City Council Agenda Minutes 9-26-17

TREMONTON CITY CORPORATION
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING

SEPTEMBER 26, 2017

Members Present:
Diana Doutre
Lyle Holmgren
Jeff Reese
Bret Rohde
Lyle Vance
Roger Fridal, Mayor
Shawn Warnke, City Manager
Linsey Nessen, City Recorder

CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
7:00 p.m.

Mayor Fridal called the September 26, 2017 City Council Special Meeting to order at 6:57 p.m. The meeting was held in the City Council Meeting Room at 102 South Tremont Street, Tremonton, Utah. Those in attendance were Mayor Fridal, Councilmembers Doutre, Holmgren, Reese, Rohde, and Vance, City Manager Warnke, and City Recorder Nessen. The following Department Heads were also present: Public Works Director Paul Fulgham, Finance Director Curtis Roberts, and Treasurer Sharri Oyler (arrived at 7 p.m. and left at 8 p.m.).

1. CLOSED SESSIONS (if needed):

a. Strategy session to discuss the purchase of real property when public discussion of the transaction would disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration or prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best possible terms; and/or
b. Strategy session to discuss the character, professional competence or physical or mental health of an individual; and/or
c. Strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation

2. Opening Ceremony

Councilmember Vance gave a prayer.

3. Introduction of Guests

Mayor Fridal welcomed those in attendance.

4. Approval of Agenda

Motion by Councilmember Reese to approve the agenda. Motion seconded by Councilmember Vance. Vote: Councilmember Doutre – aye, Councilmember Holmgren – aye, Councilmember Reese – aye, Councilmember Rohde – aye, Councilmember Vance – aye. Motion approved.

5. City Council Business

a. Discussion of the possibility of funding, financing, and/or bonding for the construction of a pressurized secondary water system within the incorporated limits of Tremonton City

b. Discussion of restricting funds in Fund 51 Water Fund for the development of a pressurized secondary water system and or transferring funds from Fund 51 Water Fund to Fund 56 Secondary Water Fund

Items a. and b. were discussed together.

Finance Director Roberts said the basic premise the City operates under is trying to define how much it is going to take to operate the system, to build it out, to make it all come together and how much will have to be borrowed. There are a number of variables so he tried to isolate it down and make it as simple as possible. He showed the assumptions they used to come up with the operating cost by service area and said their discussion would focus on the first five service areas. However, he also had information that dealt with the first six areas as well as through service area eight. He said he would only focus on areas one through five unless the Council had more questions because he wanted to keep it as simple as possible to start. They identified how much needs to be built out for each one of those areas. The fixed assets are what it will cost to build out that service area—all the infrastructure, including the pipes and pumps—everything it takes to deliver the secondary water. That drives the depreciation number. The operating cost plus depreciation equals the total operating cost. The number of connections listed in each one of the areas is as it stands currently, but that number is expected to increase in some areas.

Finance Director Roberts stated he put in some projections based off rate structures and trying to calculate how this would look in a really simple format. There is an assumption of doing a 20-year bond for the entire amount of the project at a 4% interest rate—that is what the debt service equals. The rate per connection for the five areas would be $37.50 a month per connection based off these calculations and is likely on the high side. He said a lot of factors go into this and there are some ways that monthly rate could come down. One idea is the investment of fixed assets. He said rather than financing all of the $7 million, they could use some money from the water fund since this will help take some of the pressure off the water system. They could take a million dollars from the reserve in that fund and finance $6 million instead. He explained that would reduce the rate by a couple dollars and they could play around with these scenarios using this spreadsheet. The City also might not charge everybody a connection or charge more for those with larger yards and more irrigateable acreage. Policy type decisions like this could also help bring the rate down.

Councilmember Reese asked if this amount includes canal shares. Finance Director Roberts said yes, the amount includes everything it would take to run that service area including the price City Engineer Chris Breinholt put for canal shares in his estimates, if the City can acquire them. Director Fulgham said in service area 1, there are 119 water shares needed to build it out. For all five they will need 568. The City does have 136 shares on hand.

Councilmember Holmgren said if the City does this, they have to have the water—and asked how the City is going to get it. Director Fulgham said they could lease shares from the pool while they work on acquiring and purchasing shares from those who are selling, but have not looked into that yet. Councilmember Vance asked if there are enough shares in the lease pool to cover what the City needs. Director Fulgham said not to buy. The Canal Company pools water shares from year to year and the City currently pools about 50 of their water shares each year. Councilmember Holmgren said they have to have some sort of insurance showing they have enough water to do this secondary system. Director Fulgham said the 568 water shares is to build out all five zones. He said areas 1, 2 and some of 4 will have shares coming in as they develop, but zones 3 and 5 are basically built out now. The first five zones will cover the core part of the City and the north part of town. Councilmember Holmgren asked how many shares they would have to have right now. Director Fulgham estimated that of those 568 shares, only around 300 or 350 shares would be needed. Looking at service area 2, west of the freeway, there is a lot of open ground to be developed, but that is the problem with property sitting up there now, shares have already been sold off. There are no shares and the developer will have to provide them. Councilmember Holmgren asked if the City is going to hold to that. Director Fulgham said that is up to the City Council. If they set that as policy, staff will stick to that. Councilmember Doutre said the City cannot go back on people who have already started. Director Fulgham said not on those developments that are already approved. The policy and development standards say if they have not completed their construction in a year they will have to live up to the current City standards.

Finance Director Roberts said what they are trying to focus on is that $37.50 monthly fee, which becomes the upper cap. They are trying to get a benchmark on how does the City move that down to a lower amount. Right now, the bond is planned out as a 20-year bond, which is typical for these types of projects. But the City could lengthen that out to 30 years, which could knock some off the rate, but it depends on the interest rate the City can get. If they go from a 20-year bond up to a 30 year, the rate is going to increase some so there is a balancing act and they would have to negotiate with whoever does the bonding. The longer the terms, the less principal is paid, and the higher the interest rate.

Councilmember Reese said the City will be saving on culinary water and asked if more than a million dollars can be used from the water fund. That should help subsidize it so the rate could go down. Director Fulgham said that is what is in the reserves right now. Finance Director Roberts said the City could pledge revenues off of the water system as well as the secondary water system and explained debt coverage (125%). Debt coverage is a standard thing in a utility fund like water or sewer and what they look at is your expected cash flow. You divide that number by your debt service payment and typical they want to see that you have 125% of expected cash flows compared to your debt service. If the water revenues and secondary water revenues are combined, then that expected cash flow goes up, which means your debt coverage goes up. The rates could be adjusted down, but they will still want to monitor the rate of return. At this rate, there will be plenty rate of return so that could drive that monthly rate down a bit more using that type of concept.

Councilmember Doutre asked if the debt service is a yearly payment. Finance Director Roberts said it is an annual payment, with principal and interest with a 20-year bond at 4%. They have used rough numbers, but if they can negotiate a better rate, then it goes down, they just need to start the conversation. He said the City really could hit the $37.50 monthly—that sounds high, but he wanted to give the Council that high mark first. If the Council wants that monthly fee to go down, then staff will proceed from there with direction from the City Council. The types of things the City needs to have conversations about so staff knows which way to go are things like what sort of policies need to be put in place, does the City combine water and secondary water funds in order to negotiate a lower rate and better debt coverage, or separate the funds out.

Councilmember Holmgren asked if the $37.50 fee would be for all of the City. Director Fulgham said it would be for service areas 1-5. Finance Director Roberts stated the spreadsheet shows in some of the other areas, with fewer connections, that rate creeps up. Councilmember Holmgren asked if different rates will be charged in different sections or if the same rate will be charged in the end. Finance Director Roberts hoped one rate would be charged to everyone. Trying to do a different rate for each section is difficult for billing. Councilmember Holmgren asked if the $37.50 fee includes build out. Finance Director Roberts said yes, that amount would be worst-case scenario. If the Council can get past that hurdle and tell staff to go and pursue ways to bring that rate down and to do investigatory work, then they will not waste time getting started. Finance Director Roberts stated he ran various scenarios trying to lengthen it out, even considering what if it was priced with growth. The City is anticipating more connections, but not necessarily a lot more cost. Realistically, the rate could be driven down to $25 to $26 per month.

Councilmember Holmgren asked if on a monthly basis during the summer if the City is going to see some sort of decrease of usage on culinary water and how that all balances out. Director Fulgham said that $37.50 is a year around rate—that is $450 a year for outdoor water—if residents have secondary water. Their water bill should be $14 for culinary—$8 base and $6 maximum usage on the average. That would be $168 for culinary a year with some fluctuation as people spot water with culinary in the summer. He said it works like a seesaw, as the City gets more connections and more people are paying the $37.50 per month, the water revenue will come down because there will not be overage fees. Some will go up while some go down, but that makes a total of about $618 a year for all water in general. Industries that do a lot of watering would pay for annual or monthly bills based on the acreage they irrigate so industrial and commercial do not get an advantage over residential users.

Councilmember Reese asked if the City has any relationship with the Water Conservancy District and said State Representative Scott Sandall told him they have tapped into more water, which the City could possibly lay claim to. Councilmember Reese said if this is true, the City needs to weigh all these costs compared to rights on conservancy water. Director Fulgham said they have a lot of water, but the Bothwell pocket and water on the east side is two different drainages. The City cannot take the rights and transfer them on this drainage side. Councilmember Reese just wanted to make sure the City does not have a source there before pursuing other avenues. Director Fulgham said it has been discussed how the City could get some of that water, but the Conservancy District needs a larger line across the valley to get that water to the City. Councilmember Reese added, it is just part of the equation that needs to be thrown in the mix. Director Fulgham said the District would not build the line unless the City paid for it. All the water the City could use sits out there, but it is a different quality. Councilmember Reese stated canal water is different quality also. Director Fulgham said they can discuss taking that water and using it for lawns, but when it comes to using it as culinary water, and that is where the water quality issues come into effect—not that it is not safe to drink because it is, but it is high in sodium. Councilmember Reese reiterated the City just needs to check if there are other opportunities available. Director Fulgham added that as the City brings in more water, they would be limited on what the Conservancy District could get to them because of pipe sizes. They would have to build infrastructure with 18 to 20 inch lines just to get water where they need it.

Councilmember Reese said Representative Sandall thought some of that water could be State funded. Director Fulgham said there is no grant money out there that he is aware of. The culinary board will give hardship grants directed toward engineering, but the City would have to meet a low to moderate income. Mayor Fridal said if they could get water from the Bothwell pocket they would still have to consider a delivery system. Councilmember Holmgren said they need to look at it as one more source of water that could go into the system, just like the canal is a source of water that should be explored. Director Fulgham said as far as infrastructure, it has been explored, it is included in the Water Master Plan and talks about all the pipe sizes the City would have to do over the next few years. Councilmember Holmgren asked why that could not just be another source of water into secondary. Director Fulgham said the District would not allow it without having total separation. It would need to be put in a pond and then fed in and they would have cross connection issues. That is all in the Water Master Plan. City staff can talk with the Bear River Water Conservancy District because they do have all kinds of water rights in the Bothwell pocket. They do have some water rights that are limited on the east side, but they are looking up north of Deweyville and Honeyville to add a well in the future.

Councilmember Vance said the City is talking $7 million for secondary water that will save an estimated 65% of culinary water and that is why they are looking at this. Other sources of water do need to be looked at and the City needs to make sure we know where we are at.

Manager Warnke agreed with everything that had been said, but stated if the Council looks a little further into the future, the City is going to need additional culinary water. The whole idea of secondary is to put culinary water to beneficial use. The City needs to decide what needs to be done in the next year. We are at a point if we do not do something, we will need to take some other action. Councilmember Reese said that is 100% true, but there is nothing that says we could not go with that source in the future. We just need to look at the options and make sure we cover our bases. Mayor Fridal said after we save 65% of the culinary water, and if we still need more water, the only place we could get that water is the Conservancy District because the City cannot drill a well. Director Fulgham said he would pull information from the Water Master Plan, make it more simplified, and put it side by side with the secondary information so the Council could see it with growth projections per year. This will allow the Council to see what the savings are going to be, pipe size details, water development and more. Manager Warnke said storage is not far from being needed if they do not do a secondary system.

Councilmember Vance brought up the service areas 1-5 and said areas like 3 and 7 connect. He wondered why some would not be added at the same time and wants to take care of as many people as they can if they are going to bond. He suggested when these zones grow, adding another pump and orchestrating it so it moves into another zone down the road. Director Fulgham said the areas are sized based on what the pumps will deliver for the build out. Every zone runs off a VFD drive, which ramps up as demand goes up and then down. Areas 7 and 3 do touch but we do not want to over-demand that pump and then not be able to deliver the water. That is why it is broke down into zones. Area 7 does not have a lot of people to serve. Councilmember Vance asked if there could be a bigger pump. Director Fulgham said the beauty of how it is designed is that every pump is the exact same. He will have two spare pumps on the shelf and if one goes down he can drop it in and no one will be out of water. If they have multiple sized pumps it would become expensive and when one wears out they would have to wait for another one to come. He added this is what Finance Director Roberts has said, if areas are changed and more pipe is added, all of a sudden that monthly user fee starts climbing because it is that much more infrastructure that has to be built and paid for. There would be more users but not enough to offset the cost in those less dense areas.

Councilmember Vance said the next question he is getting from citizens is, ‘when is my service going to be put in?’ If we pick these service areas and don’t cover everybody, it will be difficult. Director Fulgham said as growth comes we can better figure out how we are going to serve that. When it comes time to do it, infrastructure is going to be put in by the developer and shares will be turned over to the City, and then we can hook everyone up and start expanding.

Councilmember Vance said if water is extracted from the west side of Tremonton and they get put into the pool, but the City never services that area with secondary water that could be a sore point. Director Fulgham said he did not have an answer because there is already concern over $37.50 per month. Although it would be great to build it all out at once, if more is developed, the fee will be $50 or more a month.

Finance Director Roberts said this would build out all the core areas of the system. These are rough estimates and the fee would go from $37.50 up to $45 by running similar type of assumptions (20 year bond, hit 125% debt coverage return on assets) and that bumps it up about $8 more per month for service areas 1-8. Councilmember Vance stated that is if all the zones are kept the way they are with the same sized pump in an area that does not have any houses with it. Councilmember Vance wondered if the City could bring in a private contractor and have them take a look at this to see if there is a way of moving the zones around. Director Fulgham said a contractor is not an engineer and that is why the City hired an engineer, so he could run the numbers in their programs that show how much water needs to be delivered at this time. The pump is a smaller piece of the cost than the infrastructure of the pipe. No matter what pump is put in, the City still has to build the infrastructure at the canal to bring water in, filter, strain and hook it to the right size lines.

Councilmember Vance asked if they are tied into these service areas or if they could be moved around a bit. A lot of work and time has gone into this map and we are basing all of our analysis on this map, but are there other ideas we would be looking at. Director Fulgham said the zones could be expanded, but it changes the pump dynamics. Finance Director Roberts said that is an engineering question and it would have to be reengineered. There could be different options and they could run through similar scenarios and come up with fees and infrastructure. Director Fulgham said the line could be moved over from service area 3 to move into area 7 and take it to the Iowa String corridor, but that is all it is going to do. When they build outside the corridor, we are back to redesigning. Councilmember Vance stated that if they did build out, that line could be cut off and build into it later. Councilmember Doutre said those who are not first or second might complain, but if it is switched around then someone else will complain, no matter what is done. Director Fulgham said they could move the boundaries of these zones but he went off of the engineer’s suggestions because he ran that information through computer programs and knows what areas can be served and where the pressure works the best.

Councilmember Vance asked how many users would be serviced in areas 1-5 and how many people would not be hooked up. Director Fulgham said there would be 1,725 users. If they chose to do areas 1-8 that number would only jump to 1,841 because areas 6, 7 and 8 are largely undeveloped. There is 2,600 connections total, but that does include commercial meters. Councilmember Vance said that makes him feel better if the difference is only from 1,725 to 1,841. Director Fulgham said secondary water in East Tremonton would be developed later because it is farther from the canal.

Councilmember Holmgren said even if service areas 1-5 are serviced, it still comes back to where we are going to get the water. We can put in all the pipe we want, but what if we cannot service this. Finance Director Roberts said from his standpoint, he doesn’t know if this is something the City Council even wants to pursue. If the Council says go, City staff is going to go. We have the numbers and we will go after water shares, get more design ideas, look into bonding and try to do everything we can to reduce this rate as low as possible. If we find out there are shares available we need to be ready to purchase them without coming back to the Council for authorization to buy. We are in a hard position because why would we want to approach people for water shares if we do not know if the Council wants to pursue this option.

Councilmember Vance said we have to decide if we are going to do the Conservancy District or this. Then the next step is to go after water to see if we can get it. Councilmember Holmgren said we need to see if we can even get the necessary water shares. We are in competition with 80,000 acres of farmland and we are a drop in the bucket compared to what the demand for water is. There are lots who want water and we need to be ready with cash in hand. Finance Director Roberts said the Council has to be ready, if someone wants to negotiate and sell today, then we have to be ready to move on that. Councilmember Vance said we have to decide if we are going to do it first, then after we approve it, subject to getting water, we do it. Councilmember Holmgren said the quickest way to get 300 shares may be to get land and get the shares with it. They could sell or use the land for whatever the City might need, but to go out and find water is no easy thing.

Councilmember Vance asked how much of this discussion could be held in a closed session. Manager Warnke said when the Council is talking about acquiring real property, they can, and water falls under that. Also if the open discussion would undermine what the Council is trying to do.

Director Fulgham said whether the City goes secondary or not, we are going to have to find shares in the future to develop water. We will have to start negotiating and finding shares or requiring canal shares to be brought to us or doing it through impact fees or something. We need more upfront right now if we do secondary, but we will be taking the demand off the culinary. We will need those to make up the difference. In the future, we are still going to need shares so we can swap with someone who has the priority because they are first in line.

Mayor Fridal said there are a lot of people who want water and will buy it when it is available. They may need to buy a few acres to get water. He said they do have the Conservancy District but they cannot afford to buy it to irrigate lawns because it is relatively expensive, but they could use that water when the City needs to increase their culinary supply.

Councilmember Rohde asked if the Council says they want City staff to move forward with a secondary system, what their plan is. Finance Director Roberts said the very first thing would be to start identifying water sources that will fund this system. The next step is to identify which section of the City to build out first and start specific engineering on those areas. We have the rough engineering, but design work will need to be done to go out to bid. As that is happening, staff would enter into negotiations with a lender and figure out the best structure and best rate. During that process, the City Council will address policy, such as what is the billing going to be per connection, is there going to be mandatory connections, are citizens going to be exempt if they already have a secondary water source, etc. There are going to be a combination of factors to move forward into construction and being prepared to go. We are going to have our plates full trying to do this. Councilmember Rohde said if he were to vote to move this forward, he would want to see a specific plan in place of how we are going to implement this from beginning to end. He also wants to know when the plan is to bring secondary water to those further from the canal, such as when certain conditions are met. It is easier to talk to someone when we have a plan in place to take care of them rather than just saying at some point we will address it. We really have to have our ducks in a row and a nice plan in place of how to move forward with this and part of that includes coming up with the water shares.

Finance Director Roberts said they could have most of that ready, other than the specific ideas of when certain sections would come on because that is a policy issue for the Council to address. Director Fulgham explained that they would need to determine at what point they could get water from the canal across to the east; would they be required to acquire an easement through someone’s property and the City Council would have to decide when there is enough population in the area to justify it. We have to look at what is realistic and we have to have funds to do that. Some of the areas that are closer to the canal are easier and will depend on development. Councilmember Rohde said a condition could be once the population hits this area, the City will come in and do it, those are the kinds of things we need to see in place. Finance Director Roberts said City staff could develop those guidelines and bring it to the Council for ratification to develop as a policy.

Councilmember Vance said a game plan is really important. This is where we start and here are the steps and how it will be handled instead of coming to a City meeting and trying to figure out how it all comes together. Director Fulgham said right now we feel the best game plan is to start with areas 1-5 at a cost of $7 million with the ideas Finance Director Roberts has given to bring that cost down.

Finance Director Roberts said part of the reason why we have not gone into how exactly it will look is because we are trying to see if we even plan to go down this route. We are not going to create a whole project plan if all of a sudden it is not feasible because the rate cannot come into a range the Council agrees on. Councilmember Vance asked if they could meet with the Conservancy District to see about water in the Bothwell pocket. Director Fulgham said he would see what is available, but the Canal Company cannot tell him what is for sale because they do not know. Councilmember Doutre asked if they were to do service areas 1-5, how many more water shares the City would need. Director Fulgham said they have about half and will need a couple hundred as they start bringing people on. They can find out what is in the lease pool until they can acquire more. Councilmember Vance said he does not think we ought to commit that we are going to offer secondary water to our citizens on a rental basis, only to find out there is not enough to fill the system from year to year. We need to pass a policy that we own the water shares before we start digging and putting things in place. He then proposed the Council go into a closed session for about 10 minutes.

Motion by Councilmember Vance to move into closed session. Motion seconded by Councilmember Doutre. Vote: Councilmember Doutre – aye, Councilmember Holmgren – aye, Councilmember Reese – aye, Councilmember Rohde – aye, Councilmember Vance – aye. Motion approved.

The Council moved into a closed session at 8 p.m.

Motion by Councilmember Rohde to return to open session. Motion seconded by Councilmember Reese. Vote: Councilmember Doutre – aye, Councilmember Holmgren – aye, Councilmember Reese – aye, Councilmember Rohde – aye, Councilmember Vance – aye. Motion approved.

The Council returned to open session at 8:14 p.m.

Councilmember Reese stated he hopes the City can pull more from the water fund to help finance this. Finance Director Roberts asked, as far as general direction as we look at that debt coverage, if the Council wants secondary water to be a part of the water fund to help with the debt ratio or separate the funds. Councilmember Vance said from a business standpoint, it would be great to know what is going on separately, but from a bond issue, if we need to keep them together to get a better rate then certainly we need to keep them together. Director Fulgham said on the budget they could show the Council those differences by using separate GL’s within the fund. We can still see what we are spending and what we are brining in, it is just more work on the staff’s side.

Councilmember Vance asked if USDA money has been considered. Director Fulgham said their rate is not favorable and the City does not quality for grants, and that is what buys down those rates. Director Fulgham said the State Revolving Fund will not pay for secondary water systems and he did not know about USDA funds. Finance Director Roberts said he has not seen them fund a secondary water system and there are a lot of strings that come with USDA money. In his experience, he has seen the prices go way up. They are valuable if you have no other recourse and nowhere else to go, but we do.

Mayor Fridal said we cannot get Drinking Water Board money, but asked if there is money available from Water Resources. Director Fulgham said he has not been to a board meeting in 17 years, but they get a portion of that 16th percent of the sales tax, which goes to water development. Mayor Fridal said that is something we should check into.

Finance Director Roberts said we have to line up financing and there are going to be steps that are going to happen simultaneously. Searching out different places where funding can come from will be part of that process. He has no problem working with Manager Warnke to line up a game plan and already has ideas of how this is going to work. It is just a matter of putting it down on paper for the Council in a simplistic project. Councilmember Vance said the Council can then make a timely decision rather than making a decision clear out here that does not mean anything. It will flow better if we do that.

Councilmember Rohde asked if the City meters water coming out of the canal. Director Fulgham said they have master meters at the canal pump stations. Councilmember Rohde added that their cost will be lower in the long run if they have a higher quality product for a secondary system and asked how confident we are on the quality of the system we are putting in; does it have a good filtration system or would it be worth an extra $5 a month to make it better so we are not spending money to put in new sprinkler heads every two years. Director Fulgham said without full fledge filtration, he does not know that they can do much better because of all the engrained silt in the canal water. It has to be put through some type of sand filtration to clean it up. To do that much water, it would take a multimillion-dollar filter system. That is the problem and that is why our game plan is to have a recommended type of sprinkler head for people to use, but they will still need a filter at the home.

Manager Warnke said they would put a draft plan together and bring it back to the Council to take a look at. It might not be in the final form but enough to review it and provide more direction to keep working. For item a. we need to come up with a plan and for item b. we will figure out bonding and are not going to transfer money at this point, we will wait until we have a financial picture of where we are going.

c. Discussion of Utah Department of Transportation’s (UDOT) financial contribution for storm water improvements on Main Street (State Road 102) between Country Club Drive and 2000 West and the associated cooperative agreement between UDOT and Tremonton for the aforementioned improvements previously adopted with Resolution No. 17-42

Manager Warnke said this is what the City was able to work out with UDOT and explained that Engineer Breinholt did a great job going back and forth and explaining his engineering rational and why they should contribute more. Originally, UDOT capped out at $100,000 because they only design for a 50-year storm and that is why they stopped short on participating with piping, because we plan for a 100-year event. However, they have agreed to contribute $127,538 so it was worth the extra conversation. The City’s portion is $413,000 and they had budgeted $400,000. Manager Warnke stated if the Council is comfortable, we will put it out to bid and see what comes back and they can make a decision from there.

Councilmember Vance said if that happens again, we have our problem solved, but asked about across the street and if anything has happened with the County or are we just going to drown them. Manager Warnke said no, part of the issue is that the pipe sizes are restricted all along the way. He had a conversation with someone, who showed images of the pipe the night everyone claimed the City was flooding them. He said you could see where the water passed the interstate and that there was still capacity in the pipes. However, by the time it got to the very end there was a tremendous amount of water, but it was everything in between. We had water going in, but remember the pipe sizes are small enough it is restricting water. Councilmember Holmgren said the bottleneck was not just us that was from everywhere. Councilmember Vance wondered how they could correlate with the County to have that fixed. Director Fulgham said they are aware we are doing this and volunteered to contribute some of the material for the backfill, but we can continue to talk with them. Councilmember Vance stated we are concerned about liability and risk, people said we were flooding them out and that was not the case and that is what the images bear out. Manager Warnke said they will put those bids out if that is the general consensus and the Council will still have a chance to approve them. The Council gave the go ahead.

6. CLOSED SESSIONS (if needed): This was done at an earlier time in the meeting

7. Adjournment

Motion by Councilmember Holmgren to adjourn the meeting. Motion seconded by Councilmember Reese. Vote: Councilmember Doutre – aye, Councilmember Holmgren – aye, Councilmember Reese – aye, Councilmember Rohde – aye, Councilmember Vance – aye. Motion approved.

The meeting adjourned at 8:32 p.m.

The undersigned duly acting and appointed Recorder for Tremonton City Corporation hereby certifies that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of the minutes for the City Council Meeting held on the above referenced date. Minutes were prepared by Jessica Tanner.

Dated this 17th day of October, 2017.

Linsey Nessen, City Recorder

Archives