[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6513586,"mediaKeyId","5069602-104019eb6e88a81021e72e761573f88a","parentId",5069602,"title","Council reviews proposed fee schedule changes including higher sewer impact fee and water deposit","audioSeconds",565,"startMs",3045000,"endMs",3610000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5069602-104019eb6e88a81021e72e761573f88a&start=3045&end=3610","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5069602-104019eb6e88a81021e72e761573f88a/thumbnail_3045000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6513586/Woodland-Hills/Utah-County/Utah/Council-reviews-proposed-fee-schedule-changes-including-higher-sewer-impact-fee-and-water-deposit","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6513586-a8bcb51c42872a8e49db0c46eba3ce76/orig.mp4?Expires=1771163612&Signature=Iz3rFSr~LsJpjBghAE-btLtvnvBKAGX-ZgWFtlCAf5G6fgq2lJ7gF14Qicdn0swyTS0koAGRa4qWd0RCfE-TPWwFXMRu1HT06uFOc2mAn8A3b8oP-IC-2fAYpdOsISslvIy~GmP6Rpf9VwraeTml9bqGs9lPkysNL~96wPwEMge6SMHDYYzHvI37Xg3NcDfVYALzpVMADXZbO7kSydpZUhwxjnFcvXgFbqzHTDjcBrVof4FdMs2lbk5TUSM268rT1DxDoOKyTDTU0xNJ5Xo0P4GvVf62RCgxxgHPyDIp6Fu39AvvyPSV8nkeXpXjdKkyMKIKyI1U91Ge3guT6PnNdA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Woodland Hills","date","2025-06-25T17:58:30Z","article","City staff presented a proposed amendment to Woodland Hills’ fee schedule covering utility deposits, sewer and water charges, land‑use review fees, building permits and other charges. The council discussed changes and deferred a final adjustment to garbage can (tipping) fees pending updated pricing from the waste hauling contractor.

Jody (city staff) led the presentation and said staff recommended increasing the water service deposit for renters to $400 to reduce unpaid bills when tenants vacate. She also noted a substantial increase in the sewer impact fee the city passes to the Payson treatment system: staff said the sewer impact fee rose from about $4,500 to roughly $7,100 under Payson’s revised charge and that the city will pass the new figure through to developers and new connections.

Staff proposed raising subdivision review fees to $1,000 plus $150 per lot to better cover engineering and review costs; plat amendment fees increased by $500 to $1,000 to recover staff and recording expenses. Accessory dwelling unit (ADU) review was proposed as a $500 one‑time application fee to cover four required inspections (building, fire, zoning and building official sign‑off) and a $25 annual business permit thereafter. Building permit fees will generally follow the ICC fee schedule used to calculate permit charges by square footage; staff said that approach should cover the plan‑review costs and the building official signature required by recent state changes.

Nut graf: The bulk of the proposed changes are intended to align fees with outside costs (Payson sewer charges, engineering review time and inspection services), ensure the city recovers administrative and review expenses, and tighten utility deposit policy for rental properties; staff recommended holding final action on refuse can fees until waste‑management quotes are confirmed.

On refuse/garbage fees, staff explained the city is billed by Waste Management for collection (transport) and separately billed for tonnage at the transfer station; staff said the transfer station recalculation reduced the city’s share of a previously donated half‑million dollar allocation and recommended a modest 5% adjustment pending final vendor numbers. Council members asked that staff wait to amend can fees until Waste Management confirms the year’s contract increases; staff agreed the fee schedule can be amended later if necessary.

Council also discussed planning and building items: subdivision review changes reflect that state code no longer requires a separate preliminary concept plan and that engineering review time must be cost‑recovered. Staff said building official duties required by recent state law changes will be provided by the city’s inspection contractor (Sunrise), and the city will formalize a community development director role to retain city staff for administrative plan review while contracting for building‑official sign‑offs.

Ending: Staff will mark changes and provide a highlighted fee schedule and will supply missing vendor figures (notably waste management) before the council considers formal adoption. The meeting transcript shows discussion and requests for additional detail but no formal council vote on the fee schedule during this session.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","City Council Meeting June 24, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Staff presented a draft amendment to the city fee schedule proposing a higher water service deposit ($400), a larger sewer impact fee passed through from Payson (about $7,100), higher subdivision and plat amendment fees, and suggested waiting on final garbage can/tipping fee figures pending waste‑management contract details.","taxTitle","Woodland Hills, Utah County, Utah","taxId",4717,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6513591,"City weighs replacing brush truck as wildland crew program generates revenue",553,1927000,2480000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5069602-104019eb6e88a81021e72e761573f88a&start=1927&end=2480","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5069602-104019eb6e88a81021e72e761573f88a/thumbnail_1927000.jpg","/articles/6513591/Woodland-Hills/Utah-County/Utah/City-weighs-replacing-brush-truck-as-wildland-crew-program-generates-revenue","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6513591-0800196681bd5131b160a7fab52672e7/orig.mp4?Expires=1771163612&Signature=oIeFIw1RwN0cB0clkkVQdOr6RhFd25-whtwqPVXdpX6ACdBTBvYayyPWyc2ElZrKvQ-cvvz6JwoJS1r5v-R4axYp59x40RQbYcvsyCda~Ay4qWsixF0hG-gusWUGpclhJ1cQREhBV6Dec36wkSMmQoavUQCEw9obt3QJA~aswibXs9f2qILo6rJYFmdHUlztKWbZLBSogP09ixBNgKgBkSoQU8pxYXKfEFtggWeUZzMVkjkuhhYEcuiCMPXiMPn0KHXOEJWxGxxPMoW437Kh4a6psIoPkYGeo9v1Xk~XC2GDiaH6phvKdT05ulwrlcUBldLIWxfvovkbCEKUKvxvyw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Woodland Hills staff reported that the city’s wildland crew program — which sends a city crew on out‑of‑area wildfire assignments and performs local mitigation when not deployed — has produced net revenue, and the council discussed replacing an aging brush truck to keep the program operational and reliable.

Ted and Craig described the program’s finances and equipment needs. Staff said the program’s revenue from January through May 2025 netted about $98,000 for that period and that the program’s cumulative net through May was about $162,000. Staff said annual averages over recent years were roughly $70,000 per year net, though some years were closer to breakeven. The department reported repeated reliability problems with an older brush truck (referred to as Brush 192), including a $5,000 recovery bill after a breakdown while deployed out of state.

Staff presented two financing options: buy a new brush truck outright (estimated $120,000–$170,000 depending on whether the city builds it locally or purchases a ready unit) or lease a fully equipped brush truck. The leasing company quoted two hypothetical lease terms; the payment range staff cited was about $24,000–$30,000 per year depending on term length. Staff recommended using program proceeds to pay lease costs and suggested salvaging proceeds from selling the old truck to reduce the net cost. Council members asked about contingency plans if program revenues dip; staff said options would be to (a) pay from the city budget, (b) sell one of the existing vehicles, or (c) suspend the program.

Nut graf: The wildland crew has generated sustained revenue and local mitigation benefits, prompting staff to recommend replacing an unreliable brush truck to preserve mutual‑aid and deployment capacity; council members requested more precise lease vs. buy cost projections and asked staff to return with a formal funding item.

Council and staff also discussed operational impacts: while the crew is frequently deployed on multi‑week orders (staff reported recent extensions and multi‑week deployments into northern California), the department also fields another Type‑1 engine and aims to maintain in‑town coverage. Staff said leasing a vehicle would avoid depleting cash reserves and that program receipts have been used to prepay future salaries so the crew is self‑sustaining in many years. There was no formal action recorded on purchasing or leasing a brush truck in this meeting.

Ending: Staff said they will refine cost estimates (buy vs. lease), quantify expected program revenue variability, and return with a formal funding request if council wishes to proceed. The transcript records discussion of options and contingencies but no vote.","Council discussed the four‑year-old wildland crew program that has generated net revenue, and staff floated buying or leasing a replacement brush truck (estimated $120,000–$170,000) funded from the program's proceeds, with leasing options of about $24,000–$30,000 annually.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6513595,"Council reviews FY2026 tentative budget, pavement plan and waterline funding options",1270,680000,1950000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5069602-104019eb6e88a81021e72e761573f88a&start=680&end=1950","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5069602-104019eb6e88a81021e72e761573f88a/thumbnail_680000.jpg","/articles/6513595/Woodland-Hills/Utah-County/Utah/Council-reviews-FY2026-tentative-budget-pavement-plan-and-waterline-funding-options","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6513595-64f0cdb13dab4f015f2e5582be51e59f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771163612&Signature=MAlmaoX73dYvuxMChCXQvK~hSdadTQaZvBN2-dsrUfa5PcKdoeL4a96K7SDFf1rJSMRShe0xF4tfQeatIX5q-EfS9mXMEhv2XIGJZJdlLNhNoWUSlVZdRpGaUL7abyJG4vdsHn6tPcqnsDw4QkxdcW6OWMm1QW2uXMz56BCpVKFxaajjFT9knMwxc5vbG1spIviGavwM-8M7PJYaGXbPoXNcf7VUy-CG~lMXJ01gO2EiOplumGpnqaFmFubVJPaDftzfudYoJ-acknw-ZnFqQ2BPsc7mrW~8F3dhweeaMDAMDX4~RNG3b0XSx9hCVq6Z6hT4iAT~pMWH4YODrK0sKw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Woodland Hills City Council reviewed a tentative fiscal year 2026 budget that assumes a roughly 2.5% truth‑in‑taxation increase and focuses on a multiyear pavement management plan and stormwater work while flagging the separate, costlier waterline replacements that will likely require external financing.

Council members heard from Ted (public works and fire department) and Chris (finance) as staff presented a phased pavement management plan that would treat about 11–12 miles of roads across the next two initial projects and add stormwater fixes recommended by engineers. Staff said the only item the council was being asked to approve that night was the phase‑2 engineering contract—$21,000 total, split as $15,000 for design and $6,000 for construction management—to design and put the FY2026 streets out to bid. The transcript does not record a vote on that contract during the meeting.

The pavement management approach described by public works staff prioritizes preserving the best roads with lower‑cost treatments (microseal, crack sealing and selective mill‑and‑fill) so limited funds stretch farther; the staff recommendation explained that reconstructing the worst roads first would consume far more money and leave other roads to deteriorate. Staff said mill‑and‑fill work proposed for a portion of the program could cost about $500,000 for the road portion mentioned and that some roads requiring water‑line replacement were excluded from the pavement list because they must be reconstructed together with water main work.

Nut graf: The city’s larger budget choice is how fast to do roads and how to pay for separate waterline replacements. Council members repeatedly returned to two linked tradeoffs — use reserves to accelerate pavement work now or borrow to finish projects sooner while preserving savings — and how any loan or waterline debt will affect residents through water‑rate increases.

Staff reported there is roughly $1.3 million currently in the capital fund used for roads (Fund 40). Using the tentative FY2026 revenue assumptions — staff modeled both a 2.5% truth‑in‑taxation hike and multi‑year 3% scenarios — the five‑year projection staff presented would complete the pavement and stormwater program by about 2029 while drawing down the roads fund each year. Staff recommended evaluating short‑term borrowing (Zions Bank was cited) for a 5–6 year payback that could accelerate completion and protect against construction inflation. Staff estimated state and federal loan programs (including rural development and division of drinking water programs) could provide low‑interest loans, historically ranging from 0% to around 4%, but cautioned grants will be limited because median adjusted gross income in the city is relatively high.

Waterline replacements were described as a separate, higher‑cost program: staff said some water‑line corridors will require full replacement and could total several million dollars. Because water enterprise revenue must repay water debt, staff said these projects would likely require a water rate increase and the city must demonstrate capacity to repay loans if it pursues state or federal financing. Council members urged staff to keep pursuing grants and low‑interest loans but acknowledged the city may need to raise water rates to cover debt service.

Council members pressed staff for clarity on sequencing and on website transparency: residents and public commenters noted a prior posted budget narrative contained numerical errors that remained online and requested corrected figures. Staff said the narrative error involved a mis‑reported line in the narrative (about road and public improvement totals) and that the detailed budget numbers presented to the council were the correct figures; staff committed to investigate why the corrected file was not posted to the city website.

Ending: Staff said they will return with highlighted changes comparing the May draft to the revised FY2026 budget before the formal August adoption vote and that the council could still choose an alternate tax‑rate scenario at that time. The transcript records discussion and a single formal spending item up for consideration (the $21,000 engineering contract) but does not record a final council vote on the contract or on the FY2026 budget during this meeting.","Councilmembers discussed a draft FY2026 budget built around a proposed 2.5% truth-in-taxation increase, a multiyear pavement management plan with a $21,000 phase‑2 engineering contract under consideration, and the separate, higher‑cost waterline replacement projects that will likely require loans and higher water rates.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Council reviews proposed fee schedule changes including higher sewer impact fee and water deposit

City weighs replacing brush truck as wildland crew program generates revenue

Council reviews FY2026 tentative budget, pavement plan and waterline funding options