Riverton council approves satellite leak scan and $18,000 skate park design

The Riverton City Council voted 5-0 on Oct. 20 to approve a satellite water-leak detection contract and an $18,000 contract for concept designs of a city skate park. Before its regular meeting, the mayor and council members signaled they would hold off on a program that would send code-enforcement cases to an administrative law judge. Council Members Spencer Haymond, Alexander Johnson, Troy McDougal, Andy Pierucci and Shannon Smith are listed on the resolutions; the 5-0 tallies are taken from the meeting summary of the recording, and the minutes were not available when this report was written. ^[1][2][3]

**Satellite leak detection.** Resolution 26-50 authorizes a purchase order to Asterra for a satellite water leak detection and infrastructure condition assessment. The resolution says the city must approve any purchase over $30,000 in a public meeting, that the Water Department knows the culinary and secondary water systems have leaks, and that the Public Works director wants a satellite service to focus repairs on targeted areas. ^[1]

The resolution does not state a price. Asterra's July 16 proposal to the city covered 207 miles of potable water lines and priced two options. One was $59,000 for two satellite scans and analyses, 10 days of subcontracted acoustic leak detection and four software licenses for 12 months. The other was $48,000 for the same scans with five days of field work. The proposal said it was valid through Sept. 30. The proposal does not say which option the council chose. ^[1][4]

**Skate park design.** Resolution 26-51 authorizes the mayor to sign an agreement with American Ramp Company of Joplin, Mo., for concept and preliminary designs for a Riverton skate park. The resolution says a response to the city's request for proposals offered two possible locations. The contract, numbered 26-1060-24, pays American Ramp a lump sum of $18,000 and runs from Oct. 26 through completion of the preliminary designs. The agenda item names Centennial Park and Main Park as the two sites. ^[2][3]

The contract's scope of work describes a design-build project with an anticipated overall budget of $750,000 that includes design, construction, surveys, contingency, bonding and insurance. It says funds are limited, so a firm could design one area using the whole budget or several areas spread across it. The firm must meet with city staff, skaters and youth groups at least six times, counting the City Council as one, and may be asked to present to the planning commission and council. ^[2]

**Code enforcement judge.** In the discussion, City Attorney Ryan Carter and City Manager Kevin Hicks compared the current Justice Court process for code-enforcement cases with an administrative law judge system. Carter said a coordinator position would cost about $150,000 a year, plus $12,000 to $24,000 a year for a contract judge, and that offsetting the cost with an existing unfilled position would bring the added cost to under $100,000. ^[3]

Mayor Tish Buroker said that, given the volume of cases, it is hard to justify spending $150,000 a year, though she called the information useful, and she said her view had changed since February or March. Pierucci agreed and said he was not comfortable with the cost unless the number of cases grows. McDougal first disagreed, saying residents are frustrated that some cases, including two involving storage containers, have taken a year to resolve, and that a $5,000 fine is meant to be a strong enough hammer that people act. He later said he was comfortable holding off on the decision until the city tightens its code. The council took no vote on the idea. ^[3]

**Zoning and signs.** The council also approved, 5-0, Ordinance 26-19 on window signs and Ordinance 26-21, which amends the table of commercial uses. The council packet's version of the window-sign ordinance limits a sign to 50% of any single window and 33% of all windows on a building or tenant space. ^[5] A staff memo says the council had discussed on July 21 an alternative that would remove the percentage limit, ^[6] and the meeting summary describes the adopted ordinance as removing size caps. ^[3] Which version was adopted is not confirmed here. ^[3][5][6]