City Council - workshop

Thank you.

We call the order of the study meeting of the West Valley City Council on August 25th at 4.30 p.m. We're holding this in the multi-purpose room of West Valley City Hall. We have Mayor Lange online. We also have Councilmembers Huon, Nordfeldt, Wood, Whetstone Christensen here. I'm Mayor Pro Tem conducting the meeting today. We're also joined at the table by our city manager, Nicole Canick, our city recorder. I ask her to be with us. Third item on our agenda is the approval of minutes from July 28th. Any discussion or motion to approve?

I did have just one minor correction that I was going to pull up on page 15. Question on page 15.

All right. Second. Thank you. All in favor say aye. Aye. I think we're at number four. We've got Dan Johnson to introduce his new employees.

I'd like to invite the entire back row, except for Jim B. Sock, to come forward. Come on over here, guys. So these are all folks that we've hired to work in our street operations division. And quite a crew we've got. Some of them were temporary employees that were seasonals for us that we hired. But we're glad to have them all. All right. So this is Waylon Bauk and Randy Bennett. Sorry, Jack Garrett, Mike Frankovich, Kelsey Hintze, and Teofilo Ortiz Garcia. And so these folks are going to be operating various pieces of equipment, including snow plows, cleaning sidewalks, maintaining pavements. And you'll see them out on the roads and wave to them. And they know you're all watching, so they're going to be on their best behavior as well. And they will probably be in Marshall Hester, too. That's kind of a specialized piece of equipment that we reserve for our most senior operators, but they're going to get there someday. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay. Deputy Chief Wyckoff, please. Thank you.

I'll have all my guys come in here.

Traffic control.

Yeah, traffic control coming through the door. So we'll have five new officers that we just swore in. We swore in three the other day. We had two. from a few weeks ago. So we're excited. We're going to get them out on the road ready to go. First introduction is Kylie Lapp. She comes to us from Ogden PD. And she's going to be finalized with her FTO process tomorrow. So I'm going to assign her to our graveyard shift tomorrow. Tyler Aldrich here. He's a graduate from UBU. And he'll just start phase one under Jesse. He just graduated from regular post just a few weeks ago. Josh Armstrong comes to us via Salt Lake City PD. He started through their process, and then he stopped that, and he's like, come over here to West Valley. So there we go. And then Tyler Aldrich, he comes to us from Weber post. And so there we go. You guys have any questions for them real quick?

How long have they been here?

She's three weeks, two weeks, like very new. But Kylie's been here for about a month, right? So, yeah. So we're getting going.

Enjoy it.

Okay. Thank you.

All right. Everybody have a chance to review the regular meeting for tonight? We have one item to update. Let's go ahead and add it. Steve. visit with us on that.

Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem. So this is an item we discussed with the council at our last study meeting. So I'll just go for a quick update in terms of what's changed since that last meeting. So again, the property here, 2325 West, 3650 South. It's known as the Lexington Park Apartments. If you recall, there's some property on the west side by 215 that has been just a large open area that they're hoping to amend a development agreement back from 1990 to allow for some townhomes to be built on that. So here's the property in question. And again, it's that western portion by the freeway that's the subject of this proposed development agreement. The main issue the council had was, in their proposal, they were hoping to give an exception to a private street, which the council was not supportive of. Also, there was concern about the to be made to the city. And so just the timing of that. So the proposal was the time that they would make the payment before receiving certificates of occupancy. And so in this latest proposal, that payment would be made before permits are issued. And in this latest proposal, there's no longer a private street. So I'll get into more of the details here in a second. Again, these are just some pictures. These are the same as last time, so I'll just kind of go through these quickly. This is 3650, again, dead ends at 215. This is looking at that open area that's in question. So the project currently on the left, here's 81 apartments on just over 10 acres. The proposal was the apartment stay, there'd be now 29, so that's a reduction by two, so previously 31 units. And that's really a function of the public street being larger and just taking up more space. So again, the proposal here is there'd be 29 townhomes, 3650 south would be extended west to the edge of 215, and Originally, we had written this as in a cul-de-sac or similar road configuration that's approved by Public Works. Since I prepared this, I talked with Public Works, and the cul-de-sac is the option. So basically, the development agreement says it will be a cul-de-sac in that street. Another change is before there was a flat payment amount of $500,000. This has been adjusted to $16,200 per unit. Again, at this stage, there's not a – we don't have engineering finalized for this project, and so there's a possibility it could be fewer than $29,000. So it's just scaling that payment based on the number of units. So under this scenario – 29 units would be about 4, just below 470,000. So, and then the code exceptions here, and you'll see this in the concept, the latter two are ones we talked about before, more just design type features on the units themselves. The first one has to do with landscaping. So normally along a major street like 215, you have a 20-foot strip of landscaping. They'll be able to maintain that everywhere except for where the cul-de-sac is actually kind of bowled out, and you'll see that here on the concept. So this is what the council saw at our last study meeting where they were showing the cul-de-sac here at the end of 3650 and then the private street and the units on either side. Again, council does not support the private street. This next concept was one iteration they were hoping to do, so they're now showing the public street here and then the cul-de-sac at the end. The challenge with this is that our engineering standards have a cap on how long you can have a street that ends at the cul-de-sac, and this was too long. So basically the final approach would be essentially a combination of these two. So if you will, this cul-de-sac, if you took that cul-de-sac and then added that to this concept, that's essentially what we ended up with. So you would have this road now will extend to 215, terminate at a cul-de-sac, and then you would have a cul-de-sac at the end of this road as well. So essentially two cul-de-sacs is the solution. So to recap, in this concept, you'd have 29 units, the two cul-de-sacs, and again, the payment would be tied to the number of units.

Are there any other questions? Counselor, any questions? We've got a couple more. Go ahead.

I'm concerned about the payment that they're making. That seems strange to me. Is that something that we do?

We've done on, I think, one other occasion. I think what's unique here is that, so the development agreement goes back to 1990. You said this was going to be open space. Right. by by allowing opening up that development agreement now essentially granted value to property that right now is the liability honestly because they have to maintain it and mow it in forever So the thought was, well, you're getting some value out of that that the city has no obligation to do. We can just say, hey, this is what you're approved for. This is going to stay this way forever. So they were willing to offer something that then, again, the city could use in proximity. In fact, what the agreement says can be applied towards that. either a fire station, which we're anticipating right across the street, or some park improvements. But that was the rationale. As it sits right now, it's more liability just in terms of maintenance costs.

Like a feed restriction that we're removing so that they get more value for that priority. And we're going to get paid for it.

I'm just wondering why... why they need the reduction in windows.

Yeah, we have done that on other units. You can kind of see this on here. Part of the challenge is that this combination of things, when you look at this particular layout, one of the things that are battling us along 215, there's a number of different easements, like sewer easements that are fairly large. And so what they're trying to do is maximize units in terms of north to south. And so the units end up being narrower, so deeper but narrower. And so there's just less space on the front of the unit to have those assumptions as the challenge.

But certainly there's no requirement to grant an exception there.

question did you uh talk about the 20 foot um of landscaping that's required and are the looks like the existing trees are coming out is that true um i'm not so yeah the 20 feet first is this section here so it'll help all along through here to be that except in this area where the cul-de-sac kind of flares the south end um as far as the exact placement of the trees in my certain if they fall within the 20 feet and looking at the ones that are there i will say some of them look like they're kind of on their way out maybe but uh yeah i'm not certain if they're within the 20 feet or outside of them but certainly we would be looking at new landscaping as part of this if the council approves this

Steve, are they going to be for sale units, or are they... Yes. They are going to be for sale? Yes. And I think they have basements. Is that right?

In this one, I don't believe they committed to basements. I'm just double-checking here. Yes, they will have basements.

Is it well over here? They were going to be off. I just wonder if they would – I'm kind of opposed to basements because it ends up being more people and more cars and, yeah, multifamily. And so I think if I was going to vote, I would want to put in a development agreement, no basements.

So I think there could be multifamily with or without a basement. So, I mean, yeah, that is more room.

It just limits it.

I know. Developers especially.

Mayor has our hand up. Mayor.

So my question is, what is the square footage of the townhomes without a basement?

It's 1,500 square feet.

And three bedrooms or?

Correct. It'd be three bedrooms.

Okay. Thank you.

You're welcome.

Any other discussion items on this matter?

Just a comment. I mean, I was first married. I lived in the apartment just to the door up to the town. That open space wasn't really attractive open space. I think it's good to put something in there. I really wasn't generally opposed to private streets in this instance. I think I was okay with it, but I think I might have been.

But I'm okay with this too.

Thanks, Steve.

Thank you.

All right. We're going to talk about a public hearing for September 8th meeting. Tell us all about it.

Thank you, Council. Mayor Potap, Brock Anderson with Planning and Zoning. This is a request for a subdivision that includes a vacation of a portion of 2320 South. It's a request by Granger Hill Implement District. The property is located at 1002 West, 2320 South. So this highlights the proposed subdivision area. It's just the very east edge of the city there at the end of 2320 South. east of 1070 West. So currently Granger Hunter owns this triangular parcel here, and then this is part of the county park. So the Granger Hunter Brewing District is looking to build a new well house on the site, and as you can see from the aerial, the right-of-way is not developed. The right-of-way continues all the way to the edge where this trail is. As part of the development, they need to improve the right-of-way, which public works is requiring to terminate in a cul-de-sac. And so they, again, would be occupying this log with the well house. There would be some street dedication here for 2320 with the cul-de-sac. And then the remaining portion on the east edge would just be vacant as there's no need for that. And so typically with the vacation... Half would go to each property owner. Granger Hunter is not interested in that portion of the right-of-way, so they would be deeding over their interest to the county who would like that for access to the river and such and the trail. So again, this is just a site plan where the well house would be And then just photos looking to the east there along 2320 and back to the west. So these improvements, the integral curb gutter and sidewalk would be continued along there. And then this is the Granger Hunter site to the north. And then to the south there is the county park. And then again, just farther where this cul-de-sac would be going. So again, this approval is just for the vacation of that remaining right-of-way.

Questions? I think the mayor has her hand up. Mayor.

Yes, so the park thing to this is the county park. Is it one of the county's most turn-worthy city? Or is it another county park?

I believe the city did have interest, but there's some weird things going on. If you see west of this line, there's all these sliver parcels. And I don't know the history there, but just random people own those parcels. And so the county needs to figure that out. And I think if they do, the city might be interested in taking that over. But there's some issues that need to be cleaned up there. It's very bizarre.

So is the county okay with accepting that?

They are. Basically, they would, Ranger Hunter would sign over this intent to deed over that property to them. Because they're going to have to give up some of their property for the cul-de-sac, for that street, for the bulb. And so they would be interested in taking all that over, yes.

Okay, thank you.

Do you expect the cul-de-sac will be developed and filled out in the next year or so?

Yeah, I think they're really anxious to get the well house built, so yeah.

Any other questions? No impact to the trail or will they reconstruct any of that?

No, all that should remain. And yeah, the county wants all of that. They access where that right-of-way is right now. They access that with trucks and things. So they will, at the end of the cul-de-sac, have a drive approach and access to their portion there.

All right, we're down to the resolutions. We'll invite Eric Bunderson to come up for the first one. This has been a hot topic on social media, Eric.

I know. We'll talk about that in a second. Mayor Patem, Mayor, Council, thank you, Eric Munterson, City Attorney. Sitting back there, hoping not to get called up altogether, is Sergeant Pete Valencia, who's the subject matter expert on this towing stuff. So, Pete, I'm going to do my best here. So, I think the biggest thing to remember... through all this is the police department is really trying to make things better for West Valley City. That's where this starts. Every time there's a DUI, an accident, hit and run, an arrest, a car has to be towed. Somebody has to tow that. And that happens about 10 to 15 times a night, about 3,500 to 5,000 times a year. So it's a big job. And for many years, how we handled that is we had what was called a tow rotation. This was several contracts with tow companies that would go on this randomized rotation at IT, and police would get involved in making sure everything was fair. And then those would go through... When a tow was needed, they'd go through dispatch, and the next one on the list would come up and then call. If they didn't show up in four minutes, they'd go like that. And it was a system that worked. It wasn't very efficient, and it was a real hassle and pain for the one officer who was assigned to constantly keep those contracts up and go. So the police department looks around for... a better way to do this. And they look to our larger cities to the north and they find Ogden, Weber County, that they had done a single source contract with one tow person, one tow company. And they brought that to me and I helped them put together a RFP for this. And We posted that RFP on May 19, 2026, and it was open until June 4, 2026. That was posted on the state website, all that normal RFP stuff. Nine companies ended up submitting. We evaluated those companies on four separate areas. Oh, I guess I can do it.

Oh, I screwed it up.

Thanks. So we evaluated those companies on four different qualifications and ended up with a ranking. The biggest section by far was the Section 4, which was in the RFP, which set forth the technical requirements to actually meet our needs. Now, let me back up a little. One of the things that our police department was really looking for was a fast response time. And a fast response time ends up in the faster clearing of vehicles from accidents and the movement of traffic throughout the city. So we think that's a very, very important thing. And again, having a more efficient, a quicker response through a single source tow is going to accomplish that from what we understand from all the other people who have done it. Anyway, back to the rankings. And so we went through these and we ranked them. in this order based, again, mostly on just their sheer qualifications, their ability to do the job. And as you can see, it was pretty tight in the top, but this company named Stouffer's or Staffer's, I can't ever say it right, came out on top, and that was, again, mostly pure technical qualifications, the qualifications of their people, their fees, very small amount, and then references. As you can see, some people didn't include references at all, and we didn't weigh that very much at all. Stouffer's was contacted and agreed to negotiate a contract. We were able to get through that contract. It's a good contract for us. It's a one-year contract with a 90 to 120-day out if we don't like the services. And, again, it's one year renewable if this ends up not working out. And they agreed to that, and we posted it. And that's when what Mayor Pro Tem talked about started happening, kind of this whole Game of Thrones thing where we were getting complaints and all kinds of crazy stuff was happening. One thing that we'll get to, actually, all right, so that is sort of the reason and the selection. Now, we have had a number of complaints come by, and Travis, if you don't mind cutting the screen share off, I'm going to share my screen. Thank you, sir. So the complaints that came in, many of them looked exactly the same, and the first complaint was that this contract was charging an over-the-state rate for light vehicles. It was charging the heavy fee for the light. Now, I can see why this would be confusing because it was our error on the RFP. As you can see on the screen here, we didn't define A, and B, C, and D. So about half of the respondents, if I can show you the state. Can't even see it. These are the state rates for towing. Light tow is 211, medium is 352, heavy is 435. So again, our mistake, we didn't define what A and B and C and D meant. So about half of our respondents responded low to high, and half of them responded high to low. We accepted both because of our error. You can't charge more than the state rate. And so our contracts say you have to follow the law and everything else. So again, This is the heavy, medium, and low, and we accepted it on the bids and didn't reject any bids if they did the low, medium, and heavy. So that's to the first allegation. To the second allegation on sort of the form complaint, it indicated that the prospective tow company was under some kind of criminal investigation by the Motor Vehicle Division. Sergeant Valencia called that division, and there were no pending criminal investigations. And the tow yard that they're proposing is still a state-approved tow yard. I mean, pretty serious allegations to have no backup on there. It's a little frustrating, frankly. The third one is that the pricing is some kind of bribe to the city. And what they mean here is you'll notice on the issue paper there's no fiscal impact. And that's because the awardee said that they would not charge anything for towing West Valley vehicles. Other bidders also did this, not all of them. And so the contract, again, the weighting of the contract was very small in terms of fees. It was about 7% or something. So that doesn't sway the decision and the evaluation either way. There was also the bribery statute and another statute cited. I reviewed those, and as an attorney and former prosecutor, it does not fit in any way the elements of bribery or anything else. There is adequate consideration for this contract. The last and sort of the other mix of complaints has to do with using local companies and a program called Topro. Topro simply is an app that replaces... What dispatch used to do, like, you know, if you had 15 tow companies in TowPro, it would do what dispatch used to do. We believe that the single source towing of just having one one toer, will still be faster and more efficient than using that app and doing, again, the same toer rotation that we have done in the past. You know, there's also allegations that we're choosing an out-of-state big company. The company is a national company. nationally organized company out of Delaware and with a local LLC here, as I understand it. I'm not a corporate lawyer. But at the end of the day, they do have a tow yard in West Valley City. They service other local areas and the The work needs to be done, and they're a big company that can do the work for us. And so that is all I have. What questions does the Council have for me? Stop sharing.

Sir? We've had tow contracts. before us in the past. And it seems to be the one thing that nobody can agree on. They say they've never heard about it. They say we're picking others up for them, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. If we're doing 3,500 tolls, can this company handle that?

Yeah, I mean, yes. That's the whole section four that I was talking about, is they have the capacity, the number of vehicles and equipment on standby to do it.

Because, you know, I got to thinking, and I've had my mind on a few other things this weekend, sorry. Yes. I were a Los Angeles Dodgers fan. and they went into a game with nobody in the bullpen, and that one pitcher was going to do the whole game, I wouldn't have much confidence in it.

I think that's totally fair, and that's one of the concerns. I think the better analogy, frankly, is you are hiring the Los Angeles Dodgers to do this, not just bringing one pitcher out. You are hiring a team that has the capacity to do it.

That's, you know, the rotation before may have been slow because, well, this one can't do it, so we've got to do the next one. We can't do it, we've got to do the next one. Same problem here. All our trucks are tied up right now.

Yeah, I mean, I think that concern is real. I think... The other cities that we talked to, again, similar-sized cities, have not had a problem and have, in fact, seen increased efficiency since they went to a single-source tow.

Sir? Is there anything, let's say that they're booked out and they get 10 calls, or I don't know if that's even possible. At the same time, can they sub? Can they work with others? companies and contract with others to fill in or does that?

That isn't complicated or complicated. That isn't contemplated in the contract. And again, based on their representations and their amount of vehicles, we don't see that as a problem. Sergeant, if something got that bad, would there be a contingency for having another tow company? I suppose the bottom line is, sorry, you don't have to answer. The bottom line is we could call other tow companies. Now, after all this, would they be as willing to engage? I don't know. But there's no rule that if, I guess... The capacity of the tow company was completely down, which we don't think will happen. There's no rule that we couldn't call it an emergency.

So from my understanding, that's part of the reason for us exploring this, right? So when you have one tow company, they're able to stage, they're able to... bringing as many trucks, they recognize that, you know, you have that number of 35 to 5,000 tows a year. They're able to plan for that, and they have to accept it. If they don't, then we move on from our contract, right? It's just a year contract. And part of the experiment is because currently in the rotation, these tow trucks are allowed to uh deny the request so they're able to say you know what i'm gonna pass i'm not saying they do but they're able to do that um if they see maybe a less profitable uh toll they're able to say no and you just keep moving on to the next and so those that are on standby in this rotation are waiting for their turn right and so meanwhile um you know time's ticking uh you know officers waiting on the scene residents or whoever's there with their vehicles are waiting So apparently with this toll app, it'll maybe expedite that process a little bit, but does it take away from the advantage that you get, at least the perceived advantage that we're talking about, that you'll get by having a toll company that, number one, has to take the call, number two, knows that they're here and knows how many calls they have a night and can stage for it and so can be prepared for it. Because if they don't, if we... If they aren't able to respond the way we think they should be responding, they're out. We can get rid of the contract. Whereas right now, with these different tow companies, they they just can accept or they're not and they just start we're just on this rotation and from what i understand and you know certainly people here that can speak better than i could about it but you know in some cases according to some of these cities you're saving 20 to 30 minutes and when you talk about 15 tools a night that certainly adds up and so just the opportunity to to try something that can save us 20 30 minutes with 15 toes a night And this is just from cities, other cities. So, again, similar size cities. It may or may not be the same, but we know what the current status quo is. We know what the response times have been, and I think it's worked for us for many years. We don't know this until we try, right? I think that's the whole reason for moving this way.

I also saw the mayor has one. Mayor, go ahead.

So, Eric, is there any concern that if we have a problem with this contract and have terminated, that the companies that are located in one of our cities will have moved out? Because I don't know if other cities have our same requirement that you have to have, but you're in the city, and if they all move out, we'll probably be ready to go back up and fix this contract ourselves.

I mean, I think there's perhaps a little bit of danger in that, but there's a lot of money, it turns out, in the tow business. And if I could just speak frankly, I think that that makes forgiveness easy when there's a lot of money at stake. So I don't see that as happening, especially with some of the longtime tow companies that we have in the city.

Okay, thank you. I'm sure we've got references from other cities that they've worked in and were all favorable. My other question was similar to Councilman Whitestone's, that if police feel like we're waiting five, six, ten minutes with nobody, can we call somebody else? We'd probably call them again and say, where are you? But it sounds like we could if we had to, if we saw that they were not performing well.

And that's true, and that's not a complaint that we've heard from the references.

Any other comments or questions?

Did we study about the tool companies here in ICD, Barrett, in ICD?

Did we study them? All of the companies that qualified have a tow yard in the city. Now, in fairness, some of them had one to begin with. Some of them got one upon the RFP coming out. We didn't discriminate between those two. So it was open to everyone. But the requirement was that you had to have a place in West Valley.

Yeah, I'm thinking about, I don't know, maybe you can help me out if I'm wrong. I'm thinking about just bring the money back into our city. Maybe it's going to cost us some, maybe times and efforts to do this, but I think ask them to share the cost with us. For example, like We're going to ask the companies here in our city to participate in this program like we have in the past. And some reason you can't be called and then 10 minutes, 5 minutes, and they not pick up or they not do that. And the cost of that for one police officer to pick up the car or to do the business for a year for that kind of job, how much in the car you pay, you know, XYZ money. And these companies in our city have to share the cost because that you have for so-and-so and Smith to take care of that car. You know what I'm saying? Yeah. So the money will go back to the city, to the whole companies, and also pay to the city for police officers if that too much kind of law work for her or for him. So some kind of penalty built into the contract. Yeah, some kind of penalty built. In a nice way, we don't say that, but we're going to say the share of the cost with the city. And so we keep the The companies here in our city have the opportunity to run a business again. If they don't do good for one year, we have rules and regulations that if you cannot handle this amount of vehicles for a month or a night, three times or four times like this, they have to cancel you out. You know what I'm saying? So kind of That's what I'm thinking about. Give them a chance to do that, to participate in this kind of thing. Instead of one company, I know they have a big company that can handle over 3,500 to 5,000 vehicles a year. But that's going to turn into a monopoly. A lot of companies here in our city right now maybe don't have that. vehicle to toll from point A to point B, but this guy got $3,000 to $5,000 per year. So we share that business with the city, but also we ask them to pay back to us, share without the cost, to put it that way, share the cost with our city. The second thing is I don't want to hear or I don't want to see a murky business. If we sign a contract with Stafford, okay, and some vehicles here in our city, they're going to toll 2.A, 2.B. They're not going to draw money. I know that's a very small percentage, but it doesn't look good. You know, kind of people out there say, well, that kind of, to me, kind of murky. Not really murky. something there you guys kind of like sneak in do something visit with this person or person a person b you know i like your plan but i think it's also we we give them a chance to do that and give them a chance to share the cost with our city yeah how often do we need to tow a city vehicle does that happen frequently how often do we have to tow a city vehicle

occasionally our cars do break down and we have to... Three, four times a week? Yeah, maybe a little more.

Okay. Maybe... Okay. Yeah, so if you couldn't hear him, it's occasionally our officers get in accidents, our cars break down, and... I don't have that number maybe more than three or four times.

We do have the number. So we spend probably, what do we say, $20,000 to $30,000 is what we spend on our tolls. So when they say that they're offering that for free, that's what the savings would be. It's not a significant part of the... It's a big contract.

Yeah. It wasn't weighted. very high, but it is on average about $27,000, $28,000 a year that they charge for us to tow our own cars.

Did any of our current providers apply for the RFP? Yes. Quite a few. They were aware I was going to a single. Yeah, they were just upset that they weren't chosen. Okay.

So I have a couple of clarifying questions.

Yes.

I recently got in a wreck and had to have my car towed.

Oh, no.

So where is the yard that they tow the vehicles to?

Do we know? 6100. Yeah, somewhere here.

Okay.

Please keep calling in the trouble.

Okay.

I don't know where that is.

6550 West. Hold on. And then.

The other thing that I saw, so with mine, I had to go where the tow company that towed my vehicle, and it wasn't convenient. It was in the city, but it was on the west side of the city. It took me a while to get there, and then I had to arrange for that to be towed to where I was getting it fixed. It wasn't getting fixed. So that was one question. So that's kind of where the tow yards are is over there.

Yeah, you can talk to the planners about that.

I know. And then another thing that I noticed in a lot of these email complaints was just the response time. Some of the complaints were they thought that having the one tow company was going to increase the time for tow trucks to come.

That hasn't been the experience of everyone who has trucked.

The night I needed it, it came pretty fast. Right. So, and maybe that was because who was available came.

Yeah, a couple more. I think when you control the market, that's going to be a big problem if you control the market. You only want, or we only want a person to take care of XYZ or ABC, and we don't have to compare to XYZ. try to basically compete with us, compete with the ABC company, and then we'll run into the problem in the future about the time, the effort, and the service to the customer. I think it's going to be really good. One company or one person control the market is usually going to be a big problem. The second thing is about... Even like we have only $27,000 a year for doing, for our service. Not that much money. I know it's money, it's money. You know what I'm saying? Money is money. But the savings we have, it doesn't look good. The reason it doesn't look good because some people out there, they losing their business. And they will blame on us. Well, yeah, because you signed a contract, you get $27,000 per year for this company to tow your trucks or your cars or your vehicle whatever for free and that's why you sign a contract with them during a side contract with us they didn't point out about the the volume of massive about cars or trucks they have to do a year but they don't point that in now but they point a finger to us about 27 000 dollars we are basically getting from the total company and that doesn't look good you know i'm saying um we're going to be really clean you know really clean um this you know i said money in money but i think that this one is not very worth it to take this option yeah but just just to add one more thing um i mean

It doesn't matter who we picked in the RFP. They're all capped at the state rate. So it's not like they can gouge just because they got the contract. They're still at state rate. They have to stay under.

Yeah, they can charge less.

I really look at it as, okay, do we want to use the system that's like Uber? where we call somebody and that it could go to any dozen of those Ubers, depending on their system, or do we want a private driver? And that's really where we're at, is we're hiring a private driver to be there at the moment we want them there. And if we don't like it, in 120 days, we can cancel it, and we can move on to the old system, or we can move back to the old system, or we can move on to another company.

Exactly right.

Okay, Adam.

other RFP offered, or I guess agreed to the city towing issue, right? It wasn't just this one company. Is that right? Sorry. Did I say that right?

I might have been spacing out.

The no-tarch towing city vehicle stoppers wasn't the only one that... No, other bidders offered that too. Other scoring that factored into it. It just wasn't that...

Travis, if you could bring the thing back up. Again, the fees was only 10%.

The vast majority of the vast majority was their actual substantive qualifications. Okay. Any other questions or discussion on this?

Thank you. Would you like Deputy Chief to handle the next three?

Well, the council? Okay. So we currently have two officers assigned to Granite School District, and we have them over at Granger High right now. They've been there for about one year, and we were in a year-to-year contract, and what we want to do is go to a five-year contract with them. And we've also looked at changing the day if we want to get out of the contract to 180 days. So that's kind of just the modifications that we're looking on this resolution here. is still keep the school cops there. I've talked to the school resource officers, and they are doing everything from in the classroom, they're monitoring, they're getting intel for our detectives. It's a good information source and also helping out the school districts. So that's what this resolution is for. It's the two things that's going from year to year to a five-year, and then also the 180 days.

Any questions on this one?

I love Granger High, but why is that the only one working?

contract yeah that was something put in place a couple years ago i don't understand the full backstory why hunter i hear that's in talks but at this point i think it's once we get our staffing levels to where they need to be i can you know we have those guys up here i can tell you we have 19 in fto right now so that's quite a few we get those pushed out i think there's going to be more conversations about having that in the school so i could answer you can't

When we talked to them, we committed to two. And our assumption was that they were going to put one in Granger, one in Hunter. They came back to us. It's actually Granite School District that came back to us.

So they're using their own PDM.

Yeah, rather than have two, because I guess you would need two in each district. for backup, and they would rather have two in our department that, you know, they're on the same page and they are collaborating better, and then they'd have one separate rather than have a mix in both. That was the logic that they gave us, but we left it up to them to decide.

I'll follow up with that. Many years ago, if you remember, we did have two in each of the high schools. One was like a case... manager or stuff and then the other one was kind of helping out the school at the same time so that's why we just don't have the resources plus we can put them in there right now so it's negotiation on us right they came to us and we we we're just like we got uh it costs money and so we said we'll commit to two right now and i know we've talked to you guys a little bit about it uh

when we first, you know, negotiating, but it really just comes down to cost, and that's what they chose to do with those two officers.

You know, I was in elementary school most of my career. We have grant meetings providing our resources.

Yeah, and I can speak kind of off this exact topic. A few years ago, I was a homicide lieutenant. At the time, we were having a lot of juvenile shootings, kids with guns. And our intel was coming from SROs from other schools, right, outside of West Valley. So like this person or this kid, whatever it was. So this is a valuable thing to keep. I know it's valuable.

Anything else on this one? All right, 2697.

The Utah Attorney General's Office has a task force called ICAC, which is Internet Crimes Against Children. They do a year-to-year contract. They don't do multiple years. And this year, we've been awarded $15,000. And so that money would be spent by end of June next year. And that's for detectives to work these cases. Specifically, there's specific training that goes into those types of cases for the Internet and the crimes. they do purchase a little software but for the most part it's just the overtime to work those cases so um we're uh you know on this resolution that's we're just looking to renew this uh contract that we've been awarded so compared to previous years it seems like it's 15 17 and somewhere when i a couple years ago um when i was a part of it it was 17 and so it's 15 now so i don't know their metric is on cases or things like that but okay 26 98 all right last one for me here um So a few years ago, House Bill 469 indicated that DNR, the police department, needed to work with local police department and do supplemental patrols. And so what we've done is we call them JREPS, which is Jordan River Extra Patrols. So anything along the parkway. And so in prior years, we've done a year-to-year agreement with them. We do about 10 shifts per month. In the summer, we do a few more because there's a lot more pedestrian bike traffic. And in the winter, there's not as much. But he figures out about 10 shifts per month. But we're looking on this resolution to go from a one-year to a five-year contract on this as well. What's interesting is they've actually reduced the – it was $40,000 last year. It's $35,000 for this upcoming year. And we can only do $35,000 per year for the next five years. So it can't exceed $175,000. But we – I talked to our grant manager, Lieutenant Brightman. He says we never even come – super close to it. We count close, but we're not ever pushing over it, and this is all extra.

So that's what this resolution is for that. Question on that?

I think I read somewhere in there that there's additional training to cover these lands.

What's that training? Usually, it's through the community policing. They talk about where the boundaries are, and then also what to look for. In the past, we've had some nefarious activity on the sides of the trails, and so those telltale signs there. That's really what the training is. It's not specialized like you would think of SWAT or anything like that. It's just more like, here's the boundaries. Here's what we're looking for. This is why we're out here.

Anything else? Thank you. Laura McPeak, Resolution 2699.

Hi, guys. Laura McPeak, Grant Administrator. Today I'm just here to talk to you about a grant that our U City Council has received for $10,000 from the Salt Lake County Health Department. They've been awarded $10,000 to do four things around health. The centralized thing being Health and Wellness Friendsgiving. They're also going to be doing surveys about alcohol and nicotine in the city, as well as presentations to you all and some state leaders that we're in contact with. And then reforming peer courts and schools. This is something that the county actually asked us to do because of the presence that we've had on social media and the news. We're excited to be working with them, but we need to enter an interlocal agreement to receive this grant. Any questions? Sweet. Easy.

All right. 26-100, Ken.

Ken Cushing, Information Technology. The matter before you is the We knew a lawn base, a software by Highland that the city uses. We use it for many, many years. I have presented, I think, a contract change for you once before. It's been a few years. Normally, we don't have to because it's just automatically reduced year to year under the current contract. But in order to save some money, we negotiated a three-year term contract. So we need to bring that before you. Just... Real quick, OnBase has 14 million documents in it. It's used across all departments in the city for various things, not just for the official storage of records in the city, but also to handle different workflows and approvals of different things. Just as a, for instance, say HR used to have a lot of different paper forms. They're now filled out by employees in OnBase and then stored in their employee record digitally. So in IT, we have whenever somebody buys a new computer or a person buys a new computer, the employee has the opportunity to purchase at a depreciated rate uh, their old, uh, computer. The department had asked to release that, um, in case they would have need for that elsewhere. But that, all that workflow process and the recording of that being paid in treasury and everything has all done with OnBase and then ultimately a permanent record stored in OnBase. Um, so there's many different workflows and storage and files that happen along that. Um, so we, um, looked at our current licensing and we used to have some workflows where many different employees would need to jump in at the same time, so we had really high simultaneous use license count. Right now, been able to reduce that quite a bit to where even though OnBase is still used quite a bit, there's not a lot of people using it at the exact same time. And so we're able to go through and look at all of that and determine that we can reduce our license count by quite a bit. So along that and then the three-year agreement, the three-year agreement alone saved us about $55,000. thousand dollars um and with the reduced licensing about 161 000 over three years um and that will allow us to do a lot more innovation to turn around and take that money and invest that invest that into certain ai tools that will allow us to do a lot more advanced things when it comes to storage and documents in one day so um the recommendation from the staff is to approve the renewal of OnBase. Is there any questions?

OnBase is what we use for our agendas, right?

That's true, yeah.

And I quit using OnBase for our agendas because... Well, if you use the web, you're still using it.

Okay.

It's that agenda and all of those related documents, that's still all coming out of OnBase.

Yeah, I just use the web because OnBase, the app, seemed like it didn't work.

Yeah, the web version is much easier to use, and there's no reason not to use it. In fact, that's kind of where everything is going is more web-based, which is one of the reasons why we want to invest in this is some of the more innovative tools. It's all web-based.

Any other questions? All right. Thank you. Steven, you're up. Regulation 26-101. Thank you, sir.

So this next item is another development amendment, our proposal. So just a little history here. So this property at 7147 West, Parkway Boulevard, was rezoned back in 2021. And it was rezoned to the RM zone. At the time, the proposal was for senior condos. These were listed single-level attached senior condos. The proposal here is to amend that agreement to do a different product. And we'll go through the specifics here. So this is the property in question. Again, it's just shy of seven acres. You have the Sugar Plum subdivision to the south and east, then actually back down the west side of 72nd and west. This was the concept that was included with the resale back in 2021. So you can see these were all private streets. The access was going to be off Parkway Boulevard, and then you had basically four or two units per building. Under this concept, the idea was there would be no access on either 7200 West or Antelope Road on the south end. Here's just a color version of the same thing, so it's a little easier to see that. So again, this is what was originally anticipated. How many units? So in this one, there were a total of 43 units. This just shows kind of the floor plan of the units. You can see the size there. These were going to be just over 1,500 square feet was the concept at the time. These are the elevations of the product if these were in the development agreement. So the proposal that Randy Moore would like to do here is to actually pivot to single-family detached homes with a PUD-type setting with public streets. So this new layout to access would actually be off of Antelope Road. You would have a... basically a masonry wall along Parkway to the north and along 7200 West to the west. And again, this looped road would be public and just be your standard residential street. There would be some common area here in the center. It would be maintained by the HOA, but then that's where the big industry itself would be maintained by the city. There's just a color version of that, same concept, just a little easier to read. So here are the proposed elevations. Now, in the proposed development agreement, there would be more variety in this. This is a sample of the types of homes that would be there. And then here's, again, actual renderings that would be in the development agreement. And this one I feel like is the best comparable. You can kind of see side by side. So the original concept was 43 attached in your condos. This would be 40 detached homes. The density you can see is slightly less, 6.4 versus 6 per unit or units per acre. Size-wise, the condos were just over 1,500 square feet. The homes would be 2,400 square feet. The condos had no basements. The proposal here would be that they would have basements, assuming that soil conditions allow them. Condos were one-story. In some cases, they had the option of having like a bonus room above the garage, but the homes would be two-story. As mentioned, the streets of the condos are private. These would be public. And the latest proposal, the condos had private patios. The homes would have the patios in the back, porches in the front, and then they would have their own private yards. The visitor parking was 11 stalls in the condos, and this latest proposal doubles that. And then at the time we did the last development agreement 2021, we weren't We hadn't included rental restrictions in some of the newer developed agreements. We've included rental restrictions that would be administered by the HOA. So those were included in this latest draft. So just, again, to summarize, the idea here would be is to replace the current development agreement with what's proposed. The zoning would stay the same in that it allows what's proposed.

So why? I mean, why switching? And I will put this on public record. I was on planning commission. This came through. Because I thought single family homes was better. Now I'm just wondering why the developer now is shifting.

So I can attempt, Mr. Morris here, if you want to ask him directly that question. I think that this, you have a broader market, right, of when you're selling to single-family detached versus just senior condos, you're limited to just that particular demographic. And then just another consideration, a detached home, because it is larger, so for more than a condo, but those are just two, and if you'd like to ask Mr. Murray, he's here to maybe elaborate on that more. somewhere in the 3,000 to 4,000 square feet. So they are definitely smaller. But, again, density-wise, it actually ends up being less dense than the condos that are proposed.

I mean, there's no meaning. If we have a development for a single family, probably anything residential, I'm going to ask that we not have – entrance to the basement. I'm going to word this now because we've had developers do things that were outside of what we wanted. But basement entrance outside of the footprint of the house, including the garage.

So we have access to the basement is on the interior of the home.

But yeah, if Mr. Moore wants to come up with his presentation or want to share it for a few minutes, we can talk. Can I ask a question before Mr. Moore comes up?

I remember this and I was excited about it because it seemed like we needed senior developments It seemed like the only options for this plot were residential estates or senior, or maybe sustainability zone.

Yeah, so what the code gets into is that if the property In this case, it's on a road that has an 80-foot right-of-way, which in this case is a parkway that has that, or 72. You're eligible for the RM zoning for the age-restricted product. In talking with our legal staff, because it's already zoned RM, we have that development agreement in place. We can still, now that it's already zoned, we can still amend the development agreement and do a different product if the council still chooses. But you're right. At the time, that still was the case. As far as rezoning it goes, that was the thing that allowed it to be rezoned was the age-restricted part.

So we would not have allowed this current proposal.

Okay.

Interesting. Yeah. Wasn't there a restriction on eating?

There is, yeah. So what's proposed in the development agreement, and this is actually already in the code, but the code says that if the lot is less than 6,000 square feet, you can't eat here. So it's not an option in this case. Whether it's attached or detached. It doesn't stop people from doing it all over the city. Right. We would not permit it with a permit. It's a constant enforcement issue.

Any other discussion or questions before we... I'd love to hear Mr. Moore's thoughts.

It's impossible to just pass some of these out. Thank you. Let's see. Four down this side. Two down this side. Perfect. Mayor Lange and Mayor Pro Tem and council members, thank you. Thank you. I'm Randy Moore. Thank you for taking the time to consider this. This was approved five years ago. Since that time, we were really the first development that was approved with the age restriction. There's two other developments that have come within blocks of this, the one east, which is much larger, and the one on 3500 south. I've looked to try to improve this development considerably from what was originally approved in many categories. And I believe that we've done that. But if we go down this, this is the letter that I had originally sent, and I'll just go down each of these points. Number one, it was approved for four unit. townhome buildings, they will now all be single family detached units, which I believe is a big improvement over the attached units. With this change, it's increased our open space in the overall development considerably. I think a lot of that has to do that with the attached units, there's a lot more driveway and just hard surface to get access to them. So that has increased. The way that the design is, maybe you can go to the color version if possible, We have moved to where all of the homes have a private rear yard. That just was not the case in the other development. There was no ability to have any private area with the clustered housing that we have. And so I believe that is an improvement. We intend to fence all of the rear yards and have that adequate private area in the backyards. A huge improvement is to go to a public street. This was approved at the time where private roads were done, and that was what was approved. This will have a public road, a wide road, park strip on both sides, sidewalk on both sides. It will have a streetscape that will be much more usable, a lot more access, and I believe a huge improvement to go to the public road. We really couldn't do the public road and have the clustered type of housing that we had in the other design. The other approved Development agreement, we did not anticipate any basements. We anticipate in this that the homes will have basements. Our soils report so far it looks that they would be adequate, but we just say that if there's an issue, we can't do basements, that could be an issue, but we don't anticipate. So we see the homes having basements. We would not have a basement walkout. In fact, it's restricted. We've agreed to restrict the ADUs. We have a central community park in the center that we believe will be very nice. It'll be visible from all of the development. It'll be centralized in the development. We also have 15 homes that will back on that central park. We see that as having a pavilion, picnic table, a taut lot, a play area, where all of the homes can back on that and be visible for homeowners to see their children and to utilize that. I see that as a big improvement over the other. The perimeter fencing, the other... design that we had, we had access off of Parkway Boulevard. We will be putting a precast wall on Parkway and 7200 West. The other design, we had access to Parkway. We really don't want that with the single family detached homes. That is a busy road to go out on. It's an area for children to escape through and to go out onto that road. So with this design, with being single family detached, We really believe that it should connect to the existing subdivision. It should be part of the existing subdivision. There's homeowners, there's children, there's people that want to come and commute to the existing project. I don't want to see it detached as the other development agreement had. I talked about the rear yard fencing. We will install rear yard fencing on all of the homes and on the sides, so that will be taken care of. We will be landscaping the homes. The front yards will be landscaped. The rears will be landscaped. As I stated, we'll make a change to the connection off of Animal, which is a very accessible road. There's existing homes, and I see this design with the public road being a much better access with the two entrances as opposed to the one and the other design. A couple of other things that are not on this letter that I thought of is the current, as staff said, the current agreement does not have any restrictions on rentals. We've agreed to have a restriction on a percentage of the rentals. We also, in our HOA documents, we also have a restriction on ADU units in the development through our HOA that will be enforced through the HOA. I see this as accessing, connecting right through here into what is a wonderful trail system through the Sugar Plum area into the Hunter Village development that I developed. It's miles, literally miles of trails that it'll connect to. I think it'll be a great addition. One of the other issues is I've been approached by Developers, this piece, the charters will signal up. It's the right size, it's the right location, what it is. I'm a home builder. I would prefer to build homes. I believe the change is going to be a big addition into this. With this change, we are Increasing the size of the homes substantially, as staff showed, from what was originally approved as far as square footage. The current development agreement, I would expect homes probably in the $500,000 price range. With this modification, with the increase in square footage, with the detached, single-family detached, I see that increasing probably more into the $650,000 range. I believe that this development hits a point that really allows renters individuals, families in apartments or smaller homes to be able to move up into this type of development and price range. So I'd be happy to answer any questions that you might have.

Questions from the council?

I hope I answered why we're even looking at the change. I just believe it's a big improvement in virtually every category. If there's something else we can do, I believe we've done it all.

My sister just bought a unit in a $55 community, and it's awesome. I can't wait to turn 55. So I'm a little biased now, but any other comments from the council?

No Rambler plans.

They'd all be two-story.

Yes, yes, yes. I really looked at possibly doing a Rambler plan, and I have a plan that might work. I'll look at that. I'd really like to put some Ramblers in because there are certain buyers that want that. But these plans, this development is very similar to the Kiowa Court with, I believe, some improvements. Their park area is kind of in the corner. It's not even visible. Ours will be centrally located with, you'll see it, and the number of homes surrounding it. The other big change that we're making is they have a very small, if you've been there, a very small little private backyard area. Ours will be the full back fence to the back. So in this development, homeowners will actually have a full backyard.

Thank you. Thank you so much.

Mayor? Mayor.

So Randy, my question is how high is the average on the homes, the building lots?

Well, the homes, the home plans are 45, 50.

Well, just the, just your lots. I'm just wondering with a double driveway, how much more space they have for parking in front of their own house?

What was the question again? I'm sorry.

The width of the lot.

Lot frontage.

Yes. Oh, no, I think maybe I can answer that. I did not go over that. But as far as parking, this has increased substantially. As the staff said, we've doubled the guest parking. But if you take all of the homes, all of the homes have a two-car garage parking. They have a two-car driveway parking. They have 22 guest parking, which is doubled from the previous development agreement. But they also have, with the public street, I think the ability to have other on-street parking, plus there is the ability of on-street parking on envelope. So just for guest parking and individuals that come in. I believe the parking has increased substantially. I hope that answered, Mayor.

Anything else?

I'm just wondering where I'll park my S-350 long belt corridor.

I think they're 20 foot setbacks. Yeah, so there's 20 feet. Now, that may not be enough for that.

No, but that's okay. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

So I did have another question for Steve. Yeah. So I think I recall, so this is not going to be a public hearing, so we're not going to hear from the neighbors or anything. That's right. I think I recall the people that lived on Antelope were really concerned about more traffic coming on. So I'm concerned about traffic and parking along Antelope. So that's a concern that I have there as well.

My brother lives in Sugar Plum, so I'm sure I'm going to hear about it. Yeah, you'll hear about it. Yeah. Okay. Thanks, Steve. You're up next on 26-102. Thank you.

So our next item is just a little refresher before we get into the details. About a couple years ago now, the council established a process to evaluate potential parking restrictions when we had a complaint. So this was the first sort of trial neighborhood, if you will, of the Treadmill subdivision, just adjacent to 215th. We received a complaint in the Erin Hills subdivision, and so I'll get into the specifics here, but just as a refresher on the process that we have, is we get a complaint from a resident. We then go out and actually count the number of parked cars or early morning hours and compare that with the amount of available space for parking on the street. So we basically measure the length of the curb and subtract out curb cuts and road access, that kind of thing, and come up with, okay, this is the amount of space that's available for parking. And if the number of cars that are parked exceeds 60% of that available space, then bring to the council for your consideration of potential restrictions, but ultimately it's up to the council whether you want to impose even if they do exceed the 60%. So the streets in question here are, you can see on the map, is Cattie Hill Lane, which is here that connects to 35th South. and then Aaron Hill Lane here that connects to 5600 West. So this is a public street. It's a typical 54-foot right-of-way residential street. After measuring the available curb space for parking, you could get 44 cars parked on that street if you're right at 60%. We did three different measurements. So we went out on a Friday night at about 1030 and counted 51. So that was over. Did a Tuesday morning. That was under. And then we did a Saturday and that was the highest. And that was quite a bit over. So at this point, we're presenting this to the council and. wanting to know if you would like to proceed with holding a public hearing. So we have not yet advertised this. Now, it is scheduled for our next regular meeting. If the council decides that you do want to move forward with considering restrictions, we would then mail out notices to everyone in Merritt Hills so they're aware that this is being considered. We wanted to discuss it first to see if you'd like to move forward.

I would like to move forward. Okay. This is a nightmare.

So I actually have someone contact me who doesn't live there, but they were all concerned because they jump on the Wendover Fun Bus, which picks up people in that UTA lot, whatever lot that is. Well, they were parking there, and they started getting ticketed. So they're now parking over in this Erin Hills, and she thought the city should find a place for them to park. Yeah. And I'm going, well, I guess the bus company can figure that out for you. So not only that, but, I mean, that's a nightmare going through there. In fact, just a week or so ago, I went to the car wash, and there was a car parked literally on the corner of 35th, right on Caddy Hill Drive. You should turn in. It's crazy. You can't. Yeah, it's ridiculous. So I feel for those people that live there. I've heard from several of them. They're in my district. I've heard from several of them, and I encourage them to file a complaint, which they did. So I would like it to move forward.

Hopefully others will. I would be in favor. Ever since they put the no left turn on the 35th, you've got to go through Cattie Hill and Airline, and it's like, It's a parking lot.

You have to dodge cars, and then the cars come in the opposite direction. It's a nightmare.

So we're trying to fix the problem that the road's not wide enough for cars to be parked on both sides?

Yeah, cars are parked on both sides. You cannot, even though it's a public road, you have to wait for a car to come through. 26 wide.

29 feet of pavement. Yeah, the idea behind the 60% was that, you know, if you have cars staggered, you have the ability to kind of pull over and wait, but there are stretches. So I did the Friday and Saturday night, and there are stretches where there's no place to get over. It's just cars lined up on both sides.

Mayor?

Steve, what was the So this was, so they all do have two car garages. Some of these units, and I can have this for next time.

Some of the units don't have driveways that are deep enough to park in. So this is one that was built or approved before we had the 4.75 stalls per unit. So this doesn't meet our current standard. Okay.

That's evidence that we need that standard. A side note, I went to a city council meeting at Delta Utah last week. to present to them, and they were gloating about how their parking requirement is three and a half per unit. I said, oh, that's nothing. Got to pump those numbers up. I'd be in favor of holding it, Harry. Any others? Donna?

I'd be in favor.

We're getting to five, so we'll go ahead and do four.

We're doing advertisement, and then Again, if the council then votes on the resolution, then we would put up no parking sides on one side of the street.

It seems like it would make most sense to put the no parking on the south and east where there's driveways.

And I did ask Public Works, and I didn't write this offhand. I don't remember which sides they were, but they did have a preference on which sides they would prefer to have the parking not occur. I don't know if Dan remembers. I should have written that down.

So these homes on Caddy Lane, their garages are in back. So they don't have – They don't have driveways in the front. It doesn't matter.

Dan, do you base that on snow removal or –

If I remember right, I think he preferred that there's no parking on the north and west sides. And I think the thought was that at least part of it is if it's happening on the southeast side, it's right to the union side.

So there's a walk across the street. Right. Thank you. We have nine items on our consent agenda. Pretty usual stuff. Any questions or comments on those nine items? Okay. And the council's opinion on adding these to the consent agenda. Or some of them.

So C, D, E, and F. C, D, E, and F to add to the consent agenda?

I think so. That's perfect. B-C-D-E-N-F. If you have any heartburn in the next two weeks, we can always pull one off and separate it. Hey, communications. Number 10, Steve, you're back up here.

I sat down too soon. So as part of our general plan process, we have our consultant that's been busy. We had a number of workshops. We did a citywide survey. We've dealt with lots of stakeholders, city staff, and they've now compiled all that information into what we're calling a vision statement and different goals. What they've come up with is pretty general and that's intentional because this is sort of the basis upon which more detail will come. And so we wanted to make sure before we go further that we're on the right track in terms of the big picture. Because, again, specific like action items will kind of flow out of this. So I've got hard copies, and then it's also included in the packet. But what I'd like to do, this is what we did with both the executive staff and planning commission, is just have you take a minute and read it. And then if you have, I'd love to hear any comments you have about it. I'll take some notes. So if you don't have a hard copy, I have a hard copy here with me. I just thought we'd take five minutes, just read through it, and then we can discuss it.

We have one suggestion. Do you want to wait until we read it?

Sure. Okay. What's the city's indoor event center? So that is the Maverick Center. Oh, yeah. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Do I need to say pencils down at this point? So just quickly, some of the comments we have not poured in from the Planning Commission. A comment was made about we don't really address education, which is not really a direct function of the city. There was a mention about proactive enforcement. And then just two more. One was with the vision statement. Typically those are shorter and stuff. With a company, a vision statement, if you make a widget, it's like we're going to make the best widget in the world. Well, the city does like 50 different things, so it's kind of hard to have a one-sentence vision statement. And then also maybe more emphasis on parks as another content. But with that, those comments. Other feedback you have for us on what our consultant came up with?

There's public safety sprinkled throughout. I would just think it would be good to have a dedicated goal or something to the effect that we maintain a well-resourced fire. I mean, it's two-thirds of our budget. I think it's just a dedicated goal. Yeah.

Other comments or decisions? I agree with Will on the public safety as a goal. Being more direct about it. It is kind of sprinkled in there, but being direct. Not hearing a lot of comments.

It sounds like maybe they did a good job. This is a lot of work. I would just say things that I took away from it is I think it's probably common sense as you look at it that our city center is our city center and we want to see redevelopment and growth happen there. One of our strengths is our diversity and the food that we have here is amazing and So I'm glad they caught that. For research and development and health care and biomedical, that's become a big thing for our city. And so they found that. And then go along with the last paragraph, making it safer to move between neighborhoods, jobs, schools. So safety is a big thing. So I can boil it down into four. I think those are my four. Thank you.

We appreciate the feedback. And so now the devil's in the details, right? It's now coming up with like specific action items that fall under these goals. So we'll be back to talk about more detail. But knowing that we've kind of hit the right main points helps us now get more into the details. So thank you.

Fencing? You want to talk about that again?

Yes. So this was an item that the council requested. So just, again, a little bit of background. So on the regularly attacked council, it would be considered an ordinance change on 4100 South to not be quite as restrictive on fencing on 4100. So we would prohibit chain link fences on 4100. front guards on Fort Winter South, but not require a specific rod-iron type fence. When we were discussing that ordinance, the council mentioned you'd like to discuss the possibility of maybe restricting chain fences in other areas of the city. So as staff, we came up with a few options. These are just food for thought for you to consider. So right now, current code is You can do chain link fences pretty much everywhere, except, again, assuming the ordinance passes tonight, you wouldn't be able to do it in front yards on 4100 South. The first option would be you could build a chain link in front yards along what we call high-majority streets. This map here highlights where those are, so it's easy. Redwood Road, 35th South, 5600 West, 4100 South, all the major arterial streets and freeway type facilities. And then the second option would be that they're prohibited everywhere except for in the end zone, the manufacturing zone. So saying, hey, we're okay if it's in an industrial area to have those, but anywhere else we don't want them. So those are just a couple of thoughts. Again, this was a discussion point the council wanted to have. So I'd love to hear your thoughts on this. Is this something we want to further discuss or not?

This would be for any new fencing, correct? Anything that's currently there? That's right. Okay. Any comments or thoughts?

Well, my question is, when we did that, is that we share the cost with the resident people there, the bond at 41 or so.

so my recollection was where where the fence was taken out we put up the right iron i think the city paid for that yeah so that's in that case where the city did the road project the city paid for that it's a hundred percent of fifty percent or eighty percent it was a hundred percent i like option one i i don't think we should be as restrictive to not allow someone have a chain link

in front of their house if they're not off the street. There's a lot of those around. I don't know how many people do that with new fences. People with new fences are choosing other options.

Some are still choosing chain link in the front yard.

Yeah.

When they have to.

So we've talked about that internally. We would see that as maintenance if you have an existing chain link fence that you're just replacing with chain link. But if you don't currently have chain link, then you wouldn't be able to put up. So if you had a wood fence and wanted to replace it with chain link, you couldn't do that.

Okay, thank you.

Any opinions? Anybody else want to go one way or another?

I think maybe I'll go with Councilwoman Wood, but I think I'll go a little bit slower. Paige, last time, I don't remember, maybe a year ago or so, I mentioned about 31 or so. So it looks like we have 41 or so look good. They all look good. $35,000, most of them are businesses. They are $35,000. So now $31,000, maybe we can do something like $41,000. And then we can go step by step, but just I think that make it three main roles there. $31,000, $35,000, $41,000. Beautiful.

So you're suggesting that the city pays for the update of the fences on future streets, but one street at a time as we have the money?

As we have the money, yeah. But kind of main road for right now. I don't want to sell for right now because I don't want to get too many.

So pay for what kind of fencing? What kind of fence? Like we did on 41.

For that small section.

The question here is,

option one or option two, can we change the ordinance to allow, to not allow chain link on the front yards of the high image arterial streets, or do we not allow chain link at all? Those are the two questions. Future budget issues, we could talk about spending money on You're doing street states, but I think this is right.

And there could be another option. These are just two for consideration. Again, one thing is that you keep it off busy streets, and then the other one is you limit them to industrial areas.

I personally think that too much to ask them to do something because a lot of people are struggling out there. And now we've asked them to remove the chain link and put the new fence in.

No, it's only for new fences. They can keep their chain link fence, but if they don't have a chain link fence and they want to put up a new fence, they cannot use chain link. That's what option one would do for big roads. Option two would do it for all residents. We're not asking people to take out their chain link fences.

Okay.

It's a big change. I mean, as I've been driving around this week looking at our neighborhoods, there's a lot of front yard chain link fences. I don't like it. But that's my choice, I guess, right? But we're looking out for a city that's going to be here for many years, decades, centuries. Would a change today make a difference? I don't know, because most of our houses have chain-linked homes. They're probably going to keep it. Or they might get rid of it. But I don't think a lot of people are going to choose chain link. But I still see it. In my neighborhood, someone put up a chain link fence in their front yard. It's pretty limited, but yeah. It doesn't happen in every city, right? Eagle Mountain?

That's true.

One thing we talked about internally is, you know, whatever you choose, there's still the option. Like if we did, like it was mentioned about, you know, like as we're redoing roads, we could have the option to, to go and offer those that have if we decide on those areas to remove them and pay them a certain amount like we did or we contemplated on these major streets but um you know even as we're putting into new roads to have this in place um or you know you look at lancer and you know some of the nice things that are going on we talked about it with public works in Being able to go and have that as a part of the cost for these roads, to be able to go down and offer them. But having it in a place that we tell them, we're going to offer you this certain amount of money for you to pull it out and go towards whatever you put in there. But when you do, you're no longer going to have the opportunity to put chain linkages in. We can really make a dent in beautification as we even use that as our trigger. But even as a trigger for us as we start to do landscaping on the right.

So given that, would we offer more than one option? Because for the area we're talking about, it was just the wrought iron. What prompted this was he had a vinyl fence and he wanted to continue vinyl. So I would be for that if we could offer other options than just one. I think we should have more than one option.

That's what we're trying to play. We wouldn't restrict.

It would just be training.

But do we want to allow wood? Do we want to, you know? I don't know.

You're done. Yeah.

But what I'm thinking is kind of like, We try to not put too much burden to the residents here in our city. Our city is an old city. I lived in Eagle Mountain before. It's a new city, yeah. We have vast, empty land there, so they don't have channel. They put some wood, you know, piece of wood here that they developed. They put a lot of hay up in the city. So maybe that's easier for them to do that with moving and people will replace that with something else. But yeah, here, Rancher and Hunter and just a few used to be, they are there already. And now they basically incorporated in 1980 together and they carry that kind of thing in the past. They're still here today. I don't know. Maybe we have them out. I think we're okay, but I think it's something like that. For new fans, I think we have them out except for a little bit too much.

Steve, for what we're voting on in just a minute, It seemed to be that the wording said they could do anything but chain link. Is that true? That's right. So they could go get some vinyl hash slats and hook them up with it. There's some restrictions on vision.

There are. fencing restrictions that apply across the board in front yards like height and you have to be able to see through that sort of thing. And we do have some general limitations about like fence materials like it actually has to be intended for. We've had some pretty creative fences. Yeah, that's what I'm worried about. So that kind of stuff is already addressed. But your typical, you know, wood, vial, you know, concrete, masonry, those are all, those would all be allowed.

Thank you. Thank you.

Do you want to push yours up two weeks?

I'm not sure if I can do it in a minute, so that's no problem.

Make sure that we have that room on the agenda next time. I'm excited to hear from Nicole. Council calendar, any questions or comments on agenda items?

Agenda.

All right. Three minutes for council reports.

National nights out are going great. I've been to several. When my daughter drives me, I get around to more than one drive. So I'm busy, but I keep her driving. But we enjoyed the August moon last night at the Cultural Center until the thunder hits and the lightning hits. We had to call it kind of like the bees game. So he had a good program for him next year.

Any other reports?

Ribbon cutting of one of the CRCs, the Whitehall building. That was good. They were there. That was good.

getting reception that night. That is what I heard. I can't believe you. I know. How did I think we should have moved in another day? A little bit of rain.

A little bit of rain at the reception. It worked out. I was at the Bike Utah Summit. They came and had a conference at the cultural center. So I introduced them to the city and introduced their There's the executive director, and they had a good turnout there, and more than half brought their bike to the Postal Center, so that was fun. Very good. Any other discussion items?

Just the veterans committee we met last week, and the veterans dinners, shaping up.

Thanks to everyone for the last two weeks. All in favor?