City Council - Regular Meeting

Thank you for that. Good evening, everyone. Welcome. We are grateful to have all of you here in the chambers, as well as those who are joining at home. Just as a matter of reminder, if you are going to speak during tonight's general citizen comment, we do ask you to fill out a blue card there in the back. You'll hand those to Mr. Fratto. And when we come to that portion of the meeting, we'll be happy to hear from you. We do not take that public comment until at least 6 o'clock or later. And we find a place in our agenda to naturally Close one agenda item, we'll do public comment, and then we w

Our dearest Heavenly Father, we are so grateful that we have been able to gather together this evening. We thank you for the opportunity we have to serve and represent our Sandy citizens. Please help us all to listen and understand the things that are being presented, be able to find the best solutions for our residents and our employees. We are so grateful for this amazing country we live in. We love thee and we say these things in the name of thy son, Jesus Christ. Amen.

Thank you. And we'll all stand, please, and recite the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag 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.

Thank you. Thank you for joining us in the pledge. It's always nice to hear multiple voices. So we would like to begin with introductions. We'll start on this side of the room and with our council staff and make our way around.

Brooke Christensen, District 1. Marcie Hausman, District 4. Allison Stroud, District 2. Brooke D'Souza, at large.

Okay. Thank you. We will keep an eye out for him. So we're going to jump right into our agenda this evening, starting with a special recognition. I'll turn it over to you for that, Wendy, and then we'll resume. We're excited about this.

Alright, it's always nice to start with special recognition and Thank you again Barbara for all of your work and service in our city Alright, we will move on to the first item of infer under our informational items This is the City Council's receiving a presentation on the general management operations study just that I believe you are leading us in this Thank you

Thank you so much for that, Jen and Amy. I will turn to colleagues. What questions do we have? Oh, before we do that, I do want to acknowledge Mr. DeKaiser has joined us online. Welcome. Did you want to introduce yourself quickly?

Thank you, Madam Chair, and I apologize for being late, but my name is Aaron DeKaiser. I represent the city at large.

Thank you. All right, questions? Ms. Sharkey?

Thank you for this report. Yours is a really short presentation in consideration of all the information you've provided us in the report. I really just want to give... a giant pat on the back to public utilities. In both of the management studies that we have received so far, I'm very gratified to have gotten the sense that I've gotten from these two is that we are doing very, very, very well. And that is especially important to recognize public utilities for that because they're an enterprise fund. There is high expectation that they will balance their own budgets and make the revenues and th

So just a quick question about asset management. Is that like the materials nuts and bolts type thing? Is that what you're talking about? And does that include fleet?

Any other questions? I will jump to mine. I echo what's been shared. I think the value of these management studies is, well, first, acknowledging the extraordinary effort that happened. So thank you to our consultants, but also thank you to all of those involved in the entire process. These strengths and opportunities would not come to life without participation and engagement. So I really appreciate that. And then just echoing what we've said previously, there's so much value in the management studies. I'm grateful that as the city council we continue to invest in these. I think the presentat

Thank you. Another question, thinking about the workload data, and I saw, of course, that you emphasized that in several different ways, ensuring that we were thinking differently and perhaps more strategically about data. What would you say is a realistic timeline where we could achieve a full year of clean systems, standard operating procedures that translate into really clean workload data.

Excellent. Thank you. And then I know it was mentioned in our meeting that there are still some additional hours, perhaps, to be filled. I know we'll be talking about that in the future. But a wondering I have, and this might be for department heads as well, but a wondering I'm having, I felt that there was a lot of actionable next steps when we did the fire station or the fire department, I should say, management study, we were sort of gifted with this hierarchy of needs, so to speak. And of all of the recommendations that were provided, they were sort of bucketed into act on this now, act on

Excellent. That's exactly the words I was hoping to hear, is an implementation plan or roadmap with roles and responsibilities and timelines. So you have the answer to my question. I appreciate that. All right. I think that, let me just check my notes. Yeah. I think that's everything I had. We'll just quick glance. Are we good? Oh, Ms. Sharkey has another question.

One more thing I just wanted to mention because I found it interesting. Thank you for including it, Jen and Amy. Is this information in the back that's almost like a little bit of an executive summary for us about the cost of running the utilities department in Sandy versus other cities? And once again, it's high level, doesn't have a lot of detail, but it gives us a level of satisfaction that we're also doing a lot for a little. We're operating very lean. We're operating very well. And thank God we're not Salt Lake City. Thank you.

Thank you. I think that is everything. So thank you both so much for joining. Tremendous amount of work went into this. And we look forward to continuing to think through next steps with you as we sort of feel out the remaining hours of the consultation and the project. And again, thank you for your time tonight. Thank you for joining us. We appreciate everything.

Thank you. Thank you, Justin, as well. Okay, so with that, we'll say goodbye to both of you. Thank you, Jen. Thank you, Amy. And we're going to move on to our next item, which, again, informational item. Do you want it before we...

Start another. Would you like to take public comment?

Yes, I would. I'm hearing it in stereo. That was perfect. Thank you for stopping me, because this is the right time to stop and take public comment. So we'll pause in our agenda and begin our general citizen comments. So this portion of our meeting is reserved for the public to come and share things with us. It's not a back and forth. It's just our opportunity to listen to residents and hear your thoughts on city matters. So we have Henry Butters, if you'll come up and join us. And as a reminder to everyone, public comment is limited to three minutes.

Thank you. I do not see any more blue cards, and no one waving me down in chambers here. So we'll move to online. Mr. Fratto, if you'll give those instructions.

Thank you. All right. I don't see any more. You said you had one to read in.

All right. Thank you Mr. Frato. So with that I'll go ahead and close public comment and move us to our next item on our agenda. Brian I believe you are presenting this our fraud risk assessment.

I'm not seeing any. I have just one, clarifying. The one point away. Based on what I kind of looked at, that might be something we could adjust with an audit committee. If the city council were to establish an audit committee, which I believe is done in other cities, would that, I know it's one point.

It was just a question. I would love your recommendation at some point because I felt like that was something that the council could do to help with the score if we wanted to get that point and it was important enough to us to be in the very low. I also would appreciate a cost-benefit analysis and you come back and let us know. I would be supportive of an audit committee but not at the expense of taxing You and staff in a way that doesn't make sense, but I'm always a fan of Outside eyes other people taking a look. That's why I that's why I appreciate our management studies so much So having a

Okay, good. Well, that was, I mean, I don't want to be picky over a point, but, like, if we can help, but it sounds like we have a solution potentially for next year. Yeah, I think we do. I think that's everything. All right. Thank you. OK, moving on, we will move to our Hagen Road ReZone conversation. Again, this is an informational item. No vote will be taken tonight. Jake, you've got this, I believe.

Thank you. Questions from council? Ms. Nickel.

Thank you. I think this has to do with one of the comments that I read in here. It's about any animal having enough space. We have a code. We have something in code that states how much a farm animal needs, like a horse and a cow.

I read the code today, and there was something that stated that they needed to have a certain amount.

I was going to say I'd like that provision to go into land development code. All right, awesome. Thank you.

Other questions? Okay, I will. Okay, so just... clarifying in the in the minutes there the 1988 Christianson annexation it's it's showing that it was adopted as by the council as our our 120 right correct okay And then what we are considering is not necessarily how many sheep. It's kind of in line with what you were asking, the maximum number of animals by type on a half acre lot. And you're saying that's, tell me.

And then you hit several of the things that I listed here except what I did not hear is whether or not boarding, so if the A designation was given, whether or not boarding or renting space for other people's animals would be permitted.

That show's no longer on the air. I don't think. Is it still? Phone a friend?

Okay, that was a question I had And then this is not a hard and fast question but a curiosity and as much for my colleagues as the two of you Is is there or was there considered some type of like temporary conditional use permit that allows the lambs to be raised but this is not necessarily like an ongoing designation.

So they're like, for example, like I have to read my notes cause I thought this through, but I want to get it right. Um, so draft a tiered farm animal designation, um, rather than gross lot size. Just trying to think of instead of a yes or a no. And if you just tell me, Marcy, it's a yes or a no.

And it's partially because what is being requested is very specific. It's just what's being requested is add Add agriculture designation to our current zoning correct. That's what's being requested. So it's a yes or no on that request Okay. Oh Sorry, I heard oh, whoa. I think I triggered something So who was first just on the on the code.

I I was reading today and two one eleven three Is Talks about

Yeah but it also, I printed it so small. Please forgive me. Number three is where it talks about having enough space.

I am in 2, 2111-3. 2111-3. Is that the wrong section? No.

What requires a 10,000 square foot? OK, gotcha.

Just a question. Obviously, this is just a straight-up rezone request, right? But there was a little bit of a mystery associated with this, and I kind of wanted to ask you about that, Jake, because it seems like you were the one that maybe looked into this a little bit, and that was that you do look at it and you wonder why all the other lots on this street of about the same size have the A designation, but these four don't. And so you wonder how did that condition come to exist, right? And so from what I saw and read, what you found in the record was that the Planning Commission at one time,

The Planning Commission made a recommendation to the City Council for R-128. consistent with all the other properties on the block right that may not have been listed as the rationale but it would have been consistent all we know since this was so long ago is that the city council chose the resolution that was passed shows r120 so we don't know you you made some kind of effort to figure out Did the City Council take the Planning Commission recommendation and decide against it? Or was there a mistake made by chance in the resolution that it just didn't include an A? Did you try to research as w

Okay. That's different than I thought. I'm glad I asked the question.

Ms. Christensen. Thank you for all this information. And we've had a lot of emails about this. Just my thoughts on this. Brooke and I are wildly different on this. I actually think that this is a value add to the neighborhood. I think any neighborhood with animal rights encourages families and more people to come in. actually love this, because I would hate to have someone tell me what I can and cannot do, which I know we do all the time, to my property, especially when an animal situation is so beneficial to our quality of life. So just another opposite side of the coin.

CHRISTIE WOODARD- I was wondering, is the applicant here? CHRISTIE WOODARD- OK, yeah, just wondering, OK, yeah, if we could hear that perspective. Perfect.

Okay, I think we've heard all our questions. We'd like to hear from the applicant, please.

I don't think we have any questions. Thank you. Okay, so that brings us to our next item on the agenda. Number five, I believe, is Melissa. You will be presenting amendments to land development code.

Before you move on, if you could go back to that. Ms. Christensen had a question. Oh, we have more. We have several. Just a second.

I just want to like... When I'm reading through this, and I've got a note about this, I just want to make sure I'm understanding correctly. We're recommending that they're allowed to have one detached ADU, which we have to do, but they're also allowed to have a short-term rental inside their home. Oh, okay. That's what I meant.

OK, because I just, when I read it, Thank you for clarifying that. I just don't see that called out in here anywhere.

But Brooke's not talking about this slide.

You can have one of each where they are. And what you do with them is the only difference, right? Yeah. So this isn't about short-term rentals. You can have one of each, but not more than one.

You're saying you can't. She's saying either or. You cannot have both.

You can have an ELA or an ADU or both. Extended living area. Yeah. That can be detached or inside. Right.

subject walls yeah so well and a short-term rental is considered we're not talking about short-term rentals oh you are no I'm specifically because in here it says short-term rentals are prohibited in the detached unit but they are allowed within the primary structure right but but so to me that says that you can have an ADU and yeah

So just like if that's true, we can only have either or in one property. I might suggest like clarificating. Yeah.

Short-term rentals are already regulated to the amount. So I don't know if we want to liken this with short-term rentals rather than... Well, just because it calls it out. You can have a rental for over 30 days, and that's not a short-term rental.

the amendments in one of our documents. It calls it out in the analysis. So that's why I'm just saying.

Well, that's my question to you guys. Is that what you're saying? And that you cannot.

Yes, because the way I read this, I would read this and say I can help out. Oh, right. Yeah.

So my question, I can have both, but only rent one. Go back. Is that Mike? I can have both, but I can only rent one?

And an internal, but only rent one of them. That is correct.

So we don't? No, well, it's complaint-based. And how do we prove that? What does the state allow us to do for proving that?

So if someone has a large enough property that they can have two structures on it, like a garage and an ADU, and they decide they don't want to rent out their ADU anymore, can they build another one?

They can only build one self-contained. One garage or one shed. Like, remind me how this goes. And one ADU.

So someone could, if they didn't have a shed, build two accessory dwelling units and only rent out one?

I know I'm skipping a little bit, but is this something that would go through the administrative court judge? Oh, you mean if it was an enforcement case? Yeah. I mean, are we going to put in penalties into this? Should we be adding penalties into this? So if you start renting out an approved ADU that you're fined X amount of dollars per day or whatever we choose, should we be adding this to that?

Yeah, I just am not willing to personally not put an ordinance in place for this without the penalties for breaking it. I think that's very important for someone. In terms of the illegal. And like enforcement and so that.

We won't have any penalties laid out. So we have to add it to our fee schedule.

Okay. Thank you. Ms. Sharkey? Hey, James. Don't go. Well.

You know what's confusing? You know what? Okay. So we all understand STRs and why and how that happened. We all understand ADUs and why and how that happened. Now we were told we were going to have to comply with detached ADUs. We get it, right? STR, ADU, DADU. You know what's the most confusing part? ELAs. So why did we decide? that we had to define limit control living areas that were not rented but just part of the intended use of the homeowner, why did we need to fold that in here? It seems like that is the complicating and confusing factor.

I still don't see calling that out anymore. If you're saying it's been there forever and it's part of our code and we're just trying to clarify. Because an ELA could or could not be an ADU depending on how it was designed, right? If it's completely freestanding, habitable, you could use it as an ADU or you could use it as an ELA It's both a matter of how it is configured and designed and who's going to occupy it. Are they paying rent or are they not paying rent?

You know, that's a good clarification. That's part of it. We care about them more if they're detached than if they're attached, ELAs. OK.

I'm sorry, I know I missed part of this from last year. How does the city collect revenue to offset the cost of administering this? I'm assuming they're not going to be commercial properties now if you have an ADU, so we're not getting 100% of your tax revenue. You're still only getting the residential discount, right?

Is there a standard, like, increase the county's going to apply to?

So they're going to, everyone who applies for an ADU, in theory, the county's going to increase the value of their homes on their property taxes?

No, I'm just asking if this has been something that's come in with this discussion. Has the state given the county a path forward on that?

So when someone decides to build an ADU on their property, an attached ADU, I'm assuming then the county, because we have business licenses, will increase the value of their homes so they'll pay more property taxes.

Ours is just the land use part right now And how much are we charging for a business license?

It's also additional people in the city and roads and water. There's a lot of things. That answered my question. Thank you.

I'm going to hold mine because you said you'd like to finish the presentation. Oh, oh, Mr. DeKaiser, I see you. No, you changed your mind? You're going to wait till the end of the presentation, too?

I just wanted to see the presentation continue. Thank you.

I think that is enough. Thank you, Melissa. OK. So additional? Ms. Christensen.

Let's hope these make sense now that I've scrawled them everywhere. OK. Rear yard percentage, in our code we say it can only be 25%. We're keeping that. Just confirming.

I thought it was the smaller of the two. It is the smaller of the two. So the maximum it would be is 25% of your yard.

Totally. Okay. Yeah. Conversion. I'm hearing that's required of us.

I would prefer our path to be that they move their existing structure or cut that part off. Because I don't think... Like, it doesn't make any sense in my head to say that you can have the same spot. You can keep your shed against the fence line, but you can't use the 10 feet of it. Like, I just don't think that's realistic.

That's fine, but then they're not converting it.

It's OK. Yeah. I don't want to, like if it's that close, I don't want them to be able to put an ADU that close to the wall. No, they could keep it there. They would just say this 10 feet is storage. And the rest of the building is for you to live in. It just doesn't seem realistic to me. So you know my thoughts. It doesn't mean much. I don't like balconies or decks at all. I don't think that if we're allowing people to build detached ADUs in their yards and I'm living next to them, it's the animal situation from being a nuisance. I don't want someone 15 feet up or whatever the rule is looking

So you're making your own house a flat lot, basically. You're making your own house a flat lot. Now your home is like, we have a couple in historic area, and they're awful. And I don't think they promote your neighborhood at all. And so I don't like that requirement. I don't want them to be able to be in front of the homes.

Totally understand. Don't like it. Sure. The lot coverage, you said something on a slide. Don't ask me which one. That a shed plus an ADU would equal your total amount of like the 750 square feet you could build. So if your shed was like 200 square feet, you could only have a 550 square foot ADU? Total, right? Okay, I just want to make sure I understand that. On a smaller lot. Yeah.

That's a quarter acre, right? Yeah, roughly. As for the planning, I'm just giving you my rundown here. As for the planning commission recommendations, I don't like number one or two. I don't like number three because I think that's just a detached ADU. I don't know. Yeah, like the breezeway just makes it a detached ADU, in my opinion, so I don't like that. Number four, I don't have any problems with. Number five, I don't like. Number eight, I don't like. Number nine, I don't like. And number seven, did you mean that you wanted to, like I know it's future, but like with an animal rights, like i

That's to drop it to 10,000, right? I want to keep it at 11. Okay. And number six?

Yeah, it's just one person. I know. They're going to get seven at this information, I'm assuming. And nine was a no as well. Okay. Thank you. Thanks. Just taking notes. Thank you.

OK, so I'd love to share just thoughts. I have a couple of questions, most of my questions you've already addressed. So I'm going to skip over those. Let me make sure I start with, I'm not going to even ask that one. I don't think it's a good use of our time. I can do that one separately. Let me make sure I'm not, yeah, I'm going to hold off. That one can wait too. So I'm just going to share high level, because I know what you're hoping or seeking is just where are we in response to what you've presented, and what might you need to hear from us, and then what might you do with what you hear, w

Yeah, that's true. Correct. OK. So for me, flexibility for homeowners within what we feel is appropriate is the lens through which I am seeing all of the recommendations from the Planning Commission. And then thinking also about construction costs. As we are looking to give homeowners flexibility within the parameters we design, are we also considering how we make these additional structures possible at the lowest cost possible? So I saw some recommendations that I felt like aligned to both of those that I think are the priorities for me. So I like number three. I'm just calling it the breezew

Yeah, that's what I'm clarifying. So again, if one of my criteria, if one of the things I'm looking for is flexibility and helping homeowners see potential in staying in Sandy, in their children potentially living in Sandy, all of the things that we've been discussing for several years now. So that's one of the reasons I like that. And I think that one also is a lower cost. It helps them accomplish the goal as a lower cost, as long as it's done within our parameters. So I like, OK. I like number five. I like the 10,000 threshold. I think that, based on what I calculated, that increases eligibi

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to echo a lot of those comments. I really like where Chair Haussmann is going. It seems to me reminiscent of outcomes-based philosophies that she's talked about before. And so I think we need to think about this in terms of what is the outcome that we want as a city, what is most likely to happen, and where are we going to allow that? So with that in mind, there's just two comments I wanted to make in addition. I would love to see an exception on lot sizes for parcels within a station area. I think that outside of that, you're going to have these set up by t

Thank you. A couple questions. Okay. I know what a conditional use permit is. What is a special use permit? What does that entail?

It is clear and objective. The state says we cannot require conditional use, but we are getting special use permits.

Can variances be given on an ADU or the other thing?

And we're removing guest house and the definition of guest house. That's correct.

I got a lot of comments. I'll put some others. Those were just some things I wanted to get out of way, so I had other questions. But go to somebody else for a minute.

Let me go to Ms. Stroud. Okay, Ms. Stroud.

Thank you. I am on the very opposite end of the spectrum of a lot of comments here. I really think this has the potential to dramatically change our neighborhoods. I would much prefer to say, let's take the state minimums and let's fill it out. Let's see where we're at. To start adjusting that, to build a brand new external ADU, a cottage, whatever it is, $200,000 to $400,000 to do that here in Sandy, Utah. There is no zero part of me that says somebody is going to say, this is going to make this home affordable for me. I'm going to build a 400. I'm going to buy this home, and I'm going to bui

I think I've pinned down what my problem is. I think it is the ELA. And I think they're different enough that they both need a section in code because – So in ELA, you can add additional square footage, whereas an ADU in an existing structure has to be within the original structure. It has to be contained within, right? On the ADU? Or in an internal? Because didn't it say in an existing space?

Oh, okay. Yeah. Okay. And so ELA is, it can be a pool house with a wet bar.

It would be a pool house or a gym, right? Could have a shower. Yes. That would be considered an ELA. I think

But an ELA that's a gym. You're going to have somebody go in there three times a week, impact low, relatively low. You have an ELA that's a two-bedroom, two-bath, that's a higher intensity, and it's the same, listed as the same in our code. So it's the use that is critical for me and the amount of intensity of that use that is going to increase to the neighborhood. It's not necessarily a club, a pool house, something like that. So the intensity, very low. So that's the way I look at it in my mind is how big is this impact going to be on the neighbors. So I just wanted to get that out there kin

So I guess with a broad brush here, because there's a lot of detail in here, right? I am going to side with Councilmember Stroud on what I see as the wisdom of taking the conservative approach in terms of implementation and learning lessons along the way. So I'd rather dial back to what the state has mandated. And again, like I said, learn those lessons. I doubt that floodgates of construction are going to open up overnight, but I think we do have a lot to learn. And I'd like to take... this education that we're about to embark on and make some good decisions for our community and maybe even h

But that came from state code. Correct. So as to Mr. DeKeyser's, statement that we ought to match it to bedrooms, we have to match it to state code on this, correct?

So that's the way I'd like our code to read.

But I don't want to do the reduction on proximity to a transit station. Just a question for staff. When we first looked at this back in April, when you came to us with some concepts and just random bias, we were talking about the maximum building... coverage, was it coverage or size? Or size, yeah. Was it size or was it? It's coverage. Of 50 to 75. Now we didn't, I even watched the meeting all over again, 50 to 75%. We didn't really directly answer the question, but it's coming back to us now at 75.

So once again, it's the either-or equation that you have.

Okay I'm good with that then. Thank you for that. I think I had it a little bit twisted.

But you could have a secondary structure that is 75% of the primary dwelling building coverage and that is also 75% of the square footage of the primary dwelling. Could it wind up that way? So let's say you had a, your primary home is 4,000 square feet. Could you have a detached ADU that was 3,000 square feet under this rule?

2,000 square feet is the footprint, not the total square footage.

And if you had a second story on top of that you could. And met all the setbacks. To 6,000 square feet. And the height.

And I want to stick with that. I think I saw something from the planning commission that on a large lot you could.

Yeah. I. I would want to keep it. It's either accessory and it's subservient or it's not, right? And so...

Yeah. Well, it's good to understand that because that's not the maximum size of the structure. That's right. It's just the maximum size of the footprint of the structure, which could also have a basement and a second story.

And to that issue, the subject of decks and balconies, I don't know why we would restrict the DADU from something that the main, provided that the setbacks are met, right? Restrict the DADU from something that would be granted to the main building.

So the breezeway issue, disconnecting the ADU or extended living area by a breezeway. Does that make it attached instead of detached? So that could be a problem. That could be a problem.

It could be the workaround for wanting to give yourself more accessory dwellings, units in the backyard, right? Yeah. So that could be a problem.

But if you're in a larger lot or an A designation, then it gives you, I think what we want to do is prevent filling up the yard with structures, right? It would be really limited on the smaller lots, but on the larger lots, it might be. It might be a workaround just to get more buildings.

Is it also to give the main home more continuity so it looked like all one structure?

So I think the breezeway needs to go away I don't think we need to have it any type of breezeway requirement Nowadays we have so many other options To for them to build and I think they can build an addition or whatever. It's The concept of a breezeway is kind of dated right now as we look at this in particular So I have a question the parking on an interior area and exterior is the same? I think it needs to be. That's just what I'm thinking.

I'm doing the Brook thing and being targeted with my likes and dislikes. I think it needs to be the same, the parking on an internal and external. You're creating the same amount, right?

OK. I think that we limit any parcel to one ADU and one ELA period, no more than one. I don't know. I think that this is kind of on the extreme, and I would like to talk about letting ADUs within the existing structure everywhere in the city. So you're not in – there's – within the footprint, right, where I think that reaches a whole bunch –

No, it's not. OK. OK, never. OK. Yeah, they're all there. Well, I think I want to go down to R18. Maybe not quickly, but I think we're missing the mark when we put it only at 11,000 square feet. It's not helping the people that this kind of was targeted around from the legislature. I know I'm kind of off on that, but I'm not. I would like to explore that one day, but I think 10,000 is reasonable. So that's all for right now. OK. Good.

That's how close the two-story building will be.

Really quick. I loved your suggestion about limiting square footage. I think that actually solves At least most of my concerns. I don't know if other people, it kind of feels like other people in the council are feeling that way as well. The average size of an apartment is between 600 and 1,200 square feet. So why would we allow an ADU that's like 4,000 square feet? That's way bigger than my house. So I think that if we want to, if we could consider that, that would be really helpful. Mm-hmm. and solve a lot of the issues.

I like that. Does that include above grade and below grade, like basement? Okay, that would include total square footage. Total square footage. Finished square footage, I guess.

Okay, I've honed in on the rest of my comments. Is that okay, Marcy? Okay. I'm looking at the red line right now.

And section... D to transfer deed or fee title owner. I don't know if those are the correct terms. Would it be trust deed and lease? I don't think it's fee title. Is it pre-de Sousa? It says the ownership type is free title owner. Yeah, wouldn't it be fee simple? And then are those the – I'm just – those are two legal questions. I don't know if you guys know that.

I looked it up in the dictionary. It wasn't there. Okay. No worries. And on the next section – B, there's no date in the utility statement, like the others all have dates. Would you put dated within the calendar year on that one?

And the utility hookups, so you can't have You're saying you can't have secondary or the subordinate unit can't have its own electricity, right?

You couldn't sell the unit if it wasn't separately metered. So I don't think the section about selling in here, you won't be able to sell it, shall not be sold separately or subdivided is really necessary.

And I think I already said this, but I just want 15 feet tall period, no two straight structures. like this on any property. Okay, very good.

About it last time, we talked about one or one and a half, but not two when we talked about it back in April. Where we came to this was if it was allowed as an attached,

Not on a detached. Let me specify. Not over 15 on a detached.

Thank you both very much for being so thorough with all those, answering all those questions. Okay, do we need a break or? I need a solid yes, yes, yes. Yeah, let's take a break. We'll be back in. Okay, it has to be 10, though. Oh, yeah. Don't stretch 10.

We are moving on. Oh, no we're not, because we're not recording yet. All right. We are continuing. Thank you, everyone, as we took our break. I see movement over here. So as we move on to our consent calendar. Go ahead.

Second. All right. We have a motion and a second. And we can just do a voice vote on this. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? And just checking if Mr. DeKaiser is back with us. Not. Not yet? OK, but that passed. Oh, yes, Ms. Edwards.

We'll call Ms. Stroud. Thank you for clarifying. OK, so we're going to move on to our next item. Mr. Mecham, I believe, is presenting our argument in favor of the general obligation bond.

MS. Ms. Christensen? MS. So if two, four arguments are being submitted,

We have to adopt one tonight, but Wendy Downs would compare the one that's being submitted to the one that we adopt and then decide.

And then she would solely decide? Correct.

Can they only take two, or can they combine them? Well, now they can only...

Okay. I think we're... Oh, no. Go ahead, Ms. Sharkey.

So... Well, so... Just the law states that we have to, that the city has to come up with an argument for, correct? The law states that. So despite the fact that we've received one from a resident, we still have to produce one. What if we can't agree? What if tonight on this argument we cannot agree and we cannot pass a resolution that adopting an argument in favor? Is there any world in which that could happen?

Well, so, you know, the chair just made the comment we have to adopt. Do we have to? What if we're unable to? Is that okay?

So the resolution, the vote on a resolution is not necessary?

Are you a comedian all of a sudden, Tracy?

Was bond council, did they advise you on who chose the ones, like Wendy? Because I didn't see that in anything that the bond council said.

Can we get that verified through the bond council?

I'm not asking that. I'm asking if Wendy, if there's more than one, who does the choosing? If you could, Dustin, would you verify that with?

Questions? I don't have a question. I think it's pretty straightforward. But I do have some thoughts to share with my colleagues. So I think we're good.

Yeah. OK. So earlier we did receive some recommendations from staff as well. which I think is part of tonight's conversation. So I'm going to just kind of kick off the conversation about what's been shared, because there was a lot in what staff drafted that I really, really like. So I'm going to kick off those conversations. I did share some little, you know, the teacher in me shared a few things. So there were a few typo things that I've already shared. But I want to just say that I support the adjustments that Dustin and Justin have recommended. And I think it's important that I share a litt

I agree or no I Yeah. Okay. Just so everyone knows what we're talking about. I agree with Ms. Hausman. Like, I think that I prefer the second option for many of the same reasons. I don't want to vilify our partners in any way. And I don't want it to.

Red line sounds like because then we're seeing contrast.

But, yeah. I didn't realize I had signaled yes. I had not signaled yes, so thank you.

But, yeah, I agree with those things. And also, I don't want the for argument to be locking us into an option in the future that we may not be doing. And so... We don't know if we'll keep the whole thing or if we'll have to sell parts. But we don't know what the future holds. And so I don't want to lock us into something and then for voters to come back and be like, oh, you didn't say that. So do you want to ?

Other thoughts? Questions about the? Oh, let me wait and get the council to weigh in on this. Ms. Sharkey.

I really appreciate those comments and I agree with them and it sounds like as council members reviewed the packet there was some level of discomfort about the tones and suggestions and I totally and wholeheartedly agree with Even though this is an argument in favor, so it is biased, let's just make it very, very, very factual. Let's just stick to the facts. Let's have no insinuations, no fear mongering, nothing like that, if we can strip away stuff like that. I do really like these changes. I have even a couple more to suggest to run by you guys and see how you feel about it. I really like th

Can we go maybe like paragraph by paragraph and just sort of, are we good? Okay. How's that sound? Okay. Sounds great. So, and we're talking about the red line version reflecting the changes. Yeah. So paragraph, paragraph, the first one starts with a yes vote. Are we good with that?

I would like to strike the opportunity is gone and then a no vote. I would like to strike all that language. Wait, where are you? Paragraph. We're on the first one.

A yes vote on the Crescent View bond ensures Sandy City directly controls the future of this property. If the city does not purchase it, then it will be sold to a?

And that buyer will decide how the land is utilized. So thumbs up, are we good with that? OK. I like that. I'll just read for everybody. Is that OK? That is the choice before a voter stays. So looking at the next one. A yes vote gives Sandy the ability to secure this property before the opportunity is gone. A no vote means the city misses out and the fields, gyms, and open space our community has used for decades will have their futures directed by outside interests.

I would like to strike that a no vote means that entire language. I think there's too much emotion and could be or have their futures directed by outside interests. I think that's a little, because we still have a say in what goes on. No matter what goes on, it's going to come to the council. So I don't necessarily see that being outside interests.

I still think we need to put in the no portion of it, though, just because, like, it's a yes or a no. Okay.

The truth is that the city will miss out on the fields.

But it will also miss out on everything else that the residency has been told about what could possibly go there. And we didn't want to put too much in there about what could go there because we don't know what's going there. So if we can take out the fields and gyms, a no vote means the city misses out on the opportunity.

Is the their futures part the part that is troubling you, like clarity around?

Well, their futures, that's fine. I can go with that one and then end it right there. by outside interests I think needs to be stricken.

A no vote means the city misses out and the fields, gyms, and open space our community has used for decades. We have to finish that sentence.

What about a no vote means the city will not have control over the fields, gyms, and open space? Is that instead of misses out, is that Well, because we wouldn't have control over it. It misses out. I'm wondering if that's part of that.

I say we say, do you want to change it or leave it first to see if there's enough people that want to change it?

Yeah I mean it could be as simple as that Brooke you're right. I mean it could just be a no vote means the city will not move forward with the purchase and the property will be purchased by.

Or will not move forward with the purchase period. What did you say Brooke?

Well, purchase it and the filled gyms and the open space our community has used for decades, period.

Or what? We have to finish the sentence. A no vote means the city does not purchase, oh, take out the and? Does not purchase the fields, gyms, and open space our community has used for decades. I'm fine with that.

Okay. I think we have So it would be a yes vote gives Sandy the ability to secure this property before the opportunity is gone. A no vote means the city does not purchase the fields, gyms, and open space our community has used for decades. Yeah.

Purchase the building, fields, gyms. Yeah, building.

I think all of it is the truth. It's just how much you want to be neutral and to provide an emotional response to it. We have to be neutral, but we also have to,

I like the first version. I like Tracy's version. I think they're both fair. That's my opinion.

I'm fine with the first version with the swap of decades for generations.

Well, and I think does not purchase it. I think we need to say does not purchase the building, the fields, gyms, and open space, because purchase it.

It will be lost, period. And do we have to go to development? Because we're going to develop it too, I guess. Second paragraph. I like the original just fine, too.

How about if we just, we take what staff brought to us, but we take out generations and we add decades.

Yes. The building. So a no vote means the city misses out. And the building, fields, gyms and open space our community has used for decades will have their futures directed by outside interests. I think we've got enough support for that. Yep. OK, next paragraph. Open space is more precious than ever. The opportunity to purchase 17 acres of open land next to an existing city park is extraordinarily rare. Purchasing Crescent View would allow the city to combine it with the adjacent eight-acre Crescent Park, creating approximately 25 acres of public park and community space, something this area o

I don't like that last phrase, something this area of the city lacks. There is an eight-acre park abutting this. So I just think you eliminate, you strike that last section. You put a period at...

I think that for me, what that sentence or that phrase is saying is this area of the city does not have 25 acres of public park and community space.

I'm just saying that's how I interpret this. And I'm OK with it, but I can be in the minority.

My position would be strike that last phrase.

A period after space and strike the end of the sentence. Allison you good with that. OK let's do that. I think we did. I don't see him. Okay. Okay. So period. Yeah. Period of community space. The next paragraph. No changes. We're good with the next paragraph. Okay. I did have a question about the 60 years of use.

Yeah. That was I we haven't been supplied with an inspection.

But is it going to be in the voter information packet, the evidence that there's been an inspection indicating this is an accurate statement? Mr. Fratto, do you know?

Mr. Jensen, do you have an answer for that question?

Correct. So that doesn't seem accurate. But just because your house needs a new roof doesn't mean it's not.

There are a lot more components. Yeah, there's 60 years of use.

So then maybe that's the language that is needed.

But it wasn't a building inspection. It was the architect.

I would never take that from this. CHRIS RODGERS- Madam Chair.

And I would like to specify where that 60 years came from, which was not an inspection. It was an architect.

What is it technically called? What is it in your world?

And then after life, what did we say? With routine maintenance?

Everyone good? Okay. Thank you for that, Dan. Okay. I'll just read the next one. A yes vote authorizes Sandy City to issue up to 30 million in general obligation bonds to purchase and improve the property. The city may ultimately issue only a portion of that amount. If the full amount is issued the estimated property tax impact on an average home value of seven hundred thirty nine thousand one hundred dollars is approximately five dollars per month. If your home is valued less than you would pay less. Anyone opposed to that language.

Well that's what I think you need to put in there. Yeah. If your home is valued at more than you pay more.

Please. I think you have the average home is this. If I live in a $500,000 home, then I can deduct that I'm going to pay less. If I live in a million dollar home, I can deduct I'm going to pay more. Mr. Fratto?

I'm comfortable with it as written. Yeah? OK. I think we have support to leave it as is. I know not everyone agrees, but the majority does. All right, next. A yes vote does not approve a final plan. Instead, it empowers the city to thoughtfully shape the site's future alongside residents, whether through the preservation of athletic fields, utilizing the indoor facility for recreation and cultural events, or exploring strategic partnerships and city-led development that directly benefits our community.

I think it gives clear vision of what it could be. Yeah. OK, I'm not seeing any opposition. OK, we're good. We're going to move on. Yes vote does not, oh, I just read that. The bond preserves our ability to make those choices. Relinquishing the land to a third party takes that choice away, period. I think that's very straightforward. Okay, I think we're good. Some opportunities, once lost, do not come back. Previous generations chose to give Sandy the parks, trails, and public spaces residents enjoy today, like the Sandy Amphitheater. This is our opportunity to make our mark on the future.

Does that imply that the Sandy Amphitheater was paid for with a bond? Because not a dime of taxpayer money was used to pay for that. was innkeeper tax? To me, it doesn't imply that.

It's just saying, because I think that's something that a lot of residents are very aware of. Just like the parks do trails.

Chose to give does not mean the choice was the same pathway for every choice. They just, through whatever path was chosen, they made this anti-epitheater possible. So I'm comfortable with chose to give.

I would like us to look at the word our. This is our opportunity. It suggests that it's the only one. It's one of those, again, how about an opportunity or another opportunity? We've talked about others. that we've used in the past, other opportunities that we've had and used, do we say this is another opportunity or this is an opportunity?

And, and. I'd be comfortable with and. And I guess depending on how strong you want to make it, this is your opportunity to make our mark on the future, depending if you want it strong.

I like and better than your because once again that suggests that it's singular. Right. The only one. This is your only opportunity.

I'm good with Ann. Madam Chair. I think it's optimistic.

Because they are the ones making this choice and it's not every resident will have an opportunity to vote on something like this in the future. Yeah. This is an opportunity to make your mark on the future. Are we good with that?

Hearing item? Are we taking public comment in it?

I mean a voting item. Do we need a comma after trails?

Parks, trails, comma, and public spaces?

That's one of those people. It depends on if you're old or not.

So yes. I'm an Oxford comma person because there's also a paragraph above that I would put it there too.

There's one more paragraph. I'd put it there too, but I bit my tongue.

Yep. Perfect. All right, then we struck the next one. Are we good with that strike? The once these 17 acres are gone, we're striking that? Yeah. OK. And then the last one, vote yes on the Crescent View general obligation bond to keep Sandy's future in Sandy's hands, ensuring an invaluable impact on your fellow residents today and for generations to come. I'm good with that? I think we have walked our way through. Yeah, you'll do a quick word count maybe.

I know you've built in space for it. I think we're fine.

And you're also missing another like a or the somewhere. So you'll probably want to look at that. So I'd make a motion to approve resolution 26-90C with the changes we've made tonight.

Does that include the voter information packet data too? No. The language in there? This is only the...

I thought the resolution was going to change.

And direct you to provide those. With the chain we caught them the misalignment of number of acres. So you took you. Yes.

Oh, okay. Let's let's hold. I don't know. You made a motion. I feel like we need to wait and see if there's a second. We can still have discussion.

I like that. Is the resolution only for the. Correct. It's only for the argument. Do we want to take public comment if there is any before we vote on it.

Yeah. I was planning to but we have a motion. Second.

So repeat the motion because now we have clarity. We're only talking about motion to approve resolution 26-90C with the edits that we made tonight and any other minor us or those we need to add in because I think there's only one more. And that's it. And then you direct the general as needed.

We have a motion and a second. So we're not gonna we will take public comment on this because it's a voting item but but we had Can you hold off on the voter information packet because we're gonna do that next maybe I don't know Yeah, so we don't get to vote on voter information packet.

OK, so I know you don't want to vote until, but I would like to take public comment just because it's already really late. And for those who've been waiting to make public comment on this, I want to give them that opportunity. Then we can bring it back, and part of our discussion before we vote can be that. Fair. OK. So we'll go and move to public comment. I do not have any blue cards for this item but it is a voting item so we do like to give the opportunity for public comment. So if there's anyone in the chambers who would like to do that.

OK. I'm not seeing anything in the room, so let's go ahead and move to those online participants. Mr. Fratto.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Frato. So seeing no additional public comment, we'll go ahead and close public comment, bring it back to the council for deliberation. Ms. D'Souza, will you lead us off with what you'd like to see in the voter information?

Madam Chair, if I could raise a point of order, I don't mean to be rude, Council Member D'Souza, but is this germane to the motion that we're about to vote on?

Yes, Mr. DeKaiser. The request was made that we do not vote until we have this conversation because it could potentially inform her vote.

You might have not been there for it. That should probably just yield a no vote. This discussion, in my opinion, has nothing to do with the motion.

Could result in a second another property tax.

I think unless it's stated, we aren't fully disclosing what the magnitude of that is.

And I would like to move it to what is the estimated cost to the taxpayer instead of tucked in the back.

I think she wants it attached to where we're already saying something about.

Don't you want it to follow the sentence that already says something about operations?

Yes. Not changing anything in the paragraph? No.

I don't understand why you wouldn't add the language about a possible tax increase to get there.

As devil's advocate, did we do it for Fire Station 31? If we didn't have it in there for that one. I mean, this one I think it's a rarely, I think it's well worded here.

But it could be a lot of things. We are saying decisions will need to be made as to how it will be funded. And I think that's honest. Yeah. Yeah. It's simple.

I think it's an appropriate addition. Why would it get kicked back by an attorney? I don't understand that.

I think, personally, I think it's kind of too far to the other side. I think we've gone from the middle to one side or the other. I think that just pushes it a little too far.

I mean, I, I, and I know where we're coming from, but I think this is probably a pretty, I just need to know if, if, if you're in favor of adding that sentence and the way that she shared it, I'm fine. I'm fine. Yes. Yes. No. And And Mr. Jensen, thoughts on adding that sentence?

OK. So we're saying we're willing to add that in. And he will run it by a bond counsel. Is that the only? OK. Do we have anything else before we?

I had one, other one. It's along the lines of what you suggested on the argument in favor. If the bond is not approved, it says Kenyon School District has indicated it will sell the property for development. Would we replace the word will with may?

Did it in the image is it still the I should remember but I'm not it's still showing the single-family housing Sorry I'm a little fatigued.

I think on where it says concept plan one is if we put sample or optional example, I mean something.

Can you do the five scenarios, snapshots of the five scenarios in that little spot?

I think the language explains all of the possible things that could be done. Right? I don't want to cause confusion with multiple, because it's not like the poster session where people can get their questions answered.

Well and it said earlier that it was that we had not decided what we were doing with it right at the beginning. I don't care if we leave it in.

And it says here in the last paragraph too, concept one was developed to illustrate what could be possible at that funding level. It is not a final development plan, and specific improvements have not been finalized. I don't know. I think it calls it out pretty well.

I think if anything, if we wanted to change it, we could just put example or something. Where it says concept plan one. I mean it's concept is just possible concept.

Okay, so what I'd like to do is go ahead. We have a motion and a second. I'd like to take a vote on the motion, which is to adopt the resolution that is exclusively the floor argument for the general obligation bond. And then let's determine, like provide direction around the voter information packet. So we have a motion and a second. I said Council Member Edwards. Ms. Edwards.

Thank you. OK, so Mr. Frato walked us through. I like all of the recommendations that that you've captured. I my understanding is the process and I want to hear from everyone. I'm just sharing my feedback. The process would be you will share those with administration administration will fold those in put it in front of bond council bond council will ultimately weigh in on what if those can be added. Are you supportive of that if that's the direction the council gives.

Thank you for that feedback. OK. So I shared my thoughts on what Dustin walked through. Other thoughts, please? You're good with what we walked through, the recommendation for the voter information packet?

I like it just when I kept the picture in, though. That was the only one I didn't like. Oh, okay. I like the picture in there. The single picture. The single picture.

I don't want to take that out, which was one of the recommendations. You can wordsmith and whatever you need.

Right, but there was a conversation about titling it sample or something. It's called concept.

I think the idea that concept does say that it is just a concept. I just didn't know if there was more resistance.

Motion to have staff share this. Do we need a motion? We do, right?

Do you have clarity on the direction we're trying to provide?

OK. All right. So I think we. Are good with item number nine, right? Mr. Jensen? OK. Thank you. Let's move on to item number 10, civic engagement award. This is a city council award. I forgot to make a note of who's leading us through this. Am I just leading us through this? OK. And I think we had a motion. I have a motion. You have a motion. Let's do it.

I would like to make a motion to approve. Oh, no. Resolution 26-85C, naming Rebecca Cadell our 2026 award recipient for the Sandy City Council Civic Engagement Award. Second.

All right, we have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion?

We're about to vote. OK. Let's do that really quickly. Looking to the chambers if there's anyone who would like to comment on this item. It is a voting item. I do not see anyone. Mr. Fratto if you'll check online please.

That's what I'm feeling, too. We're in the same boat.

Thank you. I'll close public comment on this item, bring it back to the council. Any further deliberation? We have a motion and a second. Ms. Edwards, if you'll do a roll call vote, please.

We appreciate her. OK, which brings us to item number 11. Before we do that item, because we will want to adjourn from the closed session, I'll just do a quick opportunity for, what do we call them, standing reports.

I'll go really fast because a couple of these I've been holding anyway. Convention Facilities Advisory Board met, and you guys, there is some good news that there's some seriousness about expanding the Expo Center by 25,000 square feet. Yeah, that would be a great thing. We just need to figure out how to pay for it. So anyway, LPC meeting, that was a lot of prediction about what's coming in the next legislative session. And I'll just run down the list. The one thing we do know is based on election results in the primaries, we know we will have at least 20% new legislators in our state legislat

OK, just one thing, and I'm going to read it. I just am. We had a tragic incident in Sandy this weekend. A five-year-old child was killed, and the impact has been deeply felt throughout the neighborhood, the school, and our city. And it's especially close to home for me. Not only did it happen in Sandy and District 1, but it involved students from where I work. My deepest condolences go out to the child's family and everyone who has been affected by this heartbreaking loss. My own heart is broken, especially as I watch our youngest students trying to make sense of what's happened in school thi

Very tender. Thank you. I don't have anything for tonight. Mr. Susan.

Oh, sorry, Parks and Rec. No, come, come. I'm just trying to move us forward.

Thank you for that update. All right. We'll take a motion.

Motion to go to closed session for whatever is listed and then close the meeting at the end.

Second. All right. We have a motion and a second. Ms. Stroud? Seconded. And this is a roll call vote, correct? Ms. Edwards?

I'm sorry All right. Thank you everyone. Have a good evening. I