think all I can say is I am disappointed in myself for approving something without having it in front of us in writing. Because I think that's what caused the trouble, honestly, for all of us, and even for Mr. Brooks as well, and prolonged the process, and we could have just had it resolved in that first meeting if we would have had it in front of us. And like he said, he's working on writing up a new template agreement for that position, and he could always bring it back to us at any time, even within this contract period, to present it to us, but. Yeah, I am regretful, and in the future I'll be more careful to make sure we have stuff in writing in front of us. And that was the minute changes that you would have seen that I made on that agenda item on June 2nd. I think it was to correct the motion to add in what I had actually said, which justifies, I guess, not dragging it out any longer, but...

So the revert to city attorney is removed, though, right?

No, that's still in there. That was part of it.

Oh, I thought it was removed.

It was removed.

I think it's removed. Yeah, that was one that was requested. The revert to city attorney is removed. I mean, there's a couple of changes.

Yeah, it did keep all the changes that we talked about, which was all compensation, the special compensation, the special payout, the car allowance increase, the COLA for both the car allowance and the city administrator portion. It made it so that it just removed the option where he can revert back to the city attorney that we had all talked about. I don't know if I'm forgetting anything. It was on that list in the minutes. I made sure it had everything listed in there on the update. So there are a couple of provisions that even Mr. Brooks has mentioned in the meetings. It's just not the most well-written contract that he kind of inherited and And I think when he does that update and rewrite, it should address and fix those risks to the city in the future.

So we're approving a contract for four years, but it says we can revisit it annually with like 60 days notice or something. Like would that be an appropriate way to maybe get the new contract in place at that 60 days?

I mean it's up to you guys. I don't see the need for it, to be honest with you. It's the same contract that's been in place for four years. I think it's more a future administrator and having a – done for them and we'll just clean it up at that point but it doesn't matter i can rewrite it i'd probably start from scratch i don't think i'd even use that one but uh um i i'm uncomfortable writing my own contract is basically what i'm saying too i don't i'd almost rather farm that out because i don't want to get accused of anything so my preference would just be to leave this one in place and we'll deal with it when the time comes kind of thing but if it gives them some comfort And that's fine, too. I don't care.

With 60 days notice, we could revisit the contract or whatever. I think the way it reads, anyway.

Council Arnold. I just have a lot of reservations. I mean, a lot of thought going into it. But one of the things that we're doing with this contract is kicking the ball or the problem down the road. You know, we're going to lose a lot of institutional knowledge, say, in four years. I mean... whenever you choose to retire or how that goes. I mean, we're gonna lose our city administrator and our attorney. Just plunking this thing into Gemini, You know, it's like why in the world would you have your top two positions in the city in the same person? Because you don't have the checks and balances going through, which kind of raised its head in this one because when you said, you know, with Annie's experience as a lawyer and saying things in here that we had outside legal counsel, it was just a comment, and I understand, you know, you weren't. accusing anything or anything like that. But with that, we didn't have legal counsel in this contract negotiation because you were on the other side of the fence. And I just think it's important to have that we're so enticed with the finance and we're going to save some money, we're going to save some benefits and stuff like that with this particular thing, but we don't have the checks and balance that we would normally have. And looking at where I think we've screwed up as a city over the years is the city attorney position at the amount of money. I mean, if you look at the amount of money that Other cities even bigger than Riverdale with South Ogden and West Haven and several others that are contracting out legal services, they don't pay near that money, that kind of amount. So I think we're enticed by the money that you are saving us, for sure, and you've done a great job. I want to make sure that's on the record because you really have. It's been a fairly pleasant four years that you've been doing this. So it's nothing like that. I just think kicking it down the road to the point where we have a new city administrator and a new attorney is something that I don't want to trip over in four years or whatever. And there could be a chance that not one of us, four years from now, not one of us are on the council.

And I recognize that too, Alan, and my intent would not even to do that. I want as smooth a transition as we could possibly have. So ideally it would be something long range and we could slowly work that in. I don't want to just stiff the city in any way, shape or form, you know, barring some issues. And I'm just gone all immediately. But we've run that risk for four years now anyway that that could potentially happen. I mean, that happens with any of us. So, you know, I don't know. I'll do whatever you want me to do. I don't really care. I just I can even, you know. work on it if that's something that you felt the immediate need or we can shoot for it next year whatever i just didn't really want to do it right now i don't think it's that pressing it's worked for us and it just wasn't worth the the debate that we went through to even get there so looming for so long is we don't need that no i agree stuff and you know i will say on the record you you have been wonderful

Your responses and things whenever we have a question or I have a question, you've always been, you know, say Johnny, but Stevie on the spot. I think it's been really nice. Just getting expensive, dude. Thank you for your comments.

Anybody else have any comments?

Seeing none, we need a motion. What are we doing if he already has a contract?

We're approving the actual written updated contract where he made those changes that we did verbally on the first one. So there's a resolution included that has the contract with those changes in it. I'll make the motion that we approve resolution 2026-23, approving the contract for the city administrator.

Okay. We have a motion. We have a second. I'll second. Motion to second. Any discussion on the motion? Council Arnold.

I want to be on the record. It's too much money for one person, especially if we don't. Are you working for other cities, too, still? Yeah. I had a guy tell me when I was about... I don't know, 25 or something like that. He said, for everything you're doing, there's something you're not doing. And this is just an opportunity to be the attorney and the city administrator at the same time. And I just, I think it's, we have a responsibility to the residents. And every time we spend more money and we're shipping the fire department off to the district and, you know, that's going to make us flush with money and just makes us so we're not, you know, looking at a budget titer and it's just too much money. So I'll be voting now.

Okay.

Any other comments?

Ms. Maragoni, will you please poll the council?

Councillor Anderson?

Yes.

Councillor Hudson? Yes. Councillor Richter?

Yes.

Councillor Stephens? Yes. Councillor Arnold?

No. Okay. That passes with four in favor and one opposed.

Thank you.

Upcoming events are listed there. Pioneer Day, the city offices will be closed. Community Center is open. A couple of swim nights. We do have a combined City Council Planning Commission meeting tentatively scheduled for August 18th.

What's the purpose to try to accomplish what?

So this is just a request, if it works out with everybody's schedule. We wanted to ask you first and then ask the Planning Commission, so I don't know what they would say. But if you recall, a few meetings ago, we invited Chris Hupp with SOMUS to come in and discuss the updates to Stringtown. And in that conversation, we had some financial discussions as well. We wanted to break those apart a little bit based on your feedback. You were having some questions about the plan and some things like that. So I thought we could get together as jointly as a commission and a council and just focus on the updates to the plan. We'd have it in similar fashion like the original charrette that you were all involved in. to where we'd have the drawings enlarged, and we'd have various ways for you to comment on things. That would give you a solid understanding of where the plan is, and then I think it's probably more appropriate to walk into some of the cost and financing structures. So that's the agenda. Focus strictly on design elements of the plan, be about two hours, and we'll provide some form of food.

Okay. Councilor Arnold. I'll be out of town from August 7th to August 21st. Okay. THANK YOU FOR THE HEADS UP.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THAT? OKAY. WE DO HAVE OUR BONNEVILLE COMMUNITIES THAT CARE 5K AND HALF MARATHON COMING UP ON AUGUST 22ND, WHICH IS GROWING AND GETTING MORE WELL ATTENDED EVERY YEAR, SO THAT'S EXCITING. COMMENTS? ANY COMMENTS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL? COUNCILOR HANSEN I THINK WAS FIRST.

JUST AS A REPORT, I ATTENDED THE SENIOR BOARD MEETING Last week and had an update on some of the things that they have going on I think the main thing for the council would be They've got the picnic in the park for the seniors planned for August 21st, which they generally invite us to participate in to us to help feed the seniors and Their I wish I remember their name the band Retired. They're awesome. Yeah, they retired, and they've hired an Elvis impersonator to replace them for the entertainment for the picnic, so it should be a great time. I love it. You can come eat some fried chicken.

August 21st?

August 21st, yeah, in the park.

Is that a Friday?

It usually is. Is it? And Miranda, I'm sure, will send something out to everybody when it gets a little bit closer.

Yeah, yeah. Thank you for that update. Thanks for attending that meeting.

My pleasure.

Any other? Councillor Anderson.

Yes, I wanted to... I was approached. I had a neighbor that had a contact with Pinkbox. And apparently they are a front person or a scout. And... they referred me to speak with them. And so we connected and talked about, she asked if Riverdale would be agreeable to entertain Pink Box coming to Riverdale. I don't know how many of you are familiar with Pink Box. If you've gone to St. George, that's one of the favorite spots that you go get a donut at Pink Box. However, Pink Box is notorious for its design. Dave's Hot Chicken has got the murals that they're doing. Well, Pink Box is definitely pink. And so I alerted, well, I referred them to Mr. Cooper. but I also alerted the mayor and councilman Richter because apparently the site that they're looking at, um, is existing and that they would be overtaking that. So I'm just putting out a recommendation for the council to take a look at pink box, um, make any recommendations to council or director if, um, if that were to happen, because it would come through the design review committee in our conversation, she mentioned that, um, they have a store in Sandy that will be opening shortly. And through lengthy negotiations, they've toned it down and it's more white than it is pink. She also mentioned that a local community, they had approached them and they had declined on entertaining them coming to their community. And so as they've been looking around, They decided, you know, they saw a spot here in Riverdale that they would like to consider. So just be aware. Councilman Richter would be the one who would probably be making a lot of that determination. And Mr. Cooper. So just so that we're aware that it is on the radar.

Excuse me, Mr. Cooper. About a year ago, is this the same group that looked at the old Conoco? I mean, they've been here before, a year, two years ago, right? Is that the same one?

Right. They didn't pull the trigger on that. But we did do a review for the elevations, and it is bright. So this would go to the DRC. It wouldn't come to the council in terms of the elevation. Now, if there's a site plan associated with it, which most likely won't happen in the case of an existing building, it would just be at the DRC. So I think now is a good opportunity for all of you to give Councillor Richter any feedback that he might be able to bring to that meeting.

Would it be, I don't know, would it be okay for Ms. Maragoni to pull up a picture of her pink box donuts? Sure. Or was that too much to pull up a picture of a pink box donuts?

Should we be talking too much about it since it wasn't on the agenda? Probably not at this point.

I don't think I would.

Not to put a quash on it, but I don't want to get us in any trouble.

No, we probably shouldn't at this point. There's one right off the interstate down in American Fork right next to the In-N-Out. If you've driven by their big pink building, you'll see it right there.

I think just take a look at it and give your concerns or questions to Councilor Richter. I think that works. A quick comment.

Bear in mind that 10, 12, 20 years ago when JCPenney's, where JCPenney's is now, Costco wanted to put in a Costco there. And essentially the city said, no you know because they they have an image they wanted to have the warehouse look and that kind of stuff and the city essentially said no and you know it's kind of expensive to say no to them but we did and it's just like you know if it if it's not it doesn't work you say no anyway

Well, just as a note with that, they wanted to paint the building. That was the problem. They said no to Costco and yes to Lush Swap. So we traded Lush Swap for Costco.

What a deal.

It was a good deal of the century.

Thank you for the heads up, Mr. Anderson. Any other comments from the council for tonight? Comments from the city staff.

They do have one, and I didn't give him much time to think about it, but I asked him to talk about this last week in department head, so it's not a complete surprise here, but I'm going to ask Chief Hennessey to update you on something.

Last week on the 14th, Steve and I, Mr. Brooks and I, attended the fire board meeting, and they presented the annexation for approval. THE FIRE BOARD IS MADE UP OF MAYORS AND ELECTED OFFICIALS AND AT LARGE POSITIONS FOR ALL THE AREAS THAT THE WEAVER FIRE DISTRICT SERVES. AND UNANIMOUSLY ACROSS THE BOARD, THEY APPROVED THE INTENT TO ANNEX AS WELL, ANNEX RIVERDELL FIRE. SO THEY'RE EXCITED ABOUT IT. THEY'RE LOOKING FORWARD TO IT. I HAD MANY SIDE CONVERSATIONS AFTER THE MEETING. YOU KNOW, WE WORK WITH THESE FIRE DEPARTMENTS HAND IN HAND ANYWAY WITH OUR MUTUAL-AID AND AUTO-AID AGREEMENTS. And we work seamlessly with them. So our operations are going to be pretty seamless together when we do the merge. I've already had their logistics chief come in and evaluate our buildings, some of our equipment, EMS division chief come in and evaluate our EMS programs and what we're running. AND JUST LOOKING AT ALL THESE THINGS ON HOW WE CAN ENHANCE SERVICE AND HOW WE CAN MAKE THIS A SMOOTH TRANSITION. SO THAT'S AN UPDATE ON WHAT THE FIRE BOARD, IT WAS REALLY REFRESHING TO ATTEND THEM AND, YOU KNOW, IT'S, THEY'RE EXCITED. SO, AND WHICH DEFINITELY MAKES US FEEL GOOD. SO WE'RE EXCITED TO GO SOMEPLACE AND, YOU KNOW, AND BE WELCOMED. AND THAT'S THE OUTCOME OF THAT MEETING.

WAS ROY ALSO INCLUDED?

Roy was there. I had Chief Williams there, and they unanimously voted to annex them as well. So they're going to be part of it. And I committed to you guys as your fire chief to make sure that, you know, my priorities here as we proceed with this is that the service level maintains, if not improves, and that the men and women of the fire department are taken care of. So any questions?

So long story short, we're still plowing forward with everything. But this was one of the things that we had to get this in place. And so as Chief Hennessy said, they're really excited actually to pick up both Roy and Riverdale for varying reasons. But there's been a lot of stuff going on and we're still moving forward. But we'll be updating you on some of that because there's some moves we still have to make too. start finalizing a lot of the agreements and buyouts and all those kind of things. So there's still a lot of work, but we're still moving forward. But this was a huge step for us. And like Chief Hennessey said, it was, you know how many meetings, I hadn't even thought about it until I was sitting in there, but most of the meetings I sit in, I'm fighting with people. And everybody just attacks Riverdale. And this was the complete opposite. It was just refreshing to be there. And they were excited. They were really excited to have us coming. So And I'm going to echo what the chair of that board said. He's a former firefighter. He used to be the chief out in Layton. But these things only happen because of your chief. And Chief Hennessey's just been phenomenal through this whole process, and this never could have been done, and I know they're excited to pick him up for that same reason. We may not see him as much as we will the other guys because he'll be down at the main office there, but both Chief Williams and Chief Hennessey are really responsible for this going forward as smoothly as it has so far. And credit to the Weaver Fire District. They've just been phenomenal to work with. Just everything we've done and, you know, they're coming and working with us and the questions. And when we request material, I mean, it's just here. And it's just been good. All those are good indicators, I think, that this is where we want to go. I think it's actually going to make us better, to be honest with you. Certainly give us more support and backup that's ours. The name will be different, but I'm excited for this. I think it's going to be a good move. But anyway, thanks to Matt because he's been crucial through this whole thing, and he's done a lot of work, and we'll see where we get with it. But we'll keep you posted on it.

Mr. Douglas.

So just a couple things. So water conservation this month, we was above the 20% for June, so that was awesome. So I know everybody's suffering, everybody's still upset about it, but they did it like they was above the 20%, which I think is awesome. So I don't know if you want to put something out about that, but that was pretty awesome to put them numbers together and see that we was above the 20%. The other thing kind of on the water conservation is we did put in for the rebate through Weber Basins for the state rebate money, and they gave us back just under $18,000 on that project of the park where we took the grass out. So we're going to get a kickback. We should begin to check in the next three or four weeks for about – it was $17,000 and change, but it was just under $18,000.

And did we make it in May too? I think we – did we make the 20% in May? Yeah.

One month we were short. May we was a little bit short. April we was good. Okay. It was just under. May was just a little bit short. And this month we're a little over. So for the year we're in good shape.

Yeah. Would you say we're still at 20% under right now as of right now today? It's hard to say.

Them numbers would have been as of like the 6th of June. Okay. So I won't have new numbers until like about the 7th of June. Like I'll have my numbers, but I won't have Weber basins until they usually report about the 7th of the month. Okay. So I'll have them about the 7th of August for July.

Okay. Thanks. Any other comments from the staff? I don't really have any comments, so with that, we need a motion to adjourn. So moved. Do we have a motion? Do we have a second?

Second.

All in favor say yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. We're adjourned.

You guys are great.