Perry City Council unanimously adopts water-conservation plan, adds projects to impact-fee list and OKs Brigham City inspection contract

Perry — The Perry City Council voted unanimously Aug. 14 to adopt a water-conservation plan, add specific capital projects to the city’s impact-fee facilities plan without changing the fee amount, and approve an interlocal agreement with Brigham City for building inspection services.

The council opened a public hearing on Ordinance 25L (the impact-fee enactment) and Resolution 2025-14 (the water-conservation plan) and heard no public comments in person or online before moving to votes. Council members approved Resolution 2025-14 on a roll-call vote. The council then approved Resolution 2025-17, an interlocal agreement with Brigham City to provide inspection services, and finally passed Ordinance 25L, which adds projects to the capital facilities and impact-fee analyses while leaving the fee level unchanged.

Why it matters: amending the capital facilities plan and impact-fee analysis allows the city to direct collected impact fees toward named projects; adopting the water-conservation plan establishes the city’s formal conservation policy. The interlocal agreement establishes an outsourced primary inspector effective Sept. 1 and formalizes how inspection costs will be calculated and billed to the city.

Key details

- Water-conservation plan (Resolution 2025-14): The council opened and closed a public hearing with no submitted or in-person comments and then approved the resolution by unanimous roll call. (Motion text in record: “I move we approve resolution 20 25 dash 14 water conservation plan.”) The roll-call recorded Council member Walker, Council member Wright and Council member Tueller voting “yes.”

- Interlocal agreement for inspection services (Resolution 2025-17): The agreement names Brigham City as the municipality that will provide the city’s primary building-inspection services. According to staff, the contract rate is based on a percentage of wages and benefits, and includes vehicle expenses and training costs; the agreement’s effective date is Sept. 1. Staff said the interlocal arrangement differs from prior backup-only agreements because Brigham City will be the main inspector under this contract. Council approved the resolution by unanimous roll call. (Motion text in record: “All motion. I motion we approve resolution 20 20 5 dash 17, interlocal agreement for inspection services.”)

- Impact-fee enactment (Ordinance 25L; amending PMC 13.05): Council and staff confirmed the ordinance does not change the dollar amount of the impact fee. The update adds projects to the capital facilities plan and impact-fee analysis so those fees can be used for the projects. Projects named in the discussion include an overflow drainage project at Mountain View Park, corrective work near Walker Cinemas to address a water issue, and extension of utilities on Mason Lane. The ordinance passed on a unanimous roll call.

Budget and implementation notes

Staff said the city has an internal inspection-related budget line (cited in the meeting as approximately $70,000) for permit-related expenses; the interlocal contract is not expected to change the wages-and-benefits line items in the budget. Staff said the inspection-service line in the budget was prepared using assumed costs that were negotiated with Brigham City. The contract rate covers wages/benefits, vehicle costs and training, per staff explanation.

Public comments and next steps

No public comments were taken online and no written comments were submitted for the two items heard at the public hearing, per staff. The interlocal agreement is set to take effect Sept. 1. Staff also said a budget amendment will be presented at a future meeting to address a small set of housekeeping budget items. Several non-action items noted during the meeting: the council discussed Mountain View Park drainage work tied to the impact-fee projects, landscaping and hardscape progress at the lodge, and a planned bike-park design phase to occur this fall and winter; consent minutes from July 10 were tabled to a future meeting because of technical issues. The meeting adjourned after the council’s votes.

(Quotes used in this article are taken verbatim from the meeting transcript and attributed to the speaker who made them.)