City Council - Regular Meeting

Oh, no.

Oh, no, the difference.

My brother has a lot of hair.

Welcome everyone to our September 15th, 2026 city council meeting. Happy start of the college and NFL football seasons for all of you who celebrate. We have a very friendly fantasy football league happening in Midvale City this year. So we'll see who comes out on top. I am one to know. So we will start as we normally do with a pledge of allegiance. So if you don't mind standing.

of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Okay. Thank you, everyone. Rory, will you see who is here and who might not be here?

Yes. Councilmember Glover?

Here.

Billings? Here. Michelash? Here. Brown?

Here.

And Robinson is excused.

Okay, so we have four council members. We can proceed with quorum. First up, we'll have a unified fire authority report. Chief K is out of town. So we have Chief Rich to give the report here tonight. Welcome, Chief Rich.

Thank you, Mayor Gettle. It's a pleasure to be here. Council, nice to meet you. Staff. I have a brief report for you. Chief Kaye forwarded your monthly numbers and everything looks to be in line with what I was able to look up for the last several years. This last month, we ran 377 incidences within your city. Just to give you kind of a little bit of an example of how that compares, last year we had 340. So we're right on task and right on par with what we would expect for what the yearly total's gonna look like. Any other questions on which numbers he usually gives to you? I can expand or we can move on to our safety message. All right. As you all know, e-bikes are a hot topic right now. And we are not immune to that. We are seeing lots of incidences that relate to that. So we're working forward on getting messaging out. Your PIO should have received the video that was shown this morning at our board meeting. But to just give you a little bit of an example or some things we're dealing with is these bicycles are going way beyond what a normal pedal bike is capable of, to the point of where we have electric motorcycles on the road. So we're going to focus on getting the safety message out, because enforcement, as you know, is going to be really hard to manage. So if we can get the message out there to the community, and mainly to those parents to let them know just how dangerous these things can be, and hopefully we can curb those injuries that we see every year. Some of the statistics that we have nationally, in the last year there were over 20,000 injuries, 3,000 of which resulted in a stay in the emergency room. Utah specifically, the only data we have right now is from last year, and that resulted in 536 emergency room visits. I can tell you firsthand from being in the streets, The injuries can be devastating and even fatal. And it's the young ones that we're seeing that just don't understand traffic rules and how quickly they're moving. So know that we're on top of it. We're going to be partnering with other agencies to get that message out. The Utah Department of Transportation is aware of it as well. They understand the seriousness of it, and we're going to try and leverage some of their social media as well. So I look forward to that in the future. Any questions I can answer for you?

Thank you, Chief. We appreciate it. And I did already share the video from this morning. I think it's very important. As you said, very difficult to any sort of enforcement because by the time you see someone, they're probably already home watching TV. Yes. So very difficult. But we're not the only community facing this.

This is valley-wide, statewide. Thank you. Thank you. Have a good evening.

Okay, next up we have public comments. Any person wishing to comment on any item not otherwise scheduled for a public hearing, of which we have two tonight, can address the City Council at this time. You'll be given three minutes. Just step up to the microphone and state your name for the record.

Mayor, City Council. I'm Shane Manwaring. I'm running for Sheriff of Salt Lake County. I want to just come here and introduce myself. I'm a resident of Bluffdale. I have spent a lot of time in your city at night, and I do love your city a lot. I have five children, married, and I spent probably about 30 years in the best leadership school that ever existed, the United States military. And I retired a year ago from the Utah National Guard as a full bird colonel. As a colonel, my biggest unit I was ever in charge of, I was in Afghanistan in 2019, 2020, and we had 2,995 people in that task force. I kept joking that we needed another five people so it could have just been an even 3,000. The biggest budget I've ever ran was a $300 million budget that was also in Afghanistan. In law enforcement, I'm a lieutenant with the police department you're very familiar with. And I work right now in a city that's across the valley as an executive officer. I've been doing that for 23 years. So my goal as sheriff is to be the best partner that Midville's ever had. And what that looks like is we've got to fix some things with the sheriff's office where right now our officers here in Midville, when they go to jail, they're there for at least 90 minutes sitting there waiting to book somebody into jail. We've got to fix that. The Midville officers should be in Midville, not South Salt Lake. Furthermore, my goal there is 15 minutes or less, and we've got some plans on how to accomplish that. The next thing is we've got to create a jail that actually holds people. Right now, our officers are arresting people. They're taking away their drugs or booking them into jail, and they'll spend about four hours in the jail. They'll come out drug sick, and they have no money, they have no drugs, and they're forced to commit a crime to pay for their they're drug sick so they gotta hurry and fix that sickness and they're forced to do a crime. So we gotta fix a jail and create it so that we have a place where they can go there and be safe, hold them, and that they can get better. But overall, my goal is that the sheriff's office should be your best partner, and not an adversary, not somebody competing for resources, but somebody that's there to help you and your city. On my social media is Shane, the number four sheriff. I thought it looked a little more like Bluffdale using the four. So Shane for Sheriff is my Instagram, my Facebook. Please come look at what we're doing there. And thank you so much for your time. And that's even with 40 seconds to spare.

Thank you. Good job. Thank you, Shane. We appreciate your service, and we appreciate all you do for Midvale. Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to give public comment at this time? Seeing none, we will move on to council reports and start as we often do with District 1, Council Member Bonnie Billings.

Nothing tonight, Mayor.

Okay, thank you. District 2, Council Member Paul Glover.

Same, nothing this evening.

Okay, and nothing from District 3 Councilmember Heidi Robinson, who is not here. It'd be very interesting if she had something to say. We'll move to District 4 Councilmember Bryant Brown, and we know you have something to say.

Actually, I do. Just something really quick. A resident reached out to me right before the meeting and pointed out that on 7800 South, kind of closer towards like the Dutch Bros area, there are two manhole covers that are like four inches, it feels like potholes, so like four inches deep. I drive that road every day, I didn't notice, but today I pulled off, got out. I think I naturally just swerved around it, but we have like two pretty dangerous, they're like manhole covers that are sunk. So I'm sure if a car hit them, it could do some damage to their rims or whatever. I only just, I would have emailed, I just noticed it on my way here. I figured I'd pass it along if people can look into it. That's all I have.

Okay.

Thank you.

And Jeremy, you'll look into that. Is that near Union Middle?

Yeah, on the north side. Okay.

Let's get it. Okay. District 5, Council Member Denise McElhosh.

Just a few things. I wanted to say thank you for the invite to the American Planning Association. I attended that with Vendelin and Johnny and Chase. It was very informative. I'm not schooled or learned in planning, so it was really helpful for me to take in what the other cities are doing, how we're looking at innovative ways around middle housing, mixed use. trails, all of those things just so I can help make better decisions as we work with the Planning Commission. So thank you for that invite. Also wanted to do a shout out to Jason Bryan on the Public Works team. There was dirt that was dumped on Bingham Junction Boulevard by tracks and he came out after hours and was cleaning it up and people were not nice and honking and going around him and I want to tell him thank you for going through that because it wasn't fun. Last thing, is I just want to say I love the social media posts with the staff in it. I think most of you are sitting on that back wall. But they are hilarious, and I love them. So keep doing them. So I appreciate it. So that was it.

Okay, thank you, Councilmember. Mayor's report, a couple of things. We had a resignation, speaking of the Planning Commission, we had a resignation on the Planning Commission. Commissioner Dustin Snow is not able to serve out the remaining few months of his term, so it's my goal to appoint Denise Snow.

It's my goal to- First conference, summer down.

To elevate one of the alternates, Mike Edwards, who's been an alternate for a few years now. It's my goal to elevate him to full planning commissioner status pending the approval of the council as well. And then we'll take our time to look for an alternate. We have no big rush to do that. Elevating someone into that role I think is important. Commissioner Edwards also serves as the chair of the Planning Commission, which is interesting being an alternate to the board, but that is allowable and this will just make him official and he'll serve out the remainder of Dustin Snow's term and then likely if he wants to be reappointed next year. So that's that. A couple of us, Vendelin, Adam, Matt, and I met with Housing Connect folks earlier today. You'll remember the 9th East project right across from the Union Park. They want to do an upgrade to the Housing Connect facility that exists there now in the form of basically twin homes, I think there are what, like 16 of them or so, 30 units total, and they came to us to a workshop, so they have some more ideas. They wanted to get our sense of what we would like to see there, and I think the plan is for them to come back and speak to the council, hopefully sooner than later. I think, I can't speak for Matt and the others, but I was very impressed with their presentation today. I think they really get it. And the facility that already exists on 7200, south and around fourth east or so, and we took a tour of that. Very, very great, great facility.

So we could probably set up a tour from the council if you guys would be interested in taking a look at that.

Third thing, I wanted to commend the Unified Police Department. Very interesting case recently. I'll cut to the end of it, but there was a gentleman who broke into a home and stole, among other things, an autographed Salt Lake Bees jersey from a child. And Chief Morse and some contacts that we had at the road home, Connie Crosby Resource Center, talked to the Bees folks and they were very, very happy to host the family at a Bees game recently and get the family some merchandise including a new signed Jersey. So I wanted to thank Chief Morris and your folks for really putting that together. I mean, we wouldn't have known about it but for you guys initiating that process. And I would like to maybe get the contact info for that family, send them a letter and all that good stuff. But thank you for doing that. I'm sure it really made that kid's week, month, year, whatever the Friends theme song is. That's it for me. We'll have plenty more to discuss here tonight, but we'll move on to the city manager report and our city manager, the award-winning city manager, Matt Dole.

Thank you, Mayor. Just to start off with just some upcoming events. We've talked about them before, but just as a quick reminder to you and to the members of the public watching the meeting, we've got the ribbon cutting for Honeysuckle set up for Saturday at 9.30. On September 26th, it will be the Main Street Car Show. October 3rd is going to be the, oh my gosh, Fall Festival. Thank you. The events that we're going to be using, because we didn't do harvest festivals, that'll be on October 3rd. We've talked about that a few times. 4 to 7.30. October 10th, there will be a UFA pancake breakfast at Station 126. I don't have the time on that, but I'm going to guess it's in the morning. And then...

It's 10 a.m. ish.

Okay. 10 a.m. ish. And then on October 24th will be the trick-or-treat on Main Street event. So we've got quite a few events coming up on that. And then... I just wanted to let you know that our new emergency planner, who will be taking the same place that Brian Buckout and Ben Gustafson had had, her name's Madeline Burnham. She started this week. We'll be having our first meeting with her. on Thursday, and so it's good to have that position filled, and we'll get back onto some of the emergency training that we've been talking about. Beyond that, I think I'll let it go with that, Mayor.

Thank you.

Thank you, and you did jog my memory. We do have a ribbon cutting tomorrow at the new former Hart's gas station, now Friendly's, is that what it's called? Friends, okay. I've heard really good things about it, so we'll do that tomorrow at 11. Paul, I think that might be your council district, if you want to be there. Looking forward to that, but Honeysuckle, Saturday at 9.30. It is tis the season for ribbon cutting, so if anyone out there wants a ribbon cutting, let me know. We'll move on to public hearings. We have two of them tonight. The first received public comment regarding amendments to Section 17-7-10.12.5 of the Midvale Municipal Code to modify private street standards. Here to discuss that is Vindalyn. Already here. Hi, Wendell.

Thank you, Mayor, and good evening. This is an amendment that came from the Gardner Company, and it's to modify private street standards. This is the language, and you have that in the packet. There are basically two parts to it. The first one is that they're proposing to eliminate sidewalks in the Jordan Bluffs one through three zone. And as the language says, They are proposing the elimination of the sidewalk when the unit fronts onto a private street or in other words when the back of the unit, in this case garages, are on a street. The second part is that they are proposing that this language supersedes Title 16 and including 1602 or 50E, which is the section that deals with private streets in our code. And you might remember that we actually dealt with this relatively recently, earlier this year. As part of amending Title 16, we also amended that particular section. This section used to allow private streets that only had sidewalk on one side. We took that out and you can see on the four foot sidewalk and the five foot park strip on one side. That was taken out and this was replaced by a sidewalk on both sides and a five foot sidewalk. So that as history that we have as a city on that topic. And I thought it might be a good idea to just review, why is this even important to have sidewalks on the street? And it's for several reasons. Sidewalks, they separate, and they also protect pedestrians from automobiles. And if you think about a well-designed urban environment, the thought always goes to sidewalks. It's one of the main tool in situations where you have cars to protect pedestrians. And this isn't by chance. There has been a lot of research on that topic. A lot of that has originated with the Federal Highway Administration. And there is scientific evidence that sidewalks aren't just sort of a common sense good idea. No, there's hard and fast research that they work. For example, here, this is just a fact sheet from the Federal Highway Administration. that says when you have sidewalks, there's a 65 to 89% reduction in crashes involving pedestrians walking along a roadway. What's interesting is if you look the number below, even if it's just a paved shoulder, that number is at 71%. And this particular piece is more geared towards Highways, you think about a rural context where you never find sidewalks, at least not outside of urban communities. Now there's more to this. There's another... publication from the Federal Highway Administration that digs a little deeper, and this is an excerpt here, providing walkways separated from the travel lanes could help to prevent up to 88% of these walking along roadway crashes. That's basically what we saw on the other flyer. But it goes on, roadways without sidewalks are more than twice as likely to have pedestrian crashes as sites with sidewalks on both sides of the street. by providing sidewalks on both sides of the street, numerous mid-block crossing crashes can be eliminated. So you think about it this way. If you have, let's say, this mixed condition, you have a sidewalk on one side but not on the other side, what's the natural response in a pedestrian to that? That is to switch over to the side that has the sidewalk because that's the safer side. And in other studies that I've looked at, that's actually a very integral component that the pedestrian also perceives it as being safer to be on the sidewalk. So with this in mind, This text amendment is before you because the applicant is also working on a concept plan for development in the Jordan Bluffs area. And you had a workshop with the applicant where you've seen some of the rough concept. isn't complete, the applicant is still working on making it complete so that the city and all the departments can start reviewing it. But roughly, I went through that and I counted there about 34 sites you know, discrete sites to the streets that are shown, which means we have about 17 streets, and of those, there are two sidewalks that get eliminated. The concept is, for us, quite a large one. So far, the developer believes that there might be about 600, 640 units, so you keep that in mind. We are only talking about two sidewalks. On the one hand, one could say, It's just two, it doesn't really matter, but who are we to put people at risk who are living on those two streets that are eliminating the sidewalk? One of them also has condo buildings on it, which means the count of households is a lot higher than in other situations within the development. The second item that I wanted to point out is this language. The standard supersedes the standard set forth in Title 16 of the Midvale City Code, including, without limitation, the requirements of Section 16.02.050e, which is the section that we went back to in March and changed. However, Title 16 includes lots and lots and lots of other provisions. It's our subdivision ordinance, and when you study city codes, you will see that ordinances, they always go hand in hand. something might be regulated over here, something is regulated over here, and together they provide the entire umbrella of regulations so that there aren't any gaps. So this amendment suggests that Title 16 is overridden. It doesn't say only the one provision, the single provision about the road width. it keeps that open, and I think that would also be a cause for concern. If you look into this, and this is still just an E, there are lots of other things that are being regulated. Connectivity of streets, the layout, and access to other properties, so that could potentially also be minimized by this provision in the code. And there's more lighting standards in part only appear in the subdivision regulations, but not in the underlying zone, which in this case is the Jordan Bluffs one through three zone. In addition, within the code language, this isn't really targeted at this specific case. It just leaves it open to the entire Jordan Bluffs one through three zone. The applicant does say they intend to target it in the development agreement, but chronologically, we are not talking about the development agreement right now. It's not been reviewed. You don't have it. It's just not in that sense in full existence yet. So that remains a moving target, but the applicant does connect the two. And as some background information at the planning commission stated, stage the planning commission actually was expressed quite a bit of interest in that concept because they did not want to open up these provisions to the city at large or even just the entire Jordan Bluffs one through three zone. That background information, if that's screened through our criteria, there really isn't a criterion that would say this meets the threshold of approving it. With regard to our general plan, This reduces connectivity, at least for pedestrians, and it's not part of a high quality mixed use commercial office or residential environment because of the safety repercussions. With regard to Utah code, it doesn't promote safety, health, welfare, comfort, or convenience. with regard to the intent of the original language. It doesn't really deal with that. It doesn't explain the original intent more. I mean, it actually adds more complexity to the code due to the condition that it says Title 16, our subdivision ordinance, doesn't really apply anymore. And the last item does not apply here in the first place. The existing zoning was not due to a clerical error. It's just simply the Midvale City Council's intent that is reflected in it. So with that, staff recommends to deny this application.

Any questions from council? Thank you, Venderland, for that presentation. Any questions for Venderland or staff? Seeing none, it is a public hearing. Is there a motion to open this to public comment?

Mayor, I motion we open public comment. Second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second for public comment. All those in favor say aye.

Aye. Yes.

Any opposed? Okay, we are in public comment. If there's anyone from the public who would like to comment on this item, now's the time. And we'll give you guys a chance, assuming you want to say something as well. Seeing no one from the public, is there a motion to close public comment?

Mayor, a motion we close public comment. Second.

Okay, a motion and a second. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Yes. Any opposed? Okay. Would you guys like to hear from the development team? Yes. Okay. If you guys want to come on up, state your name for the record.

Good evening, Mayor, Council, staff. Dave Dennison, 201 South Main with the Gardner Group. We are really excited to be here. I was looking in my notes earlier today, and we did a work session. It was February 3rd of earlier this year. And Jordan Bluffs, we have really been working hard to get something started and we're really excited to be partnering with Edge Homes. If you recall, we've got about 2,200 apartments approved for these pods and we went back, figured out how we could do a four cell product and partnered with Edge Homes. So instead of 2,200, apartments, we've now figured somewhere around, you know, we don't know exactly, but around 600, 640 for sale product. And when we came to you in February for the work session, we outlined a plan. That plan is exactly how it is. We've still got our office in retail on the north side of Ivy and the south side of Ivy is the the residential side, and we're really excited to bring these text amendments to the council and talk. We've spent a lot of time in planning commission and with staff, and we sure appreciate all the hard work that's been going on. As you recall, we've got all of this ground and we're trying to make everything fit into this box. But we've got all these rules and regulations and sometimes we have to make a few little tweaks and that's what these text amendments are doing. But overall we're really excited. I'm really excited with EDGE. and their ability to be amenable to staff and to make things work. And I think what I'll do is I'll go ahead and turn the time over to Paxton Guymon. He's a little more qualified to talk about some of the legal issues with this. But like I said, we've been working on this a long time. We're really excited to be here tonight. So thank you. Thank you, Dave. And we appreciate the relationship as well.

Good evening mayor and city council members and staff. We appreciate your time tonight. Um, as home builder in the state, we're very excited to finally be building a project in Midvale city. This will be our first venture into the city and we think it will be a great one. So from time to time as we go through projects and the entitlement process, We come across issues that maybe the staff and the development team are not able to come to terms with eye to eye. And so in those situations, we have to come to the city council and ask you to make a decision. And that's one of those. You know, I'm sort of starting with a strike against me because your own planner is recommending denial. And I recognize that. And I have nothing but respect for Wendland and his explanation. But there are a few things we need to correct in what was explained, and really just clarify so you know what we're asking. We previously submitted some exhibits that I'm hopeful somebody can pull up on the screen that will really help drive home what we're after.

You read my mind. I was just thinking, wow, I would really love to visualize this a bit better. Okay, good. This is right on time.

Good. Are you able to see the same thing on this screen?

Yes. Yes.

You don't mind if I just stand up here and point?

If you can flip the microphone around so we can still hear you.

Okay, how's that? I'm tall enough I can lean over. Talk to you and point at the same time. First of all, we are not purporting or asking you to adopt anything that supersedes or guts your entire subdivision ordinance. That is absolutely not what we're trying to do. What we're trying to do is adopt a standard that will work only on those three roads that are highlighted. This is not a development-wide change. We're only asking for approval for those private alleys to have a sidewalk on one side, not both sides. And I want you to know that we have done this in many cities, and it has passed all of the traffic studies and safety analysis that you can require. The last thing we would want to do as a home builder is build a product that increases the risk of a pedestrian accident. That is not our goal. We are after doing what makes sense. And here's the key. We want to place sidewalks where we want people to walk. That's the purpose of a sidewalk. That's where you convey people. You channel them to the sidewalks. And where you don't want them to walk, you don't place a sidewalk. That's how this works. So we're going to show you some real life examples of where we have done this. We've taken some photos of a project that we have already built out in Herriman. where you will see the exact item that we are proposing to build on those three sections. Nowhere else in our development. If you'll go to the next page.

I think there's a pointer in that as well. Great. So you can probably.

Okay. So what I'm going to show you. Let me come back here now. When I do the pointer, does it show up on your screen? Probably not, huh?

Not on that one, no.

No, okay. So I'll still talk. I'm going to show you some photos, but I want to point something out first. What you have here is a private alley. On this project, it's called Dedge Peak Cove. On the upper side, you have rear-loaded townhomes. That just means that the garage is on the back of the townhome. The entrance is on the opposite side. Everywhere that we build products, there is always a sidewalk on the front facade side of the project. So whenever you have a front porch or front door, there's always going to be a sidewalk on that side, because that's the way people get to the front doors of the homes. I don't know about you, but I've never invited a guest to come over to my house and said, hey, meet me at the back at the garage. And when you get there, call me or text me, and I'll go open the garage so you can come in. That's just not the way. We don't want that to happen. So we channel the pedestrians to the front door, as you would expect us to do. So what you'll notice here is that the sidewalk is on the side of the road where you have front-loaded townhomes on the bottom part. Why? Because that's the front facade. That's where the front door, the front porch, that's where people come to see you. So I'm going to show you real photos now that demonstrate this. So this is our project in the Harriman. You can see on the right-hand side, there's a five-foot-wide sidewalk. And that, again, is on the side where you have the front-loaded townhomes, the front door, the front porch. On the left side of this photo, Those are the rear-loaded town homes. There's no front entry. The only way to get inside those town homes is through the garage. We don't want pedestrians walking on that side of the road. One of the fundamental planning objectives in engineering a project is you want to minimize interface between pedestrians and vehicles. You'll see here there's absolutely no reason to put a sidewalk on that side of the road when people aren't using that side of the road to walk into a house. Instead, we have the sidewalk on the side where people walk into a house, the front door. Let me give you a little better photo of this. This is blown up. Same image, just a little bit larger so you can see even better what we're talking about. So again, what you see here is a private alley. We're not talking about through roads. We're not talking about local roads, collector roads. This is a private alley. That's where this applies. Now, on the other side of those townhomes, This is the opposite side of the town homes that are rear loaded. So you'll see on this side, this is where you have the front sidewalk entering the front of those homes. That's the standard that we go by. So here's the decision for you. Does it make sense, and by the way, here's a cross section if you wanna see how that works out. 18 feet of asphalt, two feet gutter, five foot sidewalk on one side. But here's what I want to go back to and ask you to make a decision here to consider. The benefit of having the sidewalk on one side and not on both sides is that it allows us to have longer driveways. This is really key. The driveways that we're proposing to build on those three roads where we have this requested amendment are 20 foot long driveways. If we're required to put in sidewalks on both sides, we would have to reduce those driveways to the minimum width allowed in the code for this project, which is 18 feet. You might say, well, what's the difference, two feet? It actually makes a big difference in usability of driveways. Your standard F-150 super crew with a five and a half foot bed is 19.5 feet long. That's the most popular selling car in America. That won't fit on an 18 foot driveway. Instead, you would have the vehicle hanging over into the sidewalk, which creates more conflict. We have found this is the safest approach, to have 20 foot driveways on both sides, and only in these private alleys, where it's not a through road that has a lot of traffic, only in these roads, in this situation, do we have a sidewalk on one side. Makes sense. I wanna go back to the code. Can you pull back up the language that we've requested that you amend?

I have a city question. I know we're not supposed to park on the public street sidewalks situation, right? In this scenario, do we police that at all? Meaning if there was overhang, or is that left to the developer to police, so to speak, manage? Is that against city code in a private lane situation?

Chief may have to help me out, but my understanding is private property we don't enforce. We wouldn't enforce it. So if it's a private street and there's overhang, it would not be UPD.

Unless the HOA or something said.

Even then it would be the HOA enforcing. It would not be them calling UPD to go issue a citation.

That's what I thought. I just wanted that clear. That's a good point, though. I mean, why require a sidewalk? ON BOTH SIDES IF IT MEANS YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE VEHICLES THAT EXTEND INTO THE SIDEWALK, RIGHT?

WELL, FOR ME, IT'S MORE, IT'S NOT OUR PROBLEM IF IT DOES. I SEE. IT'S MORE WHAT I WAS GETTING AT.

BUT IT IS SORT OF A PRACTICAL ISSUE FOR RESIDENTS AND PEOPLE USING THE SIDEWALKS, RIGHT?

Especially when you're talking 640 homes. So if you have 640 cars that are blocking someone's ability to walk, then, I mean, it's technically not our problem because we can't solve it for the HOA, but it becomes, you know, at least.

Well, it would only be like 20.

Yeah, it's only on those three roads. It's maybe 30 homes.

I don't know. And I'm guessing the garages could hold an F-150. Is that correct?

The garages are sized to, yeah, 20 by 20.

So it would be really funny if all 20 had F-150s on the sidewalk.

Yeah, I mean, that's just an example. Right, I know. I understand. I'm just saying. There are plenty of vehicles that are longer than 18 feet. And candidly, any vehicle that's longer than about 17 and a half feet becomes a bit of an issue.

Because you don't want to pull up right to the garage. Precisely. But there's also a bunch of Jettas and CXs.

Yeah, you're right. You're right. So back to this language. The proposal, I mean, I'm the one who crafted this language. We're proposing to amend just that portion of the code to say that sidewalks will always be required on the front facade where the units, the residential units face the road. That last sentence was simply meant to say this one standard of allowing sidewalks when there's on one side of the road in this situation, that's the only thing we were trying to amend. We don't need to even have that last sentence. If that last sentence causes heartburn, that maybe it's going to override more than we intended, unintended consequences, we can take that last sentence out entirely. We were just simply adding that to clarify that if there's a conflict between this one section of the code and any other section of the code that governs sidewalks on both sides, this section's going to govern for our project only, not citywide, only for our project. This is just a Jordan Bluff's. standard. So I'm comfortable removing that last sentence altogether to eliminate Wendland's concerns about the scope of that language. We're only asking for what I just said. Sidewalks on one side, on those three private alleys. You'll notice that on those three roads, those are not roads where you have any through traffic. The only people going on those roads are the people who live there or are visiting those units. They're not traveling to other destinations in the project. To us, this makes sense. It allows us to keep the 20-foot driveway in those areas. And it's not anything that would impact your projects in other areas of the city. It's only those three streets. I'm happy to answer any questions you have.

I do have a question about visitor parking because I kind of see that in, you know, when I visit people at town homes and stuff, we park in their driveway and go in. Right. Is there ample visitor parking where it would be in front of the home rather than having to have visitors parking back and then have to walk around?

We have designated visitor parking areas.

And how much for some of these areas?

You know, I don't have that right.

It might be better to go back to that picture. Sorry.

Which picture?

The one where you're standing, right? Site plan.

The overall site plan? Yeah, so we always have parking where people can park on the garages, and then, let's see, this is actually, it's not our most updated version, but that's okay. We have parking, guest parking stalls, let's see, down there on the south. This pointer doesn't really work, does it? I guess I'll come around here. So there's quite a bit of guest parking through here. Let's see, where else do we have parking arrangements? I might need to defer to Quinn or Brandon because they've designed the parking, not me on this one. You guys want to add on that one? Yeah, it doesn't really have, or the top one.

And if you can also just state your name for the record.

Yeah, you bet. Brandon Watson with Edge Homes as well. So I'll hop around here and just kind of show them. So just for clarification, north is to the left on this. So the map's just been rotated 90 degrees. So I'm just going to point here on the north end. We've got some guest parking that's here. We've got guest parking that's here. And then we've got a plethora of guest parking right here on the south side of this whole pod. But I also want to point out that each townhome has two garage spaces and two spaces also in the driveway. So we do full-length driveways, full width as well.

Yeah, I guess my concern is just when you do have visitors parking in the driveway, they're going to have to walk around. And if there's no safe sidewalk, it creates a problem. I don't think it's the worst problem, but it does create a problem if they're using those driveways to park.

I have a quick clarification. So even though you're asking for the text amendment and you're pointing out just these three roads, this plan has not been approved. So you could, it could go back and change, right? Like you could add, remove more sidewalks from other places because this is not isolated just to these three roads. It's to any of the zone.

Okay. I do understand your point there. And the best way to handle that, in my opinion, would be to adopt this standard in a development agreement that applies only to our project. And your capable city attorney can tell you that in a development agreement, you can adopt language that varies from the city code.

We are aware of how that works.

Okay. I won't repeat it then. So that might be the best way to do it. I mean, if you're not comfortable adopting it as a text amendment the way we've proposed, we could adopt it in the development agreement just for this project. And in that development agreement, we could go so far as to say it only applies to the three roads that we've highlighted. That would be the best way to tie it down so that it doesn't creep, right? You're afraid that this standard could creep into other areas. That's the absolute best way.

So I'm just talking out loud here. So the pros is that we have bigger driveways. The cons is that we have shorter driveways. Right? Sidewalk or not sidewalk.

It would be the same like driveway. It would just be whether the HOA wants to enforce in a situation where a vehicle is not... you know, 17 and a half feet or longer. So the driveway would still be there, depending if they wanted to say you can't be on it.

Yeah, we would reduce the driveways to 18 feet to make space for the extra sidewalk.

But it would just be concrete as well, right? So it would still be there. I think he understands what I'm trying to say.

Yeah. Yeah. I get it. Yeah, yeah.

Like, the length is still going to be the same, but you'll have sidewalk that kind of runs on the bottom of it. Yeah. If you do it right against the road.

Right.

Right.

That's right.

Councilman Glover, you're awfully quiet down there. I know you have something to say.

So I hesitate because I live in a community like this, and I use my garage for all entrances. I can't even find my front door key, so don't ask me for it. Everyone comes through the garage and has their garage code, right? So I disagree a little bit there. To Bonnie's point, when people come visit me and park in front of my garage, they're going through the garage and... And people are going to walk through that road, whether left or right. I mean, I prefer to lean on the safety and hope people have shorter cars. But I understand your logic of why do we need it if it's not on the front door. But I don't think everyone uses just their front door. I think you go in and out both ways.

The development right here that fronts Bingham Junction with the three-story and two-story, I have a lot of friends that I've never once walked in their front door.

Really?

No, because the parking's behind. I'll just call them. I'll say I'm here, and they open their garage. I always go through their garage. I think just the nature of how these are built, sometimes people do use the garage quite a bit. I don't know if that changes much.

I do have to say, if having sidewalks on both sides is such a safety issue, why did the city approve the apartments on the east side of this project without sidewalks on both sides?

Well, to be fair, I think that's what we fixed in March of 2026. So you're right. I've lived at Parkview. I know that. There are no sidewalks in the private alleys. But I think that was the reason in March we looked at this and the council determined at that time that we wanted a new standard.

Fair enough. And I think that standard is great when you're talking about local roads and collector roads that actually have a lot of vehicles. But when you're talking about private roads in these private alleys, where there's not a through road, it's just essentially nobody's gonna drive to those areas unless they're going to visit those people or they live there. To me, that's a little bit different.

I agree with you there, and I think when we discussed this as a council, we were more concerned about private roads rather than what we're seeing now. These are private alleyways. Precisely, thank you, that's exactly right. I see your point there.

Well, I have a son that lives in Daybreak. What a mess that is. Literally, I can't even park in his driveway normally because you can't get to it half the time, and then I have to park out on a four-lane highway and walk to his front door to get to his place. Parking is a problem in all of these developments. I don't care what you say, you're going to have a problem with parking. If there was parking in front of the house that you could actually park on the street or alleyway as this is, then yeah, that would be great because then they could just pull in their park and go into the apartment. But it doesn't work that way. So everybody tries to figure out how to make it work, and I haven't seen it work decent in any development that I've seen. It's a major problem for parking, especially visitors. It just doesn't work.

I completely agree with you about daybreak. The parking is completely so under-parked. There's not enough parking, and you have to go through these complicated back alleyways even to get to the garages.

It concerns me.

We have different designs here. It's not like daybreak because we know how bad that is.

And again, the problem in it, I mean, you've got your garage and then they fill up either half the garage or the whole garage and they park everything outside. I mean, that happens over and over and over again. And you probably know that just as well as I do. Yes. So it just concerns me that we just are not designing stuff for what people are actually doing and living. We design it for to get the most we can in there. And Everybody has to learn to live with how you design the thing.

It's true. Residents have to adapt to the community. But we do pride ourselves on providing more parking than you would see in most townhome communities with two-car garages, two-car parking on the driveways. I mean, a lot of townhome communities these days, I don't know if you've driven around and seen them, they don't even have driveways. They've got like a five-foot apron to pull into the garage. You can't park there.

Yeah.

Anyway.

Please don't.

Yeah. So we ask you to consider. I think you've heard both sides. You know, again, if you realize that we're only talking about those three roads and that it might make sense here to deviate from the code on those three roads only, let's do it in a development agreement. Pin it down so there's no creep.

Because I do think, to Dustin's point, is that we do appreciate that you've thought about the parking, that you have all the units with garages. Like you said, you could just do a short driveway right in that. And I think you've created an experience where you feel like you have a driveway, you have a garage, you have visitor parking. It is different than some of the communities that have been built in the past. And I feel like this kind of takes a little bit away from that personally because you've been very thoughtful in it and everywhere else, right? So I'm kind of surprised that you're asking for this because I think it takes, I mean, you've been down that road. It just changes the experience just enough that you're like, why did they get two sidewalks and we got one? And that's my only thought is I think you were thoughtful in the parking and the garages and giving the full opportunity I don't think this would make that big of a difference, and I would rather have sidewalks all through it so that we could say that we have a community with sidewalks all through it for that experience. Again, I might be the only one here, but just...

I would at best need to think of maybe a development agreement because I found that kind of off-putting. It's like, yeah, we'll just do five-foot aprons, right? Well, yeah, we're not... It was very flippant how that was said, and if it's not, if we make the tax amendment change... And then all of a sudden, if that attitude is like, yeah, we'll do that, that's kind of rough to hear. That's what we're worried about, to be honest. That's what we're worried developers will do. We'll make a change that we think, oh, it'll just be this. It's not set in stone. And oh, we can make a little bit more money by squeezing a few more in. And so for me, at best, And like for me, the one on the very far west side where there's the two homes or whatever, that one makes a lot of sense, right? Because you have a ton of parking right there. And it's very low. The idea of someone kind of cutting through or walking through, they would just walk on one side. The long one on the opposite side, I have a hard time sort of thinking that that makes a lot of sense because parking is far. And like Bonnie or Council Member Billings said, when you go visit, you'll end up parking My one friend will be right in the middle, and I'll have to park there and I'll walk around and maybe make that work. But what I don't want is a situation where there's a lot of change, and that's something we've just seen developers do.

You know, I appreciate that. I get it. I understand your concerns, and I think I can get a sense of where you're at. So if you guys want to deny this and have us go forward with a development agreement proposal later on, so that we target it only to those three streets, or maybe even just two of them, to take away the one you were concerned about, Councilmember Brown. I understand that.

I think that is something that we could be, I've heard the council say a lot of reasons why they wouldn't necessarily want this to happen, and if the direction is don't do that, completely understand, I do think There is the, I think there's going to be a variety of different items, and I'm not saying that we would even, I mean, we've already recommended not to do this, but it's sort of in the vacuum of like what's being proposed. And if it did go to a development agreement, we could maybe look at other factors that might be mitigating that maybe the council would find in a, and I don't know what that is right now. I'm not going to say, you know, it's a different parking arrangement or more parking or, I don't know what that is. Um, if you guys just say it's gotta be sidewalks all the way through, I think that I get it and that makes sense. And if we're just saying maybe this is a thing that we consider in a development agreement later and we take it into consideration with all of the other things to see if we, if the whole package makes sense in a different way. I mean, I, uh, that I get that too, but, um, however you guys would like to do it. But we could probably, and again, I want to be clear, if we say we're going to discuss it as part of a development agreement and negotiate in there, that's not saying we're absolutely going to put it in there either because if there's nothing that mitigates the concerns that we're hearing on that, then our position of it not being the right place to be would mean we wouldn't put it in that agreement. I don't know what those mitigating factors would be. Does that make sense? I could say it a different way.

So I would prefer not to do a full text amendment across all the zones. I would rather isolate it to here, and maybe we talk more about it like it's just the two streets or whatever, and isolate it to the development agreement. That would be where I would prefer to go.

So I think the best way to do that, and Vendlin maybe correct me if I'm wrong, would be to table this motion today, not deny it outright because that creates a whole lot of new work, I think. That's fine. Table it with the...

No, we'd want to deny it because we don't want it to ever be the amendment. We would want to consider it. If it was for the amendment, then I think we would. That's true. Right?

Yeah, with the development agreement approach as it's been proposed, in order to do what's being suggested, we would go through the legislative process as if it were a text amendment, if you will. where that development agreement would go before the Planning Commission and then come to the City Council, and we'd go through that public hearing process. And in essence, the development agreement almost becomes a zone unto itself. Correct.

Vendelin has asked for one more crack at the apple here to be clear. Thank you. Thank you. Rebuttal. Thank you.

I just wanted to, you know, we've had the discussion about processes, development agreement versus this court amendment. I wanted to go back to the underlying design implications for just a second. Can you try to zoom in a little bit? So, as an example, I mean, we heard what Councilmember Mikulas said about not using her front door.

I'm so glad that's on record. She's lost her keys. Yeah, I lost her keys.

You think about most homeowners, we do lots of things in our garages. We go in and out of the garages not only with the vehicle, but also because we do other things. We might have our stroller parked in the garage, and we take it out of the garage with our children in it, because if we use the front door, we have to navigate two steps or three steps down. Now, let's look at... the area closest to Bingham Junction. Those are condo units. How many households per condo unit? 10? So there are two, four, six, eight, at least eight condo units with 10 households in them. So we have 80 households,

They have the sidewalk. The condo side has a sidewalk, right?

Well, that's where I'm getting to that. So if you look at that, the rear, or supposedly the rear, backs onto what's labeled private alley. Our court doesn't really know private alleys. These are all private streets. And if you look, they all lead somewhere. It's not like these are cul-de-sacs. But so you have 80 households without a sidewalk in the rear. So let's start with a visitor comes. Where does a visitor park? What we heard earlier was the visitor parks in the front. Over there with those 80 households, where do they park in the front? They would have to park on Bingham Junction Boulevard. There is no parking.

Would they be able to park there? No. No, I don't think so.

There is no parking. And you look at the visitor parking, the visitor parking is also all on the rear side. So if a visitor comes, they might park on a driveway or they might park in the you know, true undisputed visitor parking. You see some at the number one, um, there is some further south. There seem to be two pause, possibly two handicap stalls in the visitor parking. So everyone who would visit even would have to go to the head up the street, and then not have a sidewalk at the destination. So that's one aspect I think that's pretty important. And since you also have homes that front in this condition here, you mix up the concepts. I mean, traditionally, alleys are

It's the both garage facing.

Right, right. But here we have some of both, which adds some confusion into the mix.

That's the one I had, that top one is the one I had.

So, and I think what you, you know, what one should consider as well is that this is not set in stone. I mean, the planning commission hasn't, even acted on the large scale concept plan here. And you have virtually hundreds, thousands of feet probably where you could look for efficiencies just because you might have a sidewalk in these two locations where it's missing. There's actually a third one just on the lower part of the image. That doesn't necessarily imply that the driveway would have to be shorter. One could look at efficiency somewhere else.

Is the setback along Bingham Junction the smallest it can be, or can they go closer to Bingham Junction?

I can't quite read the setbacks from here, but from what I have seen before, as per zone right now, that's probably an area where there might be a little bit of room.

They can move two feet closer to Bingham Junction. It's on the line.

Well, let me clarify.

The radius... Yeah, come on. The radius is there...

and state your name for the record.

Yeah, Quentin Elder with Edge Homes. Just the radius and to keep that road, you know, I guess tangential is the word, instead of jogging up to get the... But yet those two condos on the north side, as you're right under the text of Bingham Junction Boulevard, those could potentially go a foot or two closer. But the other ones along the radius, right at the front porch or the breezeway, the center of the building, that's exactly 30 feet. And I believe that's the Bill 2 zone up there. And I do want to clarify, I apologize for what I said. I meant to clarify that the code allows us to have a five-foot driveway. That's not an edge home thing. I didn't mean to say that's what we're going to do here. We can massage this and I think provide them. This is what felt right in that situation. So I'd just like to clarify that. Thank you.

Also, there are other setbacks. For example, along High Street, those units could actually be a lot closer to High Street. If you think about a residential context, does High Street need the two-way turn lane all the way through? This isn't really supposed to be an urban freeway. So I think there's plenty of wherewithal to look if one couldn't find an additional 10 feet. That's all it takes. Other things being equal, two sidewalks.

Are we, this might be a bigger discussion, are we sold on 30 feet instead of 28 feet? People aren't going to spend time in their front yard on Bingham Junction, right?

Right.

But that would be a decision we would make as a council if we'd be okay with 28 feet as a setback from Bingham Junction.

Sure, I mean, that would have to be changed in the zone. I don't know unless one... took the legislative type of development agreement and did it that way if one wanted to modify that particular setback.

Where I'm from, people live closer to the road. We seem so adverse to it.

I think the challenge is that is the higher density, right? Those aren't just townhomes on Graham. That's higher density, too.

Right, so to me, higher density tends to go closer as well.

And I mean, there's lots of, I mean, simply we are not at the end of the development process. We're at the beginning. We've also had other discussions about parking. The next item on the agenda also, in a way, feeds into this. I mean, this design isn't necessarily set this way. And with a parcel that's so large, I think with... With that particular question in mind, it's conceivable that one can find 10 feet.

Go ahead. I was just going to suggest we seem to be talking about issues that definitely deserve additional discussion. However, they're not really pertinent to the actual action item here tonight. So I would suggest that we... deal with that action item and then give staff guidance if the council would like to see that additional discussions about a development agreement, then come back to the Planning Commission and back to us with some of these in mind. Could be the will of the council that they just want sidewalks and that's the end of that discussion, but unless there's any other questions or comments from council.

One of the things that I have been thinking about as I look at this, because I can see the developer's point of view on this for sure. But the thing that I am stopping at is you have front yards in these town homes here with the sidewalk and then you don't have the sidewalk on the other side. It is conceivable that folks and their children will be in the front of their town homes and then you have cars backing out all the time without a five foot buffer on sidewalks. That makes me a little nervous when it comes to kids playing outside and all those kinds of things. That's something that I keep stopping at when I'm like, you've got front loaded with garage and cars that are gonna be backing out and we don't have an added buffer to potentially help in that space.

I will say some of, I like to walk and I like to walk through neighborhoods and see what's going on there. And some of the closest calls I've had with cars are people backing out of their garage. And I do feel that if I was, as Gwendolyn said, when you see there's a sidewalk on the other side of the road, that's where you tend to naturally go as a pedestrian. So that actually could be advantageous here to get people away from those who may not be paying attention, backing out of their driveways. And to me, there's also a difference between a private road, because we do have townhome and condo communities in Midvale with private roads, which are standard size, two cars go through them. And this is a private alley, not necessarily a thoroughfare, although you can get out. from all of these. So I think there's a lot of discussion to be had there and kind of iron out those differences between a private street, say like the homes behind Topgolf, those are private streets and we wanted sidewalks on both sides because they're just normal size roads back there. But like, some, I think it was me who brought up Parkview, like they have private alleys there where you don't see pedestrians just walking through the private alley. And in fact, if you do, probably people who shouldn't be there, to be honest. So I think there's a lot of discussion to be had. I don't know that there's really a consensus here of what you guys want to do as far as looking at that in a development agreement and making it pertain to just these three red areas, but...

Does that, if we do put it in a development agreement or have that conversation about doing that, does that set a precedent for future developments to have similar? I mean, I'm not saying that we would like it or not like it, but I just am wondering what does that set for future?

So there's probably two answers to this question. There's the political answer and the legal answer, right? The legal answer is not necessarily. With each of these, the legislative development agreements are intended to allow the city council and the developer to negotiate and find something that they find is a project that works best, if you will, for... some of the criteria within the Utah's Land Use and Development Act. So if they find, you say, in this particular case it makes sense, you can do that. So from the legal side, you don't get locked in necessarily because you negotiate it with one. You don't necessarily have to negotiate it with all. However, that being said, politically, it may feel very different for the elected officials if someone can point to a development agreement that you have done and say, what's different about our project? And again, at least in the American system, anyone can sue for anything, and that's not necessarily saying just because you use your legislative discretion here doesn't mean that we won't be subject to a lawsuit from someone who feels like they got slighted by not getting the same deal, even if it's apples to oranges comparison.

Thank you.

We have a definition in code that states the difference between a private road and a private alley, or are they both treated as exactly the same thing?

So Vindalina and I are shaking heads different ways. But I think we're in agreement on this, is we only define private streets. There is no private alley standard or anything along those lines. So if you're going to do a private anything, it's going to be with the standards that you guys adopted in March of this year with the two sidewalks and that amount of asphalt in between.

I think there's some wisdom to considering the width of the road and if there's a different standard to be adopted, it would be based on the width of the road, but that's legislative issue. But any other comments?

I'm more inclined to a development agreement type situation than I am the legislative passing of changing code.

And the one thing I did get some clarification from the city manager, I've never thought about a development agreement that would specifically allow something that is prohibited elsewhere in the city. And I understand that we are able to do that. Is that?

Yes, I think it was maybe, I mean, it's been a moment and we haven't done one as a city to this point. I believe it was a change legislatively about a year or two ago. I think the last time we talked, we were talking about how the pendulum had swung with the things that the city was going to have to put in every single development agreement. and explain to developers what rights they were potentially giving away and things along that lines. And for that time period, we were recommending not to do any development agreements because of the risk we would be taking on. That pendulum has now swung the other way within the last two legislative sessions and now is more, allows more flexibility between developers and cities to come up with that they both think will work. And the compromise with that that the legislature put into place was essentially if you're going to pass a zone unto itself through a development agreement, you have to go through the zoning process text amendment process, which means public hearings at the planning commission level and whatever other requirements are found within our code. So for us, that would be also a public hearing like we're having tonight before the city council as well.

Thank you for that clarification. Any other questions, comments? If not, someone might want to take a stab at the action item motion.

I move that we deny ordinance number 2026-0-30, amending figures 1 and 2. Am I the right one?

20, no.

One above it. Oh. Maybe I'm just preemptively denying another one. Do I have to, like, retract that or anything? We didn't hear you. Okay. Well, I apologize, everyone. Now I don't know where I'm at. Okay. I move that we deny ordinance number 2026-0-29, which amends section 17-7, 10.12.5E of the Midvale Municipal Code to modify private street standards.

Second. Second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second. Rory, we call the yeas and nays. Just as a reminder, a yes vote will be to deny the ordinance and a no vote would be to approve the ordinance.

Yes, Councilmember Glover. Aye. Brown.

Yes.

McEloshe. Yes. And Billings. Yes.

Okay, that ordinance has been denied.

I didn't want to put it in the motion, but I think the idea is we would consider a development agreement that would make sense. Like for me, you know, knowing what we know now, like with that condo side on the east, I would have a hard time, you know, with that, you know, with the quality and quantity of people for staff, you know, to consider. But, you know, when there's four units, I am a little more amendable. Mainly because you can quickly get to a sidewalk, you know, pretty easily, right? And, you know, look for some efficiencies. Between buildings, do they have sidewalks between buildings? I forgot to ask that. Does that make sense what I'm asking? You know, because that also, if there's breaks.

Are you talking about the condo units? Yeah.

Or is it just one long row?

There is, I mean, they are spaced usually 15 feet apart, 20 feet apart. So I guess that would be landscaping most likely if you're not on a driveway.

Just, yeah, those are my thoughts. I don't know if anyone else wants to say what they're...

Same. Yeah, I think we're isolating one and we might want to look at it holistically, right? Are there other things we want to address?

Mm-hmm.

in it at the same time versus this one-off and making sure it feels connected and a full experience. Because I feel like making one decision on this could maybe affect something else within the plans that we're not aware of yet.

Right.

So.

I just mean things to consider as we get the visual.

Looking to staff, when Pendlin, I can't see Adam, but I think he's back there. Is that enough guidance for you guys to move forward? The fact that it wasn't a quick yes leads me to believe it's not a quick yes.

Well, I'll just say, you've given us really valuable feedback. And I think we're going to go back and look at maybe getting rid of the three lanes on High Street. And maybe we can make some adjustments to accommodate. We hear you. We hear what you're saying. And really, it's helpful for us to get this sort of feedback early on. So thank you. Yes, I think we lost tonight. But in a way, it's a win, because we understand where you're coming from. And we'll work towards that with a development agreement and maybe some slight redesigns in the layout. Your comments are thoughtful and appreciated.

I don't want to look at it as a loss-win. I think it's for the community. We'll figure it out, and you might get something close to that. We don't know. Yeah.

And we've already won with a four-cell product, like in this area, right? So we're already in a great place.

We're so excited to be building this here. We love the location, and I think we're going to find it's a good market for the buyers here.

We love it, too, so we want good stuff.

Thanks. Thank you, and as I said earlier, we appreciate the relationship that we've had, some longer than others, but we look forward to working with you guys through this whole process and getting the right product there, so thank you. We'll move on then to public hearing B, receive public comment regarding amendments to figures one and two in chapter 17-7-10.12 of the Midvale Municipal Code to eliminate rights of way adjacent to pod one. Here to discuss that again is Vendelin. Thank you.

So Pod I is actually geographically speaking right where we looked. It would include these condo units and what the application is to eliminate the rights-of-way that are north and south of Pod I. This map here shows the project areas, the pods. There's another map that is also proposed to be modified, and that shows the road designations. And I have that on here. So you can see when you compare left to right, left shows right-of-way, you know, the wide area, right doesn't, and in two spots. And here's sort of a blown-up picture of that. And this is the road classification map, same idea. What this adds is that The wider right-of-way that's south of Port I, that divides Port I and Port J, and it's almost in the middle of them, is the secondary road. And the secondary road is a public street This is the cross section, and it's actually quite a comfortable cross section. So it's overall 61 feet wide. This just only shows half of a secondary road. 11-foot drive lanes, 5-foot bike lane, 6-foot park strip, and a 6-foot sidewalk. And similar to what we discussed in the previous item, roads and their characteristics, they have an influence on the people who live there. I mean, this is a road that's comfortable enough. There are many streets in Midvale overall that don't hit these numbers. I mean, for example, the park strip widths, the sidewalk widths of six feet, the bike lane. So this is a true amenity to this project and especially to the people who live adjacent to it, but also to those who might use it for transportation. And if you think about it, let me go back for just a second to the map. If you look at parts I and J, without that street, that area isn't really broken up. I wasn't here when this was originally created, but one way to read this configuration is that the original thought was This area needs to be broken up for several reasons, maybe for transportation and maybe for urban design reasons. And transportation-wise, it gives anyone there at least a right in, right out onto Bingham Junction. Could possibly be more, depends on traffic engineering questions with regard to lights and intersection spacing. But at least a right in, right out. So it's an amenity to the project. It supports connectivity and that's a stated goal in our general plan. And so with that, if you screen that with our criteria, it's similar to the previous item. It doesn't hit the threshold to say this is something that would bring this future development forward. Again, The general plan in this case talks about a high-quality, mixed-use environment and connectivity to the Main Street neighborhood. fewer breaks in the development provide less connectivity. The state law, it's similar, it doesn't really promote the health and welfare of the community. With regard to original intent, well the original intent here was clearly to have a road there, otherwise it wouldn't be shown in our court and also in previous development agreements. And this was clearly not a clerical error that road was shown there with an intent to have a road. So with that, the staff recommendation is to deny this application.

Thank you. Vendelin, any questions from council for Vendelin or other staff?

Yes. Sorry, go ahead. You go first. I think we have the same question. Can you go back to the images and orient us a little bit on,

what we just saw overlaid on to this is what we just, the edge homes, are they I and J to collectively? Um, they are I J L and K they are all Southern, but that, but that road, those roads weren't in the, in the image that, okay. That's why I was really confused.

Um,

The image, okay. Okay, yes, yeah, so their concept, that's why they are here. Their concept doesn't show that road.

So they just showed the one road, the high street, which was recommended that you change that name. That was hilarious, that planning commission. Okay, so the plan you showed was without the secondary road.

Is the road north of I a secondary road? It's not highlighted as one.

Yeah, so our map doesn't give it a category. And if you look at the map, there are many others that aren't, that are there, but they didn't get a public street category. So, and if, I mean, if one believes the differences in the width that one sees here, maybe it's a trail, maybe it's something that we, for which we don't have a cross section, but it's just simply when this was created, there was no public street category attached to it.

And all of those are our responsibility for snow removal, right?

Public streets, yes. Private streets, no. Right, so all the ones... That are colored in, you could say. Everything that's colored in are public streets.

And wide enough for people to park on, right, or not? Yes, yeah. On the secondary roads?

Yes, I mean, it's 22 feet of asphalt.

Yeah, which is bigger than, yeah.

Any other questions for Wendelin? Okay, and we'll probably have more, but this is a public hearing. Is there a motion to open the public hearing to public comment?

Mayor, I motion we open public hearing. Second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second. All those in favor say yes. Aye. Any opposed? Okay, we can accept public comment at this time. If there's anyone from the public who would like to comment on this item, now is the time to do it. Scanning the room, not seeing any motion. So is there a motion to close the public hearing?

Mayor, I motion we close public hearing. Second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye.

Aye. Yes.

Any opposed? Okay, public comment has ended. Any other discussion from council? Okay, not seeing any.

I guess the question is what does the plan look like if the road stays? Right, you haven't presented a plan. That would be part of the development plan agreement is what does the plan look like if the road stays?

Did you guys want to add anything to, one, to answer her question? That'd be great.

But if you want to add anything as well.

Yeah, so Brandon Watson with Edge Homes. So appreciate your time. I guess I, I hold two hats at edge homes, uh, vice president of land entitlement. And then I'm also a licensed professional engineer. So I, I kind of deal on both sides of the fence here as far as, uh, as an engineer, I'd always say developers were a necessary evil. And as a developer, I'd always say engineers are a necessary evil. And so I hold two different hats, but, um, uh, it, yeah, it served me well, I guess. So I can see both sides of every story. Um, I just want to point out a couple of things. So, um, Have we created a plan that shows the road in between Pod I and Pod J? No, we have not. And there's a couple of reasons why. So one, in talking with Gardner, obviously we haven't been in, Edge Homes hasn't been involved in this project since the beginning. But that's the joys of, I guess, of a bubble plan is nobody really knows what the plan is when a bubble plan is put together. There's ideas that are kind of splattered on a piece of paper. In talking with Gardner Group, The idea between separating pods I, J, K, and L into four different pods was potentially there would be four different builders or four different commercial uses or four different uses in general. Fortunately, Edge Homes is in a situation and in a position where we can purchase all four of those and create one large master plan community. So the idea of having four separate pods to us kind of went out the window when we put this under contract to where it's just what can we do to make this look cohesive? What can we make this look like one solid community rather than four different pods that are kind of segregating different whatever ideas about putting uses somewhere else? So as we looked at this, we also did a traffic study. The original traffic study that was done on this project, I think in 2019 or 2020, it had a total, like Dave Denison had mentioned, about 2,200 total townhomes and condominiums planned between these four pods. We're a fourth of that, right? We're about six, let's just say 600 for all intents and purposes tonight, but we're about 600 units. So what does that convert to as far as daily trips? The original traffic study anticipated out of these four pods, there being about 8,400 average daily trips coming from those four pods. That's every day, 8,400 trips coming in and out. We're literally half of that. So the amount of roads needed to serve our project are much less. So putting my engineer hat on right here, And looking at this from a safety standpoint, I know that that was an item discussed that potentially having more roads would be safer. I'm looking at the intersections along Bingham Junction Boulevard, where the road between Pod J and Pod K, which is High Street, you have that intersection. The next major intersection would be Ivy Street, and on Pod A, which is kind of covered up by one of the red arrows, which is on the east side, they have an access coming out about the middle of Pod I. So that would offset the road between Pod I and Pod J from the road on the other side. So we would have to shift that road, the secondary road, north in order to make that intersection, which city code requires center lines to be lined up. What is the point of me saying all of this? What it does, and I wish I had my site plan shown up there, but it leaves a little sliver of land on the north side of Pawdye between that and the park, which essentially we can't do anything with at that point. And so, but from a traffic standpoint, I talked to our traffic engineer today and I talked about this very specific question. Our traffic study only has two accesses. That's High Street and Ivy Street as our two points of access coming in and out. And everything operates at a level of service A. It actually operates at a much level of service than what the original traffic study had shown. So the little mystery road between Pot Eye and the park, I've looked at this map a billion times. I think it's actually the outline of the bubble It looks like it's creating a road that's there. If you look, for example, between Pod K and Pod L, it looks like there's a road there, right? But that's just the outline of the bubbles. So it's kind of created a little optical illusion. For example, Pod B1 and B2, it looks like there's some sort of a road or a trail in between there. But I think it's, again, the outline of the bubble. So I don't know if there was necessarily a road intended to go there. Just wanted to point that out. But one thing to keep in mind, Bingham Junction Boulevard has a posted speed limit of 35 miles an hour. We all drive cars. We're all human. We're probably going 40 to 45 miles an hour. Sorry, police officers. I've never done that. I've never done that, right? 35 max. I do my best to send my cruise to 35 miles an hour. We do our best, right? But we are human. We make mistakes. And I'm sure that there's been individuals pulled over on that road. I think the less amount of intersections you can have on Bingham Junction Boulevard, the safer it is for everybody involved. Whether that's our residents that are going to be moving into our pods or those that will be traveling to and through this site.

So we did put more lights on the other side of Bingham Junction. It slowed people down a lot. So traffic, like traffic signal lights. Yeah. Great. Cause we didn't have, we had some intersections that didn't and we got put, we probably one of the biggest things where a bunch of people were mad at us. I don't know if you guys remember that. Yeah. Yeah. Call me out by name and everything.

But afterwards they were like the slow people down a ton. Yeah, that's good. So, I mean, obviously, yeah, we, we'd love to have, you know, slower traffic and sometimes, you know, you get a big wide road, wide open road like that and we don't realize how quick we're going sometimes. So, um, Yeah, so those are our whys. From a traffic engineering standpoint, we don't need this road. And I personally think from a safety standpoint, it's best to not have that road and that many intersections, especially because of the offset to Pod A across the way, which is going to create a major conflict, especially for left-hand turn movements out of our secondary road and the road coming out of Pod A. you're gonna have two left-hand turns that are gonna be conflicting with each other, which is called the negative offset. You could have a positive offset, which if two people were making left-hand turns, they would miss each other, which this would not be that type of situation. So a lot of info, I apologize, but I'm happy to answer any questions that you have and appreciate your time.

Thank you. Brandon, any questions from council? We appreciate the conversation and all the hard work you guys have done, Vandalyn and your team. Do you have anything else for us? Nope, I'll have a seat there, yeah. Okay. Are you able to pull the motion back up on the board? And any questions or comments down here? I know Council Member Billings and Glover didn't, just haven't had anything good.

So what I'm hearing is if we keep the road, it keeps it safer. If we get rid of the road, it keeps it safer. Do we have an answer?

Either way, we're safe.

I've heard that from both sides. We don't need it. It'll still be as safe if we keep it. It'll be just as safe. Does it not make a difference in safety? Because I've heard both sides now. And if we need to look into that, that's great. I think that's my concern, because I agree less. I don't want to get it to be a mess, but I also know adding lights slows it down. That's also a road that we're looking at putting a bike lane, right? So now you've got bikers on that in addition to cars. I don't know if that was shared with you, but I think it becomes more, yes. I don't want it to be a thorough way.

It's becoming that yeah, and I don't know if I personally care too much about the road between I and J I do think the road between I and the park being City a city road benefits the development of time because it fronts the park and that's where people will want to park when they come and Right, that's the north one. That's more of like a from a practical standpoint, right? That's right along a park You know you don't want people driving into the your community as much as possible So if you have a public road that's wide enough for people to park on even if it's 10 or 20 cars. That's still 10 or so that'll park on the road and not not good driving into the community to find parking and

Yeah, I don't, if you pull up it again.

And I don't know if it's wide enough.

That's why I asked the question earlier. Yeah, now you're going through a park where there's going to be even more pedestrians, people doing things, as the main way to get to the community if you get rid of that road. Right?

I think I would admit they brought up some really good points on the offsetting roads and all that kind of stuff that I mean I think is that at least as I had been looking at, I hadn't considered that other road coming over. On the other hand, another issue that we're looking at too, so there's a safety issue, and perhaps point them. On the other hand, one of the other issues that we're trying to address as well is this idea of a cohesive area in jordan bluffs where things are more sort of connected and all that whereas you know having one two entrance points into it sort of really isolates the rest of that area down like it is one development that you can get into two different ways and that doesn't really mean that it's then part of the rest of the project area, if that makes any sense. And so maybe that's not the specific solution is that road, but it still is one of these where it's gonna feel like it's not part of Jordan Bluffs, it is that development. And that's part of where some of our concern is as well, is it's not, how do we do that? And if we're reducing the number of connections, that's not helping it, but at the same time, I don't know what we've looked at as far as those offsetting road issue.

Our city engineer, I don't think, has looked at that in detail. If you think about Bingham Junction as it is right now, just south of Center Street, If that's a safety concern, that's an easy solution, that's a median. We have that just by Zions Bank, for example. So there are means and ways to deal with that, but I'm not a traffic engineer.

So if I followed you, city manager Dahl, one point developer, one point Midvale.

That's a tie. Not exactly, yes.

But there might be some things to look at, yeah. Brandon, did you have something else to add? You're good? Okay.

Would it be advised to potentially table something like this to look at? the how those intersections intersect or don't intersect so that we can kind of see what that actually does mean for safety with both scenarios?

The city council definitely has that option. I know our city engineer isn't here tonight, and if that's something you'd like to hear from him, I'm sure that can be arranged.

I would feel comfortable with that before making the decision, because it does sound like it's just one side or the other, and both sides make good points.

But I do. I mean, I do, looking at this, if we take that road away, then only one of two ways to get the community is going by public areas, right? I think there's already a lot of activity there, and then you bring that whole community through the north end. I feel like you do need that middle road just to help people get into the community a little bit more easier than one way. What if we're having soccer fields up there and there's a whole soccer tournament going on and you have to fight all of that to get into your community? Right, I think that's, it's a little bit of unknowns in the flow of traffic in addition to the safety.

Yeah, one equivalent to that is Bingham Junction Park where most everything surrounding Bingham Junction Park is residential and when the spots that are designated for the park get filled up, then people fan out into the neighborhood and then we get complaints from the neighborhood saying there's too many people parked. So that does create some issues. I would say what I've noticed over time, we have to remember everything south of Center Street, Bingham Junction didn't exist. six years ago. So, you know, I have noticed traffic in the early days, wild, wild west there, because, like, here's a new road. We don't even know if the police know about that road yet. So there were a lot of people using that as a raceway. Not me, not ever. But... I think as more development has happened there, more people are starting to walk their dogs, use the sidewalks. You have seen a natural slowing down of traffic in my experience there. But I do say, there are some very troubling intersections there as a pedestrian. And I think I get the point, creating less of those pressure points is not a bad idea because there are a few of them. that exists right now, Bingham Junction and Ivy being one of them. I sprint across that crosswalk. So I think it's fair to say there are good points on both sides. I would love to hear from Brandon, our city engineer. I don't know, did he speak or did he have an opinion when it was before the Planning Commission? No, he does not normally attend planning commission meetings So I think our options here are approved deny or table With some additional instruction to city staff if that's if the tabling is the if I could if I may make one more comment before the

this isn't necessarily to change anyone's mind, but just something of note is, as I think the mayor had said, you know, we put this zone together when there was nothing here. There's been some adjustments. And, you know, since in that intervening time since 2017, you know, one of the things that we've come across is as we're looking to the other areas of the city, maybe to the north, Bingham Junction area, there are certain things that we've come across where we've we've learned some lessons. And and so some of that is like what we're incorporating here. And so even though we're not specifically, you know, like I said, maybe it's We look at this a little bit differently or look at our options. But as we look, we have these communities to the north where you can get into them in two different ways. And then that ends up causing different issues for us, whether it's snowplow access and then no one gets the main road that everyone has to access to get out of the neighborhood plowed because someone's parked in a weird way and so like we can't get in there or you know we've come across well there's just these different examples and as we've been working with them and they've been good enough to listen to us as we've been talking about some of those other ones you brought up the soccer issue of if there's a soccer field that's on the park adjacent to the pod and people are going in there and the parking is in there and there's one way to get to it, what is the pain that that is gonna cause for the residents and for you and for us as we're trying to deal with that in the future because we've created this problem that we could see coming, right? And so, again, not changing what you have here, but as we're looking at it, you know, we could probably achieve maybe some of our objectives with some more discussion on it, and maybe it's not that exact location, and it's a different discussion of how do we create more access. But it... we're learning from those lessons. And so I think you've all made very good points this evening, and I appreciate those. And as we move forward, both with the previous item and looking at that development agreement, and then sort of addressing whatever you guys are gonna do next, it is with that eye of like, What can we end up doing that will prevent those problems that we created previously in a different area? So anyway, that's all I have to say on that.

Thank you. Okay, thank you, City Manager Dahl. So again, approve, deny, table, continue talking about it. Those are four options.

So I would, I'm not sure how to do this, Garrett, so help me out. So I would like to motion that we table it, get more context and thought through with Brandon, civil engineer, to foresee any future, how this is going to impact the future area, and then come back to it. How do I do that? Do you have any time? Yes. Partner in crime, please.

But to your point that you always ask about, if you want to select maybe an upcoming date to have that discussion with Brandon.

Can I just say by, I mean, obviously sooner than later, right? But just to make sure I don't put someone on the spot, can I just say by the end of the year?

Or do you want? I think we could do, unless someone tells me differently, he will be back before October. Oh, shoot.

That's what it's out of office is saying is before the end of the month.

So maybe the second meeting in October?

Can I just say it like this? Okay. That's the 20th of October. The 20th of October? 20th? Mayor, I move that we table ordinance number 2026-0-30 amending figures one and two in chapter 17-7-10-12 of the Midvale Municipal Code to eliminate rights way adjacent to pod one until further discussions with the city engineer to help determine safety and viability of the area by no later than October 20th of this year.

Second. Second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second to table this ordinance. Rory, will you call the yeas and nays? Yes.

Excuse me, Councilmember Brown?

Yes.

McElhosh? Yes. Billings? Yes. And Glover? Aye.

Okay, that passes. That ordinance is tabled pending input from the city engineer no later than October 20th. So thank you very much. Have a good evening. Okay, we'll move on to something that'll have far less discussion. We hope the consent agenda, we have one item tonight, consider minutes of September 1st, 2026. Is there a motion to approve the consent agenda?

Mayor, I motion we approve the consent agenda. Second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second. Rory, will you call the yeses and nays?

Yes, Councilmember Billings? Yes. Glover? Aye. Brown?

Yes.

And McClush? Yes.

Okay, that passes. We'll move on to action items. We have two action items tonight. First is to consider resolution number 2026R51, adopting amendments to the Midvale City Policies and Procedures Manual. Here to discuss that is Rory. Welcome, Rory.

Yes, thank you. We discussed these policy amendments at the last meeting. Would you like me to go through them in great detail? Sure. Do you have any questions? No. No questions. No questions? Okay. Well, easy peasy. Okay. Mayor, did you have anything?

Oh, nope. Okay. That's it for all of the policy changes?

This is all that we're doing right now are these changes that we discussed at the last meeting. So, yes. For right now, that's it. Okay. Unless you want me to go through them, I can do them really quick.

There are no changes to what you mentioned last time?

No.

Okay.

Okay.

All right. Thank you. I honestly thought this was going to create a lot more discussion last meeting. That's why I think I gave council several different opportunities, but I guess we're all in agreement, so that's a good thing. This is an action item, so if there's a motion from council to approve, that'd be great.

Mayor, I move to approve resolution number 2026-R-51, adopting the proposed amendments to the Midvale City Policies and Procedures Manual as presented.

Second. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Rory, since you made your way back over there so quickly, will you call the ayes and ayes?

Yes, Council Member McElhosh. Yes. Billings. Yes. Glover. Aye. Brown.

Yes. Okay, that passes unanimously. Moving on, consider resolution number 2026, R52, adopting updates to the board and committee assignments for Midvale City. Here to discuss that, the man to my left, Matt Dahl.

I could get up there and talk about it, but all I've done is just added Levi McNeil to be the alternate on the... the Transjordan board. If you'd like me to get up and discuss it more, I can do that. Or if you're just okay with that, we could just approve that.

Sounds good to me. You guys are great. I have no... And he wants to do it. Whether he does or he doesn't. Well, there's some benefit to having people on the boards who have an interest in the subject matter and want to be on the board, so that's why I asked. Assuming he definitely has interest in the subject matter, for sure. Is there a motion from the council to approve the resolution? Nope, okay, he's not on it.

May I move that we approve resolution number 2026-R-52, adopting updates to the board and committee assignments for Midvale City.

Second. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Rory, will you call the ayes and nays?

Yes. Council Member Billings? Yes. Glover? Aye. Brown?

Yes.

And McElhosh? Yes.

Okay, that passes unanimously. Moving on. Discussion items, this always makes me nervous. The first few words, discuss the second amendment. To the development agreement for the Midvale Mills project here to discuss that. Elizabeth, welcome.

I don't think it says wah-wah as you're making it sound. This one will be very, I think, straightforward. So this is for the Midvale Mills project. I've outlined in blue, this is kind of towards our southern end. I think most of you should be familiar with this project. The amendment is here before you because in the original development agreement, they included the house plans that they are building with the project. And with current market conditions, they want to offer an additional house plan. So they need to amend it to include that. So I have included here, I think all six of the original house plans. So you could get a feel for what they had. The new one is right in line with those. So here are the originals. Here is the proposed plan. Jacob Allstad from Garbett Homes is here. He's available to answer any questions if you have any. So just thought we'd bring it so you're aware of it. It would be as an action item on the next meeting.

Is it just smaller to offer a more less expensive? I believe so.

I will let him do the talking on that, though.

OK. Thank you, Elizabeth. Welcome. It's been a while. Good to see you. And if you want to state your name so Rory has it for the record.

Jacob Ballstead, Garbett Homes, 273 Northeast Capitol Street, Salt Lake City, Utah. Great to be back, Council and Mayor. We've been in the project for a couple of years now. There'll be 80, 90 some odd lots. And we just need an additional plan to offer some variety. It is a little bit smaller. It fits on more lots. You know, the architecture is the same style as the others, and so we just needed something to help us with the changing market conditions.

Speaking of parking on the sidewalk, this development makes me a little sad because pretty nice homes, but it's very not walkable. When I drive by it every morning because I take my kids to school, I see four or five people just looking down one road where they're all parking on the sidewalk.

Yeah. We've made an effort recently to try to get our management company to enforce the no parking rules, and we'll keep working on that, Councilman, and I'll follow up with you on it. You drive by it every day?

Yeah, so I live right there, so I drive up Wasatch to go to Hillcrest.

Okay. Okay. Well, we'll see if – I'll follow up with them and see how our efforts are going, but I guess you'll know before I do.

And I – my kid takes early morning seminary, so it's – I take her at 6.15, so maybe people move.

So 6.15 in the morning, there's a lot more than – Well, they shouldn't be there at all, so that's good feedback. So anyway, pretty simple. Nothing exciting, but I can answer any other questions if you have them.

Any questions for Jacob?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Any questions for Elizabeth or staff?

I think variety's great because on the Wasatch Road, there's like three homes that are identical, and I wish, they look nice, but I was like, dang, it'd be nice if there was some variety. So adding more to me is a good thing in this neighborhood. Yeah.

I do like the name The Dexter as a fan of the TV show and the cartoon. The Murderer? And the cartoon. If it's okay with council, could we put this on the consent agenda? I'm totally okay with that. Okay. We'll do that. We'll move on then to the second discussion item, which weirdly is also to discuss the Second Amendment. to the interlocal agreement with the Salt Lake County Health Department for uplift mid-bail coalition funding here to discuss that. And I assume he's going to do it from right here. City Manager Matt Dahl.

I'm going to have Vanessa come up and start the presentation.

I stand corrected. Vanessa. It does say that on the agenda.

Welcome, Vanessa.

Hello. Thanks so much. And Matt will still finish up, so that will be just fine. Yeah. So I am here just to talk about the Second Amendment for our original agreement that we had with Salt Lake County Health Department that started in 2023. It had funded for Midvale Community Coalition, also known as Uplift Midvale, and under the Communities That Care strategic framework. Communities That Care is a nationally recognized evidence-based framework that empowers local stakeholders. Just a little bit of background on what Communities That Care is so you understand how we created Uplift Midvale a community coalition for youth violence prevention. And I've been doing it for the past four years. So that's been cool. As far as our vision is concerned, it is in hopes to have a collaborative network that supports our families, schools, and communities by providing resources. And of course, our mission is hoping that we can nurture our community for every young individual so they are recognized and celebrated and empowered to have healthy and fulfilling lives. As far as what we've done so far, remember that we also still do the Youth City Council. We've had three cohorts. Thanks so much, Dustin. Sorry, Mayor Dustin, that felt weird. As far as any other projects, we also had our block party that we had over in District 4. That's my niece over there with my sister, and we did some painting, and also this is at the Copperview Elementary School. So it's supporting our community. It's supporting neighborhoods. It's also engaging the public. We have our city hall. We had Midvale Middle come in for their third annual service day. And that was pretty cool. We did sandwiches for the Road Home. This is for the third year in a row. I think that one was from last year. Of course, we do tabling opportunities like we do Loteria so we can have a recruitment presence and also let the community know about what the coalition does. And so that was with these kiddos here over at Union Middle for culture night last year. And I don't know if you guys know what Latria is. It's a bingo. It's a Latino bingo. It's existed since the 1700s. So it's culture based. Kiddos get to look at pictures and also learn Spanish and English. And so we are able to create kind of a welcoming environment for different kinds of cultures. And that was super cool. Also, I didn't know that our youth really like jelly beans, and that was strange. The shoe that you see on that design is also Spy Hop. We have a partnership with them this next season for us to have a media-based program for kiddos, specifically with middle school age kiddos, because some of our research has shown that they're kind of at risk. But that's a byproduct of our last one that we had last September. So we're looking forward to doing two, one at each middle school. And of course, Kauai. We can't ignore Kauai. We also hired our youth advocate. He was here for a year. He helped out quite a bit in influencing and helping us out with our strategic work with youth involvement moving forward. So that is definitely an accomplishment for the coalition. So as far as the Second Amendment is concerned, we luckily got a second amendment the second amount of $10,000 and this is going towards our last year for our payment schedule for June 30th of 2027. As far as what it includes in that contract is a itemized schedule, a payment schedule that will be, that clarifies how much we have for operation funding and unfortunately is reduced by 7,500. In addition to the decline in funding is also for the coordinator position, my position, from 100,000 to 75,000, and at which point Matt is gonna finish up.

Yeah, I just, so the crux of this agreement is really providing the $10,000. There are some adjustments in it where it has a new form of how it describes the funding that we receive. It's not that it's like, It's not new. It's just they put it in a table form in the amendment. Through that, we identified that I did not identify that when we were doing the budget that we're coming into the fifth year of it. There's a reason for that. The first year, we didn't get any funding. It's nothing. But what that means is that... We have this reduction in the coalition coordinator position funding. We have this $10,000, sorry, commingling two things. We have these two reductions in the operating funds and in the funding for the coalition coordinator position. It was what was in the original intention in the agreement was that year five would have this reduction And so while it's not necessarily the intent of this agreement, it does highlight the issue. I've spoken with Mariah about options where we could come in and fill where that gap is, which was always sort of intended in the agreement. There's a few different ways that we're looking at it. And when we come back, for the final approval of this. It's my intent to tell you how we intend to fill that position. Now, if it's, um, it might be able, we could use some of the operations money that is in here to fill the gap. And, um, or we might use one-time money because this agreement comes to an end at the end of this fiscal year. So I'm just highlighting that this was something that we missed. It actually creates more like a $15,000 gap because it's the difference between how much we spend in these accounts and then also what, I didn't say that right. Let me try that one more time. We don't necessarily spend all of the funding that we receive here and that, so while it looks like a much bigger gap in the end, we're really only talking about $15,000 is how much we need to come up with in order to fully fund this through the rest of the year. We might be able to use the operations funds to do that, which would just mean we have less operations funds to do operations, or we could come back to you and propose one-time money. That was a better one. I like that, how I said that better. So anyways, I'm just highlighting that issue, whether we, that is still an issue whether we approve this agreement or not. And in the end, this agreement is really about the $10,000.

I will say my seventh grader came to the Midvale Middle event that she mentioned where they did the sandwiches. Vanessa is a phenomenal steward of the city because she was like, normally when I ask her, adults are very boring to my seventh grader. She said how great of a job Vanessa did. So she was here a week. And I was like, she kept saying she was coming down. She kept saying, I'm going to the Capitol. That's where I thought she was going. And then she's like, I met someone named Vanessa that you work with. I'm like, you went to City Hall in Midvale? I would have come with you. I would have been a chaperone had I known that was your thing. So anyways, thank you for that. Good program.

So that was my concern is how we continue to fund it. Yeah. Because that would be, I think this is very odd that then we would cut someone's pay.

By $25,000.

And then I guess my other question is, is it intended to end in five years? I wasn't here when it started. Or can we reevaluate and keep it going?

So the grant funding will end at the end of this five years.

Okay.

And then we will, in the next budget, we'll, to figure out how we're gonna fund the project going forward, or the operations and the staffing for it.

Vanessa, I wanna thank you as well, just to echo Councilman Brown. Essentially, you are one of one doing this work at Midvale City, and luckily I get to be pulled in when there's something fun that you want me to do, and I appreciate that as well. But I've seen the difference that these programs make in the lives of our students and our youth in Midvale, and I wanna just let you know how much I appreciate you and all that you do. Are there any other questions from council? This is something as well. Could we put this on the consent agenda for the next meeting? Or will you need to do any additional discussion?

That's a good point. Yes, we can do that. We can put it on there. I might bring up, because we are talking about two different things, right? One of them is just approving this agreement in its form, and then there's the budget discussion. So if we just approve this... I feel like Garrett was moving funny like he wanted to say something. No, okay. Good.

Consent agenda, council?

Yes. Okay.

Sorry, I misread that, Garrett.

Okay. We'll put that on the consent agenda for October 6th as well. Okay. We have a closed session to discuss the second amendment. I'm sure. We don't have a closed session tonight, so I will look for a motion to adjourn city council, and we'll head into redevelopment agency.

Motion to adjourn.

Second. Second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second. All those in favor of adjourning, say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Okay, we are adjourned from city council and we will magically reappear as the redevelopment agency of Midvale City. Get a thumbs up.

Good to go.

Okay. We are good to go. Welcome, everyone, to our RDA Redevelopment Agency in Midvale City meeting for September 15th, 2026. We have a few items on the agenda here tonight. But first, Rory, will you see who is here, who might not be here, and who might have left?

Yes. Board Member Glover. Here. Billings. Here. McElhush. Here. And Brown.

Here.

Board Member Robinson's excused.

Okay, we're all still here. The only people who have left is the entire general public. Present. We'll move on to public comments. There's no one from the public sitting in the audience, but now's your chance. Anyone? Seeing none, we'll move past public comments to the consent agenda. We have one item tonight. Consider the minutes of September 1st, 2026. Is there a motion to approve the consent agenda?

I motion we approve the consent agenda.

Second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second. Roy, we call the yeas and nays.

Yes, Board Member Brown.

Yes.

McAlesh. Yes. Glover.

Aye.

And Billings. Yes.

Okay, that passes unanimously. Moving on, we have three action items tonight. The first, a spooky one. Consider Resolution Number 2026-23 RDA, approving the Midvale Main Street Trick-or-Treat Decoration Grant Program. Here to discuss that, someone who is not spooky at all, Moira Gray.

Aw.

Welcome, Moira.

Hello, RDA board. So this decoration grant was born out of a conversation that happened during a business alliance meeting. They said that they really wanted to do a decoration competition during the Trick or Treat event. And we got a wonderful $1,000 grant from Rocky Mountain Power. Thank you, Rocky Mountain Power, to support this event. And we thought this could be a really fun way to support their competition efforts. So terms, the maximum grant amount is $50. It's not a lot. It's meant to just be a little bit of help. This will be a reimbursement after the fact. People who are eligible are people located on the street, tenants and owners within the area that will be closed for trick-or-treat. That's basically the whole street. And then eligible uses of funds, materials and supplies, art and decorations. What's not eligible, anything not that, including the time it takes to put it up. The process is pretty basic, submitting an application, we'll review it, and then all of those applications will go before this board again in October. And then grantees, of course, will be entering into a very simple grant agreement with the RDA. Staff is requesting a budget of $700, so that is a maximum of 14 grants, and we really hope to get 14 businesses to participate with the grant program. We have more than that already doing trick or treat, but. specifically for the grant portion. And this funding will come from the Midvale Main Street events and promotion budget, including that grant that we received.

Any questions for Moira? I have one question. Who, okay, so the business, it came out of the business alliance. So was it your idea to put all of this together? How did the Rocky Mountain Power grant money come in?

Yeah, Rocky Mountain Power was really nice and actually reached out to us and said, hey, we'd like to give a little bit of money to help out with your event. So we got a grant for this event and we have a grant for Light Up Maine. So that was really wonderful. And then we really was born out of that conversation with the Business Alliance. They talked about wanting to decorate and then we went and as staff we discussed and we said, you know what, we should try and support that effort. That sounds like a lot of fun.

And is the Business Alliance going to be awarding Best in Show or is there a winner at all?

I'm not sure if a winner is part of it. We do have a voting thing. I don't know if we have a prize in mind or anything like that. Next Business Alliance meeting is next Thursday, if anybody wants to come.

I think a winner could be determined and receive a mayoral medallion.

Ooh, I like that.

But, yeah, I just wanted whoever, I know it's a team effort, so good job, team. This is awesome. Everything, like every year our Halloween event gets better and better.

Oh.

I see there is a motion, so suspending the rules is in order if the council wants to approve this today.

I move that we suspend the rules and pass resolution number 2026-23 RDA, approving the Midville Main Street Trick or Treat Decoration Grant Program.

Second. Okay, we have a motion and multiple seconds. That's how much we all love this idea. Roy, will you call the yeas and nays?

Yes, Board Member McElhosh. Yes. Clever. Aye. Billings. Yes. And Brown.

Yes. Okay, that passes unanimously. Looking forward to it. Moving on, action item B, consider resolution number 2026-24 RDA approving the property lease agreement with Craft Lake City for hosting curated workshops in the art house. I'm laughing because I was gonna tell you, please do it from your seat and just yell.

I think I could project enough.

She is ready to go at any moment here.

Yeah, I don't know.

Welcome, Aubrey, by the way. Thank you.

Thank you. Wait, this is different. That's fine.

OK. This is for the next item.

Yes, that is for the second item. I just wanted to remember to give it to you. OK. Good evening, RDA board. Last time, Kate was very kind and presented the initial terms of this agreement for me. We are wanting to work with Craft Lake City again. They host our annual Letter West. We work with them a lot as a local partner if we want to boost out email blasts for events for vendors or have them post stuff. We do a lot of collaborations with them. And so they had asked in the past that they could maybe use the art house to curate some workshops and At the time, it was full of artists and it just didn't really seem like it would be a good mix. At this point, I think we're trying to activate the space in a different way and try and get some more foot, you know, foot traffic in there and whatnot. And with how established Craft Lake City is, we think that it will be a really good partnership and that we can, you know, keep moving forward with this if it goes well. So this will be kind of like a starting point for them. Same terms as last time, one year starting in January, $1,000 deposit. We are doing one workshop per month. And then I want to make sure that we get that full 12 workshops. So if we miss one on a month, we'll work with them to fill in a gap and make sure we get all the workshops that we're asking for. In case we decide to go a different direction or it's just not working, the termination of the agreement is allowed at any point. They are handling everything, which is very nice. They just need to communicate with us, like getting access and everything, making sure that they're in there and we're working with Brian Abel, who is the current artist in there, that it's not overlapping with any of his, um, goings on going ons. Um, and then I know that last time, uh, there was a question about the cost of the workshops. And so I did reach out and they, um, said between $35 to 50 per person. And that includes the materials that they use for the workshop. So it's, um, pretty nice that you don't have to like show up and bring something when you sign up that, for all these really cool workshops that they're putting together, which I have no idea how to do any of it. You don't have to go find the material to participate. And we did not, in the agreement, put a limit on that. So they're not locked into that, but we did discuss with them. And they obviously want to make sure that it's available to community members. They do want to try, you know, some of the new workshop ideas at this location with the space that we have. So I think that will be pretty exciting. I haven't ever seen any of the, you know, ceramic repairing stuff done. locally, which sounds really cool. It's a really beautiful art. So I don't know if you guys have any questions about that, but these are the tentative dates. They have to get everything, any changes approved in writing from us. and we'll just make sure that they're upholding the 12 workshop agreement, and then they're gonna use the space for Letter West as well, which is also really exciting, because normally the art house tries to participate a little bit, but I think this will actively engage it a little bit more and get a lot of artists in the space, which will be really cool, so that's exciting. And then the motion is just in the packet, unless you guys have any questions, comments, or concerns.

Very excited.

It's going to be cool. Any questions, comments from council? If not, the motion is in your packet.

Do I have to suspend?

No, we talked about this last week. Just regular.

I move that we consider resolution number 2026-24 RDA approving the property lease agreement with Craft Lake City for hosting curated workshops in the art house.

Second. OK, we have a motion and a second. Rory, will you call the yeas and nays?

Yes. Board member Glover?

Aye.

Billings? Yes. Brown?

Yes.

And McElhush?

Yes. OK, that passes unanimously. Moving on, action item C, consider resolution number 202625 RDA, approving the term sheet, which we all have. for a business loan agreement between the Redevelopment Agency of Midvale City and Post Exchange LLC doing business as The Vale. And here to discuss that, Aubrey, once again. Awesome.

Okay.

Thank you, Chair. Same as last week, we have been working with The Vale. They have not changed anything in... their direction that they're going or anything like that with the business plan. There has been a little bit of a change in collateral, which is why I've given you an updated term sheet. They're still going to be covering 100% of the loan amount, so no change there. just a change in the property and some equipment being used instead of an outside third party putting collateral up, it will be the sole guarantor of the loan, which I think makes things a little bit less messy agreement-wise and getting everything kind of like locked down will be a little bit smoother moving forward. And then the grand opening, With everything, if you guys are okay with the term sheet being approved as it's being presented, they're still planning on February. Obviously, if we need to discuss things, it will push it back a little bit. But they're really gung ho and I think that it's a really solid business going in. So yeah, that change is just up there for you. The one thing I do wanna mention, with the collateral for the property. Right now we'd be in a junior lien position, which would be tertiary. So they have a HELOC loan that they took out on the original mortgage. There's about $35,000 left in that, and the borrower is paying down about $5,000 a month. So within a year, it would definitely be paid off. So we would be tertiary at first. And then once that HELOC loan is paid off, we would move to secondary, like other loans that we have for the residential property. Otherwise, equipment, we'd still be first position. And I've included the equipment list there updated for you as well and the collateral schedule if you have any questions on that.

Any questions from council?

I think you missed the last meeting, but we were all very, very excited about this. I'm also very excited about this.

Once I found out that they also owned undercurrent, that place no longer exists, sadly, but was a really cool place. So if it's anything like that vibe, I'll be very happy. I do have one question. So this location, and I guess I need to be careful the way that I ask this question, has already had a loan. Correct. I mean, I know we have money to give. However, it does make me a little nervous that we've already given a loan to this location before and are now in the process of. Do we actually give money to the people on the other loan?

Yes, but we split it up in disbursements. That was smart. Yes. So we do obviously take it very seriously when looking at financial history and things like that and evaluating the borrowers in the case of the last loan.

Is this the salt and fire?

Yes. Without getting too deep into it, we did do smaller disbursements with the initial loan that was at this property. Looking at this one, the concern is not there financially. Can we try to get any of that back?

Are we going to?

Yes. Should we talk about that in a different setting? I just realized that looking at Karen. That's the most animated he's, like, ever been, ever.

His eyeballs are, like... His steam was coming out of his ears.

Sweating bullets over here. No, but that's a great point. That was going to be my follow-up question. Are we going to do smaller disbursements or all at once?

So, yeah, with business loans specifically, after, you know, going through a trial, we did smaller payments, and obviously... By the time they're ready to open, all of the businesses that get the loan will have spent the money, but considering, you know, financial history, current financial health, and then on top of that, just even with this loan, if you see in the very back of that term sheet, we're planning on doing a 50-50 instead of all of it as well, even though there's no concern for the financial history in this case. And so... We're just kind of trying to cover ourselves ahead of time in case anything were to go astray that it's not that full loan amount being dispersed all at once.

Thank you for that. So this is, we've discussed it before, we don't have to suspend rules, but there is an action item for consideration.

And the motion is in the packet, but I do think we would maybe have to change maybe approving the term sheet as presented. It's just not the one in the packet. I don't know, Garrett.

Thank you. Yeah, so you'll be approving the term sheet that Aubrey provided you tonight that has those updated details. Okay.

Councilmember Brown, do you want to try to cobble that together or are you going to leave it there? No, I got it.

I move that we approve resolution number 2026-25RDA, approving the term sheet that was presented tonight at the City Council meeting for a business loan agreement between the Redevelopment Agency of Midvale City and Post Exchange LLC DBA The Vale.

Second. And if I can just, the RDA board meeting tonight.

The RDA, do I have to do the whole thing again? Sure, I'll do the whole thing. Fine, Garrett, I will. Okay, gosh, calm down.

Relax.

May I approve resolution number 2026-25 RDA, approving the term sheet that was presented at the RDA board meeting for a business loan agreement between the Redevelopment Agency of Midvale City and Post Exchange LLC, DBA DeVail.

Second.

Technically, I'm the chair and you said mayor. That's not part of the... Maybe somebody else should try. No, just kidding. We have a motion and a second. Rory, for the final time tonight, cross fingers, will you call the roll?

Yes, board member Billings. Yes. Brown.

Yes.

McAulish. Yes. And Glover.

Aye. Okay, that passes unanimously. Thank you Aubrey, we're looking forward to it. One quick piece of commentary and we'll see, we did mention some things that we could go into a closed session to discuss further. City Attorney Wilcox said he is prepared to speak on those issues if you so choose. If you don't want to, we can always re-examine it at a future date.

I would like to hear about it, but I think councilman board member Robinson might want to hear about it. What do you guys think?

Yeah, next one.

Next one?

Let's plan on the next one. OK. I will look for a motion to adjourn then. Motion to adjourn.

Second.

OK, we have a motion and a second. All those in favor of adjournment say aye. Yes.