Okay, welcome uh to our city council meeting today on May twenty sixth, twenty twenty-six at four thirty here in the Lehigh City Council chambers.

We have a full council today, Councilmember Newell, Councilmember Harrison, Councilmember Stallings, Councilmember Freeman, and Councilmember Lockhart.

Uh, reminder that this is a work session, so there won't be public comment during this section.

Uh, but we welcome all of you who have joined with us today, and and we're excited to hear from you.

Uh, we will go ahead to our first um item number one and ask that m uh Mr.

Harrison.

Councilmember Harrison offer uh an opening prayer.

Dear Father in Heaven, we are grateful to gather together as a council and with staff and with our residents to discuss the items of the day and how we can best serve the community and and be responsible in our roles.

Uh, for a special blessing upon our first responders and their and all of city staff as they're out doing their jobs and helping the community that they'll be safe, they'll be protected and um the that will watch over them.

We ask for thy spirit to be with us throughout this meeting and the rest of the evening in the name of Jesus Christ.

Amen.

Thank you.

Okay, item two point one, the front runner.

Two times presentation and update here.

I think so.

Correct.

My name is Brian Allen.

I'm a project manager for for the Utah Department of Transportation.

Perfect.

Um, so today I want to be talking about front runner two X.

Uh how long do you about ten minutes?

Okay.

Don't want to sound great.

So yeah, feel free to ask questions as we go through the presentation.

We're gonna start just an overview of what the Front Runner Two X project is.

Then we have a little more detail about the the segment that affects your city.

Um, called the North of American Fork segment, and then also the the north of Lehigh.

Um with me today, I have uh subject matter experts and noise right away, uh, all the disciplines that um take the that takes to deliver a project of this size.

So want to make sure we can answer all your questions tonight.

Um this is uh this project is a partnership between UDOT and UTA.

The project is primarily state funded.

Um couple years ago, the state legislature passed a law where if there's a state funded project in transportation, they would like the the UDOT to lead it.

So as we all know, um, sometimes it gets a little confusing with different government agencies.

So actually, I work for UDOT.

Um, however, we work very closely with UTA.

Um, so I I don't mind if you call me UTA or UDOT.

Um, we're really one team working to really enhance front runner to deliver a better transit service.

So this is a video right here.

Uh it's on YouTube.

Let's see, this is a real test of boldness to see if a video will play in a city council meeting, right?

Or working session.

We'll see if this works.

So I love that video because I think it does a really good job of simply explaining, you know, why double track and uh why frequency really drives ridership.

Uh going.

So we're actually in what's called a core capacity program through FTA.

FTA is the Federal Transit Administration.

Um one of the reasons why we qualify for federal funding is because of front runner ridership is so high, actually.

So they look at ridership in the peak hour peak direction, which actually occurs uh in the southern portion of the alignment between Salt Lake and uh Draper and and Murray.

Um we're at ninety percent of the seated capacity.

So that program enables us to apply for federal funding um to basically increase the capacity because front runner is such a successful system already.

So the primary benefits to this project um is really to make front runner more convenient and a better choice for for commuters.

Um we're aiming to reduce headways, um providing twice the amount of frequency.

So right now front runner runs every half an hour in the peak hour and every hour in the off-peak hour.

So we want to cut those headways in half.

So having peak hour service every fifteen minutes and then in the off-peak have it every thirty minutes.

That really enables you to just show up at the station and catch a train.

You really don't have to plan near as much as you do right now with every half an hour.

So it makes front runner a lot more convenient.

And that convenience really drives ridership.

That's the real goal of the project is to get people uh to take transit, uh reduce congestion, provide another benefit, another transportation solution.

Um this project over the next fifty years or by twenty fifty, the the horizon for planning is about to is it increased ridership by about fifty percent.

Um this is the same time as I fifteen performance continues to degrade, right?

We can make front runner faster, we can make it more convenient by adding more tracks, uh adding more trains.

It there comes a point where more lanes really doesn't equal better performance.

So that's one of the key reasons why the state is really investing in in front runner as a as a transportation solution.

So the project consists of uh a bunch of scope elements.

I'm not going to go into details of a bunch of double tracking, we have to buy more trains, and we have to have maintenance maintenance facilities to to service those trains.

Obviously, we're going to be for focusing on the portion in uh north of American Fork and um the north of Lehigh.

Those those two double tracking sections are um in Lehigh City, uh portions in Lehigh City.

We named all these after the after the stations, so sometimes it gets really confusing because North of American Fork is actually in Lehigh City, but um there was really no no clear way to do it, so we wanted to anchor it off something that's already existing to to commuter's uh knowledge.

So this project is uh anticipated to to be finished in twenty thirty.

Um two of the main schedule drivers really are the federal funding.

The states appropriated nearly a billion dollars.

However, we're requesting about another billion to two billion from the federal government.

We currently have our funding request into the FTA, uh, but it's making its way through the federal appropriations process right now.

So tentatively, we're planning to open the project in 2030.

That takes all the double tracking to be done, takes all the trains to be manufactured and the maintenance maintenance facility to be complete to really implement that whole service all at once.

So as you can see right here, here are the two double tracking sections that impact Lehigh.

Um the American Fork south of the American Fork station or north, excuse me.

We're widening to the outside of the track.

So you can see like the American Fork Station until you get about halfway through.

I believe it's 500 south.

West.

West, thank you.

500 west, and that's where we start winding toward UP.

Um so that the track kind of shifts from going to the outside to the inside.

Um same thing at the Lehigh station.

Um we're actually widening to the outside, but as we get closer to the north point, we start buying property from UP and widening to the inside.

So both these um double track sections aren't as simple as just widen to the outside.

There's a lot of shifts in order to minimize ride-away impacts and uh make the project come to come to fruition.

Um, in order to advance a project through the through the FTA program, you have to complete what's called uh federal document, federal NEPA document through the FTA.

So we've actually completed our NEPA document, which is just a lot makes you look at all the different environmental impacts associated with a double tracking project.

Uh we completed what's called the categorial exclusion.

That's actually posted on our website.

If you go to Front Runner 2X, you can read about the all the different environmental impacts that will be associated with the project and how we're mitigating those.

We also completed a planning and environmental linkage document that looks at the impacts associated with the the doubling of the frequency, right?

Because now we have more grade crossings, especially in Lehigh.

There's a lot of grade crossings that uh in the Lehigh double tracking section or the North of American Fork double tracking section.

And that has more activations, it has more delays.

Um, and we go through and look at all those impacts and any mitigations we have to do in order to implement the project.

Um the the biggest um questions we get from the environmental process typically have to do with noise and right away.

So we pulled out a couple slides to to really emphasize the noise and right-away impacts associated with this project and and we're how we're mitigating them.

Something that's a little unique to trains that you don't see in highways is is vibration.

Um that's also something that we look at.

Um however, typically the front runner trains are a lot lighter and have a lot less vibration impacts, especially with the the corridor that has a lot of UP trains in it already.

We just look at the incremental increase based on the frequency that we're adding.

So I'm going fast because I only have 10 minutes.

So if you have any questions, okay, good.

Sounds like everyone's on the same page.

Um with this noise um study, we actually didn't find any noise impacts associated with the second track we're adding, the double track.

So as we add another track, as I mentioned, some of it gets closer to the houses, so we look to see if that's gonna cause noise impacts or vibration impacts.

And then we looked at some that we looked at the increase in frequency.

So we found that there was two potential impacts from the increase in frequency.

Those are pointed out in this slide.

We actually did in-house testing according to the FTA policy to determine what mitigation, if any, was needed.

One property didn't need it, and the other one uh we're gonna actually move forward and offer a window replacement if the property owner chooses to accept that.

However, there is no other noise mitigation that's required, so we're not building any noise walls or anything in this double tracking section.

So there are the other double tracking sections where we we did have to mitigate it.

How many are these the only two properties that you looked at that were concerning, or are there other ones too?

These are the only two that we identified in the North of American Fork double tracking section that had impacts that we had to mitigate.

So there's other double tracking sections that had impacts that we had to mitigate.

But Mr.

Mayor May, is that okay?

If you once it's installed and you you get complaints from residents, will are you willing to go out and also double check to make sure you didn't miss anything, right?

We don't.

You don't, okay.

So just in your initial review, but if residents complain afterwards that they've seen impact, you don't review it again.

No, it's very similar to what we do with highways.

We we look at the existing noise levels and we model what the future noise level is going to be.

Looks at you know what is you know what's considered a negative impact and how we mitigate that if we if we find it.

So we went through and did our initial modeling.

We found really no impacts associated with the with the new double track, except for these impacts here with associated with the new new frequency.

And that's when we we took the next step.

We kind of do initial screening.

Is there a problem based off?

I mean, there could be noise out there right now, right?

You're living next to a railroad track, so it is noisy.

We look at the noise, you've got to remember it's a noise above what we're adding, and then we basically go to the next step.

If there is an impact, how do we mitigate that impact?

Yeah, and if your modeling didn't capture, but the residents find that something did happen, you essentially just say tough luck.

Uh we we well, we we we like to think we do a very good job in our noise assessment and and modeling.

But yeah, that's that's that's essentially it's that's that's how the process works, yes.

Thank you.

So we also look at vibration.

Um so you can see right here, there's a double tracking section that actually has what's uh called ballast mats.

It just basically stops vibration per like going out from the tracks.

Um so we're gonna you can see these red dots, these would have impacts if we didn't actually add vibration mats.

So we're proposing to add vibration mats next to the existing vibration mats to stop any vibration impacts.

So once we're done with this project, we don't anticipate any noise impacts and vibration impacts above the thresholds set forth in the FTA's policy guidance.

Um any question about noise.

I do have a couple slides in here about um the quiet zone and construction noise.

Those are a little bit different than yeah, I had some residents bring uh concerns to me about during construction, how the trains are required to sound their horn in a construction zone.

I think we can get to that when like the other construction slides.

So I just want to make sure that we heard you guys and we're we're we're uh we're gonna address that and talk about that.

So uh another item of importance is the right-of-way process.

Um, something that you know residents frequently reach out to city councils and their city staff.

Um we have a about one relocation in this section.

There's someone that built a new house that was really close to the double tracking.

Um that that house will be demolished and that that resident will have a reallocation there.

Um besides that, we have a of a lot of backyards that we're purchasing portions of and obtaining temporary construction easements in order to facilitate the construction of the double tracking.

So that's something that's important to disclose.

And if the you guys get any questions at the city, feel free to direct them toward the the front runner 2X public involvement um hotline.

So I want to just point out a couple notable items in the city that we're moving forward with in construction.

As I mentioned, full-blown construction won't start till um we actually receive our our grant from FTA.

However, we are taking some early action items and want to point out some some items of coordination with the city.

Um first is just the Spring Creek construction near Pioneer Crossing, I believe.

Um there's a we have to relocate a sewer line there, and that if that impacts the canal, we've had the opportunity to work with city staff, engineering staff, they've they've approved the plans as with the the local sewer district.

That's something that will start soon.

Um the rodeogram was actually renting property from UTA.

Um so we've actually we're gonna acquire that right away or kind of take back that right away in order to add our double tracking.

However, we're working with the route rodeo ground to ensure that uh the improvements leave them in a spot where they can operate successfully.

We understand that's a a staple of Lehigh City, and we've been coordinating with them frequently.

Um wanted to point out uh 700 south.

We've taken a lot of efforts to coordinate with the city to make sure that the the whatever double tracking we add is forward compatible with any bike lanes or improvements.

I think Brad can speak to that if there's any questions there.

And just another item of work that we're gonna be doing this this fall is some 500 west irrigation.

So just wanted to bring that to the city's attention.

We're also relocating some power lines working with Lehigh Provo.

Um sorry, excuse me, Lehigh Power in order to relocate some power lines.

Um that should be under work soon, if not.

I don't know if it's under construction already.

Any questions about that?

That kind of covers the north of uh American Fork double tracking section.

Okay.

This one's a little more um straightforward because it doesn't go through you know so many urban environments.

This is just extending the double tracking uh north of Lehigh.

Um because there's not any residents in this area, um, there's no noise impacts.

There are minor right-of-way impacts.

We're part purchasing property from UP.

We're also um purchasing from some property from Thanksgiving Point.

Um, in order to build some of the track, we need to put some uh some walls in there, and those require um easements in order to install.

Um portion that I encourage you.

I mean, I'm a nerd because I like civil engineering, right?

But this is gonna be a really cool section when we build it because it's I don't know.

Have you anyone ever been down on this area?

It's very tight, can congested and constrained.

Um, we're adding a bridge in this area.

This is right, this is a picture of that area.

So that's gonna be really exciting to build.

I just want to note that there won't be any kayaking access or anything like that during construction.

Um so just want to make sure the city's aware of that.

So this is the construction noise.

Um we do anticipate, as you mentioned, um construction noise.

Um the the quiet zone will still be in place during construction, so trains won't honk their horns.

Well, I think we all experience PTSD from that great experience, right?

Of the quiet zone being removed.

That is not what we're proposing here.

However, we do want to recognize that there's a critical safety element working around the railroad, is very um very uh the railroad is not a forgiving environment, you know.

I mean, it's uh trains are very big and powerful.

So current practice according to UTA operations and standard practice in the industry if there is crews in the area to to um notify them with a with a horn.

So there will be um noise uh dream construction.

Uh we don't anticipate a lot of construction at night, but there may be some noise.

Uh let me see if Corey's here.

Yep, just a little bit.

Okay.

Not a on everything we're trying to focus on day weekends where we do out there stuff, but mostly from Monday and Friday.

Yeah, some grade crossing work.

There's a lot of grade crossings.

We're replacing a block box culvert that's called Dry Creek.

It's right next to 500 West.

Ways stitch, thank you.

See, I'm just I'm just yeah, I gotta work on the names.

Um that will be replaced.

I can see some of that work being done at night because we have to coordinate with Union Pacific.

Mayor may ask a quick question.

So just to clarify, um you're not going to do construction at night, so would the trains still need to blow their horns, even if you're not going to be able to do that.

They will, yeah.

If there's workers in the zone in the area, the potential foul zone, they typically sound their horns in order to notify the workers.

When the workers are there, but when they're not there when you're not doing active.

So they don't have to sound their horn.

Okay.

So that's why I wanted to.

To me, the most frustrating would be night.

Yeah.

You know, when if that there it's hard to sleep with the trains.

So there'll be limited night work, but there will be a lot of construction during the day.

And there'll be cruised throughout the segment.

So they might have be multiple instances where the train you know has to has to sound their horn.

So they're usually not as big, it's usually just a V beep and then go.

It's not like when they do approach like a crossing where it's almost ground now.

It's more just a B meet and move off.

So hopefully better.

Thank you.

And uh we'll work with our public involvement and obviously notify residents before construction starts and and notify the city also.

Quiet zones, we're working with the city.

I'd like to thank the city to.

I mean, obviously, you guys are the keeper of the quiet zone in the southern portion.

Um, working with everyone to make sure that that stays compliant and the necessary documentation is in place.

So when when the quiet zone is uh being inspected, um that we're partnering with FRA and the appropriate regulatory bodies so that those can stay in place during construction and after construction.

So that's something we've been really looking at because we're impacting a lot of the great crossings, which obviously um impact the scoring and how the quiet zone is is implemented.

So this just summarizes kind of all the work that we've been doing to date.

Um want to thank everyone for the opportunity to present.

Um really believe in this project that Front Runner is a huge transportation solution that this project will really make a big positive impact in the the transportation um transportation system as a whole.

So I want to thank the city for their support.

And if you guys have any questions or concerns, um encourage you to reach out and communicate with us.

So any final questions?

I'm just curious, when do you anticipate that we would have double track all the way through that we would no longer have these segments?

Is there that's the eventual goal?

Yeah, to really have the whole thing double tracked and even add more track in the future if you want three tracks because you could have trains bypass each other and then go fast.

Um there any projections on kind of when would that would need to happen?

It's really dependent on funding, and there's no really dedicated funding source.

They they did this last session they created what's called the commuter rail fund, but it's only has about 50 million per year.

And this project's I mean just the double tracking alone we're adding about 23 miles and making it about 50% double track and that's about 1.2 billion to add all that double tracking.

So it's it's pretty far out and we're trying to do the easy parts first.

I mean they did the easy parts when they first built it now we're kind of come back to the the second easy parts.

So the parts that are left are the ones where you know there's a bridge column in the middle of the way or and things like that.

Gotcha.

Okay.

So any other questions thank you.

Okay, we'll go to item three working discussion items 3.1 parks, trails and trees committee discussion on the proposed code amendments.

Yeah good afternoon uh my name is Scott Thane.

I'm the acting right now as the uh chairperson of the uh parks and trails committee uh parks, trails and trees committee excuse me.

Um today we're we're coming and appreciate uh your time and the opportunity to present a proposal that our committee has put together regarding a change in the city code um I think you guys have a copy of that code available and I'll put it up here on the screen as well of the proposed changes that were um we've discussed as a group and would like to present to you as uh an idea of what we would like to see changed to give you a little bit of history let's see here we go.

Uh to give uh you a little bit of history regarding the park trails and trees committee um it's been in um operation for about two decades the reason that this uh committee was uh started was regarding um the city's desire to be part of the uh trees USA and the trees USA um requirements had um one of those requirements is to have this committee as part of uh the city code um since then there's been a lot of changes including the city has now got an urban forester and with that urban forest forest position they have a lot of responsibilities that essentially overlapped um what was part of this or what is part of the current uh committee's responsibilities so we've come um together as a committee and propose the following changes really we all revolves around removing a lot of those tree um the portions of the the committee that revolves around trees and the um the excuse me the standards that were set forth and how uh the trees and the streetscape would um the landscaping within the city would be um defined and so when I um with this proposal there's the main change is that is to remove the tree component of it and then the second component revolves around the park tax as part of our committee as our committees um come together to discuss um potential ways to further um use a park tax and also to help uh that park tax be uh help the public have more say in how that park tax is being used we've taken some um advisement and some feedback from previous city council and also from the arts component of the parks tax where they have a um scoring system I guess you would say to be able to identify potential uses of the park tax and we're proposing a similar uh type of committee being put in place on the park side of things um they revolve around two components number one uh the goal would be to help develop and help assist the parks department in their um use of the funds to be able to identify ways to be able to match the or to follow along with the master plan that's been created and help identify um help identify uh projects that we present to the city for recommendation and then the second component of the of our request is to change the code that would allow the committee to evaluate um or take uh recommendations from uh citizens within the commun within the community um and take those uh recommendations on smaller projects that could be easily implemented and and the the goal behind it would be able to have our it would be so that our citizens would be able to see uh how their tax dollars are being used and be able to have uh say in small projects in ways um in small projects that could benefit whether it be smaller parks or um

And then the second component of the of our request is to change the code that would allow the committee to evaluate or take a recommendations from citizens within the commun within the community and take those recommendations on smaller projects that could be easily implemented and the the goal behind it would be able to have or it would be so that our citizens would be able to see uh how their tax dollars are being used and be able to have uh say in small projects and ways um in small projects that could benefit, whether it be smaller parks or um local amenities that would be beneficial to certain parts of the community.

Um as a committee, we've discussed this for a few months.

We've taken this to um the parks department as well and submitted this to the city um attorney for review, and that's what we've um got in front of you at this point time is our proposed amendment or proposed changes to this code.

So that gives you a little brief history of of why we're we're making that request and wanted to present that to you this time to see um what your thoughts are if there's uh things that you find um fall in line with with what your uh desires are, things that we may change as well to make the make the committee function or change, I guess I should say the function of the committee.

So that's what I have to present and would just um like to hear or welcome any questions.

Mr.

Mayor, may I ask a question?

Sure.

So on letter E, when it talks about scheduling and planning of an annual parks and trails community event, um, is that what comes to my mind is like the Lehigh Serves volunteer things um that we do on the um 9-11 event where we go to all the parks.

Is is that what you're thinking like to do volunteer efforts, or what exactly I guess what's the vision behind your community events and would you need budget behind that?

So that that could be a few different things.

I mean, that is one way um that we have tried to do some of the events.

We've also the events have also um focused around potential projects in the ways of as an example, some of the things we've done in the past is we've we have done a trails cleanup um committee, if you will, or want gone out and seek on sought help from uh community sponsors to do trail cleanup.

Um it it would uh also we'd be working essentially in in conjunction with the parks department to see what they felt would be the best route.

Okay, thank you.

Um I'm really excited to see this.

I know last year was something that um I brought up that I would love to see more involvement from this committee when it comes to the park tax, and and it a big part of that I think would be the presentation that we're able to have from the arts and culture side to come back and say, so presenting what you think the recommendations are, but also a presentation um sometime in the following year, this is what we did.

And I think that helps to be able to be transparent to the residents.

This is what we're doing with that 70% of the park tax funding, this is what we built, this is you know, so we can have a list on the website of this is what was done this year through parks.

I think that would be really cool to see too is part of that.

Absolutely.

That's one of the things we've talked about is in the sense that this is and and I hope I'm saying this right, is a sunset tax, I think is the term it right.

It's it comes comes to a certain point where it has to be essentially um voted on again.

And that was one of the things we talked about is if we get to a point where it comes to vote and and anybody, anybody that that's looking to vote and they're saying, well, what do we do with the last funding?

That was a big concern that we felt would be a failure to what we're doing right now, and so that is one item that we have discussed, is saying here here is how your tax dollars are being used.

That's what's the same.

We do see that I guess uh a little bit right now with just some of the up at the family park.

There's a few things that have been labeled that way or um that have that park tax on it, but um there is not at this point that I'm aware of an all-inclusive list.

Mr.

Mayor, if if it's okay, could I just I'd love to hear Steve's um thoughts on this as well.

Sure.

And just how they would work together.

Um so I'll I'll be honest, I'm part of the holdup on this.

Uh the the park tax thing has kind of always been the council's purview.

And and that's something that that does scare me just a little bit about this.

I mean, uh of course this is a recommendation board.

This these guys can recommend things, they're not a voting board.

Um, but what this is going to do is take some of that authority, you know, uh I guess give some of the perceived authority to them.

Um and so that that's really one of my bigger concerns with this.

I think it's a great idea, and like Scott says, if we don't start labeling the things that we've done, this sunset tax is never gonna come back again.

Um we took a large portion of it right at the beginning and put it towards a single project.

I don't think that that's a bad approach, but how do we make sure that it's citywide and labeled that way?

Uh as far as taking the tree everything out of it, that doesn't hurt our department in any case at all.

I mean, we've we've already got that covered in other directions.

So and I guess the other part of it is is you know, one of my biggest frustrations with the park tax or the the committee itself is how do we what are we giving them to do?

Um is it just another review committee of a project that we're gonna build over the next two years, and so they're gonna see it once or twice and go, okay, thanks.

What else do you have?

I mean, not that we're not always busy and always have things going on.

But frankly, it turns into a reporting committee.

Um we go in and we tell them, hey, yeah, so this month we've done XYZ PDQ.

How can we help you?

Well, I don't know.

And so this does hit a lot of items.

Um I guess my recommendation if we go this route would be to say you guys have a set amount, similar to what we do the parks uh or to the arts and culture side of it.

Um give you guys the majority and say, yeah, we want to do X project, but give them a sum of money and says, okay, what can we get done for this much and what would you propose and then let you vote on it from there.

Yeah, I think that help.

No, I'm I'm glad you said that because I shared some of the same concerns regarding the park tax in particular.

Um because I think it is there's a lot of different ways we can go as a council.

Like you said, we can either build it up for a larger project, we can prioritize it on smaller projects to save the regular budget money, and I think you've done a good job in in this year's tentative and interim budget to identify where we could use those funds.

Um I hesitate just adding budget to another committee.

Um if that and I know I know you're saying the allocation would be similar to the arts and culture, but um, but that's just one concern I have there.

Um I I I guess my biggest thing is I want to make sure that you guys understand that if you I don't want to give them a committee for them to not have any authority and come and you know what I mean, because we want you to be able to decide.

I mean, you you were the ones voted in.

So this is this is what what the issue is is if we we go out and give it to another committee to say, hey, by the way, how are you gonna spend the money?

That's that's a hard sell.

Yeah to me.

So I I I think it's a good a good thought.

We're just gonna have to have to be careful on either the amount that we're able to say, okay, each year we're gonna allocate X amount for this committee to be able to do, or some way of creating it.

Yeah.

Um I think also representation, right?

So I don't know, I don't know as far as the members on the committee.

You know, if if all of them live on one side of the freeway or the other, or they live in pockets, right?

There may be parts of the city that may not have as much of a voice, or just it's not natural for me living out west to know everything that's going on in Heather's neighborhood and and the needs there, right?

Well, and we're a pretty heavy voice in this as well.

I mean, our department is, so we would help say, you know, have you guys thought about things in this area?

Uh I guess that would be it, is we need to really think through how this is going to do.

Um this is a great bylaw, I would say, but how does the action plan work?

What is the actual authority gonna be, and how do we make that that operate?

Yeah.

Thanks to Can I say something, Mayor?

Yes.

So what I'm what I'm recognizing is that there are some there's there's some changes that probably need to be made with the parks, trails, and trees committee in some way, whether it's changing the bylaws, kind of giving some focus or some direction to the committee.

But I think also as a new council member, I'm looking forward to our discussion, hopefully with you at some point about the parks priorities, the impact fees that we have coming up to use in places and in the budget it had listed some things for the park tax, and I would like to better understand that before fully like to to really kind of then understand the role of the parks, the PTTC is what you know at that point.

So that's kind of where I'm at.

Is that's is that kind of yeah, realistically, I mean I I've said this out loud several times.

We've got to find something for them to do.

It's not fair as a committee member to come every month and just be there for reporting session.

Uh that they're anxious, they're willing.

We need to make sure that they're they're doing their portion and we're not stringing them along.

So is this the right move?

Maybe.

Uh I mean, I've got other ideas.

I've shared them with several of you.

Um this is a this is a good start, though.

I really do think, you know, for for what the committee is, if we gave them this to do, this would keep them very busy at least for a few months of the year uh getting these projects organized, taken care of.

I I I do want to address the what would that one event be.

I don't necessarily think it would be a service event.

I think it would be an awareness event, an educational event of what do we have, how do we have it?

Um we have so many parks in our system that people don't even know about that, you know.

I got complaints about the minute that the law passed on the e-bikes.

Why are we taking away all these parks for e-bikes?

Frankly, we're building a park for downhill mountain biking.

It's not an e-bike park, but we we are trying to help community with everything that we do.

We have a vast array of different activities that most people don't even know about.

I mean, we we closed down family park last year, and people acted like that was the only park that we've ever built.

It's crazy.

We have so many different things that people can do, they don't know about them.

So this potentially could help with that as well.

Mr.

Mayor.

Um, and just to be clear too, I don't think that I would ever see the committee as taking um ownership.

I mean, even when we saw with the arts and culture, we came in and just wiped the slate.

But I do think that it's it's nice to be able to have that some more recommendations, some more things that kind of indicate that we are out there working with the community.

But I think at the end of the day, I agree with you that those decisions need to come here.

And and maybe it's okay to have like a small amount that it's like, okay, this is gonna be your project for this year, and you know, something that you feel comfortable with.

I that's really important to me too.

So I just wanted to be clear on that.

But yeah, well, and I uh and I I guess what I mean, it is absolutely perceived.

It's not I mean, you guys will have to have all authority.

You're gonna be the decision makers.

I don't want them to have any money that they can spend freely.

Okay.

I think that it is more or less what would you do with 100,000 and let them present to that limit.

And then at that point, you would say, yeah, we're okay with these, or have you thought about this?

Or let's change this.

Let's save this one till next year and increase this one.

You know, something something more on that line, not necessarily not not anything that it's not necessarily gonna hurt a large project, but it's still gonna show if we don't start branding this, if we don't start getting this out, we'll never have it again.

And that's been my fear for four years now.

Yeah.

Um, we have one very well marked park out of our park tax.

We've only really built one very nice park with it, but still, frankly, if you're not using that park, you don't know about it.

Well, and I like how you phrased it, you know, having a hundred thousand or a couple hundred, saying, hey, you guys go find the best use of this.

I guess the one thing we'd probably have to look at in paragraph G, it says to evaluate all park tax funds applications or proposals for park trail and open space.

There's no real applications, right?

That's kind of no at this point.

That's all you guys' decision.

So it's more just like suggesting ideas or recommendations on how to use a portion of the case.

Yeah, please help me out on that one.

If I can speak to that, there are two components that we were identify or we've identified of potentially how to use or how we would like to be involved in that process.

There's one component, and it and maybe to clarify, it's it's not a this is what the uh members of the committee want because we live in this area.

The idea would be that citizens could come to the group, just like the park, uh the art side of it, they come and just whoever I know on the art side it's it's groups or certain um nonprofits, whatever that come to to the group to present ideas.

We're seeing as a citizen.

Um, yeah, we had 150, 200,000.

We'd love to be able to say uh citizen come up and say, hey, we use this park, and and I'm just making some up.

We would love to have soccer goals in here because there are practices that happen every single month, or there's a little trail around here, and we want to have some park benches that someone could sit down and and sit down and enjoy while their kids are playing.

And so our recommendation is to have a uh uh approval process where citizens could come in.

There's a small amount of money that we had set aside and say, okay, here are all the different um people that came in, here's all their ideas, it's gonna cost roughly X.

We come in and we've scored them.

Do they meet um the needs?

Do they are they all you know spread out through the city?

What what already is out there?

Does it supplement maybe another project that's going on?

Do they are they all you know spread out through the city, what what already is out there, does it supplement maybe another project that's going on, and then be able to come to you as a council and say we we've come up with these 10 projects from the 20 that were presented to us, we think that meet the criteria that's set forth, whether you know we could get together create what that criteria would be, or whether we follow the master plan.

Um, probably our goals.

That's what I would say the department goals as well.

We would run off those.

But it would follow that same process.

This is what we recommend, and it gives the ear, it gives uh listening ears to the citizens, and they can see their their tax dollars being used.

So that that's the idea on the on the proposals that would go out, it would be two citizens.

It wouldn't be you know uh any company or anything like that, or or just our group as well.

So just like consolidating, maybe soliciting and consolidating recommendations from residents and proposing that in a format that we would counsel.

We would we would want to follow a format that that it's not just um subjective, right?

We would have a matrix to go out there and say, okay, here's the criteria is how's the score across that criteria.

Um I've met with one of the individuals on the art side, talked about how they do that, and we'd um formulate something similar to that, so we could come up and say, here are the scores that we've come up with.

We recognize as well that it's just our recommendation.

You guys have ultimate authority to say what would happen with that.

You could you know turn around and say, hey, no, we're gonna spend all the money over here.

We do see there is value though, if if some small amount could go to the citizens to be able to allow them to have a say.

And then the second component regarding the the evaluate uh or propose city projects.

The goal behind that in F is that um when I look at it on the business side of things, I look at a strategic plan.

And I feel that that master plan is the city is paid for and is looking to um to implement is that master plan when it comes or that um strategic plan when it comes to the parks department.

And we would like to be able to do that same recommendation and say, hey, these projects they meet this master plan criteria, they're following this.

This is what we would recommend that um these are the projects that we would recommend moving forward that that the parked money goes to.

Thank you.

Mayor, um just some comments.

I forgive me if I'm blunt.

Just gonna lay it out because we've got some tough decisions tonight that are weighing on my mind.

So I feel it's it's really easy for and fun for residents to come and say, this is how we want to spend money.

What I would love to see you do is help us find solutions.

Um to do service projects, volunteer things to improve our parks.

We've got a tight budget, and it's it's nice to say, oh, we need a park here or here or here, but those come with ongoing costs that you you're not aware of because you're not doing our job.

Our job is to dig deep into budget.

And um, so I you know, we just had somebody come the other day pitching Dragonfly Park.

Great idea, but all I see now is dollar signs, and where are we gonna find the money for that?

You know, um, and I I am sad, I I get you kind of want to move on, but taking out the whole tree component.

I mean, we're looking at we need to hire some arborists.

Um I mean, yes, it's not fun, but if you could help with that tree inventory or you know, looking at the street trees, and that I think that would be.

Sure.

So realistically, the technical side of that is not in there.

They can't help at all.

Yeah, realistically, we have that covered, even if we weren't to acquire more help on that.

It's more of the management side.

We have the management side under control.

It is really the actual physical work portion of it.

Okay, and volunteers can't help.

Volunteers and chainsaws are not the best idea.

Trim in the branches.

That's what I'm talking about.

Trimming I'm gonna say no on that.

I can go into the colour.

Liability, yeah.

Okay.

Okay.

It's not, yeah, I don't want volunteers driven by trees.

Okay, fair.

That's fair.

Okay, so all right, take the trees out.

Um but yeah, I I would just and the park grant, again, it's that's a tax, and uh where the elected representatives, you know, um, to decide where those go.

And I just I feel like and again, you know, with the park grant committee, um appreciate their help, but there's there's just bigger pictures involved, broader context when it comes to where we allocate these funds.

Um again, it's it's it's fun to come and present ideas and projects and have great thoughts of what you know we could spend the money on.

Um but honestly, that's the easy part.

The hard part is paying for the ongoing cost or solutions where we don't have to take money from something else or um yeah.

So I would like to see you utilize your ambition to serve um and and maybe start there.

Um but I I'm not comfortable saying, hey, here's 100,000, figure out how to spend it, because I could do that any other day of the week.

So is that sorry, but no, no, that's fine.

And and yeah, I I guess to to, and I maybe probably made it clear is like we're we're not saying we would own that 100,000.

It it's it's just our recommendation to come forward to say this is a way that we feel that the citizens could be more involved in this process.

And I hope, and we do actually have citizens come to us quite often with ideas for parks.

And I again we're we were elected by the people to be their representatives, so I would want them to come to us with your ideas and their input.

And again, going back to the park grant, I would honestly have liked to heard from the applicants myself to ask my questions to get a better understanding.

I think there were some misconceptions with some of the organizations asking for money.

So and we're public facing a committee here directing them to you.

I I feel like I would like them to come to me.

I that's my job.

But but I would love, I mean, not that I don't want you to come with ideas.

Absolutely.

Um, and especially on ideas to save money or you know, service projects, or involve the community and and education is great.

Um teaching, you know, just taking care, educating people to take care of our parks.

Um cut down on vandalism would be great.

I don't know if they could do that, but anyway, um yeah, I think we can utilize you for sure though.

And I think we we need to do more of that, but just in the right way.

My thoughts.

Thanks.

Mr.

Mayor, or I want to are you could um I just wanted to build upon the comments made.

Um I do feel like we're going a little bit backwards, and so help I just want to make sure I'm gonna repeat back to make sure I understand what you're asking, and then if I'm wrong, please correct me.

Um I'm not fully grasping why you would have a hundred thousand or two hundred thousand to recommend.

I would like you to risk like if the process the way we do for the 30% for arts and culture, I would like you to look at the 70% in a whole and say, based on what we know about the master plan, based on what we know, um, this is what we think you should do here, but you know, you like your rubric and cry of right criteria, this is what we believe.

It'd be great also for us to get the parks department perspective as well.

Maybe you guys overlap, maybe you clash at times, but both are good for us to hear.

Um I don't want to cap you at like a small portion of the park tax allocation.

I would rather see you be a committee that can really become experts in the parks and then gain that valuable feedback and give recommendations again to some of the comments up here recommendations.

Um I would kind of felt like I was hearing that we would give you like a like a budget line item that you could then go spend, and that makes me uncomfortable, not as a reflection of lack of trust, but more of a transparency and accountability concern for residents to know that the the five of us plus our mayor, you know, does that stuff.

So can you help?

Are you asking for like a blank line item?

No, no.

So let me try let me step back a little bit to that 70 percent.

Our idea was yes, we would we'd love to have a a recommendation of how that 70 percent is.

We've divided that into two components.

One of it is what the parks department is already doing and saying help us or let us help you and and working through that master plan and saying this is our recommendation following this of how to use those those funds.

In conjunction with that, we we identified a small amount of money.

I mean, 100,000 is not a small amount of money, but when it comes to these projects, um we realize that you you can't go build a park for 100,000 or 150,000.

So that that dollar amount which which we threw out, I think was 150,000.

That was purely a subset to be able to have the citizen input.

So the citizen could come and say, I I we need a park bench here.

We need some of these smaller amenities that could go in an existing park and the the citizens to be able to come in and say, this is what we would like to have done, or this is what we would like to have in our community directly around us, and then being able to bring those together, identify how they fit in with the master plan and say, here's our recommendations.

It comes to 125,000 of cost of the total 70%.

But once again, it's not us using it, it's not us saying this house used.

It's just coming in allowing the citizen to have an additional input to say, hey, that park bench is because I went and brought this to the committee, and now we have this because of citizen input.

Yeah, and I think from my perspective, I don't think you need a dollar amount to do that.

I think you can take the 70%, go through your, you know, what's on the master plan and what what's being worked on.

And then in addition to you might have 300,000 worth of re requests from citizens that you're allowed to prioritize.

I I guess I just don't want to, I don't know why we would cap you or why we would restrict you.

Um I hope you consider it the whole 70% as a whole, and you engage with the residents on every item of that 70%.

And as we, the five of us should also be engaging with residents on all of these line items as well.

Um I guess maybe I just don't see the need for like a certain allocation of it when I think that the citizens would be involved for every dollar spent.

And the whole reason that I'm even throwing that out there is I'm hoping that you guys have a big project that you have in mind that we can go and spend this money on.

Um we're not doing onesie and twosie throughout the whole city because frankly you get a better bang for your buck.

If you've got a large project, you're gonna make you're getting more done for less money than if I'm putting concrete all over the city and putting park benches.

Not that the park benches aren't needed, and not that things like that aren't aren't necessary.

That's why I kind of said, hold on, let's not give them the full amount, because I think the full amount frankly, we have major parks that need to be taken care of and worked on and things that upgrades needed.

And so not that the committee shouldn't have a say in those, but realistically, any plans that we have for anything that we're building, we always run by them and say these are the things that we would like you to see and do in XYZ.

And so that's that's really where that substantial dollar amount came from to say, okay, you guys, you know, let's give you this this leeway here, and then from there, let's let the council decide what they want to do.

Yeah, and that's I think that's where I think it's a little bit of a backwards approach.

Um I would like to see it, and this is where I'll just say how I feel.

Um I would like to see I I love the idea of getting the committee more of a of some direction, and so I think this is a great step forward.

I would like to see them operate similar to the park tax committee where they look at the full 70 percent.

They throughout the year should be engaging with the parks department and and understanding the priorities of projects and the master plan so that every year they can come up with some priorities.

I actually think it would be healthy to have some differing ideas from the parks department and the committee.

That's a good thing for us to hear and deliberate.

Um and yeah, I I don't I'm not in, I don't love this like small subset that oh, they they can have freedom over.

I I think um I would like to have your input on all 70 percent and that's just where I stand.

So I just want to voice that and um echo some of the concerns that my council members have also said.

Thank you.

Councilmember Freeman.

Yeah, so I'm the liaison.

Well, so uh Emily is also to the parks committee.

We've talked about this.

I would like to have a the council, since many of us are new, have a discussion with the parks department, a separate discussion at some point again about the parks.

Um parks committee meeting, uh parks church committee meeting next week, and I think it would be great to talk about some of these ideas, feedback.

This is I'm really glad you came, Scott.

Thank you for coming.

This is an important discussion to have because even though you sent me this and I tried to send it to the council months ago and socialize it.

I think we didn't get a lot of feedback from the council.

So I think it was great to have this discussion now, and then I would I would uh like to talk about this code proposed code changes at a later date with the com with the council after we have been able to assess all the needs of the parks in the city ourselves and kind of see like is this what direction do we we really want to go and you know all these percentages things, whatever.

I mean, I think it is a little different talking about parks versus nonprofits and grants and outside organizations versus inside, like right.

We have we have the parks department who are our specialists who would be applying basically to you to and then you would tell them.

I mean, it's it's kind of it's got it's kind of like be this interesting relationship going on.

And basically we want the park PRC name on things because the first five million dollars was spent towards Family Park.

Yeah, and that's kind of like this is the one of the answers.

That's really what I'm after here.

I've got to start branding this.

And to brand it, we have to put that out there.

We can't.

I mean, yeah, it it goes so well, it would be a shame to lose it.

Yeah.

So thanks for coming.

I I would love to talk more about this code.

Change it another time.

So thank you.

May you may ask just a follow-up question for Steve.

Could they I mean I appreciate you getting input like, oh, this park needs a bench or something like that.

Could that be something where they go out and like inventory each park or um just see like oh I think I get what you're sorry to interrupt you, right?

You know what I'm saying?

Yeah, so I guess really work where this is I know that I know that citizens are supposed to come to you guys and ask for requests and do that.

And they do.

And they do.

But where do you go with it?

You go either to me or you go to Jason, or you go to Dean, or you go.

This is a this is a way that we can streamline that and say, you know what, we don't have that in our budget right now.

That's a great idea.

And put the burden on investigation construction cost analysis.

Is this worth it?

D all of the above back to a committee that frankly, in my eyes, is struggling to have value.

I mean, I I I hate saying that out loud, but but they do.

I mean, it's really hard to even get them there to want to participate.

Um I don't know that more than four of them, maybe.

Maybe I guess there's only five now, isn't there?

Anyway, I'm gonna say, I'm gonna say I don't know that two of them have read the parks master plan.

I don't.

Um that's hard.

I mean, that's what their their whole thing is.

So if we give them something to do that's not necessarily the detailed work that me and my staff have to take care of, because we are, we're the experts in the field.

I mean, Trent has more certifications than all but four people in the state in his in his field.

It's amazing.

But in that same breath, we do like differing opinions.

We do want to know what people want, and it's hard for us to know what everybody wants because all we do is put out fires all day long.

So this would this is a benefit to us if this is what we want the committee to do, if that makes sense.

Scott, thank you for coming.

Thank you for expressing we we appreciate that you volunteer and come and do that.

So from me, thank you for the time that you put forth.

Appreciate it.

Thank you.

Okay, item 3.2 discussion of the electric cost of service and rate design study.

Mr.

Joel.

Let me just see and make sure we're all connected here.

Maybe I just share my screen to show you what I'm looking at here.

Okay, looks like that works.

And then uh just a sound check, Dave.

Can you hear me?

Dave Bird.

Yes.

Okay.

Can you hear me, Joel?

Yep, we got you.

Perfect, thank you.

All right.

Okay.

So uh Dave Berg, as you know, is our consultant that did the cost of service and rate design study.

Um I've got some just a couple of quick slides to go through.

Um and just kind of update.

It was a I've sent this out uh first iteration, we made a couple of corrections, but the first iteration went out about a month ago, and then again roughly a couple weeks ago, uh, our final draft.

And from one of our other discussions, if there was a request to see uh how we compare to other cities.

So that's what these slides are, and you've been provided these.

This was what we presented in February of our current rates where we sit comparatively to other cities when you compare a small residential home to a medium and a large residential home.

And then with the changes in the rate design, um, this would put us at this level.

Um, so on large residential, we bump up a little bit.

Um that should just give you a fill of uh where we sit with this, and with that, that's really where I want to start with.

So, yeah, any questions?

Mr.

Mayor, may I ask a question?

Do you know if St.

George and Spanish Fork are also doing rate studies this year?

I don't know that.

Okay.

I'm just curious if they're also going to be.

Oh, Dave does.

I forgot to do that.

What's the answer, Dave?

Spanish fork will be doing one this year, yes.

Okay.

I don't know about St.

George, but Spanish fork definitely will.

Okay, so there's a chance that if they adopt an increase, we might still be the lowest for large homes.

We we don't know, right?

Like I could watch some of their meetings and find out.

But yeah.

Yeah, we looked at maybe possibly comparing this year 28, 29.

But as we do that, we're comparing to old data.

We don't have their new data yet, so it's not a really reflective comparison.

That's kind of the best we can do right now.

Okay, thanks.

With their published rates.

Yeah.

Joel, just on this.

Well, one of the things one of the things I can maybe share because I I do Spanish force rates.

Their rate is a little bit different residential.

They have a bunch of higher customer charge.

Which then to a certain extent results in a bit of a lower energy charge.

And so what happens then is that your rate with the lower customer charge is in a way more beneficial to smaller used customers.

Whereas their rate is on with the higher customer charge is more beneficial to larger customers.

Well, there's a little bit of that that goes on, not necessarily because of the level of rates, but because of the design of the rates.

Understood.

Thank you.

Yeah, so why why do you uh break it down as small, medium, large, residential when it's I mean, the residential rate increase will apply to all of them.

And how do you do that?

Do you look at just usage or uh we look at the whole picture?

So we take yes, their usage.

Actually, I have a bonus slide.

But um we just we literally take the usage for each month of some sample customers, and then we bill it out with the customer charge as proposed, the power purchase adjustment clause, and the energy charge.

And so it's pretty straightforward on what these costs are, and as we change them, we can move these around.

Now, this is reflective of three customers of 33,000, but um it gives you a feel of what it does to small, medium, and large.

Uh and I can also add the other thing is when you get into the large, you've got your ring design for energy.

You know, you've got two energy rates in the residential class.

There's a rate for zero to a thousand kilowatt hours, and then there's a higher rate for usage over a thousand.

So obviously a small customer on a usage basis will not be used, will not get into that higher rate.

Whereas a large customer, you look at those usages that Joel's got there are like 2500 kilowatt hours, they're buying most of their energy at a rate that's over a penny and a half higher than the rate for the first thousand.

So that's why you will also there's a difference between small and large because of rate design.

Okay, help me understand this.

You're proposing a rate increase, but are you assuming conservation?

I mean, the total on the proposed, yeah, they're all negative, so they're their bills will go down with their rate increase.

Yeah, so there's two components to the rate.

There's a power purchase adjustment, uh, and then there's the then there's like covering our operations.

The increase comes on the operation side of that.

Now there's still the PPAC.

So for example, if we look back, we've done very well this last year, and because of that power purchase adjustments, it will actually reduce that amount.

So the net increase is actually a decrease.

And I know that's confusing, but let me just illustrate it.

We we budgeted 75 dollars a megawatt hour to purchase our wholesale power cost.

We came in at 71.

Market's been favorable, we made some good decisions, we've got a great team, and so we're able to keep those rates down, even though the base rate, I'll call it is increasing.

So as long as we can maintain something like that, um that PPAC will protect us moving forward.

This doesn't count.

This does this include the customer charge?

Yes.

This this example here that we're looking at?

Yes.

It's added.

Okay.

Thank you.

That makes sense now.

Any other questions?

Oh, is that it?

Yeah.

I mean, this is just the QA for I'll tell you next steps is uh let's see.

I think our next meeting is June 9th.

Is that correct?

So we would we'd be you know, barring any challenges that you guys have or concerns, we would bring this to you for um adopting that in j in on June 9th.

Okay, I have more questions.

I just wondered if that was your presentation.

Yeah, I just kept it short because this could really go anywhere with questions you might have.

So it's up, this the floor is yours.

Great.

Um I do have some questions, but I asked you, I called you and asked the questions today.

So I'm not sure.

Yeah, no, I appreciate that.

Yeah.

I should have called you.

Um helped me understand.

So I I'm looking at all the different sections.

Um the projected operating results and it well, okay.

First of all, this iteration is very different from the previous draft.

So can you explain what happened there?

In the previous draft, it the numbers are better, the base rate increase was less.

So what why the difference?

Are you talking about this page here?

Is this your referencing?

I'm referencing the thing you sent out the May 4th draft versus the May 20th draft.

Yeah.

So Dean and Dave helped me remember, but as I recall, um trying to remember the things that we noticed in there uh that we needed to correct.

One was um we weren't counting enough on the fund balance for our impact fees.

And so that that had a big chunk in there.

That was probably the biggest one.

The biggest change.

Uh the rate that we had in there included the PPAC, and we didn't think it did.

Oh, yeah.

That was the main thing.

Yeah.

And then the money we had an impact fees up.

Yeah.

Say that again.

So in short, the initial version, we inadvertently counted the PPAC that's on the fee schedule twice.

Okay.

So we caught that and said, well, that's covering too much.

We gotta we gotta fix that, which then made the rate increase higher, and then we re-assessed where it and we realized we need to make sure we include our impact fee fund balance because our impact fee projects are listed in here.

And so that balance then brought it down.

So we kind of went up and back down.

Okay.

So I'm the overall difference we were around four and a half percent before, and now we're at five.

Yeah.

So we were we were essentially overstating revenues of the existing rates, but we were understating available funds for capital improvements.

Yep.

Okay, well, looking at the operate projected operating cost.

Um doesn't have a page number, I'm sure.

Sorry.

But it's on the second section.

All the numbers.

Yeah, I think that's this page, 2A.

Exhibit 2A, yeah.

Okay.

So there's when you go to fiscal year 25 to 26.

Um your charges for services drop by about 3 million.

Two million?

2 million so from 55 to 53.

That that portion of the rate in two late there's no rate changes.

And the PPAC is going down because you've been doing so well in wholesale power, so you're collecting less money because of the PBAC.

So this is pre-any changes.

But would you huh?

This is pre-any change.

So if we didn't do anything, that's why it goes down, because we're not increasing the operating cost to bring that back up to make it more solvent.

Does that make sense?

This is if we do nothing, then we're gonna be negative.

Yeah, exactly.

And so you can see we go down to minus two percent.

Yeah, minus two percent in our savings account, effectively by 2030.

But wouldn't you include the PPAC?

The same thing only with the changes.

Oh, you're saying that it's okay.

So the next year you would increase it the PPAC, right?

Because you're not capturing the revenue you need for the the cost, or on this table?

Yeah.

Like this is with no.

Is this with the the new calculation?

No.

No, this is this is this is if we do nothing for the next four five years until 2030.

If we keep all of our rates the same, we have to do that.

Including the PPAC at 0.017 or whatever.

And that's gonna adjust for the wholesale power component.

But specifically, our operational costs are increasing, and we have to correct for those somewhere.

So because there's no correction in this table, that's why you see it all go down.

Your charges for service are reducing, but the PPAC is staying the same.

I'm still not.

I mean, I can understand it if you're using the new formula for the PPAC where it is reduced, but if you keep everything status quo, why again, why is it going down?

What's your estimated PPC PPAC on this table?

Yeah, go ahead.

Okay.

The PPAC is in both of those are the same.

We're not changing the PPAC formula.

Okay.

I think I can see.

So the amount of revenue in the current version due to the PPAC in exhibit 2A is the same as the PPAC revenue in exhibit 4B.

The difference between the two in revenues is the is the changes in the published rates.

The customer charge and the energy charge not including the PPAC.

So that formula is what you've been using.

It's that 0.00813, 0.00262, and so forth.

Yes.

So that's the And the reason that that PPAC is going down from the current to fiscal 27 is because you've done better for wholesale power.

The idea around it's the purchase power adjustment clause.

So if costs go up or down, it's supposed to adjust.

So we're collecting less next year because your purchase power costs have been better than we expected.

But you you recalculate that every year.

What's in the table here is just my projections.

I will never claim to be good enough to know what's going to happen to wholesale power costs in the market going forward.

But the idea is as wholesale power in the market change, you're able to adjust that portion of the rate, PPAC, just to adjust for differences in wholesale power costs.

Primarily the changes in the rates, not PPAC, but the published rates are addressing your local costs, which are increasing, as well as the funds needed for capital improvements.

Okay, to go back.

So kind of you've been using the formula all along, right?

Yeah.

Okay.

Yeah, we'll we run that formula each year.

I looked on the city website and it had a flat number, so I thought that's what okay.

Well, yes, we run the calculation, but it was so significant.

We would have had like a 20% rate increase in 2023, if you recall.

We chose not to do that, but to do a lower PPAC and recover that over about two to three years instead.

So that's why it was I think it was one uh point one seven zero one seven, anyways.

Yeah.

Okay.

Um so with your wholesale power costs are going down.

The why again, this is exhibit two a why is the operation and maintenance going up so much?

So I'll take a stab at that.

Uh if you look at our 10-year plan of projects coming up, we got a lot of stuff to build.

So it's more expensive.

Yeah, it looks like out by 2030 will be 10 million.

Uh well, we'll need a lot.

I won't say I won't put a number of things.

Those are those are substations.

There's two of them in there, uh, Sky and then probably uh cold springs.

So it looks to me like the um solution is to kind of increase the base, the customer charge like the base rates by a small amount every year, and then a small amount of cents per kilowatt for that's kind of the solution so that we can build up reserves so we have that money for capital projects that are coming up in the future.

Correct.

Okay.

I think the other thing, when you look at the operating expenses, so for instance, the the purchase power costs are in that operating and maintenance line item, which is going up.

But what you understand is the average per kilowatt hour is better, but you're selling more because of growth.

So the actual overall number still goes up because you're buying so many more units because of growth on the system.

Okay.

So you're also selling more uh energy as well.

When you look at um if you look at the charges for services from 27 to 28, it goes up by three and a half million dollars.

A little of that in 2A, a little of that is PPAC, but most of that is because of more sales.

So you you gotta be careful you look at the increases in that customer charge unless I'm missing something.

Yeah.

That's gonna be let's go here.

Oops.

And exhibit 4A.

Sorry, it's all the way at the bottom here.

Okay.

Large commercial solar, there's your there's your customer charge.

29, and we're gonna take it up to 37.

And we have one customer that's on that rate.

Um, and $37 is not gonna do anything for that customer because their cost is significantly higher for their energy charge.

So they are charged that thousands of dollars.

Oh yeah.

Um so you might want to correct on page six.

Uh six of section four.

Oh, well.

Excuse me, I I misspoke.

Um they're not they're not, they are charged the customer charge, but not the PPAC.

So bottom of page six.

Page six.

Yeah, section four page six, right there.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So that's that's because the large solar customer, we've entered a power purchase agreement with them that they will procure will procure solar energy in their behalf at a fixed contracted rate for 20 years.

So that's why the PPAC is not moving, because the energy cost is fixed for them.

However, all the other components are on the table to continue adjust.

As transmission costs increase, we charge them an increase, and we get them in all the other components that we need to to make sure our costs are covered.

So, how does that affect if we're securing solar for them?

And sometimes solar is very, very cheap, right?

Um, how is that?

I'm just wondering, does that do they get the benefit of that cheaper rate?

Yeah, so for energy.

Energy only.

Right.

Yeah, so they're tacked on.

They wanted it, we call it sleeving.

We're sleeving the Red Mesa project to them, and there's a fixed power purchase adjustment.

I'm sorry, fixed power purchase agreement that we're passing along to them with extra things added on, delivery cost, transmission, capacity charges, local costs, uh customer charge, all these other things are still in play.

But let me help here.

If you're looking at are you looking at exhibit 4A.

Okay, there it is.

So if you look at the general service demand rate 105, that's a large customer who's not part of the solar.

You'll notice that the compare back to the large commercial solar 11, the customer charge is the same, the demand charge is the same, but actually this the solar has a higher energy charge.

Because if you're just buying solar energy, yes, it's relatively inexpensive, but you gotta remember the sun doesn't shine at night.

It also isn't firm, so it has to be firmed up, and we have to deliver it over the transmission system.

So you can't just pass that pure energy charge on to them because I think everyone is energy during the day.

And then so there's when you when you hear about how cheap solar is, what's missing from that equation is what we call firming it up so that you can use power all day long.

And then so the rate is actually slightly higher than it would be if they had stayed on the 105 rate, which is where they were before we created the solar rate.

Okay.

That makes sense.

I just don't want them to get all the cheap power and charge everybody else more.

So thank you.

Do you have a great job answering all the questions?

Appreciate it.

Um, hold on one sec.

Anyone else can answer questions ask questions while I read over my notes if you want?

Okay.

Okay, so the the assumption that there's a 4% annual increase in the cost of wholesale power, is that historically what you've seen, or what is it it said a 4% increase because of the wholesale the cost of wholesale power?

Yeah.

Um it's hard to say what the future is gonna be because we've entered into a whole new market, and so that is a that is an estimate.

Okay, yeah, that's it's gonna be hard to tell for sure.

But again, that PPAC will adjust.

And you guys in particular learned that on the lesson of the the market that are a few years ago.

Right.

Umbody could predict that.

Right.

Okay.

I think that's all I have.

Okay.

Feel free to reach out with any others.

This is a great format because you have all the experts here.

We got Dean, we got Dave.

Uh, but if we need a field more questions from them, we can tell all three of you or something.

Yeah, that that'd be fine.

Um, and then without any other delays or issues, I think we'd look for an approval uh July or sorry, June 9th.

And then just so you're aware of like how the process will go is we'll collect all of the data for the fiscal year.

But we're about a two-month lag to get our final wholesale invoices for power.

So we'll probably be doing the calculation for the PPAC and adopting the new rate in September from here on out.

Because we'll look at that whole fiscal year, do our calculations, and then we'll come to you in September.

Um this is how it's calculated, but we still will bring it forward and let you know what the number is.

We won't just run forward with it, even though you've granted us authority to do it, we'll still bring it to you.

Great.

Okay.

Thank you, Joe.

Thank you guys.

Um, item 3.3 life safety signage ordinance discussion.

There he is.

Saving won't.

Here he comes.

Good evening.

I know you got a busy night, so this is gonna be short and sweet.

Uh my name is Gary and Rowitt.

I'm the Lehigh Fire Marshal.

And I've worked with Craig Chambers to come up with this ordinance to address a specific problem that we have.

Uh the the problem starts with the international fire codes, life safety system signage requirements are very basic and vague.

And so over the past few years, we've developed a standard that we give out to the construction companies and business owners and and say, hey, this is what we'd like to see, so that we have some uh I guess some consistency across the city, and then also have uh signs and language that our first responders are gonna pick up on quickly.

Um but since this is just a standard, what we run into is a lot of business owners, construction companies, you know, they're this item comes up at the last minute and they're rushing to get their certificate of occupancy, and so they go and get the signage that they can get at a moment's notice, and it often doesn't reflect that standard that we have.

And since since it is a standard and not an ordinance, I don't have a way to enforce it, hence uh this ordinance.

So it tackles FACP, which is fire alarm control panel.

And then we've got FD FDC, and in the standard, this sign is actually smaller.

We've reduced it to four inches, so it's not so big.

And that is uh fire department connection, that's where our trucks actually tie into the building's fire sprinkler system.

And then lastly, the fire riser room.

And that is the room that houses the building's fire sprinkler systems.

So this only applies to buildings that have life safety systems.

Um as you wander the city, you'll see examples uh that I'm referring to where you'll have different sign colors, different sign language, and uh you'll even see it on this building as you exit where it's just a red vinyl sticker that may only last five years, you know, max.

So uh this ordinance would set an enforceable standard to create uh consistency across the board and then also provide uh signage that is uh one reflective and then also made of a durable uh material that'll last for years.

So any questions?

So this would be um any sign that isn't in compliance with this would need to be replaced.

Is that what I understand?

This would be moving forward.

Okay.

Yeah.

Okay.

And then the and it would be on the cost of whatever business or owner or anything like that.

Yeah, at this time we'd we'd just be setting the standard, and then I would be identifying um approved vendors that would have these available, and then they would go out and purchase from them.

Uh in the future, if if this passes, I would pursue an option to to purchase these signs through the bond process.

And then we would be able to provide them.

No the questions.

Great.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Have a good rest of your evening.

Okay.

Item 3.4 neighborhood exchange structures ordinance discussion, parks and facilities department.

Mr.

Trent.

Hello, I'm Trent Dyer from the Parks Department.

Hopefully you've had a chance just to read over the summary of kind of why we're proposing this.

Basically, we're just trying to clear up the code and make sure that the city isn't falling liable or responsible for any risks or maintenance associated with stuff put on our right-of-ways or on um city property that residents are trying to provide.

We support these and we like them and we think they're great for our community, whether it's a little free library or a uh you know, fresh egg stand or some other thing.

We just want to make sure that they're on private property and that we that we're backing that up with our city code.

So happy to answer any questions that you may have or um hear any concerns with with what's proposed in here.

Just a quick question.

And I get it.

We all have the little library, yeah.

But it's understandable why we have to kind of keep them on private property.

So how um do you have any ideas about how to educate people on this?

Because I hate to see somebody put one in their park strip thinking that's their private property and then being told to take it down or something.

Sure.

We uh and and and to be quite transparent, we we have some of these existing that we've you know talked with residents and allowed in the past, and and that's something that we'll have to go and address.

And you know, whoever put these here initially may not be involved with it anymore.

It may just be kind of a running on its own.

And so uh part of our engagement process is to uh reach out to the community um in these areas and and just educate them on this process and hopefully find you know somebody who's willing to take stewardship of that and potentially move it into their yard.

Um I think moving forward with with future, typically we've had requests come in if it's been on our city property.

I think the right of way would would definitely be a challenge just to address that kind of on an as-needed basis with our with our code enforcement, or you know, if if we catch it and see it early enough, just educating them and and probably having something that we can hand to them and say, hey, this is our ordinance, give them an opportunity to address it and you know, hopefully move it behind the sidewalk.

Yeah, so maybe maybe staff with the what's the Facebook thing.

Um whatever.

The yeah.

Maybe put something out friendly, just kind saying, hey, these are great, but just be aware you need to set them back and that'd be okay.

Again, I just feel bad if somebody puts one up and then are told no, you can't, then we're the bad guys, you know.

And anyway, just catch it before they do that would be great if we can.

But we'll still be the bad guys, but I know.

We're Mr.

Mayor, may I?

Yep.

Um so I saw that Gary from engineering talked about lemonade and in that um the section of the code where you specifically refer to temporary lemonade stands.

Is that because of the law in um that they call the lemonade, like the lemonade stand law, or why did you choose to write on I it's on page, that was added in response to his comment.

So this was updated after the DRC.

And I believe we added that in so that it wouldn't necessarily restrict kids from setting up a stand and you know code enforcement coming after kids.

Okay and maybe that needs to be written differently.

What if it's Kool-Aid and not lemonade?

Like they'll be fine, right?

Right.

Yeah.

Or if they're doing Tang back in my day, we did Tang.

Um But yeah, I wonder if that DRC comment of changing it to temporary um food or something might be beneficial uh just because lemonade is so specific.

And I know we have that law, but I didn't know if that's what you guys were trying to go after or something else.

Yeah, I think originally it said um and Gary's not in here to correct me, but I believe it said it just said um this does not include lemonade stands, and they updated it, planning department uses such as temporary lemonade stands.

Planning department uses such as temporary lemonade stands.

But we can we're happy to update this anyway.

That makes that give me a little bit of feedback.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Unless there's a specific reason to say lemonade.

I would I would think maybe being a little bit more general, but that's my one piece of feedback.

Great work.

Thank you.

So basically it does not include temporary temporary stands.

That's what you want to say, right?

Yeah.

Basically, okay.

This this does not include temporary sands such as lemonade, hot chocolate.

Cookies.

No, I'm just kidding.

My neighbor did Italian sodas.

That is high class there.

So this sorry, this causes a follow-up question for me.

Uh we've we've got people in my neighborhood that have fruit stands.

I mean, these are adults that are it's kind of a commercial thing there.

So I mean, is that considered a temporary use and is that permitted or um that's a good question.

Probably not permitted.

Um something that came up after we uh started working on this and went to DRC is we found a spot they were selling like garden beds, you know, in the in the park strip.

They had them all out on display.

You know, it was a great little you know, business, but it again presents problems for the city that we're just trying to address.

And so maybe maybe we need to update that um that verbiage for temporary because that could be you know it's only temporary for two years, or who's determining what temporary means?

So I think that's that's good inputs.

And are you feel familiar with state code because there is that?

Uh not specifically for regarding the lemonade laws.

It might be good to look at.

And because I know there is that where kids are allowed to do these stands, right?

But then we want to probably keep people from kind of using it more as a full-on commercial business where they're selling stuff.

I don't know.

So maybe look at that.

Yeah, one thought I have is and I I brought this up with Kim.

Um I don't know if in the city you've seen, but there's people who sell flowers randomly on corners or food or whatever.

And I've had some citizens who are concerned.

And I don't know, this is not within my realm.

So I would think the police code enforcement would have their have input on that planning um as to how to address that.

And like if these are grown adults with businesses, do they need a business license?

Like what's the you know, versus we're talking about miners selling uh thing for maybe an hour they lost or something.

So anyways, um I understand what you're saying about the neighborhood exchange structure.

I just wonder about the temporary uses and all of that and how that works.

So it's just something to think about.

Any other questions or comments for Trent?

Great.

I think we gotta get a run.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, Adam 3.5 discussion of budget amendments for current fiscal year 25 to 26.

Mr.

Dean.

Yeah, we have a budget amendment on the agenda for the next council meeting, first uh whatever date that is in June coming up.

So I put it I put this out just so we can talk about it if you have any questions.

I'll just kind of go through them line by line.

I think well, they're mostly straightforward, but we can ask questions as we go.

Um some of them are items where we've received a grant or a donation or something like that.

And just to remind you, even though we received the money, we still need your authorization to spend it.

So the first one, the donation on uh Carnegie Carnegie donation for the library, they received some money, uh $10,000 to buy books.

Uh there's a justice assistance grant.

Um same thing.

That was to purchase software for their drone.

Uh the third one is uh payments on the 2025 water bonds.

So we issued bonds last fall.

And uh that was after the fiscal year had started, so we hadn't budgeted those payments.

So that's all that is is the payment on the 2025 water bonds.

That those are already included in next year's budget for that one.

Um 600 East home demolition.

The city had purchased a home near the cemetery at some time ago.

And I think the long-term plan is that land could be used to expand the cemetery.

Sometimes we purchased homes and rented them.

This one is not in a condition where it's like we wouldn't want to put money in it, and the city doesn't want to rent a uh home that is substandard, so we just want to uh demolish it.

The fifth one is the sales tax bond payment.

That's the science and technology building at Thanksgiving Point.

Uh we hadn't budgeted that because it happened mid year, and uh that's is paid with a lease paid to us from Thanksgiving Point.

Uh the sixth one is the Civic Center construction.

So there's been a long project.

There's a lot of things go on.

Um there were a few items that uh we added.

Like they have a really tight budget and they need a little more room for things that we added technology or some building things, some security things, some A V things.

Uh so that's but that's a hundred thousand dollars to add to their budget.

Uh the next one.

I was counting in numbers, but now I'm using letters and I don't know what letter uh G is.

So 5G is medical supplies.

Um as our fire department surprise service or supplies services to primary children's hospital.

Um there's just some more unique supplies that they would need for for children, and that's and and we should be able to cover that with the additional ambulance fees that we're bringing in.

Uh the next one is the fiber bond payment.

So we issued uh this one I probably should have had in the original budget.

I think I missed it, but uh payment on those bonds.

We have capital interest money that was borrowed to do that, so it's not an additional money or a drawing anything else.

It's using the fund that's already there to pay that.

The next one is the outdoor pool repair.

We talked about that a little bit a little bit ago.

We are concerned we may not be able to open the outdoor pool, but it sounds like we have a fix for at least this year that is not too expensive, and that's to do that.

Um the next one, as I understand it, we had you know, our firefighters go out and do uh wildland firefighting.

We get grants, sometimes those come in and I think we have to repay, it's only $5,000, but we need to repay that from uh money that we'd received uh previously.

Next one is wages, especially related to police overtime.

We did an amendment last time here for a member for the overtime that we're providing over at Utah Valley University.

Um that's still going on.

Most of this is going to be covered with that, um, but we also have a little bit that I don't think is going to be covered.

And what I want to do is just transfer money that's budgeted in the planning department that's not going to be spent over to the police department.

And this is probably something we'll have a little bit every year.

You know, when when we put a uh wage and benefit budget together, there's a ton of assumptions that's in there as far as is it going to be staffed all year long?

Are people going to get family coverage and this and that?

And so it's not uncommon at the end of the year to say there might be some departments that would be a little bit over and some that would be a little bit under.

And so it's not a request for new funds, it's just uh reallocating those.

Um park tax.

This is just that.

So the actual money we got from the park tax was a little more than we'd put in the original budget, so we gave out more in grants than we had in the original budget.

That's all this one is.

And there was one more grant that I was supposed to add something, Alison.

Do you remember?

I'm sorry.

There was a police grant that we needed to add.

This came in at the last minute.

Do you remember?

Oh, yes.

That is for the ICAT grant.

So the internet crimes against children.

So that's one more grant.

It's not on this one because I didn't have it in time, but it'll be on the final one.

But again, that's just a grant from the state.

So authorized.

Yeah, it's like $15,000.

That's not you, Joe.

That's it.

Any questions?

Um, Mr.

Mayor.

Um I uh wanted to just um I had sent an email.

Um, Dean, thank you for your quick response and providing that information about item um 5 F where the additional items for the Civic Center construction.

Um, and based on the conversations I've had with facilities and that information provided, it seems about $20,000 was spent to accommodate a request by the council for office space.

Um I recognize that Mr.

Mayor, you have um some spending authority that we've granted to you.

Um but I would just ask from a process perspective that anything spent that affects the major the council at requests of council members come before us as a vote before that money is spent.

Um I would have loved the opportunity to voice opposition to that prior to those dollars being spent.

Um it's unprecedented for a council to have office space, and I am very concerned about separation of powers.

But my request is that dollars spent um at request of council, even if they're below the threshold, that they're brought to a um a vote for before the council before those things happen.

Thank you.

Any other comments?

Questions?

I I do have a question, and I'm not sure who you'd ask this up, but did any particular council member ask that money to be spent.

I'm gonna say is it okay if I think oh, you can go, Jason.

You go first, I'm also there was a request uh request for workspace here in City Hall.

Um as we talked about it.

We tried to find the most cost-effective way to make that happen that still allowed for that request to be made.

So did they ask for $20,000 should be spent?

No.

But there was a request for request for workspace.

Work space.

But we do have a lot of empty offices and pods too.

We do, but those offices are meant for growth.

And again, um we did have concerns about separation of power and and keeping the different branches of government separate.

So that's why we chose to take the approach.

So we did.

Mom, I think just from my my perspective, I don't know of anybody up here that asked for any money to be spent.

I also would have, if it were up to the council, I would have opposed any money spent on it.

My understanding, I don't know where the number comes from, 20,000.

Because I think there were two cubicles put in a hallway.

And my understanding is the cubicles are things we already have.

So the cubicles, um, we purchased them for the info center.

They were the wrong size.

We could not return them for full value, so we repurposed them.

So we thought it was a a good solution to put them to use there.

Um I guess where's the 20,000 number coming from?

I um I can shed some light on that as I ask facilities, Mr.

Mayor, if that's okay.

Sure.

The $15,000 spent on security.

Um, and Steve, I guess you're here if you want to come in.

But the $15,000 spent on the security door was a direct cost associated to the request to separate the powers.

Um, and then there was also uh roughly about $3,000 of additional desks, um the topping required.

So when you take $15 plus three plus you have to take the the cost of the walls, you that's where I get roughly about 20 grand.

So realistically, where it was is yes.

So the we could not return them, but we had to buy new in addition.

So that's where that funding came from is we had to repurpose those.

So we had buy the new, we accredited that towards where they got put.

The door itself, the locking system, all of that was like it was said it's about 15,000.

Yeah, and again, the the the door and the extra wall, right?

Yeah, just that small wall and a single door.

That wasn't that wasn't at the request of the council, correct, Jason.

Like this was that was a decision that I made.

Okay.

Um, because again, I feel strongly that we need to have a separation between the executive and the legislative branch.

So it depends on how you want to slice it.

If not for the request, then we would not have put the door in.

But we did put the door in to try to pease everyone as cost-effectively as we could.

Yeah.

I guess I guess my sorry Heather.

But I guess just my point with that is if there was any money gonna be allocated or spent whatsoever, I would have definitely opposed that.

Um I recognize and respect the separation of powers, but um and I appreciate kind of this informal like, hey, we're working, some of us put um our budget books and some papers and somewhere to sit to meet with with staff.

Um that you went above and beyond, of course, and I appreciate that effort, but again, I'd I would not support a dollar being spent on the council beyond just uh what's already in the budget.

I totally see how this ended up where it did, where councils asking for request and admin and staff feel that that's you know, I get it, that there needs to be a separation.

I when I saw the door, I totally had Harpern over it too, because I don't think the council needs to have designated office space.

Perhaps you're gonna, you know, people had too many books to carry, they could have a locker or something, but I do think there's enough rooms within the here that we could reserve them as needed.

And my biggest concern is making sure that this is repurposed in the future.

I don't think that this is going to be something that future councils need.

I know other councils in the valley have been making jokes about it.

Um so I just when we've had councils in the past who even have less uh digital assets than we have, they have not needed office space.

So my biggest thing is like in the future, do you think this is possible now that we have a door and security there that this can be repurposed?

Because I thought it could be something where you know the team up there could expand.

Is this something that now is going to be you feel totally locked off?

Or you do see a point where we could repurpose it.

Um well, great, great questions.

Um if I can take them maybe a couple out of time.

We do have quite a bit of room in the finance area for that group to expand.

So we that that's that door, the security door that you're referring to, I have less concern about that being a barrier for them to expand.

Um and frankly, that that area was kind of meant to be I I don't know what it was meant to be, frankly.

It didn't really have a super practical purpose.

Um it was a seating area, uh and that didn't serve a whole lot of practical purpose either.

So I don't I don't think it's worth taking the door out, spending more money to take it out at a future point.

But I don't I don't know that it necessarily impacts us too negatively in the future, but it like I guess when we're at capacity, when we have like at the old city hall where we had people working in hallways on tabletops, they could possibly I guess it just seems kind of weird to have it isolated like that and to have it be a cubicle space, but maybe those cubicles do get repurposed downstairs and it becomes like a second kind of meeting room for council.

So that's why I just wanted to make sure that it was something that would serve a purpose in the future too, um, not just be money spent for right now for this purpose.

Okay, I want to say something.

So I walked through the city hall with Jason in December, and I will take full responsibility for noticing all the extra offices and desks, and I found out that the info center cubicles weren't up to what they wanted and it was too late to return them.

And I suggested that it would be nice to have a little space for the council.

I asked.

Well, I didn't as a normal resident at the time.

I didn't know that city council didn't have any space and I um wanted to be physically present and available for um any residents or employees or anything like that.

And uh and at the time I I appreciate the the work by the any city staff who who took initiative and tried to meet that request.

And when I walked through it again before it opened again, I noticed that I was pointed out the part behind here, the city council, where we have some space where we can do closed sessions and all of that, and then that was a good spot for us to if we needed to you know have an hour between meetings, be on our laptops, anything like that.

And I thought, oh, that's a great idea.

I even joked to Mayor Bins that I would bring my little folding table, my little card table, they put it in the corner because uh that's all I really wanted was a little space that I could work when I'm here in and out of meetings, if you know, even the firefighter union wanted to come to our they said can we come to your office?

I said we don't have an office, and and I'm fine with that.

I just I so blame me.

Yeah, I can take all the blame.

I'm fine with that.

That I requested to have a little space like I do here where I could put my computer up and get some work done temporarily in and out, and I can be present and available for city staff or uh whoever needs to to see me.

And and I think that you know it's really beneficial to be on site.

I love the connections that I've been able to make with different employees.

I'm better with faces than names, and and I think it's it's been really valuable.

I haven't been here a lot, um, to be honest.

I feel a little bit I I've used that cubicle one time.

I feel a little bit weird being right outside the bathroom, um, kind of in the hallway area, and so I tend to go in this back room here.

But I appreciate the the space that has been been created for city staff for city council to you know have a sp a place to drop off and and I and appreciate those covers, those cubbies and cupboards or whatever to, you know, I can keep some business cards there for when I come come and go.

And I mean, yeah, the stacks of books and things like that.

So I appreciate that.

So thank you.

I'll just say but I also did not intend any money to be spent on me.

I will also say that because I knew there were just extra things around.

So, you know, I was just and I I I think I sent an email about this.

I would have loved that money to be spent on a book drop or save for a book drop someday.

Um but it's money spent, and again, I don't I don't think it was money that was spent at the request of the council.

I think that's been made clear.

Any other questions for Dean?

Great, thank you.

Uh any questions tonight for the agenda?

I just have one question, Mr.

Mayor.

And maybe this is for Jason.

We were trying to figure this out, but we couldn't.

Um for the executive officers.

Can you define what's who's an executive officer of positions qualified?

That's probably a David question because there's a technical definition for that.

So I was just curious because I don't have David defined that, so I don't get it wrong.

Okay.

Yeah, happy to answer that question.

It's defined by state law as usually a department head or a deputy chief or uh someone I believe that reports in supportive function to the department heads.

So how many do we have?

I guess how many for Lee High City total.

I'm just I'm just trying to figure out kind of what this entails, just so I can't.

Yeah.

Um there's see there's 13 city departments.

Some of those have more than one uh executive officer.

So I would say no more than 25.

Okay.

Okay, thank you.

I have a question.

Yeah, and to be clear, um that's any compensation.

So it's not like that group is getting or being considered for compensation above and beyond everyone else.

It's I mean, if you even if you give them a dollar more, we have to go through this process.

So any change in their compensation needs to be change notice through public uh hearing.

So I have a question about item 4.6, and I don't know if we can talk it it it might be a lengthy explanation because I've spoken with Allison about it today for a little bit.

Or we can talk about it when we come to the item.

And it's I just want some clarification on the item for the council, so I'm happy to wait until the regular agenda just putting it out there because of time.

Any other agenda items tonight you'd like to discuss.

Okay, Mr.

Jason, administrative report.

So we actually had two items for the administrative report, but in the interest of time there, if you're okay, um, they both do tie to the budget.

Um was um we had council members request uh discussion on parks and and that discussion that ties into the budget.

So if we're okay doing that as part of the budget um discussion, that might be helpful.

Um then David is here.

Um as you know, the the employees have asked for uh conduit or an opportunity to express thoughts and feelings uh with the council.

Um I sent out an email earlier today with with that information.

David is here ready to answer questions if we want to do that quickly now, or if we feel like that was needed to be a more lengthy discussion, we could do that as part of the budget discussion as well.

So I'd rather say that.

Okay.

Anything else, Jason?

Just those two items.

Those are the two items that I had, but again, we can do those later or now or whenever you'd like, but I know we're short on time.

Okay, we can talk about those at during the budget discussion.

Item six, council reports.

Mr.

Mayor, if I may start.

Is that okay with you?

I um there's quite a bit that um in the past two weeks that I've been able to participate in.

Um, but one that is very relevant to the council that I need to put on your radar is I went to the Lehigh Serves kickoff event.

Um and thank you, Mr.

Mayor, for saying that you'd be willing to help out on that.

The committee for Lehigh Serves has asked that the council um engage and that they help promote the event through our social media and things like that.

So I just wanted to put that on your radar and let you know that they would love for we don't have an official liaison, but they would love for you guys to all engage on the Lehigh Serves element and help the public um turn out for those activities.

Um and then there are really good things um coming for the roundup.

We had a meeting um in Lehigh Roundup.

There's there's some cool stuff coming that way, as well as I just wanted to say that Miss Lee High, I had an opportunity to help with the mock interviews for Miss Lehigh and Miss Lehigh Teen, and we have some phenomenal women participating in that, and I look forward to seeing how that goes.

So anyway, thank you.

Other reports.

My committees will meet that one, I'm I'm EmilyAs on to next week, but I did have a chance to attend the heavy rescue graduation, which I didn't even know what that was until I attended it, and it was amazing.

And the work that the men and women do I is impressive.

So that was really that was really uh wonderful to be part of, as well as the um historical marker for the Lehigh Tabernacle.

Um speaking in that so our next one, it seems like we won't have one every other week, but um the next historical marker unveiling will be June 3rd, 7 p.m.

at the Civic Center.

And Mayor, I think you're speaking and on how Lehigh got its name, so I'm sure we're all dying to find out the story there, right?

You too.

And I I got to attend part of that that Rachel meant the heavy equipment um demonstration.

I mixed got mixed up and came quite late and they were done.

I'm like, wow, that was quick, but I did get to go to the graduation and it and watch the video and chief.

If you can post that online, it's incredible the things that they were trained for, and it's just very impressive.

And um made me just even more supportive of our heavy equipment vehicle and adding to that over the years, so I think it it'll be saving lives.

And then just to side note, um Rachel and I got to visit with at the senior center last week.

And what a wonderful group of people, but uh they the the residents who tend there just love the staff, and they they are incredible.

And I um I just want to give out a shout out to Jan who's over that.

I talked with a neighbor later who was there, but I didn't get a chance to visit her with her there, but she talked to me later and she said, Do you know that Jan saved my life?

I'm like, what?

And she said, yes, she said she was choking, and Jan came up and gave her the Heimlich maneuver and saved her life.

So we have lifesavers not only in our first responders, but even at our senior center, and she anyway, I can't rave enough about her, but um we we do have wonderful city employees, and I I know there's some hard discussions going on right now, but we just have great people who work for the city, and I just appreciate all of them, all of you.

So thank you.

Any other questions?

Um a report, just just kind of a general um recognition to the finance team.

I know this has been a brutal long budget season.

Um a lot of different views, and and not everything's easy.

And one of the unfortunate realities is that no matter what decisions are made, there's you can't make everyone happy.

Um but I've just been very impressed with Dean and his team here by their very objective um answering questions, providing information.

Four of us are new up here, so it's it's you know, there's been um a lot more questions than normal, but I think we just have a top-notch finance team and um staff generally, but just just with this budget season, I wanted to recognize the the finance department.

So thank you guys.

Okay, I'm happy to take a motion to adjourn.

So moved.

I have a first I have a second hole in favor.

Okay, we will adjourn and be back at seven, so you get 20 minutes.

The podium, or can I just speak from here?

Wherever you're comfortable.

Okay, I'll how about if I just start from here?

Um, this agenda item is for the design contract for the Pony Express Parkway design.

Um again, this is a it's two projects.

The first project being uh the roadway design for pointing express parkway, and the other is a project that we teamed with uh Utah County to extend the Utah Lake Trail.

Uh this project was competitively bid.

Um we selected um engineering firms from off the UDOT uh website.

Um those are uh engineers who have been vetted through their system.

So that's the selection process we used.

We submitted um uh recommendation for six different engineers to propose on the project.

We ultimately ended up receiving three proposals.

Um and those proposals were evaluated evaluated by Lehigh staff, um members from Lehigh staff, um Mountain Line Association's governments, American Fork City, and Utah County, and um and Wilson and Company was chosen uh um as the company that we wanted to have designed this project, so we received a proposal from them, and that's the proposal and the agreement that's on uh on the agenda tonight.

There are any questions for Mr.

Kennison?

I'm happy to entertain a motion.

Any questions?

Okay.

Um good job.

This is really um well done and comprehensive to be able to read through.

I move that we um we passed resolution twenty twenty-six-thirty-six, approving an agreement with Wilson and Company for Engineering Services for the Pony Express Parkway and Utah Lake Trail.

And was there anything to include there?

I think there's a whole appendix A or exhibit A that's gonna be included.

I don't need to include any other DRC comments.

Okay.

So I have a first from Councilmember Freeman.

Do I have a second?

Second.

I have a second from Council Member Lockhart.

Any questions on that motion?

Councilmember Newell will start with you?

Yes.

Councilmember Harrison?

Yes.

Councilmember Stallings?

Yes.

Councilmember Lockhart.

Freeman.

Yes.

Yeah, I I'm a yes.

Great, thank you.

I 100% agree.

Okay, item 4.2, consideration of resolution twenty uh twenty-six-thirty-seven.

Approving an agreement with Wilmeg Construction Inc.

for the construction of Lakeview Park.

Um Yes, this is for Lakeview Park construction.

It's up in Traverse Mountain.

Um we went through a competitive bid process.

Um this is a company we've not worked with previously.

They were the lowest qualified contractor, and um we reached out to a number of their references and had positive um feedback, and so we felt comfortable going with them and um we've already actually worked with them and adjusted um the amount that they initially bid and reduced it by about a hundred and thirty thousand dollars to to just help with overall costs of the park, but still maintain the integrity of the design.

Any questions for Trent?

This is paid through impact fees, is that correct?

It's uh entirely impact fees.

Yes, okay.

Yeah, this is part of the Travers Mountain Area Plan, one of the approved parks in that plan.

I think there's uh so this the second phase of Shadow Ridge that's being constructed this summer, the bike park.

Um and then beyond that, there's one other park in that East Canyon or the West Canyon.

Um that's that would be the the final park in Travers Mountain as part of that area plan.

Good job, save with money.

Any other questions for Trent?

I'm happy to entertain a motion.

Mr.

Mayor, I move that we approve resolution 2026-37.

An agreement with Wilmung Construction Inc.

for the construction of Lakeview Park.

I have a first from Council Member Harrison.

Do I have a second?

Second?

Second.

Councilmember Stallings.

Any questions?

Councilmember Harrison will start with you.

Yes.

Councilmember Stallings?

Yes.

Councilmember Freeman?

Yes.

Councilmember Lockhart?

Yes.

Council Member Newell.

Yes.

Great.

Thank you.

Item 4.3.

Consideration of cons uh of concept approval for the updated Spring Meadow Villas, the PUD concept.

He's 71 lot single family residential project located at approximately 1630 South, 500 east.

Before we get to this one, is there anyone in the audience tonight that's here to speak to this item?

Great, thank you.

So with that, Kim, is this yours?

Are we uh the applicant should be here?

Applicant.

Are you the applicant tonight, Mr.

Train?

Before before Mr.

Train starts, I will actually take a mo this was tabled.

Uh so before Mr.

Train gives us any comment, I will take a motion to untable it.

So moved.

I have a second.

Second.

Uh all in favor?

All right.

Great.

Mr.

Train.

Back again.

Uh Brad did a good job a couple weeks ago explaining the situation.

We we excuse me.

Been sick for a couple days, so I might struggle through this, but uh we redid the layout to show you what those changes would be.

So there are some impacts.

Did have an impact on a lot instead of shifting it through the whole subdivision, we just ended up with 71.

Uh felt that was appropriate.

The layout worked better to keep it that way.

And so with those adjustments, uh, we brought back just to show you what the proposal was, what the adjustments were.

Um with Brad's presentation last week that kind of explained why what the benefits are.

So any questions or concerns, we're just here to uh see what else we need to do before we move forward to get bring it through as preliminary.

Any questions for Mr.

Train?

Go ahead.

Um thank you so much.

I really appreciate this.

And it I just am really impressed with the new concept.

Um one thing I was wondering is uh will we be able will you be able to preserve some of the mature trees to the south as noted by one of the residents there.

I think his name was David Packard.

Yeah, yeah.

I mean, that's absolutely the hope.

Um there's no additional trail needed there or things like that.

Um some of the things we'll be coordinating with Lehigh City because that's a park space on how we approach fencing there and things like that.

Excuse me.

But some of the trees down on the bottom end are you know, rushing all not great trees and not in great shape.

So there'll definitely be some work to do there to clean those up.

However, there are some good trees that the whole the absolute intent would be to preserve as much of those as possible, especially along you know that natural open space down the bottom.

Mr.

Mayor, if I may.

I'm just pulling up um what Brad had shown us two weeks ago.

But if I'm to understand you requested we were getting we were saying 10 additional, but now based on your new layout, you're only gonna get nine additional.

Is that what I just want to make sure I'm tracking that change?

Yep.

Which is still less than what you requested, right?

You you guys had requested was it 16?

72.

Yeah, there the calculation would be almost 15.

15, yeah.

And then um we were gonna give you 10, but now based on your new design.

The new layout, we we could squeeze one in, it just didn't make sense with the layout.

The layout works well at 71, so we left it at 70.

Okay.

Excuse me.

We left it at 71.

Yeah, that makes sense.

I just wanted some clarity on that density.

Thank you.

Thanks, Brick.

There.

Um, so this might be a premature question, but um is this there was a DRC question about will the subdivision join Spring Creek HOA.

Is that do you have any ideas or thoughts on that?

We've had conversations.

I guess until we can get to the numbers, we won't know exactly what that will be.

So whether the the this subdivision creates their own HOA or works with Spring Creek.

Okay.

That's still that will still be a variable of preliminary.

Um but you will be the HOA will be maintaining the open space, right?

The corridor through the, yeah, through the right now, Spring Creek maintains the power corridor.

That would be the same thing.

Yes.

An HOA would need to maintain that power corridor open space.

And the other open space as well, or no?

The the remaining open um South of all the south open space will be dedicated to Lehigh City.

So that'll be their and I did talk to Steve.

You brought up the question on the concern with open space on the bottom end.

Um the one thing that Brad and I had talked about there does need to be property that is mitigated for this road project.

Will have to be done.

Uh I talked to Steve about it, went through the conversation with him about maintenance.

And of course, I mean to be fair to your parks department.

Anything additional for maintenance right now is a struggle.

Um but that and Brad correct me if I'm wrong for our conversation, but but there needs to be property associated with this road.

Yeah.

This totally makes sense to do it.

It will need to be maintained for a certain time as part of the road mitigation.

And then I mean the hope is we do this one correctly, and there would be very little maintenance for as far as a wetlands goes, but it needs to be done correctly, and we've had conversation with Steve about that as well.

Can I ask our parks department head?

Yeah, some questions.

Oh, you stuck around.

He did.

Um so realistically, I've had like you said, I've had the conversation with Brad and Tony at this point.

And we do have to have wetland down there.

If we're gonna build a road, we're gonna have to mitigate it.

Um as long as it's done correctly, we can make it so it's pretty low maintenance issues.

Uh just in past we've had some that have been pretty high, and as long as those things are corrected, we should be just fine with this.

Okay.

So that's all I have.

Thank you.

Any other questions on this one?

Brad, go ahead.

Um just one quest one question for Tony.

Um it's from the engineering standpoint, and I missed this on this most recent layout.

Our intention really is that 610 East connects directly to uh Pony Express, right?

Whereas right now you have it turning down into uh 530 east.

So do you see any concerns with modifying your layout when you come through preliminary to run that straight over from a spacing wise of signals, you know, future signals and whatever.

We really need 16s to directly tie in, not 530 east.

I think he does in the next one.

Uh did you see the new layout?

Actually, you know what?

I'm probably looking at a different layout.

So that's why I didn't notice that.

That's why we got you the new one.

That's right.

That's good.

That's good.

I'm just looking at the one on Kim's computer, and that does meet what we needed.

Yeah, yeah.

Yeah, we fixed it to meet the intent.

And it is widened on that one, so any other questions on this.

Just to clarify, you're okay with it.

Okay.

Even more.

So I just wondered if we needed to even more so when you know we we felt like it was entirely justified 10 units, and they're down to nine.

So yeah, definitely.

I am happy to entertain a motion.

Mr.

Murray, I move to approve.

Let's see.

We've approved this concept um for the updated Spring Meadow Villas PED concept is 71 single family residential project located at approximately 1630 south, 500 east.

Um, with the findings that the proposed concept does conform to the goals and policies of the general DRC comments.

So I have a second questions.

Great, thank you.

Heritage Meadows.

Do we have anyone in the audience who's here to speak to this item tonight?

So we're looking at the look at providing called kitch.

Um so we've been with staff on that over the past couple months to figure that out and um we could come to uh come up with a design for the bridge.

It'll be very similar to the one that was built in the subdivision to the west.

And um there will be some open space and uh and a pedestrian trail connection from the subdivision to access that bridge.

So it provides connectivity from this new subdivision uh across the bridge uh onto the pedestrian trail that runs along the uh the ditch and connects other neighborhoods as well.

So um figured that out, and then we've we've uh worked on kind of a I guess a trade, I guess you would call it for uh a couple lots of density in Lou.

So that's that's all I have, but I'm happy to answer any questions that you create any questions that we have tonight.

I don't have questions.

I just am thankful that you responded to the residents and to their petition.

Um I know that I I'm I I was contacted by them about this, and I didn't it wasn't on our agenda for a long time, and I was yeah, I'm just impressed that you responded to them.

So yeah, no, it worked out well.

Um thank you.

Just want to make sure I'm reading it right that this doesn't increase the density, but it does allow some adjustments for setbacks and that sort of thing or lot size.

I believe that's incorrect.

It does increase the density by two lots.

Is that correct?

Yeah.

So two units of density were given.

Um allowable density, yeah.

I mean, that I asked.

Oh, as far as units units per acre, is that what you're pushing?

Um that is yeah, the staff report says 1.72 units per acre is what the what the layout is, and I think the the minimum is 1.75, right?

Yeah.

So so for the maximum.

In that context, yes, they are below what the maximum allowed.

But if they were to have all the standard lot sizes, then that's where the are they have two extra units.

Yeah, okay.

Yeah.

Yeah, this ad like with Rachel, I had several residents reach out.

I know I called you on this one too, so thank you for working on that.

I know this was really important to them to have that connectivity.

Um, and I think it's important to all of us, especially with that exp, you know, expansion to go up to the schools.

I think this will um on the along the way stitch trail.

So I'm glad that there's a way that we can do this where the city's not paying out of pocket that we can make this work.

For sure.

Thank you.

Any other questions for the petitioner?

Um no.

Uh I think um if you if I may ask another question of staff.

Um I council member Stallings, I'm I'm with I'm just trying to make sure I understand because I think that answer to her question is a little confusing to me because it sounds like the maximum if they were to maximize all their lot sizes, they're under, but they are getting a density bump.

Can you like help me?

I I just didn't follow that.

Yep.

So in the R122 zone that this project is located in, it has a maximum density of 1.75 units per acre.

And that number really doesn't come into play unless we're doing a PUD or a PRD or some, you know, some kind of a special subdivision.

Uh so you have the density cap of 1.75, they're at 1.72, but then there's also a minimum lot size of 22,000 square feet.

And so a lot of times it just depends on the shape of the property.

This has some unique shapes and the curves in the roads.

So when you get a situation like that, it's very hard to actually achieve the 1.75 units per acre.

So when they laid it out and tried to meet all the 22,000 square foot uh square foot lots, they came out with 13.

And so then that's when we said, hey, if if you're willing to take two additional lots, and that seemed to equate to the cost of the bridge.

And so it does that make more sense now.

It does, yeah.

And I really appreciate the that additional, just thank you.

I know that that question had been asked, but for me, I just needed to hear it maybe a little bit differently.

Um because when I consider items like this, I look for infrastructure and public benefit, and we've met both.

And that that's why I'm I'm trying to try to make sure if we haven't met both, then it then it changes where I'm at.

But it sounds like we've met both, and the public benefit is huge.

Um so anyway, thank you.

Thanks for doing that for me.

Maybe if I could weigh in just really quickly.

Um two weeks ago when we presented the density and lo calcs on brought those same calcs to you today.

The challenge of non-disclosure.

With this developer so as to not report the property value that they paid.

And so that information is available if you as a council would like to see it as at a different time, but it wasn't something that we could propose and show you know publicly.

But um we do feel confident that with uh with all the improvements that they're doing, uh the trail that they're putting in, the abutments for the bridge and the bridge itself, um, the dedication of the property for the trail between the lots, the open space, you know, that there's some I think there's a small planter strip on each side and the fencing.

We feel comfortable from a staff standpoint that it warrants two lots.

Any other questions?

I'm happy to entertain a motion on this one.

Mr.

Mayor, I move that we approve um the preliminary subdivision approval of an update to the heritage meadows now at 15 lot residential development located at 1250 west, 800 north, including density and loop for connectivity.

I have a first from council member Newell, do I have a second?

A second from Councilmember Harrison.

Any questions on that?

Would you be um amenable to including the DRC comments and the finding that the proposed subdivision will provide a trail and bridge connection increasing neighborhood access to the trail network?

For sure, thank you.

So it's been first and a second.

Any of the questions?

Okay, so we'll start with you, Councilmember Freeman.

Yes.

Councilmember Lockhart?

Yes.

Councilmember Newell.

Yes.

Councilmember Harrison?

Yes.

Councilmember Stallings.

Yes.

Great.

Thank you.

Item 4.5 is a public hearing.

Uh so we will open that public hearing at 732.

It's a public hearing for executive municipal officers compensation increases.

So it is 732.

We will open the podium for public comment.

We will cl I will close that at 732.

And we will then now go to item 4.6.

Item 4.6, consideration of resolution 2026-39.

Taking formal action to pick up required employee contributions in the public safety and firefighter tier one and public safety and firefighter tier two contributory retirement systems.

Any questions on this one?

And I believe, Dean, do we have you to ask questions to or Alison?

Allison is available.

Allison is going to answer questions tonight.

Welcome.

Any questions for Allison?

Um Hi, Allison.

I was wondering if you could explain this and uh that so we're all um as part of that system.

Uh if you're in a particular hybrid system, if the percentage goes over a certain amount on the employer side, it becomes an employee pickup.

The employees have to pay that.

Uh the state legislature allows that the cities can pick up the public safety and firefighters in play portion, but not the regular employees.

So last year the city chose to pick up 4.73, which is the employee portion.

Uh federal losses that we can't like once we all once we elect that, we can't go lower than that unless the percentage that the state sets goes lower than that.

So this year it's moving up to 5.98, which is an increase of a 1.2%.

That 1.25% would come out of employees' checks if you guys didn't approve the pickup.

So last year they decided to to fund 4.73%, and this year we can't fund less than that.

But we have 1.25% like the additional pay and contribute or just and that that's to do it by law.

Happy to entertain a motion.

Mr.

Mayor.

Um I pre or I move that we approve resolution 2026 29, taking formal action to pick up required employee contributions in the public safety and firefighter tier one and public safety contributory.

I have first from council member Harrison.

Do I have seconds?

Second.

A second from Council Member Lockhart.

Any questions?

Okay, we'll start with you, Councilmember Lockhart.

Yes.

Councilmember Newell?

Yes.

Councilmember Harrison?

Yes.

Council Member Stallings?

Yes.

Councilmember Freeman.

Yes.

Great.

Thank you.

Adopting the budget and consolidated fee schedule for the city of Lehigh for fiscal year 2026 to 2027, July 1st of 26 through July, or excuse me, June 30th of 2027.

I will ask, is there anyone in the audience that came to speak to this item?

Great, thank you.

So council will bring that back to us.

Any questions that you have or discussion?

Mr.

Mayor, were we going to do the administrative report that we skipped?

Yes.

So Jace, you want to, is that okay?

Yep, you want to lead on that?

Let's start with the parks presentation.

So I think Steve has something that he'd like to present, and then we can start in on discussion after that.

All right, so I was asked to kind of go over what we've pres or proposed for the park tax capital projects and our impact fee.

So those are two different areas.

So I kind of broke it out into such.

So for the playground replacements, um, we'll dive into them.

This is just all of the requests right here that we have for the park tax and and capital.

Uh playground replacement, soft fall, resurfacing, um, sports park uh safety dating around the playground, Holbrook uh park pickleball lights, main street Christmas lights, uh Jordan Willows area action plan, and then Willow Park um renovation.

So uh the the big one that I want you to understand is our um our playgrounds.

So 35 grounds within the city and all of them, the majority of them were put in in 99, 2000.

So manufacturer recommendation on those is 10 to 15 years.

We stretch ours to about 20 years just out of the gate, to the point where it gets hard to get replacement parts to get uh items, and then they wear um as such.

So that's just what this slide kind of represents here.

So let me show you a couple pictures.

So this is Olympic Park.

If you look at underneath and at some of the safety inspection points that we look at, um we have a lot of delamination from the the uh material the soft material on top of them.

Our slides are cracking.

Um the supports and bolts get worn and worn out to the point where we do need to replace them.

Um Chapel Valley Park, this one's very similar.

This is the big fish park down on the south end of town, if you guys are aware of it.

Uh it's actually to the point right now on this yellow piece that kind of looks like a spine.

Um the the pitcher don't doesn't do it justice, but we have a crack all the way through it, and this is actually coming out, just safety concerns that we have to take out right now.

Um to get a replacement piece for it is almost near impossible.

They'd have to redo the mold, everything else.

So it it's spent its time, it's time to replace them.

Um and Willowhaven Park, this was a is a small playground, very similar issues through all the way throughout it.

So on those, like I said, you can see um the breakdown on them on the prices.

Chapel Valley and Olympic are much larger play structures compared to Willowhaven Park.

Please excuse me, I'm gonna skip around on my slides because that's who I am.

Uh bandwagon park.

Um this houses our historic bandwagon as well as uh it has a play stage and a small restroom on it.

Um the foundation's cracking, the doors we've replaced four times.

The frames are the point they need to be replaced, but the block structure is is having a hard time holding up to it.

Um what we would like to do and what we're asking on this budget cycle is to get plans for next year we would put in for replacement at that point.

So if we wouldn't do the work this year, we would just get ready to do the work for next year.

Excuse me.

Okay, so that that kind of gives everything in a nutshell.

We've already talked about Willow Park, right?

You I think you guys understand that.

Uh that's or the sports park netting, that one down there.

Um, we're gonna have to come up with a solution.

What we were proposing isn't gonna work, so we're gonna find something, get it, get it taken care of.

So that money slated towards it is what that is for.

Uh then so capital projects.

Um excuse me.

Um let me let me catch back up.

This is the rest of the capital projects that we've kind of talked about.

So family park, you know, Christmas uh Main Street Christmas lights.

Is there any questions on those?

Um we had a lot of complaints on how we decorated last year for Christmas, surprisingly.

That's something that really bothered a lot of people.

And so uh this is an ongoing request.

This is the second or third year that we put in for it to try and get that taken care of as well.

And then the Jordan Wheel Action Plan.

What that is is a very high-level plan.

Basically identifying it as a lot of wetland areas, uh getting a map out there showing identification of what there is, and then looking at can we add boardwalks, can we add nature areas, could we add a small uh bike track?

Can we do different things in areas to make it still functional and uh nice for the neighborhood in the city?

Um I think that's a hundred-acre site down there, is what we own in that wetlands and open space.

Uh pickleball courts uh lighting out at Holbrook.

Um so we only have lit pickleball courts at one other park that's up on Traverse Mountain.

They get used very, very heavily.

In fact, I kind of fought that whole uh putting pickleball courts up on the windiest part of town, but it they make it work somehow.

So it's a very, very high request.

Uh people that play pickleball do it early morning and late night.

Um we will have to set hours and regulations just due to the noise, but anyway.

Um, park impact fees and priorities there.

So Inverness, um, that whole area plan is starting to develop and underway.

Um we're proposing putting 150,000 or 1.5 million dollars up there towards all of the trails, open space, and trail heads that we will have.

Most of that is all trailway up there.

We don't have a lot of public parks.

Um, those are all done through HOA for the community up there.

So our our main focus up there will be the trails on that.

Lake View Park, you heard that tonight.

Um realistically, this is the added cost towards Lake or Lakeview to be able to get the design cut down to where we need it to and be able to build a nice uh park up there.

We currently have $900,000, and so the whole park, it's a 13-acre park will be about $165,000.

Um, we are back on the drawing board a little bit on that uh where we do have to cut down some of the playground surfacing and area, um, but we're working on that too.

So uh Mellor Roads redesign with the new additional property that we've had down there.

Uh we we need to fill the fill the space, make sure our plans work, um, as well as make sure that the plans are what we want to build on that.

Um questions on that one.

The property acquisition improvements.

So, what we're doing on this one is anywhere that we've had the encroachment issues that we've been facing throughout town, um, and any additional areas that we gain if we need to do small improvements, entryways, gates, uh easements, things of that nature.

This kind of gives us that little nest egg to be able to do those things and make sure that they're all functioning and working.

And then last but not least, the triangle park redesign and construction.

Uh you guys are all aware of Triangle Park, where that is.

We do have money coming in from the developer on that as well to the tune of about 150,000 to help with that.

Um, the total cost of the park will be the 950.

So, really, out of our impact fees, it's the only only gonna be 400,000.

We'll reimburse the rest on that.

Um, one last thing that I wanted to touch on is you know, we went through all the park impact fee priority or park tax priorities through this budget season and a little bit before that, we've started really investigating how we can help with our labors or our labor uh extents that we have, and one of our biggest um labor costs is our ballparks.

So currently our ballparks, we have a four-man crew that goes down there for four hours a day to prep baseball fields.

Um we do that six days a week.

Uh we only do that for our rec leagues for four of the days, and the other two are rented.

Um, so what we're proposing, uh we actually went down to Oram Lakeside Park in Oram.

What they've done about six years ago is they put turf on the infields.

Uh we've been entertaining this for quite some time, doing a lot of homework on it, making sure that this would work.

Uh, but what this essentially does is take all labor costs off of the clay.

So we're going from four hours of a four-man crew a day down to one hour of a maybe two-person crew cleaning restrooms, picking up garbage.

We paint the outfields, we wouldn't paint the infields, we wouldn't have to field prep, we wouldn't have to drag them, um, water them, do all of that.

Um there is huge advancements in this industry a few years ago.

If you would have asked me this, I would have said we have no business being in the parks if we can't grow grass, if we can't do turf.

But frankly, with what we've looked at recently, um, even down in Texas, they're putting turf in their outfields in their whole in their whole parks.

So if we do the infield surfacing, we're talking about $500,000 per field, roughly.

Of course, each one of them has a little bit different dimensions and it would come across a little different.

Um if we were to do vets ballpark and sports park and only do the infields, we're talking a four million dollar uh bill on that.

If we talk about doing um solely like what they have shown here and do everything at Vets, we're talking 4.5 or 4 4.7.

Uh water savings, maintenance cost, irrigation costs, sprinkler costs.

This is very, very intriguing when we're fighting manpower shortages.

Um I don't know that I want a direction tonight because we still want to investigate this a little bit more.

Um, but what I would propose is start looking into this for our park tax monies, um, other than the other things that we've talked about on branding and making sure that we spread the wealth a little bit throughout the city because this could be a huge potential saving for our department, especially manpower wise.

Do you know the replacement?

I guess the so the late lifeline for So there's 12-year replacement on it currently on of course the top tier.

Um but what they would do on that 12-year, it would be about half the cost to replace each field uh because all they're doing is taking off the top material and maybe some of the padding that goes underneath it and then replacing it.

The drainage system would all be intact and in place, and then they're just laying out the new carpet basically.

Okay.

So every 12 years, yeah.

So they have a they have a 12-year warranty on them.

And so just like everything else, the minute your fridge goes out a warranty, it's gonna go out.

You know, they've they've made it so that that's the case.

Um I've talked to the school district, they have the these in a lot of their different fields uh surfaces, and that's what they said is make sure that you're aware that the minute that you your warranty's out, you're probably gonna be replacing it just due to the fact of where.

Do they know on those, Steve, too?

The I know you get issues at home plate, you'll get issues on the mound, and you're gonna get the issues at first base where people are occupying more often.

I know in those areas they replace those areas about every two or three years.

So I'm assuming that's part of the exactly.

It's part of the maintenance where tears.

So those can be cut out and replaced.

Yes, yes, they can.

So if you get free time, go down to Oram, look at their fields.

Uh it's it's pretty impressive.

Hate the color, we'd do better than that, but you know, they were limited on what they had for selection at the time too.

So I forgot my question.

I know I'm sorry, I gave you a lot of questions, a lot of things to talk think about.

Oh, I have, yeah.

But on this one in particular, I mean, is there cost savings to do it all at once, or can we stagger it so that we have yes, of course there's cost savings to, I mean, you get them here, they're gonna want to do more, and they'd give you benefit if you know the knockdown price.

I don't know how dramatic.

And again, I can they're very, very receptive because they want to sell it, of course, and I can ask them about any question and get a response within a week or so.

So if there's things you want me to look at, I'm happy to do that.

But yeah, I just future councils if we go this route.

Um placement costs.

Right now, you know.

But but realistically, I look at it this way.

Um, just the labor that we're spending on this pays for it.

So, how do you have that calculation about it?

Uh not on not I'm not ready to give you all that information yet.

That'll that'll come closer when we do the full on what do we got coming up discussion.

So can I ask then?

So it's uh it's turf, it's like fake grass.

We're talking about not like a sports court type thing.

All right, yes.

They do it differently.

It does still get warm, of course.

I asked that question um when I was down in Orim, basically said how many complaints do you get a night because of how hot it is?

Because theirs is dark brown, it's chocolate brown.

And they said realistically, after that we put it in, we don't have a lot of questions, we don't have a lot of it because it's it's a unique thing, it's nice and it's kind of an upgrade.

It's not playing in your neighborhood neighborhood park anymore.

So if we were to do this, which part, and let's say we only want to do one park at a time.

I would do vets um just because of the heavier use.

Yeah.

Great.

Mr.

Mayor, I have a right, is it on this topic or are you ready to switch?

I'm just talking about parks.

Oh yeah, same, same.

Okay.

Um I'm just looking at page 48 from the um interim budget, right?

Um, because some of it was covered in your presentation.

But um Holbrook Farms Park 2.

Yes.

Um you have it in here for like 1.2 million.

But I seem to recall when um U Dot came in to present on 2100 North.

They had talked about how we would and just the fully remember what they said, but they're like, we're gonna pause that park.

So that park cannot be built until 2029 at the same time.

Okay, okay.

So you just have that money essentially just sitting there.

So on the impact fee money, we have to have that money.

We have to have our projects allocated.

Okay.

Dean, correct me if I'm wrong.

But we have to have it identified to what the projects are going towards.

Okay.

Um I'm not gonna say it can be moved easily, but yeah, you know, it's impact fee money that can be used for impact.

Yeah.

So yes, that is identified as a future project.

I know that it got mistaken on this, but no, no, no.

It I just want to make sure, um, because I don't want our residents thinking, oh, this is in the budget as an expenditure in fiscal year twenty seven, it's coming when I just wanted to clarify 2100 north um is gonna delay some of that.

Yeah, we have a contract with UDOT at this point until 2029.

I think it's July.

Okay.

Okay.

So is it fair to say that the projects you proposed in the presentation today?

Are the ones that we're looking at will happen, but maybe what's on page 48 isn't this those some of those could be placeholders.

Yes, and and to be on uh and to be very transparent, um, like the uh mountain bike park that was the tr presented on tonight.

That is still ongoing.

That's from last year's budget.

We do still have those those projects that we're still moving on.

Usually it takes two years to build a park uh between planning and actual construction unless it's a large, large park and then it's closer to three.

No, the clarity's great.

Um I know I'm getting questions.

And I just want to make sure um that I I give the right answer.

Absolutely.

Absolutely.

Steve, I just wanted to clarify for the inverness trailhead.

That's for design only, though.

No, that is for design and construction for the whole site.

So all of that money will not go out this year.

Um so the one point five, I'm guessing we're probably closer to five hundred thousand dollars.

I know that they've got two trailheads itching to go right now.

Um trails don't come easy.

You have to get a specialized builder in here.

If you just let anybody with a little grader in there, you're gonna have issues.

So we're pretty picky.

You just said design, it didn't say construction, so I kind of had to do that.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

No, it's it's it's all of it.

So that that will be what we spend on the trails and everything up in Inverness.

Okay, and as far as the Holbrook pickleball lighting.

Yes.

How late do they play in the summer?

I mean, the sun's up.

Well they'll play until you tell them not to.

I mean, that's the thing is we'll put we'll put timers on it that go off our our park curfew is eleven.

So we'll put timers on it that go off automatically at eleven o'clock, and then they don't open back up until 6 30 in the morning.

So uh and on that same topic, just and maybe Emily would know more being a resident out there and you as well, Steve.

I know that I've heard in other cities with the lighting and the noise with pickleballs, sometimes you know, you put lighting in and then you have a whole new slew of complaints coming in.

So what do you think the balance is I mean if it's so popular that the only good thing about Holbrook Parks on that is the pickleball is about in the center.

It's a huge park.

Um there will be noise traveling.

I guarantee there'll be noise traveling.

If we get the complaints, we may have to look at putting up more trees around it or doing something to help buffer the sound.

Um but I think the benefits outweigh the negative on it by far.

Yeah, yeah, I and there's that big mound, like that big sledding hill.

I'm not sure how effective that is, but um it's a it's a good call out that there is gonna be you know some some sound.

I would say though, having talked to residents out there just last week, um they they seem to be looking forward to it.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Maybe if I could too, um sorry to interrupt.

Oh no.

But um I I I'm out pickleballer, I love to play.

We play a lot at Patriot Park.

And the way they seem to be able to get around this is they just turn the lights off.

Yeah.

The lights just automatically go off at a specific time, and so you naturally just stop playing.

Yeah.

Because because you can't see it.

Well, and frankly, we got a little different situation.

We do have homes all the way around ours.

Um the south I am a little worried about, but we have some structures there to help take in some of the sound too.

And I think you know, thanks to Councilmember Freeman's points during the noise ordinance revisions, right?

Like the city isn't absolved.

Yeah, absolutely.

So I think I don't know what the time would be.

I know the the ordinance is 10 p.m.

70.

And we can like I said we can set it.

If we start if it starts becoming an issue, we can set it for when we need to.

That's I mean, we can put automatic working gates on it if we had to.

There's there's plenty of ways around it.

It's not yeah, great of the world.

To be fair, unless it's us out there playing pick a ball making the noise, I don't think I don't know.

That's the same thing.

That's true.

Yeah.

I don't know.

Or proud.

We can charge everything, right?

It's the owners, it's the person making the noise.

It's yeah.

The owner.

Yeah.

I don't know.

Um I do have a question uh also about the campsite renovations at Willow Park.

Is that just the sewage line of grades or something?

Yeah, it's all lumped into the same thing.

So it's the sewage line that goes into the restroom, and then it's making all of the camping stalls 80 exp accessible.

So it'll put new picnic tables and replacing the wood table ones that we have that have a wheelchair access.

It's putting actual campering or fire pit rings in the designated areas instead of rocks and old um pieces of metal that we've found to be able to make this work.

It's it's improving everything that we have down there.

And then um I explained this earlier, but if we go away and do a different use on the site eventually, it's not like those things can't be taken and put into our system somewhere else.

We have I mean the fire rings, of course, are probably gonna be a little problematic, but anything other than that we can absolve into our system pretty easily.

Okay, so going back to your original um presentation on the park with a C park tax things.

I'm looking, we have playground replacements, the family park, safety surfacing, reseal.

Yeah, it's off and then the sports park.

I don't know.

For some reason this old budget says protective roof shade, but it's safety netting.

Okay.

Well, we were gonna try and put a roof over it.

Not gonna work.

We're gonna have to do that.

But that's the same price, okay.

Whatever it is.

Okay, Holebrook uh main streets, Christmas.

One more question.

Um the the Salex Park and Cold Spring Ranch.

Uh huh.

We talked a lot about how there's so many issues there, but I'm not seeing it here.

It's not on here.

Yeah, so help me understand why.

And um, I can only do as much as I can do, frankly.

And we have other plans for it at this time.

We've we've engaged the HOA over there.

Um a lot of the issue that we've seen in the past has they've helped contribute to.

Um we've worked with them, we've had volunteer projects there with them.

Uh we've got a spray plan uh in place so that we're gonna keep everything down lower.

Not only that, but on the north side, there's a lot of construction going on.

So if I go spend a lot of money on that right now, it's for not, and I don't want to do that.

Okay.

Um the residents out there w I I know they've struggled with mice and the grass and all of that, but are you're still gonna go.

There are always gonna be mice out there.

They built right next to a field next to a power line and there's construction all the way around them.

But it's on Lehigh, right?

With that that land under the power corridor was dedicated to Lehigh.

So we're gonna continue to mow it down.

Yeah, it's I mean it's the power line corridor.

It's it's the same thing we talked about when Tony was in here, just on the other end of town.

Um we have this all the way through town.

And unfortunately, until the construction slows down a little bit, the mice are gonna just stay there because they get disturbed out of their homes and move to anywhere that's warm.

Okay.

Okay.

So you you would look at putting that into the budget once the construction north is.

Realistically, we're probably two years before you'll see anything on that.

Okay, thank you.

Yep.

Sorry, Mayor, just one thing.

I'm sure you're already to do this, but if when you come back with the baseball field stuff, if you could break it down and show it over time how much we're gonna save and pages, that would be really cool to see.

And part of the problem there is is water.

I mean, you've got four different people in the state saying three different things on how much water you're gonna actually utilize on a field, um, how much water costs and XYZ.

That's a huge thing, especially this year, but two years ago it wasn't that big of a deal.

Um it is it is one of those things that we're trying to nail down everything so you have as much information on as you can.

We'll try and get manpower, we'll try and get water savings, we'll try and get uh replacement costs all included so that you have an educate decision to be able to do that.

Well, and even the water savings, we have that immeasurable part of it too, where it's like we really do want to try and cut back where we can.

So yeah.

Okay.

Sorry, can I ask?

Okay, for the at the I remember you talked about this at with the parks, trails and trace committee, and you mentioned River Point.

So River Point is so that that is a development that is building that and will lead it to us.

That's edge development.

Um that will be coming in, I believe not till next year.

It might it may be late this year, but for the city's not.

No, we're not building it within we will reverse reimburse them through impact fees, but it's not something that we are building ourselves.

And that's really the only things that I track is what we're building, other than when we gain them in our acreage.

So I have those on a different slide, and that will be part of the next presentation you see from me.

Okay, and I know you're gonna love this question.

No, go ahead.

Um, but many residents are inquiring about Dry Creek Lake area.

So is that considered a park open space, something that the we have to maintain or you do ask me hard questions because I have a lot of smart answers for that.

Yeah.

Um it it is a park.

Um I mean, frankly, that's what uh it it's kind of a multi-function, but we have a lot of multi-function.

If you look at Centennial Park, it's a detention basin, but it's five acres.

I mean it's a five-acre grass park in a neighborhood, so we use it as such.

This is gonna be very similar to that.

Um as far as the construction.

Well, I guess the question, what what is your question?

When will it be done?

When are we bringing it in?

So I just want to clarify the primary purpose of the dry creek reservoir is to water to reserve to to hold the water.

Correct.

It's a flood mitigation.

And the anticipated date of completion we are not sure of.

It's very close.

Okay.

And what can what can residents expect?

A trail?

So yes, there's a walk path all the way around the park.

It is not a paved walk path, it's a hard pack walk path.

Uh it's not for equestrian, it's for foot traffic only, no bicycles, nothing like that.

Um if we can secure water levels to the right height that will have a fishery in it of several different varieties.

Um there's two restrooms.

There's a large beach area with beach there with uh seating um built into it.

There's plenty of parking.

Um does it connect to um what is that trail right there?

Currently it doesn't connect to the trail.

We're working on that.

Uh part of the other entities are a little hesitant to allow it uh just due to the flood uh purpose of the park and inviting all those people in an extra way out.

Um it's a natural connection if they want to get on.

We're talking uh I mean not even a mile to get on to it.

So it it's something that we're we're diligently working on and we'll take care of and try and get a better connection to it.

So is it safe to assume that this year it's gonna be a little bit of a challenge and rough because of our water restrictions?

Right now.

Um but that being said, you know, we're just slow.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Don't don't expect it to be 10 feet deep by any means.

Okay.

Well it's fall is gonna be mud.

Just to throw it in, because I mean Heather and I we got to go on tours out there and I wish I would have been invited.

Um it people were using it when we went out there when it was just a reservoir, so they were walking there anyway.

Um but it's very close.

Highland has some trails right there.

Yeah right there that go to a little park.

So people are using it long before we've and currently right now we have the gates shut.

We the pavement is down.

Um we're waiting to paint or to mark the parking stalls.

Uh we have a little bit more homework to do on uh if we're gonna charge for parking or not up there.

Um we do need to go meet with Northern Utah County Water Conservancy Board about that, make sure there's no concerns there.

Um and then signage is our big thing, and then we're still waiting to hook up the sewer pump to be able to because it's low enough that we had to inject the pump or uh sewer pump in it to extract all the sewage.

So it has to travel all the way up onto the road by Smith's to be able to exit the site.

So for payments, you said we have to talk to the North County.

Yeah, where it's their ground.

Um there's some liability issues that we're trying to work through.

Our risk managers quite worried that if we take payment on it that we could potentially assume liability for it where it's not our ground.

Um we're trying to figure out the details on that, and then we'll we'll be able to present to you and let you guys make that decision.

Steve, how much of up on the screen, how much of this um represents the I guess the full amount of the remaining park tax in that 70 percent.

Is this all of it?

Or what percentage?

For a year's worth, is that what you're saying?

Well, or like current currently what we have in that fund for the capital projects.

I'm gonna rinse some numbers off the top of my head there are gonna be guesses, but we got our first five million, we hit that point November-ish of last year.

And so in a year, just for the capital projects part, that's 1.4 million.

So it might be reasonable to say by June we'd have $800,000 already.

Okay.

Another money that we've collected but haven't allocated for anything.

Okay.

Yeah, that's good to know.

Because I think going back to the PTTC conversation earlier.

Even like holding on that conversation until we do have the priorities, because if we do end up deciding, hey, we're going to save for three or four years for a larger project, it kind of negates the whole change.

There's things that we need to do.

Yeah.

And I think just one item I would suggest.

And then we talked about the Ozure Park, kind of the minor minor improvements there, opening access a little bit.

And you won't see that on any of our presentations where that's a trail connection that we're going to be working on.

Okay.

So perfect.

Yeah.

So sorry, so that's something you are working on.

Yeah.

That's something we're currently working on.

You directed us to do that.

And we're we're working on it currently.

Great.

Thank you.

Sorry.

My understanding is we directed you.

To do a trail around the whole thing.

Yeah.

Okay.

Okay.

But it wasn't the same.

No, it wasn't the full parking lot in the back or anything.

Yeah.

No, it's a trail all the way around it.

Yeah, it's just a good question.

To make it accessible for everyone.

Yeah, I wanted that clarity.

Thank you.

Do you know the timing on that?

I just got to get Geneva freed up enough to come look at it.

Okay.

So we have a contract with them for paving and yeah.

Perfect.

Let's use our contracts on it.

So are we talking about paved or unpaved trail?

Right now there's an unpaved trail currently, so we'll pave it.

We have a little drainage work that we need to take care of and then we'll pay it.

Anything else for me?

Thank you.

Thanks very much.

Jason, so there's item one, item two.

Yeah, the other item we had.

Um I think David's gone.

Oh, there he is.

David's still here.

I don't know if the council had any questions for David specific to the survey results I sent out earlier.

If not, then that's fine too.

Is it possible to get a recap?

I I was in a meeting with public works when that email went out.

So it'd be I've I've looked through it, but I'd appreciate a recap if that's possible.

Yeah, happy to provide that.

So week ago we sent out uh survey to employees to collect their feedback on the proposed budget, the mayor's proposed budget, and wanted to understand how that budget would impact their daily responsibilities, their departments, um, what they do on a daily basis.

And so we got 101 responses back to that, uh varying degrees.

Um there were some open-ended questions, there were some uh uh familiarity questions, how familiar are they with the budget?

Um what we got back was um a wide variety of responses.

A majority of employees that commented on the the proposed budget were in favor.

There were also some comments that said it didn't go far enough.

And so it's been um kind of expected of what we've been hearing anecdotally, but we wanted to give employees a chance to respond formally.

And that's on the mayor's budget or the interim budget.

We instructed them to comment on the mayor's budget.

However, I think some uh employees comment on the interim budget as well.

Okay.

And were the responses different on the budget, which budget they were commenting on?

Yes.

Yeah.

They they favored the mayor's proposed budget because there were additional funding for employees for staffing for for other things.

Yep.

Okay.

So sorry, David.

So I do we get the individual responses ourselves or just your summary?

I just gave you an executive summary.

Um at this point, um Jason has additional responses, but from employees, I felt like Jason and the mayor could address specific responses, and you guys could have the executive summary.

So just to be clear, that most of them uh supported the mayor's original budget with the tax increase.

Yes.

Okay.

And even though it didn't fund the full request of the fire department wages.

Um there were comments from fire department members that um wanted additional funding.

Um, but overall employees supported the mayor's budget because there was overall more money with the property tax increase.

Okay.

Because it was their understanding that the the mayor's budget, which included the property tax increase, would make more money available for poison fire as well.

Some, yeah.

Okay, thank you.

That was all I had at this point, Mayor.

Great.

So we'll let's bring 4.7 back here consideration of resolution 2026-38 adopting the budget consolidated fee schedule for the city of Lehigh for fiscal year 2026 to 2027, July 1st of 2026 to June 30th of 2027.

Questions or comments on that Mr.

Mayor, I have a question for Dean, if that's okay.

Yep.

Um something that stuck out to me in the letter um that was you know the redlined version of the letter that um gave me some concern.

Um and I just wanted to hear more about it was the revenue projections.

So on the guiding financial principles page, the red lines at the bottom.

Um where it's been crossed out, projects will be conservative in order to reduce the chance of revenue shortfalls.

That's been removed and replaced with economic data from both national and state sources will be used, including the annual economic report to the governor.

Um so are we not being conservative with our projections?

I think we're less conservative with our projections.

Um I think I mentioned our property tax has lagged just a little bit in how it's came how it's come in even this year.

Um the projection we made for property tax was probably less conservative than we've been in some years.

I really wanted to just I thought it would be good to change, because we talked a little bit about I think we're a little less conservative in budgeting expenditures, that's probably the bigger impact than revenues, because that's what we really changed in how we're budgeting employee benefits and and pay.

So I for our work just so for our revenue projections for this year, they're probably a little less conservative than we've been.

But I still feel good.

I I don't I'm not too concerned about hitting our revenue projections for next year.

Okay, okay.

But I do think there may be a little less conservative.

And the impact of having a less conservative projection is that next year there's just less.

Yeah, so the wages is a good example, right?

And I kind of mentioned this earlier.

When we budget wages, we've always just said every position is going to be filled every day of the year.

And if people come if someone comes in during the year, they're gonna be choose family health insurance, just like to be the most conservative, right?

And so typically we have some money in there that's not spent every year just because we do it that way.

Um the same would hold true with revenue projections.

Um if you're a little conservative and it's been growing 5% for several years, so I budget 4.5% or 4%.

Uh chances are you're gonna have surpluses at the end of the year, right?

And that's you know, I hear different things on that.

Sometimes it's like, well, why do you have a surplus if but part of it is because of that?

If you there's a lot of things that happen in a year, we're doing our projections now.

In fact, a lot of these were developed in January and February for July to June of the next year, and you don't really know what's going to happen.

You want to be careful.

Um less conservative projections is probably going to lead to smaller surpluses, right?

Maybe even a chance that we wouldn't run out, we wouldn't have a surplus.

Um the biggest impact is that every year we've done some projects and just say, hey, we're going to use fund balance to do those.

Because we don't really have a budget in our general fund that says let's set aside a certain amount of money for capital projects.

And these wouldn't be like big building things we've bonded for, but it could be things like a park project or buying a piece of property to do something or all kinds of different things, right?

And so a lot of times we've been able to say we don't we don't have to take those out of our general operating budget because we can use last year's surplus to do it.

So if we have less surplus, we have less of those funds to do some of those projects.

Yeah, we're kicking the can down the road.

Yeah, it's just you know, finance person, I always like to be conservative because it gives you more options.

Yeah, I appreciate your perspective.

Thank you.

So do you know in regards to that though?

I mean, when you say surplus, are you saying over the 35% or no?

I'm just saying at the end of the year, did we bring in more money than we spent?

Yeah.

Because we talk a lot about budgeting and there's lots of estimates that go in there.

We're really trying to pre prepare a budget that allows us to keep within state law and have money for when we need it.

But when it comes down to it, if I our actual results is just we brought in X amount of dollars and we spent out X amount of dollars.

So that's the surplus revenues minus expenditures, and we've had some decent surpluses in the past.

Maybe those if we're a little less conservative, those are probably going to be smaller in the future.

Right.

So it's just it's a choice.

Are we going to put our money more towards ongoing expenses or more towards the capital?

So it's I mean it's money we're gonna spend one way or another.

Um but I I know that we've talked about this.

I know Chris Conde was he he kind of made it a point that you know we're charging this tax, you know, we're taxing our residents, and we need to use that money for their the benefit we need to actually spend it instead of just I mean at one point we were keeping the max 35 percent in our reserves.

And his point is we we have that money and we're taxing the people for it.

We need to spend it for for their benefit.

So I mean, there's I don't I would not say it's kicking the can down the road.

I mean, it's making choices of how we're gonna spend the money.

But it's I mean, we definitely are struggling with our ongoing costs.

Um, but of course it means less in in capital reserves or for those kind of projects.

But how me, maybe I heard you wrong, but right now we don't set aside money for it's just kind of whatever is left over goes into the Yeah, we there's no there's not a line item in our general fund budget that just says capital expenditures.

Usually those small, smaller capital expenditures are we used fund balance to pay for them.

No, there's and that's probably not the best way to say it.

We use money that we've surplused in a previous year.

It's like that's our savings account.

Let's use that money to do it instead of using ongoing money to do it.

But extra, but not we I mean we we maintain that rainy day fund, right?

The 30 Right.

That's it.

That's that's different.

That's protected.

That's different.

Yeah.

I think we do a pretty good job of setting aside those funds for specific things.

But there's money.

Because if we have money on top of that part, that's what I transfer to capital projects.

And so this year, and most years we'll say, well, instead of transfer to capital projects, let's just use it for some of these smaller capital projects.

I think I didn't say that very good.

When I say transfer it to capital projects, transfer it to our physically separate capital projects fund to be used for things in the future.

Okay.

Um I have a question about the firefighter pay increase.

I think the original ask was 640,000 and now it's budgeted 750,000.

Is that am I understanding that correctly?

Let me find it here.

Okay.

And I think well, I guess what was I'm looking on.

I think the original quest was 750.

And that came from David's survey.

Nope, you're right.

It was 640.

I take it back.

And we funded 390 and didn't fund 250.

That's in the original budget.

But in the interim budget, I see 750.

Yeah, it went up to seven.

We put it at 750 because the the new request was 820.

So this doesn't even do the whole 820.

Okay.

And also if if you if we move forward with the 3% based on the email that I sent you, um, we're even lower than the 750 because the 750.

Yeah, I don't remember.

Like the 820 that they needed was at the 4% assumption.

So we are gonna need even more than the market.

They would to get to market, they would need the 820 plus the 4%.

So if we do 3%, then that's a little that's a little shaved off the 4%.

I can't remember the number, but yeah, just from your email, I saw that it was we it's still a significant amount.

I think it's over amount over the amount that was budgeted in the initial.

Yes, there's significantly more in the interim budget for firefighter than the origin than either of the even despite having a only a three percent increase versus a four percent increase.

Correct.

Yeah.

I think the big thing with that though is we had almost a half a million in the mayor's budget that was also going to be redistributed likely would have gone to fulfill the firefighter wages in full.

Um I've kind of taken this as we're being less conservative than we have been in the past.

It's not like we're really gaining money, we're just spending more than we typically would to be as fiscally responsible as you've been.

So if there were to be any kind of I mean, COVID kind of year coming, we don't have the safety net that you typically had.

Is that a fairly yeah, that's fair.

And so by and this isn't like breaking the ground, other cities do this, other places do this.

We've just budgeted those a little bit less conservatively.

And it's not necessarily spending less money, but we're budgeting less conservatively, which helps you put it to other places in the budget.

Okay.

Okay.

I'm just gonna say what I think.

And I don't know.

Um I my position.

I think was the first year on the council, yeah.

I did vote for a tax increase, and some of that money went to fire and some of it went to police, and that went against everything I wanted to do.

Um but I was new and I didn't own the budget very well, and I totally support fire and police, and I know that's where we're competing with other cities, and we have a labor shortage, so um we need to do a lot to to keep our officers and our firefighters.

Um we don't want to lose them, especially I think the chief has pointed out that they spent a lot of time training them and um and again going to that graduation ceremony was helpful to see the training they do.

Um but I also don't like tax increases.

I you know, I appreciate that an email went out to the city employees getting their feedback, but we didn't extend that extra courtesy to our residents, you know, probably logistically it would be it would be hard to do.

Um but I did go out and talk to residents myself, um, and I know there's concern, especially those that are on fixed incomes.

And we can say this is just a small bet each year, but looking at the percentage creases of above the certified tax rate, it is increasing every time.

So the first time in fiscal year 23, it was 3.38%, and then FY25 is 6.25%, and now it's 9.78%.

So those small little amounts, they add up and they're increasing over time.

And I just don't feel like this is sustainable way to have a tax increase every other year.

Um I I just don't think it's fair to our residents.

And I've um I I dug deep in past budgets and this budget to see what what's going on here.

And I know there's claims made that it's due to inflation.

Um but I I've looked at CPI increases over the years and um's and we it's not due to inflation.

Our tax revenue, we collect more than just property taxes, we collect sales tax, we collect franchise tax, um other taxes, other sources of revenue, and just the taxes alone.

And even the property tax is above what we collect, the revenue we collect is above the inflation rate.

Um there's only a few outliers, 2021 and 22, but it even in those cases our our tax revenue exceeded the inflation rate.

Um we can't say it's just due to inflation.

I I think it and I'm I'm don't mean this to criticize, I'm just saying this is the reality we have to deal with.

I think it has to do with past decisions.

We've grown a lot and we've got a lot of revenue from that new growth, and it's been spent, and we we have this beautiful building, but we're also at the number somewhere.

I am I would say 1.6 million dollars each year just to pay the interest and the principal on the building.

That would have covered our tax increase this year.

Um we have we past councils have taken on obligations, like I mentioned the Willow Park.

Um that was a county park, and we decided that it should be the Lehigh residents that pay to upkeep that.

And so now we get to pay for that.

Um there were other obligations that were taken on for good or ill, I don't know, but it's the reality.

We have the legacy center that it again, it's like 2.6 million a year for the legacy center and the recreation programs that we're subsidizing from the general fund.

I think going forward, I love that we have a study budgeted in here that we can look at that and maybe bring those costs down at least some to free up some money for our staff and our employees and other needs of the city.

So it I don't see this, it's not an easy fix, and I'm like many of you, I'm so done with it, just want it to be over one way or another.

Um, but I I see that in the future that there's some things we can do to bring in some of those costs, some of those expenditures, and it's not necessarily cutting services.

I mean the choices and presented, we either have to raise taxes or cut services.

I I don't agree with that.

I see that there's ways we can reduce costs.

I I think moving those the contributions to our nonprofits, the park grant was a great way to find some money to free up some money in the general fund.

I like what um the mayor said in the past about finding efficiencies.

I think we can do that.

Um I I don't want to increase taxes.

I think we need to break that cycle.

We just we're we'll we will have to do that every other year.

And that's and it again is just growing and growing, and I don't think that's I just don't like that direction.

Um I also don't like the this broad 1% cut to employee wages across the board.

Um I think I I know council member Freeman or excuse me, Harrison um presented 12 eight, twelve at least twelve different options of things to look at as far as uh wage reform or wage structure goes.

Um my understanding, I I never asked that that would be the approach that we took, but um you know that's what's presented in the interim budget.

So I I think if we want to look at wage reform, and I I do um I think we should look at it more strategically and not just across the board cuts.

I think there's our lower paid employees where that cut's gonna be big for them, won't be impactful.

Um I would I would prefer looking at more a tiered approach where the the top wage earners in the city get less, don't get that guaranteed 4% increase.

That's if you look at the salaries, that's a lot every year and it compounds.

So I I think we need to kind of contain that increase there.

Um I would look like to look at the market um adjustments more strategically.

Um where are we losing employees?

My understanding is police fire and streets.

So maybe those should be the priorities.

Um I'm kind of stuck because I don't like either option.

I'm sorry, Mayor, but I don't like that the tax increase.

But I I don't necessarily I do appreciate the work that's been done on the interim budget.

I think you took feedback back from the council and went with it, but I I don't like that across the board approach.

So what is the solution?

Um I thought I had good one till you talked to the chief just before the meeting, and I wasn't able to find a solution in the 20 minutes in our break, but um my original thought was to not do the cross-the-board wage cuts, or it's not a wage cut.

A little bit of a decrease in the increase kind of thing.

Um but instead maybe not do the tax increase, but instead maybe spread out the fire wage increase over two years.

Um I'm seeing that the Fox Hollow golf course as when that bond expires, that'll 275,000.

And I would put that towards the fire wages for next year.

I think that's better investment than you know, doing miniature golf there, talk golf there, whatever they want to do.

Um we we have that from a starting point, and then to get up to the original request of 640,000, we just need another 40,000 to get there.

But I I'm also hearing from the chief that you guys need that money now.

You've waited um last year you're some promises were made, and you're just getting more and more behind.

So my preference would be as much as we all want this done sooner, probably today, to just be done with it.

Um maybe take the extra two weeks just to table this item and try even more to see what we can do.

And if not, then our decision will have to be made, you know, if it's a tax increase or a wage looking at the um wages, or maybe something in between, a little bit of both.

Um, but I um yeah, I just I've worked hard on this, but I I personally would like a little more time to see what we can still come up with.

So that's my position.

Mr.

Mayor, can I make a point of clarification?

I just I just want to make a distinction between breadth of service and depth of service.

And what I mean by that is when we say um we don't want to cut services, I I understand that.

But by the nature of it being a growing city, every house that moves in requires that much more incremental city services.

So when you say that inflation is not a factor, I respectfully have to disagree because if there was zero growth, then yes, the property tax would not need to increase.

But when you say these tax increases have been coming in higher than CPI, that's due largely to our growth.

And that necessitates more police officers, more fire, more streets, more all those, all those things that we talk about.

So I just want to make that distinction.

When we're talking about depth of the quality of our service, that's one thing.

But breadth is every house that comes in has to be serviced.

Right.

So I just want to make sure we're distinguishing the two.

And I mostly looking at sales tax revenue.

I mean the the the villain is always property tax.

We have other tax revenues.

We do.

But the um but that's subject to population growth as well.

Yes, and I forgot my point.

Um yes, so our looking at the budget, we we have to increase personnel staffing, and that's our that's a big thing.

That's a big concern.

But the wage increase is a big thing, and I I know the the conversation is or has some people have said, oh, we can't reduce it because then oh, it won't keep up with inflation.

But if you look at cola, and I did look at government, federal government sources to get you know good numbers.

It very it I think there's four times in the last 26 years since 2020 or 2000 year 2000, um, that it has been above four percent, and that's COVID, two years with COVID, mostly because of COVID spending, and then 2008 with the the housing bubble burst.

So when I I'm not seeing increases so much in light items because of inflation.

Um it comes down to the cola, and I I'm seeing that that wage increase stays above that.

And I guess for what we're seeing is even with the four percent as of recent, we're still falling behind in certain areas.

So we've created that pot where we've done very targeted market increases like you suggested.

We we've done that for the past several years where we go person by person, um position by position.

Yeah, what I'm no, I what I'm saying targeted is where are we losing employees?

Yeah, that's that's what I'm saying also.

It's fire and police, and there's some in the streets, and years ago it is building.

Yeah, years ago it was building inspectors during COVID it was engineering.

So we've it'll change, right?

Yeah, it will.

And we've and we've addressed that.

So I just don't want the perception to be that we we aren't trying those things.

We've we're also pulling those levers.

So yes, but we we can't disregard what's the money that's been spent in the past.

And I I've been on the count but the past council and I know the discussions that took place there.

It wasn't where can we save money, where can we you know be careful rain in here or there.

It was well, let's spend money here or there.

I mean ice skating drink or fragmite more or do more here there.

The conversation in the past was where can we spend money?

It's never where can we bring in?

Okay, but we're talking about wages, right?

And and I think we're talking about two different things.

Talking about skating rinks and programs and capital things is one thing, but now when we talk about okay, let's save money by not having our wages keep up with the market.

That's that's the same thing.

Well, I I thought I made it clear that I wasn't for that.

I wasn't for reducing um the four percent increase.

Okay, because what you just said it sounded a little like it.

So I just wanted to clarify that.

Okay, I'll I'll say it right now.

I do not support the broad approach of reducing every single city, I guess it's full-time employees by one percent.

I I think that is um too broad and not um it will I think it will hurt us in the long run.

So I'm not for that.

But I'm saying you you say the the conversation has been, oh, it's inflation, that's why you have to increase it every two years.

I'm saying no, it's our spending habits, past spending habits have have created a problem.

That's my position.

And again, I've been on the past council and I've known the discussions there, and like I said, I listened to many past budget discussions long before I was on the council.

Sure.

And it was it was I think new growth brings in a lot of new revenue, temporary revenue, all right, for property taxes, you know how that works.

And it's we got a lot of money, where can we spend it?

And I think that that's put us in a bad position.

And it's again, it's not to complain, it's to kind of acknowledge the reality.

We've got obligations now that we've got to deal with.

Sure.

Um I I get we needed a new city hall, but I would never have voted for a building like this.

Um something more modest, I think would have been appropriate.

But it it is what it is, right?

And so um how do we go forward now is is the challenge, I guess.

So I think my thing too is it's difficult when we're we're basically comparing Lehigh to Lehigh.

We're not comparing Lehigh to other cities, and you're looking at what other cities are doing and the large tax increases that they're proposing right now, and that's something that probably will get kicked down the line.

I had a really great conversation with Utah County Republican vice chair, you know, and he's like, I you know, I wish I could explain to people how property tax works because people don't understand it.

It's like sales tax, income tax, they all keep up with inflation and the crossfit property tax doesn't.

And I think that's why we're seeing the conversations online and with others being supportive of making sure that we're taking care of our employees.

I think that's really where our we are tasked to do is to take care of the city and make sure that the city takes care of our residents.

Um I know it's been really discouraging to all of us to have things become pretty politicized and to have the employees be all consumed in this and the morale um going down.

I'm I'm grateful to hear the thought of the you know, the four percent I'm concerned about when we start doing targeted things too.

I do definitely see the need one to take care of our lower earners, but also we have to consider that our highest paid employees are paid that way for a reason, and they are the ones who are head hunted, they are the ones most sought after, they're the most expensive and time consuming to replace.

So it it all comes into ahead that and this is where I have the most difficult time with this budget is that I there was a a mayor's budget presented that showed the employees 4%, and to take that off now, the optics are terrible to go and start using what was earmarked for employee wages that was never part of the tax increase portion of the mayor's budget and say we're gonna take any portion of that to be able to pay for new positions.

I'm really concerned that we are affecting our employees and the their output and their morale, their um willingness to you know feel that they're appreciated and still want to be a part of the city.

So I um I appreciate that that's been brought up.

I think that's something we need to be really mindful of and careful of because let our employees know on the just how much we appreciate them.

And I don't think that any of them have ever been through a budget cycle like this before, where it feels like you know, usually they just focus on their work and let us know that you know that we're gonna focus on ours, and um they've been part of a a lot of conversations.

A lot of them have spoken with me, and um I hate that feeling that I'm not doing my job of taking care of them so they can take care of our residents, and so I would really love to table this and figure out a way to be able to make all of this work together to make sure that we prioritize that.

Um I also struggle with the fire wages because this was supposed to be the other half of the fire we just cut um catch up.

We already did the first half as part of the tax increase, so it's hard because I I just want more money to be able to um to be able to to meet all the needs.

Um I think Lehigh has done a pretty good job just by based on where we fall in how much we charge in overall property tax compared to other cities, and I think that's really where we need to to look at this and make sure that we are on the mark that way.

I do think it's great that this budget has been completely scrutinized in every possible way.

Lots of line item things have been cut.

I think the departments have done a really great job.

I think it's absolutely incredible that we gave direction to the mayor and financial staff to say, hey, we don't want to do a tax increase, figure it out, and what you came back with was just like we would have never pulled that out.

And I so I I think we have an incredible team that's working for us and doing everything they can to um make sure that our residents pay the least amount they can to get the best service they possibly can.

So I just want to thank you for all the work that's gone into this.

Can I just ask a follow-up question, Hather?

Yeah.

Um so my understanding, correct me if I'm wrong, but all five of us said no to a tax increase.

Is that no?

Thank you for saying that.

Well, okay, that's what I'm saying, right?

So all five of us said no to the tax increase.

Um, but you also give a great kind of defense of increasing the tax.

So I'm just I'm just wondering.

Yeah, let me explain.

Like there has to be some savings in order to do it.

So it's more of a debate on how we save.

So I'm just curious how we we would save that money if we didn't look at that extra annual increase on bonuses or so.

My thing the tax increase indicated new positions.

To me, that's what comes with the tax increase.

So we don't then take from our current employees to pay for what a tax increase would have covered.

So in my mind, then we don't fund all the new positions that were proposed.

We do have almost half a million of that part tax.

We have some other cuts we've made to be able to fund a portion of it, but we don't I have a I really struggle with the idea of using what was proposed for employee wages to fund what was proposed for a tax increase.

That's why I came in.

So then where so I guess my understanding is that you are to make up for that, you would just not include what the mayor um stated as the tax increase justification.

Right.

So it'd be the new employees that would not so we'd use a portion of things that have been saved for the park tax funding to go towards funding new positions, but I wouldn't take it out of the current employees to pay for new positions.

I think we've seen that too when it comes to like the police department.

Instead of taking new police officers, they're going to use that money to increase pay.

That's why like what's important is important to me is we take care of our current employees, and then we can look at the new positions based on the greatest need.

Um I think that would then fall back on the mayor to determine, okay, and the the executive team of these are the departments that are lacking the most.

But that would be my top priority is funding, taking care of our current employees, and then we look to hire.

Well, yeah, and I think that's what's so difficult about not raising taxes, and it should be difficult, right?

Um, is that even under that scenario, we're not getting enough headcount for streets or parks.

I think water has um new employees as well as um police headcount.

So you know, I think you have a good point, and I'm not I'm not arguing, I'm just saying like if we don't look at everything across the board, then we're forced to look at certain things, and then there's another there's another headache, right?

There's another complaint toward the city council of saying, why aren't you supporting us?

You're putting too much work on our shoulders.

Um again, you know, my my personal and one other one other question.

You say it's been politicized.

I just want to understand how I guess it's been politicized in your mind.

Well, like you saying that you won't do a tax increase, right?

And then we had our director of HR have employees go and say, what does that mean?

Does that mean that we're we're not going to because the only way to be able to have property tax even keep up with inflation is by doing a tax increase.

So I think there's a concern there from the employees that if we have a council member making a promise without understanding operational budget or understanding them, and that that's just their perspective of not like being able to sit down with you and understand, then there becomes a concern about is my job safe?

What's gonna be cut?

Like so it's like employees are being involved in the budget process in ways that I don't think they ever have been, that they're now concerned about how that's gonna impact them, impact their workload, um, impact their salary, which then impacts their family.

Yeah, I think again, the workload is something that would be under your solution, right?

The workload issue of I have more workload on my shoulders because um we're not gonna fund any of the proposed increase in in um positions, but but I think I I guess politicized, that's a loaded word, right?

Like for me, if it was all just data, right?

If it was just purely data driven, then we could set an algorithm.

We could like have very little to do on the council and and the algorithm would just automatically raise taxes.

And so for me, I think it's a balance between principles, right?

And we all have political principles and and how we view the role of government.

Um priorities, right?

My priority, if I could wave a wand, I would give, you know, I and I've stated this for a very long time: public safety, fire police and infrastructure budget and projects, those are my top priority.

And I wish we could do more in this budget for it.

But ultimately, I know we're looking at this kind of in a vacuum in one year, but the through this entire process, we've identified different ways we can save.

We have, you know, and when I when I say like cut fat or trim fat, it's not it's not like you know, we're gonna go take Steve Marchbank's um uh you know, laptop and sell it and make money, right?

Like it's it's more about we have these huge commitments that Michelle talked about.

We have a lot of land, we have buildings, we have things that we can look at long term, because my goal is to get us back to 4% or more every year for employees.

Like, and I and I do my other goal is to separate the cola and merit.

And one of the things that um I saw in the feedback from employees that I 100% agree with is that a few years ago, um, the mayor kind of lumped everything together, the merit and cola.

And I I I can't remember the exact reasons, but I don't think employees like that either, because it it confuses the line between what is cost of living and what is like an actual merit bonus.

And I hope we can we can in the coming year distinguish that a little bit better because I'd much rather say, okay, you know, let's match the inflation rate for cola, and that's cola, right?

That's that's something that we we don't really touch unless there's a crazy year if there's like COVID or some disaster.

Um and then we can look at merit through uh a high functioning performance system.

And in my opinion, you know, the the city's the umbrella, and you have many different industries within that umbrella, right?

So for performance management, um that's a policy decision.

I don't think we can do that without a resolution or if staff wants to take this on, but for public safety, I think you know, Chief Paul knows what he's doing within his industry per se, and he can set those standards of performance.

Um, same with Chief Kraft, right?

And those are very unique professions, and I think they should have full kind of authority and um ability to dictate that in a way that's good for their departments.

It's good for morale, it can it can put bonuses and increases where they need to be.

Um so again, this is like a once this is like a first step in kind of this new council and and how we view tax increases.

I hope we can get to a point in the coming years, especially with a lot of RDAs expiring in the next four or five years.

Like that's gonna be a ton of new revenue.

We have you know, the Porsche dealership that just opened up tons of revenue there.

We have other things coming in.

So yeah, it has been a painful year.

We're not gonna make a decision, even if we decide to raise taxes.

I've heard from a lot of residents how vehemently opposed they are to it.

And that's that's just their feelings, right?

And that's why they elected the people they did, is because we we talked about these issues.

Um sorry, I'm looking right at you, but I'm just gonna talk about generally.

But um anyway, so I think I think that's where we need to move.

I think I'd like to see in the coming year an earlier budget process.

Um again, the finance team has been incredible, but we just felt that it was so truncated, and and I'd like to look at more of a zero-based approach so we can identify where we're we're currently spending money instead of just starting it where we are and looking at increases and how many increases we want to approve or not approve.

Um so yeah, I think again, tax increases should be an absolute last resort.

There are, I think, times and periods where we could do it and it would justify it.

Um but again, an absolute last resort in in my view.

Um, Mr.

Mayor, if I may, we've talked a lot about what prior councils have obligated us to.

And I just wanted to call back to an email I sent last week where Dean, again, the finance wizard, I don't know how you do it, where you just within minutes, thank you so much for helping me understand.

Um, but we've got he sent an email that all of the council has received.

Um and I just I'm gonna go through these things, and I this council likes to say, well, prior councils have obligated us to these things.

And when I say what we're obligated to, I hope the residents listen to what we are obligated to.

Um, because station 83.

Are the residents of Trappers Mountain glad that a council obligated us to that?

Are we glad?

How about our police station and the resources that it provides to our county and to our city?

Um there's the Thanksgiving Point Science and Technology Building, which is paid by Thanksgiving Point through the city.

Um the civic center, which is a point of concern, and then station 84.

I sure know living out on the Northwest side that I'm glad station 84 was built and fully staffed.

We have a lot of prior obligations that have to be paid for water and PI.

And seeing as we're in a drought this year, and that water is a critical, it's it's absolutely essential for life.

I'm sure glad prior councils have approved investments in those things.

When it comes to our power and the way in which we charge our cell phones and sometimes our vehicles and power our homes, keeping the heat on in the winter and our AC running in the summer.

We have made investments as a city into power building and the power generation that if that helps keep our rates some of the lowest in this county.

I'm sure glad a prior council did that for us.

And then this one, I actually think may or you know, could cause some interesting insights.