City Council - Regular Meeting

Okay, so do we have any conflicts of interest in this session? Okay, hearing none, we'll move on to council reports. Council reports. Go ahead and start. You're in.

I'm here?

Uh-huh.

Okay. I met with my people and sent eight employees this week to get certified. There's been a couple of water main breaks. They found out the lines were probably from 1957, red lines. And the state, they've been working on phase one of the sewer update, treatment plant update. The state has asked for additional information as of yesterday, and Carla's in the process of putting reports together now. They want to know what options the city has. And they're wrapping up their impact-based study. And then planning and zoning. Zoning and planning. I appreciate the hard work that those two are putting in on all things planning and zoning. They have been positive. They are being extremely thorough, and I do appreciate that. We will be discussing adding another member to the Planning Commission tonight, and then I will let Christine and Jeremy in a few minutes introduce a wonderful person.

Okay, I'm through. Council person jacks. What have you got? That was very nice you're welcome Yeah, it's statin bronze We've got I'm able to get

You're unable to get the two new hires you can't get until they finish the academy in November. We got three guys out and so we got minimums going hard and it's it's affecting everything we've burned out around the being essentially down five is crippling um the the difficulty on it is that i'm not saying we get a uh a solution for it tonight but the we can't get quality laterals everybody that apply not everybody but a good chunk of those that apply for those that are having problems in in their current agency so just part of that broader product and i know there's not a there's not a solution for it tonight it's just put it on everybody's radar we're having those problems like, you know, we're, like Carl's having down at the, in public works and that Jeff's having on the, on the fire side. And so we're, we're getting to the point where we need to take some action because it's not sustainable.

And that's all. Thank you. more meetings are coming in for business development stuff so businesses are interested i've had a lot of conversations with people and then i'm kind of pointing them you know specifically in to appointments so they can start talking about specifics of those developments um from from hotels to you know some food and retail um there's a closed session item to talk about on the the 20 acres out there I've got updates there, which, yeah, I mean, we have a really good problem, and there's no shortage of people looking at this area right now. And so that, I think, should produce some fruit economically. Main Street, Kelly Wood's amazing. She's doing such a good job and is moving forward. Is there some specific on that?

I was going to say, you talked to him about how she just turned in the World Economic development grant.

Yep. So there's an application to apply for the application of a rural development grant of $600,000. So we're putting in for that with Main Street specifically. So over the next, until October 31st when it's due, we're going to be kind of putting that all together and specifically how we would use that on Main Street. So hopefully we can get that. I think there's a possibility that You know, we do get that because of all the pieces. We just have a lot of work between now and then to get that done and properly tell the story. So hopefully we can button that up by October 31st. That's it, I think, for now. Parks and Rec, that's exact. It's a well-oiled machine. I don't have any report there. Okay, anything in the park?

I got to talk to Jeff today. They had, obviously, a busy week with the fair. Had a fire right down here on First West, a house fire on Saturday. They took a while to find it, but they've done a good job there. The ambulance, they sent them the bill and they want it. They just gotta bring the check and pick it up. I guess that just happened. Good Lord.

It was a volunteer fire or something, so .

So that's about it. I mean, they get the same old regular stuff, but that's all they got.

I have nothing.

I'll take just a minute, too. The website's up and going. It seems to be running pretty good. the council if you'll make sure you get on log in get your usernames and that all on there because i'm starting to drop documents into the council hub and it will send you an email saying you've got mail see how many people pick up on that reference and those those sign-ins changed it shouldn't have but it looks like we might get your password you need to fix mine too i could yeah really smooth, so good stuff. Okay, presentations. We're going to discuss first the Resolution 2653, the Planning Commission members. This isn't a matter of approving or meeting this resolution. We already approved it, correct? But we did make some tweaks that were given to you

them to do and so christy's going to go over those to make sure everyone understands the tweaks what was made to make it work okay 26 53 resolution we are adding jeremy matthews onto the planning commission he will actually be a alternate because we moved jack stickney from the alternate up to a regular planning commission and that left an opening as an alternate and um He is very excited and willing to serve. Karen Ellsworth, what we're doing with her, I mean, she was put on the planning commission. She was only given a year term, and it's supposed to be at least three years, you know, give or take if they're doing a great job or whatever. We're going to reinstate her, and I visited with her. And when we held interviews in March, Karen was more than willing to come in and interview. Some of the others were not. And we're going to put her on for an additional amount of time. This will put Micah Kaepner's ending date, January 1st, 2027. Andrea Miller's ending date, January 1st, 2027. Karen Ellsworth ending date, January 1st, 2028. Ben Greener's ending date, January 2029. Jack Stickney, 2029.

Ashley Phillips, still to be determined.

The alternates are really, their term is One year, she has been on one year and nine months now. So we're still working on that. And then Jeremy Matthews will go on and his term will be till 2020. And the alternates, the thinking with the alternates is if they would like to, after they have served as an alternate, sit down and talk. And if they would like to, we will move them up into that role as a planning commission member.

but i but i still have i mean there's some ballot stuff there in a way uh like when when ben got in i mean if if somebody comes in as a city councilman they do they do take that spot until that spot's over right so i mean when was mark thompson's do i'm just saying Whatever we do, even with Karen, if we're going to do the three-year thing, it's got to do the three-year thing. It's got to be straight up. I mean, if she was only a year, then somehow, I don't know that we can. I think that's a problem with Pat is we can't just wave a wand and say, yeah, you're in for longer. There's got to be a cut and then have them say, if you want to reapply, then reply. That's what we've done.

But in the past, there's been no process. One person has just said, I'm going to give you X amount of time on there. So now what we're trying to do is to make it more like city council and mayor positions where, you know, January, you're in and January, you're out. Ben Grant, no, Jack Stickneys does give him an extra four months, but if we're going to move it,

where everything is in january 1st and out january 1st it makes sense to put his date at that thing yeah and i understand i'm just saying that i mean when you brought up karen and and whatever if just it just got to be three year and and then they're that's the problem right right yeah and that's the reason for this resolution right so that we define that and then we follow up

Well, and there's also ordinance 1.04.025, and I've talked to the attorney several times. Planning commissioners are political appointees of the city council and serve the pleasure of the city council. As a political appointee, the city council shall have the right to remove any member of the planning commission for any reason or no reason at all. A planning commissioner shall be removed from their public office by a majority vote of the city council. We'll discuss this more in closed session, so you understand more of why we're doing, I have chose to do what I chose to do, and I have had several conversations with the attorney, and he supports it.

I guess that statement's what bothers me a little bit. Me too. If you chose to do what you chose to do, it shouldn't be, it should be all of us, what we choose to do.

all of us should everybody respect that that's what scared me because if I if I go and do something off the wall and we're all going to pay for it and I'm not saying it is but I'm just saying I didn't I'm not doing this off the wall there's a lot of time and a lot of thought and a lot of consideration has gone into this with the mayor with the attorney with city staff and things that have gone on that we really can't talk about right here at this open session.

I firmly feel that- My only thing is this is getting right. Now if something comes up and they get fired for whatever reason, then they get fired for whatever reason.

Well, it's a term of three years unless there's conduct or another problem that compels us to take action. And that's my only concern.

If we're going to, you know, if we are going to release anybody early, I think we owe it to that person to be very clear about the reason why. Right? Not just a resolution so that we can make a change and with the excuse of end of day term. So I do trust your judgment. I trust, but I also think that we need to communicate very clearly to those people

this is the reason we're releasing you and this is why so when we released the last person I was sitting in the mayor's office when the phone call came in because I tried to reach you three times that is not what was stated in the email if that's what you're basing your opinion on what was stated in the email when that last person that is not yeah I don't know I I'm just saying just just what we that the problem we have had and I was in there I was I've been in here

two years, they just kind of kept going. If Micah deals up in January and he wants to reapply, then he can reapply and somebody can make that decision, correct?

That's all I'm saying. Yeah, Micah and Andrea would have the opportunity to reapply in January.

And the one refused to interview in March.

You're right, they would have the right to reply.

And we would have the fortitude as a council to be clear about why we're moving in a different direction. That's all I'm saying is that I will never let an employee go, for example, without being extremely honest to them about the reason why. And so, you know, if there are reasons, we need to be forthright about that.

I agree. But I do believe that respect for our city staff and for our public carries a huge weight in this decision, a huge weight.

But that shouldn't be it. The decision should be we realign the time.

And that's what we're trying to do is to realign with mayor's city council seats.

And there's two things going on right now, right? One is realigning and organizing something that we haven't done in the past. But the whole secondary is an initiative of there are some desired changes to be made. And we need to be very clear about what those are and why. That's all I'm asking. rather than just pass a resolution and well it's here so now it just that just be an easy way to go about it where the harder way is to do the right thing to tell them if we if we feel that there's a reason for that and then i think it's also important to say that and it's obviously transparent um we can agree to disagree on some things as a council and you know i think there's strength in having a good broad some that are more development minded, some that are not. I'm not saying that I'm all for keeping Micah and Andrea, but I do think there's value in some of the things they bring to the table. And there's knowledge there, but I also can understand some of the concerns, right, that have been brought forward. Yeah, and so, but yeah.

So what it really comes down to is we passed this resolution. last meeting, okay? With the caveat, right? The date. Yeah, we told them the dates. And so Chrissy's just presented to you guys the dates. And so this is the resolution and this is what we agreed last two weeks ago to move forward with. And so this is FYI, if you will. And then... Well, is there a change on it though? The only change is Well, it shouldn't be on the consent agenda.

Well, we have to update this because the code had changed and this was not updated on the last one.

Okay.

So we added Jeremy and updated to match the code.

Okay, so we're appending the resolution, is that what we're doing?

It could be, we didn't have Jeremy last time. We didn't have, he wasn't ready yet. I didn't have all of his information. even though he had expressed that he wanted to be on it. We have that, we've met with him, he's ready to go and he's very excited. He is a surveyor by trade and he's just come home. I think change is okay, change is hard for some people. But a lot of times when you make change, you make change for the better. It doesn't always happen that way, but we need to have faith that this is what's going to happen, and I do. All I'm asking is for some support.

So this is on the consent agenda.

Okay, great. Any other questions? No, I just want to reiterate that as long as we're very clear to these people as to why. not that we just passed something without clarity.

I have been in the past, and I will continue to be so.

Okay. All right, let's go to letter B, discussion of resolution 2654, government funding consultant services agreement.

Hey.

Gordon, come on up. This is Gordon. We've met him. We already had a discussion. Can I ask you a question really quick?

Yes. Is this more intimidating with us sitting up here, or are you okay sitting down there? We're okay sitting down here. It's fine.

It's always great.

That's the answer he wanted to hear. You can stay in your seats.

It's fine. Actually, I don't have to worry about it if I have bad breath or anything, so this is great.

This is Gordon Walker and we've already introduced him. My presentation will be short and sweet. I just wanted to answer any questions that you might have because we've already been here and what we've done is we've brought forth a contract and then the contract, it states that he will be a consultant, a financial government funding consultant for Tremont City to help give us a little edge and be able to tap into some financial resources for our city. So I believe the agreement's in the packet. We had a nice meeting with him and the public works, our public works department did a very good job of making sure he contacted referrals and we contacted referrals as well. Gordon was very gracious to give us those referrals and we appreciate his work and he's been a joy to work with. I know I'm not supposed to do the motion or anything, but I do appreciate all that he's brought to our staff already. We met with him and the manager Lindsay and we went through and read the agreement together to make sure that the city was protected and he was also protected. I'm confident that it will be a good move for the city. Are there any questions that you have?

Just 3.2, the contract fee, that is a one-time?

For every transaction, like for the funding that he receives? Correct.

I'm assuming it. Well, I hope you make a lot of money. And we made a lot more.

I'm assuming the attorneys looked at this too. Yes, Dalton has reviewed this as well.

Yeah, the attorneys and a whole bunch of people have worked through this. Do you have any questions for them?

He's come all the way. I didn't give him a Coke from Salt Lake. He told me not to. He told me not to give him a Coke.

Well, he needs to stay awake on the way home.

Do you have any questions for us?

No, I'm very excited about this. After our meeting the other day, I was talking to my wife, and she says, oh, you're just a small town guy. And that's true. As I was driving in today, I was looking in the distance, Tremont, and trying to visualize where it's going. you have so many opportunities you reported on them earlier how everybody's coming up here well this is the next spot and you really need you to bring your infrastructure up to date so that when they come in you can take their money i mean be prepared for them because there are a lot of people i mean this all is going to happen it is and it's going to get scary and i'm appreciative of having some support here so and actually i've been thinking of ways that i can assist your community economic development director to excel in her job also but i won't comment yet great okay thank you thank you council the last one is

Let's button up our connection plan.

If we go to page, where is it at? It's the one with the, yeah, the 15 credits. Page six. Right here. So I've contacted all of the staff. Everything we've talked to, this has been going on for a while, hasn't it? I hope they're tired here. But these are the goals. If you have anything you want changed or anything like that or you don't like one, let me know. What I'd like to be able to do is now give this to the department heads in their next department head meeting and have them take the next few months.

So on January 1st, they have their goals in mind.

They can set their SMART goals, and we can start rolling January 1st with all of our goals.

Okay? So the general plan, they're working on the general plan right now.

They've got RFPs up for that. Seventeen events, this is Parks and Rec's signature connection events. So they want to do 17 events a year. Parks back to standard. Lighting fixed in six to 12 months. That's a goal that we're trying to get done on that. Beautification. One gateway in year one. On public dashboard, live by January 1st, 2027. So the one public dashboard, it's almost running now, but this will give people the opportunity to go in and look at the goals, see where we're at, and It's live on the site right now. We just need to make sure that we have the right numbers in it so we know how it's, if we're winning or losing. Resident communication platform, vendor plus pilot. This is, I have to read up on that. Do you have any idea what that is? Which one? Resident communication platform, vendor plus pilot. I'll have to read up on that one. Share the Good campaign.

Seven stories a month on our website. Going around, finding out what's good with Tremont, what's good with people, and posting those on our website. Town halls with real notice. So they will be noticed 14 days before. We'll hold four town halls a year and have some really good open discussion.

We have our next one coming up on September 24th, I believe it is, or 23rd. 24th. 24th. Economic development strategy, seven prospects in the pipeline. Infrastructure ahead of growth, seven priority projects per year. I think 825 is where we're at currently.

And we had talked about going to 750 or 775.

you you gave us 825 but if you want to change that then this will be 825 is where we i thought we were at 850. currently if it's 850 it's a 825 rate 50 is going to be we need to make a jump of at least 50 to 75. well you work with uh the chief on that and get that to be a realistic number for us and then let's get it in

I think the realistic, I mean, optimal would be 675, but I think 750 is the realistic one.

Okay. And then I think we need to identify a scale on fire roof as well, a ratio. And I don't think we have that in play. Infrastructure ahead of growth, seven priority projects per year. That's one that Carl said. a real financial plan okay so it's very clear that i'm clear on this goal because last time some people misunderstood it i did we want to have a goal of a revenue in our general fund of 17 million by 2030 and 20 of all funds so we have about 34 million dollars that come in a year in all funds so We want to be able to put 20% away, but the only way we're gonna do that is if we grow our revenues. So it's very clear that I'm not stating we're gonna be cutting departments. The goal is to increase our revenues so that we have more money to put into savings. And so that's the goal here. If we can get ourselves in our general fund up to 17 million, we'll easily be able to put 20%. That would be around 7.5 million a year away. in savings and 3.5%, right, is what we can say. 35%. And then the rest would go into special projects and capital projects.

But an extra 20%, if we're stashing $7 million in savings, then our operating is going to be what it is today.

Well, if we gain $17 million, we'll probably go up to $40 million as a total. Gains of 20% of that would be

eight thousand eight million or eight million yeah yeah so eight million would be like more i don't know why that crunches us well what's our operating budget right now 10.3 around 10 million yeah yeah so we're if we're operating in the city right now and we're operating in a deficiency right now we need staffing every department needs staffing and we're going to save I'm all for investing in capital projects and everything like that, but we can't do it sacrificing the workers. I mean, we can't do that. And so I can see a realistic approach, but if our revenues are at 17 million and we can stash four million, part of that 17 million has got to go into our workforce growth. And so, and if we're pulling seven or eight million, that's not gonna, that's not gonna happen. We're gonna be in a, we're gonna be worse off than we are right now. I don't agree with that. I don't think we'll be worse off. No, if we don't, if we don't inject some money into, into workforce and into the work, I mean, we're, we're on fumes manpower wise. okay and so if we're not investing into that manpower and everything like that i mean look look at what happens when when we don't have adequate manpower and adequate staffing every the last several medical calls that the fire guys have had to transport and do life-saving care on the way and they have to leave an engine in the middle of the road because there's nobody there driving you or one of us will have to take it and go. And so, I mean, I think 20% is way too ambitious for the needs that we have. If we were up to speed and at scale on everything else and taking into account, and we got extra money laying around, then by all means, but I think 20% is just way too much when we have so many needs, which is my opinion. So what do you guys think?

I'm the type of person that I shoot high. You can always bring it back, but if you don't have that high standard to start with, where do you draw that line? I always shoot high.

I think of the money we spent out of that budget since the last year and a half. We spent a lot of that, and if we didn't have it, So we still got to put a bunch in. And it went to the police department. It went to that. And we need it. But we got to look at it.

Most of us up here were public service. We worked for the government in one form or another, whether it was in the schools or in the United States. Tell me the message that the 20% that we're going to make this massive infusion so we're operating on we're operating on fumes and we put out a message that we're gonna that we're gonna save in addition to what we're already putting away to roll over to capital projects and we've got this astronomical number that yes it's a lofty goal but think about the message that sends you know you want to you want a quick financial message look at the differences between costco and sam's club They carry relatively the same projects. Costco invests in their employees. They have a 94% retention rate. So they're not replacing workers all the time. The median wage for Costco employees is $32 an hour. Sam's Club is $19.25 an hour. People will leave Sam's Club to go work at Costco. They have better benefits and it's that philosophy that Sam Walton actually came up with the Costco adopted and it's you take care of your employees and it comes around to benefit the you have have your workforce they do a better job they have lower turnover you don't have all these all these costs and why government can't figure this out is beyond you like government everywhere is and the ones that do are the ones that excel and the ones that don't have turnover and have and the fewer turnover you have the less liability you have the less mistakes being made and so all i'm saying is that as we're putting this out i'm all for having a lofty lofty goal and things like that and if we didn't have the critical needs that we have if we get the critical needs addressed i'll i'll support 20 all day long But until we have that, I think us putting out a message of 20% at the current operating level sends a bad message to the employees. And I don't think it should be done like that.

I also have a couple questions around that. Just is the 20%, because I think it's a great goal. I think it's a responsible goal that we should do, given that operational budgets are covered, which is what you're elaborating. But I think some of our, you know, without the capital facilities plan being set, we actually don't know. And so it's kind of an arbitrary number. Once that document's put together, we need to save according to what the capital facilities plan says. And so I don't like putting 20% there because operationally we don't know. And you're not going to have cars to drive to the site. if 20% is not being set aside for capital. You're not even going to have a car. So I think we've got to make sure that we get that document done, and then we can actually speak to that. So I personally don't have a problem until that's done.

My recommendation would be until that's done, we take the 20% off this working document just for the message that it sends.

I think it's our messaging back to the staff. We're not here to cut. Well, you're saying that. We're not. We're not here to cut any staff. We're not here to hurt them at all. We want to get a hole and then save money.

What did you say? It's all in the framing. If we're looking at that as a bad thing, we're irresponsible if we don't set that aside because, again, they will have a car to drive. They won't have a building to be in. they won't have any of the things that they need to be able to operate the police department.

It's kind of one of these.

It's kind of how you're looking at it.

Remember, 20% of all funds. The general fund isn't the one that's going to fund the 20%. It's across all funds. This is all of Carl's funds, all of our funds. You know, Carl puts, he puts quite a bit aside every year anyway. And so we're probably already at 10, 12% already with all of our funds. So the ask isn't that much more if we're adding a whole bunch more revenue to the pot.

I think when we add some context to that, to that number, I'm just telling you, it's not going to.

But if it goes into capital, I mean, it's not like we're

going to shove it in there and save it forever we're putting it in there for the fire station in the city there's not a plan for a fire station there's not a plan for a police station that's not even there those conversations it's like well we're at least a decade out on that there's no there's no capital plan that addresses city infrastructure unless there's one and i'm just not aware of it well i think that's what we're developing i think they're working on that that's what you're talking about because that gives us clarity then i think that information getting out and that it's not just hey we're gonna we're gonna keep you guys operating on teams so we can stash money into account i have never understood why any organization whether it be government or private that has a that has a constituency or that has a membership that they will let money just sit in a bank for decades and decades and decades calling it a rainy day fund and never doing anything with it they won't spend it down and then build it back up it's just well we've got to protect we've got to protect this you know we've got how much sitting in in savings right now and how many needs do we have but there's a reluctance to even dip into that and it's well we gotta we gotta save it for this rainy day and it's like Okay, what if the rather than the rainy day where it's monsoon, what's that debt by a thousand cuts? You know, are there needs that we I'm all for saving money, but we've got to show that we can That we can allocate it and spend it as well that we're not just Sitting on it and then you know, we're not that little kid sitting in the toy box and going that's fine And that's fine. And that's fine.

And that's I think that's our message is getting Misunderstood and that's what I'm saying.

Yeah, it's not I'm thinking that

It's not that we're setting it aside and not using it. We're setting it aside and using it. It needs to be something more like we're going to put aside 20% for the capital facilities plan because it does need to be spent. I'm with you. I don't want all that money sitting in the bank. We have found, especially with the cost of living, the way it's gone up, that the interest rate has not kept up with the cost of living. is costing us more to do projects than it did in the past and we've lost money from saving and so um don't misunderstand me the goal isn't to save money and just hoard it it's to pay for the capital facilities plan it's to pay for everything that we need to do and um if we spend it every year great

Well, we've floated the idea of what happens in the future if our revenues don't come up and the discussion of do property taxes need to be increased. And as a resident, I would be curious if there was discussion about increasing property taxes while we still sit on the money in the bank. And so I agree, part of it is optics and part of it is- So let me frame the goal a little bit different

facilities and those kind of things.

And then the framing will be better. It's the same message, but it's just framed a little bit better.

Say that louder. Allocated to capital assets.

Great. Thank you. Utility rate study. Hoping to have that done by January 1, 2027.

Open the books first, capital needs by fund

So finance and communication is going to work on a really good system of – this is our capital needs fund that we were just talking about, getting that done. And then – Which Jamie is actively working on. Yep. And then secure our water future culinary use down by 3.5% was a goal that Carl thought we should shoot for. So anyway, we'll button up that one, and then if you guys are okay with it, I'll send this off to the staff. And if I were you, field that question to them and make sure that the framing's correct on that, that the message is coming across and they're feeling differently, then let us know. You know, we don't want anyone feeling like our goal is to go and help people's jobs or their lives or anything. It's just we're going to need a lot more capital in the future to get this city going. And I think we've gotten ourselves in a bit of a quandary with our infrastructure, and so we've got a lot of catching up to do. So it's going to take some funding to do that. Okay, anything else? Okay. Well, if you guys are okay with this, I'd like to go into closed session for the next 10, 15 minutes, and then we can come back and get our next meeting going.

I'll make a motion to go into closed session.

I'll second it.

And we need to state what? For auditing and personnel.

Yes Yes Hey, can we have the planning today all plan? It's not that

It's okay. We're just talking property.