City Council - Regular Meeting

Thank you.

Bye. you

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Welcome to today's meeting. We are happy to have you here for this formal meeting of the council. We're happy you're here, whether in person or joining us online. We hope that you'll continue to participate in whichever manner you feel most comfortable. Please join us for the Pledge of Allegiance. Thank you again to everyone who's joining us tonight. Before we move into the agenda, I want to quickly go through registration information and share a little bit of the reasoning about how and why we chair these meetings the way that we do. We welcome everyone, regardless of your opinion or side on an issue, because we will have many people with varying opinions on important issues. Our goal, council's goal, is to make these meetings a place where people feel safe and comfortable participating. This is the most local level of government and it is a key value of ours to ensure that we have created a respectful and safe environment so that no one is intimidated out of free participation. This also allows us to ensure that the meeting can continue and we can conduct the scheduled city business. We invite each of you to contribute to this space, to speak your mind, and to welcome others to do the same. In order to create this welcoming and safe space, we will pause the meeting at any action that causes a disruption to our ability to conduct the meeting or any safety concern involving threats or unprotected speech. If there are repeated actions or comments, it may result in removal from the meeting. To avoid intimidating others, please avoid the use of threatening or discriminatory language. Do not insult others based on religion, ethnicity, race, color, gender, sexual orientation, or physical ability. Whether you agree or disagree with someone's comment, clapping, cheering, shouting, booing, snapping, gesturing, obstructing, or discouraging others from commenting is not allowed. As a reminder, as council members, we refrain from reacting or responding to allow everyone to share their opinions freely. This is to keep our reactions from affecting your ability to share your opinion freely. If you would like to follow up with any of us, please see council staff or make a comment in the Zoom chat for our contact info. When making your comments, please address the body and not any individual elected official. If you have a handout for council, please raise your hand and council staff will assist you. Council staff are also available during or after the meeting to help with any questions or information sharing. The full meeting rules are listed at the door and our staff will post the link on Zoom. As a reminder of our public comment registration process, individuals may register to comment on scheduled public hearing items up until the hearing is closed. For the general comment section, we will accept sign-ups until 7.30 p.m. The general comment section is limited to a maximum of one hour and will only include commenters who register before 7.30 p.m. So if you're here to give general comments, please sign up and remember that it is not possible, please remember that it is possible, not everyone who signed up to speak may be able to speak. This brings us to item A4, approving the work session meeting minutes of March 3rd, 2026, March 24th, 2026, April 7th, 2026, May 12th, 2026, May 19th, 2026, as well as the formal meeting minutes of January 13th, 2026, February 17th, 2026, March 10th, 2026, April 7th, 2026, and April 21st, 2026. I'll look for a motion. move for approval second it has been moved by council member dugan and seconded by council member wharton any discussion all in favor aye any opposed motion passes unanimously with two council members absent i will now turn the time over to council member jennifer napier pierce for some brief remarks

Thank you Madam Chair and my fellow council members for giving me just a few minutes of personal privilege. I promise I will keep this brief. The past few weeks since my appointment have been an absolute whirlwind. I've had a listening tour and I've had the pleasure of meeting with new neighbors, old friends, my esteemed colleagues, and dedicated public servants in coffee shops, parks, bars, street corners, local businesses, and private homes. And what I've learned has been both enlightening and inspiring. I'm filled with gratitude seeing how much people care about our capital city. and how motivated they are to solve problems. I want to thank the many friends and colleagues who supported my candidacy and made calls and texts on my behalf. I truly appreciate all the encouragement and support. I'm grateful for council staff, Mayor Mendenhall and the administration, and a special thank you to my colleagues here on the council. I'm coming in midstream on so many issues, so I've really appreciated your patience as I've gotten up to speed. I'm not there yet. Let's not be, you know, let's not joke about that. You are all good hearted, kind and smart and collaborative. And so I just am grateful. Thanks for filling the gaps in my knowledge. Thanks for sharing your perspectives, your experience and your expertise. And thanks for showing up every single day to make a difference in our city. Special shout out to my family, especially my sons, Ben and Jonas watching on the live stream. Love you guys. Thanks for your support.

Thanks most of all to my husband, John Pierce, who stood by me through thick and thin for 34 years. Your love means everything, and I'm grateful for you. It's so weird. My first job out of college was here in City Hall, working for the Salt Lake City Council. So sitting on this dais is absolutely surreal. I'm humbled, honored, and just grateful for the opportunity to serve the people of District 4. I look forward to working with all of you to make this city the best it can be. Thank you so much.

Thank you so much, Councilmember Pierce, for those heartfelt and honest remarks. And I want to give a special thank you to your family members who have tuned in online and are watching, your friends, and your partner, former Utah Supreme Court Justice Pierce. Thank you for being here. It truly takes so many people in an elected official's life to wrap them with support, with love, with encouragement, and with courage. And so thank you to all of them for them offering that to you, and thank you for stepping forward to serve the people of District 4. Thank you so much. We're now moving on to the public hearing section of our agenda. Public hearing is, these are specific proposals before the council that require a public hearing. Your comment should pertain to the hearing item, and if you go off topic, we will ask you to stop your comment. Our first public hearing is for items B1 and B2 for grant applications and will be heard as one public hearing. Before we begin taking comments, I will turn the time over to Sylvia Richards, Council Policy Analyst, to give a short introduction. Sylvia?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Periodically, the City applies for and receives grants which fund some City programs. Each grant receives a public hearing to provide the Council and the public with an opportunity to hear about each grant. First is the Tourism Recreation Cultural Convention and Airport Facilities Tax Act grant. If approved, it will fund consultant fees for the construction of up to 20 stations along the Jordan River Trail, BUILDING ON THE GROUND WORK LAID BY THE REIMAGINED NATURE PUBLIC LANDS MASTER PLAN, THE EMERALD RIBBON ACTION PLAN, AND SALT LAKE COUNTY'S EFFORTS TO DEVELOP THE JORDAN RIVER REGIONAL PARK MASTER PLAN. SECOND IS THE STATE DAM SAFETY GRANT. If approved, it would be used for the engineering investigation and design of upgrades to the Red Pine Dam, bringing it into compliance with the statute, the state of Utah dam safety rules. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Sylvia. Taylor, please start with our first public comment. Thank you, Madam Chair. We do not have anyone registered to speak to these items. Thank you. I will look for a motion.

Madam Chair, I move that the Council close the public hearing for items B1 and B2 to a future consent agenda for action.

Is there a second?

Second.

Any discussion? I'll call the question. It has been moved by Councilmember Dugan and seconded by Councilmember Wharton. All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Motion passes with two Councilmembers absent. Councilmember Young.

Thank you. If I may request a moment of personal privilege before we move to B3. Absolutely. Thank you. So it's come to my attention that we're going to bookend this celebration, and I am fortunate enough to be the first. So if I could invite policy analyst Brian Fulmer up to the podium, I just have a few comments to share. excellent so i'd like to take a moment for a personal point of privilege to recognize someone whose work has made a meaningful difference to this council and to the residents of salt lake city tonight is brian fulmer's last formal council meeting in his role as our policy analyst and i want to express my sincere appreciation for his service Whether we were working through a complex land use application, negotiating a development agreement, or yes, even discussing fence heights, Brian approached every issue with the same level of professionalism, service, expertise, and care. He has an incredible ability to navigate complicated policy questions, provide thoughtful analysis, and help each of us make more informed decisions. What has always stood out to me is not just Brian's knowledge, but the way he carries himself. He is consistently prepared, responsive, patient, and respectful. He serves every council member with integrity and impartiality, and he never loses sight of the fact that behind every agenda item are real people and neighborhoods who care deeply about their city. Public service is often behind the scenes, and the people doing this work don't always receive the recognition they deserve. But the quality of our decisions and our ability to serve residents well is stronger because of Brian's dedication. Brian, thank you for your time, expertise, professionalism, and steady leadership you've brought to the council. We've been incredibly fortunate to work with you, and I know you'll be a hard act to follow. On behalf of my district, my fellow council members, and personally, I wish you every success in your next chapter. Thank you for your service to Salt Lake City, and I'm excited for one final council meeting together. Thank you.

Oh, there's more coming. There's more coming. You don't get to get out of here so easy, Brian. So I want to just share a little bit of the history of Brian's service to Salt Lake City. In May 2010, Brian Fulmer was told that the city council office position he was accepting was temporary and that it offered no long-term opportunity. And 16 years later, we are thankful that Brian decided to stick with us, even after starting his project, which was to review comments about the then-proposed Yale Crest Historic District. While working in the council office, Brian took on roles both constituent liaison and policy analyst. His calm, I've never seen you get too razzled, but his consistent and calm and thoughtful approach brought stability to an office that could be fast-paced and unpredictable and elected officials just the same, fast-paced and unpredictable. As a liaison, Brian helped hundreds of constituents navigate complex issues, always ensuring that they felt heard and knew the city cared about their concerns. He trained and mentored many constituent liaisons to do the same. As a policy analyst, Brian became one of the office experts on land use. He guided street and alley closures, rezones, text amendments, master plans, and his favorite topic, the naming of city assets. Brian handled dozens of zoning petitions with professionalism, helping applicants see that the city was not simply a faceless bureaucracy. Brian, on behalf of the council office and council members, I want to give a sincere thank you to you for your dedication, your expertise, and your sincere kindness. You have made a lasting difference in our office and community over your many years of service, and you will be sorely missed. We wish you all the very best and all the adventures in your well-earned retirement. Thank you, Brian. Well, I know you wanna get down to business.

You really want me to follow that?

Thank you, Brian, for your service.

Yes. Thank you.

So our next item is B3, which is an ordinance concerning the indefinite alleyway closure in Jefferson Park. And before we begin taking comments, I'll turn it over to our esteemed Council Policy Analyst to give us a short introduction.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This is a proposal from Public Lands to indefinitely close but retain ownership of two alleys within Jefferson Park within Council District 5. The intent is to consolidate parcels within the park for improvements funded by the Reimagine Nature General Obligation Bond. Thank you.

Thank you, Brian. Taylor, please start with our first public comment.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We have one person registered to speak to this item. That will be Marco Stepanoni. Marco, you may now unmute.

Marco, are you there with us? Sounds like he might be speaking on another item. Anybody else wish to speak to this item? Okay, I'll look for a motion.

Madam Chair, I move that the council close the public hearing and adopt the ordinance.

Is there a second?

Second.

It has been moved by Councilmember Dugan and seconded by Councilmember Wharton. Any discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Those opposed? None. Motion passes unanimously with two council members absent. Our next item is B4, an ordinance alley vacation at approximately 567 East Warnock Avenue. And before we begin taking comments, I'll turn it over, I think one last time, to Brian Fulmer, council policy analyst, to give us a short introduction.

This is a proposal to vacate or give up ownership of a city-owned alley at approximately 567 East Warnock Avenue, and it is between that property and Interstate 80 right-of-way. The alley was blocked when the freeway was constructed many years ago and does not serve its original purpose. If adopted, the alley property would be divided in half and given to the two abutting property owners. Thank you.

Thank you, Brian. Taylor, please start with our first public comment. Thank you, Madam Chair. We don't have anyone registered to speak to this item. Thank you, Taylor. I'll look for a motion.

I move that the council close the public hearing and defer action to a future council meeting. Second.

It has been moved by Councilmember Napier-Pearson, seconded by Councilmember Wharton. Any discussion? I'll call the question, all those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes unanimously with two council members absent. Our next item is B5 for an ordinance regarding a mobile business text amendment. Before we begin taking comments, I'll turn the time over to Nick Tarpit, council deputy director, to give a short introduction.

Thank you. This public hearing is on proposed text amendment pertaining to mobile businesses operating on private property. The intent of the amendments is to bring the city's mobile business code into compliance with newer state regulations.

Thank you, Nick. Taylor, please start with our first public comment.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We do not have anyone registered to speak to this item.

Thank you, Taylor. Look for a motion.

Madam Chair, I move that council close the public hearing and defer action to a future council meeting.

Is there a second?

Second.

It has been moved by Councilmember Dugan and seconded by Councilmember Wharton. Any discussion? I'll call the question. All those in favor?

Aye.

Those opposed? Hearing none, the motion passes with two council members absent. Our final item is B6 for a resolution, a waiver of proximity for Via Veneto Pizzeria at 511 East, 9th South. Before we begin taking comments, I will turn the time over again to Nick Tarbitt, Council Deputy Director, to give a short introduction. Nick.

Thank you. As of May 2026, state code requires local municipalities to approve a waiver of proximity for liquor permits before the Utah Department of Beverage Services may grant a license when the location is within a specific proximity of a community location, such as Liberty Park is. The restaurant located across from Liberty Park is in District 5. The city is required to hold a public hearing at least 30 days before a waiver can be approved.

Thank you, Nick. Taylor, please start with our first public comment.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We have two people registered to speak to this item. The first will be Amy Stevanoni, followed by Marco Stevanoni. Amy is here in person.

Good evening. Thank you. I am the owner of Via Veneto Pizzeria along with my husband. Via Veneto Pizzeria receiving a limited liquor license would positively contribute to the neighborhood without presenting any threat to public safety or the character of nearby community spaces such as Liberty Park. Via Veneto Pizzeria is a family friendly establishment with a welcoming atmosphere and a clear focus on quality food, responsible service, and community involvement. Allowing us to serve a glass of wine or beer alongside our pizza will enhance the dining experience for adults and aligns with what many residents expect from modern neighborhood eateries. The ability to enjoy a slice of pizza with a drink is a standard amenity in most cities and has consistently demonstrated no negative impact on public behavior, safety, or community spaces. Liberty Park is a cherished part of Salt Lake City, and maintaining its safe and family-oriented environment is important to everyone. Granting via Veneto Pizzeria this waiver would not compromise that goal. The restaurant is operated with professionalism and oversight, follows applicable regulations, and is committed to responsible alcohol service. Its clientele and environment are not conducive to overconsumption or disorderly activity. In fact, supporting well-run small businesses near community spaces often strengthens neighbourhoods, increases foot traffic safety, and fosters positive community engagement. In short, allowing Via Veneto Pizzeria to serve wine and beer under an approved liquor permit would not pose any threat to society. Rather, it would support a reputable local business, meet community expectations, and continue to uphold the standards residents value. Thank you so much.

Next will be Marco Stabanoni. Marco, you may now unmute.

yes thank you i apologize i cannot be there in person i'm currently traveling but i just wanted to support my wife on this new venture and i appreciate all your support and that was the final registered commenter for this item thank you to everyone who made a comment on this item i'll look for a motion

Madam Chair, I move that the council close the public hearing and defer action to a future council meeting.

Is there a second?

Second.

It has been moved by Council Member Wharton and seconded by Council Member Dugan. Any discussion?

I wanted to say I see some confused looks in the audience. What we typically do is when there's an item that's up for public hearing, we have the hearing, close action, and then vote on it at the next meeting. So this is just part of the normal procedure. It doesn't mean that your action's not going to be voted on or that it's just how we typically do things. All right, so people will have until our next meeting to submit written comments. But I intend to support the request.

Yes. As do I.

And just to clarify, the council cannot take action for 30 days on this? Yes. per state statute, so.

Okay. Any additional discussion? All those in favor of the motion? Aye. Any opposed? The motion passes with, motion passes with four council members present and two who are, three who are, four present, three who are absent. It's been a long day, y'all. And Council Member Young, that's right. I voted yes. Hopefully City Recorder has got that better than what I just repeated. Great. Thank you. We have no new potential action or new business item. We are now moving on to item E1, which is now unfinished business regarding the ordinance correction adopting the rate of the tax levy, including the levy for the library fund fiscal year 2026. I'll look for a motion.

Madam Chair, I move that the council adopt a revised corrected ordinance updating the final tax final rate of tax levy, including the final levy up for the library fund, upon all real and personal property within Salt Lake City, made taxable by law for fiscal year 2026-27, and acknowledged the updated tax rates listed on the motion sheets represent the technical adjustments necessary to align with those entered into the tax rate systems prior to the June 22 deadline.

Is there a second?

Oh, no.

Oh, you got more?

a tax of 0.003482 on each dollar of taxable valuation of which 0.002374 shall be credited as revenue in the general fund generating $123,837,279 of ongoing revenue and 0.00006 shall be credited to the judgment levy for the general fund, a one year adjustment generating $293,967 of one-time revenue and 0.000626 shall be credited as revenue in the library fund, generating $32,657,748 of one-time revenue. of ongoing revenue, and 0.000395 shall be credited toward repayment of general obligation bonds generating $20,614,755 of ongoing revenue, and 0.000825 shall be credited shall be credited as revenue in the government immunity fund for tort liability generating $4,173,514 of ongoing revenue.

Thank you, Councilmember. Is there a second? A second. It has been moved by Councilmember Dugan and seconded by Councilmember Napier-Pierce. Any discussion? Seeing none, I'll call the question. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? The motion passes with two council members absent. Okay, this now brings us to the consent portion of our agenda. I'll look for a motion.

Madam Chair, I move that we approve the consent agenda.

Second. It has been moved by Council Member Wharton and seconded by Council Member Dugan. Any discussion? Those in favor? Aye. Those opposed? Motion passes with two Council Members absent. We are now at section G of the agenda, and that's questions to the mayor from the city council. Thank you, Rachel Otto and Lizzie Nokola for being here on the mayor's behalf. Any questions for the mayor or the mayor's staff? All right, Council Member Wharton was asking some very fun questions of the fire board of appeals, fire code board of appeals earlier today, but looks like he's out of fun questions.

Have you guys ever presided over an interesting fire board appeal?

okay well here's hoping seeing no comments all right thank you so much for being here thank you for engaging in my levity councilmember wharton um we're now on to our second item which is um comments to the city council this is a one hour time slot for the public to comment on any city business that's not scheduled for a public hearing and each person will have two minutes To talk it is limited to a maximum of one hour and to only those individuals who are registered to speak before 730 our meeting rules apply to these general comments You we will be calling the names in the order of sign up if you're on zoom Please unmute your mic when your name is called Each person will have two minutes and to help make sure that as many people as possible can speak during the hour anyone in person should feel free to come up and stand in line when you hear your name is called Please avoid interruptions so we can use the time for as many people to comment as possible. If we reach the two minute mark, the host will announce time and your microphone will be muted. If you need staff assistance in the room, please raise your hand and somebody will be with you. If you're having technical issues in Zoom or need any assistance, mention message staff support and Akshay from our staff will assist you. And of course, if you are unable to finish your comment, you are encouraged to share the rest of your comment via email, mail, or call to our office. Our contact information is located at slc.gov slash council. Taylor, can you begin with our first general comment?

Thank you, Madam Chair. We have about 17 people registered to speak. The first will be Jennifer Oldham, followed by Kira Cervonski, and then Cindy Cromer. Jennifer is here in person.

I don't know why I was registered under my wife's name, but I'm Richard Oldham. I just wanted to comment on the new short-term rental regulations or whatever you call them, ordinances that were passed. You guys were discussing that earlier. I appreciate the discussion earlier. I want to specifically comment on the 200-night limit. I think in residential zones, that might make sense. I think in zones like hotel zones or other zones, I think the 200-night limit, I think the only thing it does is it pushes any short-term rentals from a business viability out of that space and benefits hotels, basically. And I think there's a lot of short-term rental operators or small business owners and people coming and traveling to Salt Lake or looking for short-term rentals. I think there's definitely a market for that that needs to be served and would benefit to the entire area of Salt Lake. So I think revisiting the 200-night maximum for short-term rentals would be very beneficial for the community as a whole for certain zones. So I just wanted to comment on that, as well as there's other issues with the 10% and stuff like that. I think some other people are going to comment on those. Thank you.

Next will be Kira Sobronski, followed by Cindy Kroemer, and then Lauren DeVoe. Kira, you may now unmute.

Hi, my name is Kyra Sovronsky and I am a resident of Parkway Avenue in Salt Lake City. Just this week we have seen two fires just blocks away from my house in Wasatch Hollow and Center Park. We have an easement behind our homes on Parkway Avenue that could easily be the next spot for a fire to start with tall dry grass that is neglected for months during the height of fire season each year. This easement is owned by South Salt Lake and I worry that if South Salt Lake continues with their plans to put up a fence, the fire risk to that area will only increase. South Salt Lake has proven to us over the years that they do not maintain the land appropriately We have no reason to believe that this will change. Having a fence will only leave the land neglected and forgotten. As a resident of Salt Lake City, I hope Council will help us and put this easement on your work session. We really need you to advocate for us and urge South Salt Lake to pause their work until an agreement has been reached, especially when irreversible changes could be done. This land could be a beautiful asset to Salt Lake City as a community park or garden instead of being fenced off, neglected, and forgotten about. Thank you.

Next will be Cindy Cromer, followed by Lauren DeVoe, and then Olive Jacoby. Cindy is here in person.

It was about six years ago that I realized artists could be pivotal in land use battles. So I was prepared when the musicians of the Utah Symphony launched an effort to save Abravanel Hall by nominating it to the National Register of Historic Places. I knew that they could make a difference, artists can get out of the box, and they can lead other people out of the box. The nomination of the county's 10th East Senior Center to the National Register was a copycat of the effort by the symphony musicians. We even hired the same consultant. The votes at the Landmarks Commission and State History in May were unanimous for approval. The nomination is now in Washington, D.C., waiting for a final decision. The 10th East Senior Center was in jeopardy in the county's budget process last fall. It was the first building in the state dedicated to the needs of seniors. It is the work of the legendary architect, Birch Beale, who led the effort to restore this building, the city and county building. So two things. The nomination of the county senior center on city-owned land is pending. And secondly, those of us who have appreciated the architecture and programming at the center owe the symphony's musicians a thank you for their leadership.

Next will be Lauren DeVoe, followed by Olive Jacoby, and then Jim Webster. Lauren is here in person.

Good afternoon, Council. I'm here representing the users of the Cottonwood Dog Park, and I have brought each of you a stack of letters and petitions from our community users. In 2021, a tree fell on our main access bridge to our dog park, and the users of Cottonwood Dog Park fully expected that it would be quickly rebuilt, and why wouldn't we? As of July of 2020, the city had over $2.7 million in unallocated park impact fee revenues, which had to be spent within six years or returned to the assessed property owners. In January of 2021, the Parks Department had proposed a $2.3 million budget appropriation, in part to fund improvements to the Cottonwood Dog Park. On May 3rd, 2022, the city council adopted budget amendment number seven, which included $195,000 to rebuild the bridge over the Jordan River to the park, which was completely budget neutral. But the bridge was neither repaired nor rebuilt. Fast forward to the present and the public lands department has completely closed off the bridge, leaving only a single width bridge far removed from city parking to access the dog park. If you stay on the paved trails to get to the dog park, the walk is long, uneven, without a single bench for those in need to rest, and roughly half is devoid of any shade cover. A week ago, several of us dog park users met with a number of representatives from the city, the public lands department, and the mayor's office. We were told that the meeting would be discussed to discuss accessibility issues, but unfortunately, the city's ADA coordinator was not present. When we suggested that the city representatives walk with our group to the dog park so they could observe the challenges, our group faces with the current route, I was shocked to see them all start to cut across the grass, avoiding the paved pathways that your constituents with mobility issues and strollers and other circumstances are forced to take. Most frustratingly, when we rehashed the prior communications and promises of repair, including the various times our community

Next will be Olive Jacoby, followed by Jim Webster and then Keith Carrick. Olive, you may now unmute.

Hi. My name is Olive Peterson Jacoby. I'm here tonight to express my continued frustration and disappointment with the city council, the city and the mayor, as well as the police department and the way they interact with the unhoused populations of Salt Lake City. Especially as we are in such a warm, hot, dangerous time of year, our unhoused neighbors need to be given priority when it comes to outreach and resources to manage the temperature. And it just doesn't really seem like enough is being done. This city has a habit of Well, allowing the police to brutalize and displace unhoused people. They often report having their belongings destroyed or being forced to abandon them because they're afraid of the police. And then their belongings are stolen or trashed by the city when they belong to clean up. So they're losing things like water, medication, clothing, things that can help them handle the heat. I don't know. I don't really have a script just I'm just very disappointed. The city claims to care about its constituents, but anyone who doesn't own property is treated like a second class citizen, especially if the city gets more expensive. And we have more and more transplants coming from out of state. It's really important that we're prioritizing working after the people who are here. um and also i just want to say it's i find it frankly offensive uh that the mayor is recommending uh for people to go out and look after their unhoused neighbors see if there's any way they can help them uh when we as individuals uh we should be doing that but we have no power uh we can't enact systemic change the way you all can and it doesn't seem like you're doing it

And next will be Jim Webster, followed by Keith Carrick, and then Richard Olden. Jim is here in person.

My name is Jim Webster. I'm a landscape architect. I've done a lot of work with riparian channels. I was one of the authors of the Riparian Overlay Ordinance, and in 1987, I designed a pathway system for Miller Bird Refuge and Nature Park. We were advised, I was working as a consultant with the parks department, we were advised by the police department to put in a pathway because there was a lot of crime and there was no way to circumnavigate that park. So we did that, and I was very proud of that. It included a bridge down at the other end because people were forced to encroach on church property and so forth. My background is in Salt Lake area, is the Jordan River Parkway and a number of other riparian trails. I'm just curious how many of you are familiar with it. I know Dan knows about it, but are you familiar with the That was the Red Butte, or excuse me, the Miller Bird Refuge and Nature Park. Are you, okay, no. Are you familiar with the ADA, 1990 ADA law that was passed by the federal government that applies to all public parks? Well, we're at a junction right now where the $425,000 CIP bond that I wrote 11 years ago is now being put into effect, and I'm kind of concerned because one of the things we asked for was the reinstatement of that lower path, but I guess we get what we get. I don't have the numbers in front of me, and Dan, maybe you do, but I believe that at least 60 to 70% of that grant is going towards deferred maintenance.

Councillor Osanic. Thank you for your comments. I just want to re-emphasize that as a general matter, Council members try to refrain from reacting or responding to comments, but if there's additional information, any commenter is encouraged to share that information with staff. Taylor, let's move on to the next public comment.

Next is Keith Carrick followed by Richard Oldham and then Ashley Mortez. Keith, you may now unmute.

Hi, my name is Keith Carrick. I live on Parkway Avenue and I am one of the spokespeople for the Parkway Avenue Neighbors Group. For months, South Salt Lake has met our request for honest, constructive collaboration with silence while their public narrative is repeatedly contradicted by the facts. Consequently, we have issued a formal legal demand to the involved governments refuting South Salt Lake's claim to this open space parcel behind our homes. This land actually belongs to Salt Lake City and its future will affect residents for generations. It should not be fenced off, neglected, and left to rot or burn. There's a lot of potential for this space while ensuring that it is safe. It could be a community garden serving the many new residents of Sugar House. It could be a walk and bike park or something else. We invite you to meet with the Parkway Avenue residents. We'd love to share our ideas with you. And we ask that you place this issue on agenda for a future council work session. Have the city staff evaluate options for preserving, protecting, and improving it so that we can all understand what this property could be. We have the facts and the law on our side. Now we need Salt Lake City on our side too, not only to prevent harm, but to help create something great. Thank you.

And next is Richard Oldham, followed by Ashley Mortez, and then Rhett Jepson. Richard is here in person.

So I believe Richard spoke in place of his wife previously. I don't see him here. Good evening, council members. My name is Ashley Moritz. I'm a District 3 resident. First, thank you and the city staff for the work that's gone into developing the city's new short-term rental ordinance. I appreciate the difficult balance But you're trying to strike between protecting neighborhoods, expanding housing opportunities, and providing a clear regulatory framework for short-term rentals. I know you discussed this in the working session, and a fellow owner spoke to these concerns earlier tonight. I'm here to ask the Council to reconsider a provision of the ordinance as it applies to condominium buildings located in the D3 downtown zoning district. I purchased my condominium at 327 West, 200 South, in 2023 through a self-directed 401k retirement account with the understanding that STRs were permitted use under the city zoning regulations. My purchase price reflected that permitted use. Our building has approximately 25 condos and up to 20 have historically operated as STRs. Under the new ordinance, the 10% cap would reduce our building from approximately 20 operating units to only two or three licensed STRs. I respectfully ask the council to consider whether condominium buildings like ours in D3 and similar downtown zoning districts should be treated differently from buildings in primarily residential neighborhoods, and whether they should be exempt from the 10% per building cap. This change is not simply an inconvenience. It materially diminishes property values, reduces expected rental income, and drastically alters the financial assumptions under which we purchased our properties. We're ordinary owners who invested our savings in my case, retirement savings, in good faith, relying on the city's zoning regulations and the established character of our building. We're not asking for special treatment. We're asking that the ordinance recognize the unique circumstances of downtown condominiums where STRs have long been at lawful and permitted use. I respectfully ask that you consider targeted amendments that preserve the city's policy goals while avoiding unintended financial consequences for owners in buildings like ours. Thank you for your service to the city, and thanks for considering my comments.

Next is Rhett Jepson followed by Willow Jepson and then Garrett Beckler. Rhett is here in person.

My name is Rhett Jepson. I live in the Sugar House area adjacent to two point six five acres of artificial turf that was installed last May at the Roslyn Heights Sports Complex. I am here to urge you to uphold the current prohibition on allowing artificial turf in residential areas. This issue is not theoretical for my family. Living next to an artificial turf installation, we experience its impacts every day. Since the turf was installed, our property is materially hotter than before. We have experienced the negative damaging effects, scorching our trees, shrubs, vegetable gardens, and plants. Even our chickens show noticeable signs of distress. We regularly use a surface temperature gun on the turf. A few weeks ago on a day While the air temperature was 83 degrees, the turf surface measured 164 degrees. The turf was roughly 80 degrees hotter than the surrounding air. Surprising to many, turf is much hotter than asphalt and cement. These extreme surface temperatures contribute to the urban heat island effect, making nearby outdoor spaces less tolerable and potentially unhealthy for residents. We have lost the peaceful enjoyment of our own backyard. Salt Lake City has made significant effort in reducing heat impacts, protecting urban trees, conserving livability, and adapting to a warming climate. I applaud you. Allowing more artificial turf in residential neighborhoods moves us in the opposite direction. I understand that some residents are attracted to artificial turf because it appears low maintenance. However, convenience should not outweigh the long-term impacts on neighborhood temperatures, surrounding vegetation, pets, and overall quality of life. Please do not cave into the few and overturn a policy that was based on sound science and careful consideration of the public good. Thank you.

Next will be Willow Jepson, followed by Garrett Beckler, and then Natalia Tramanov. Willow is here in person.

Good evening. I was proud of Salt Lake City when I learned we were one of the cities leading the way in banning artificial turf in certain applications. Our city stands in the vanguard of those putting public health and environmental integrity ahead of the so-called amenities of synthetic turf, showing the way for other communities in making this positive change. Last year, I was forced to learn all about the negative effects of artificial turf firsthand when our next-door neighbor and LEA installed a huge amount of it next to our fence line. since there, then our yard has been engulfed with noxious petrochemical fumes. Near the turf, my formerly cool shady yard is now an average of 8 to 10 degrees hotter than our neighbour's yard on the other side. A difference of this magnitude is noticeable when it comes to personal comfort, but even more significant in how hospitable the environment is to plant life. Last year, as my husband mentioned, our trees, shrubs, and garden were visibly scorched and shrivelled by this new heat island that's now next door. Microclimate shift is a real thing, I know, because it happened in my yard. Synthetic grass was formulated in the 1960s and embraced by cities, sports clubs, and school districts before its ill effects to health and environment were well known. Artificial turf gets bad press, and deservedly so. The public needs more education about its negative effects. Billboards about its heat, for example. Two days ago, I measured the artificial turf on my neighbour's lot at 199.2 degrees Fahrenheit. The only good news surrounding turf is that its drawbacks are finally gaining notoriety, and little by little, more sports clubs and forward-looking communities are deciding to put this chemical grass where it belongs in the past. along with leaded gasoline, DDT, and airline smoking sections. It's had its day, and future generations will say, what were they thinking? Nobody has to use artificial turf. There are plenty of better options. Please don't step back from the Council's farsighted 1995 decision to ban new artificial turf and from the wise resolution you took last year to apply that ban. For the sake of those who have the heat island effect imposed by a neighbour, for the health and safety of our city's air, soil, and water, the Great Salt Lake, and the downwinders of

Next is Garrett Beckler followed by Natalia Trofimov and then Tim Valentiner. Garrett is here in person.

Good evening council members. Thank you for this opportunity. I'm also a Parkway resident neighbor currently dealing with some unfortunate controversy with South Salt Lake and with how things are being handled. We are here to ask that there be some step in and a pause of what is happening so that way things can have a better direction and be figured out where I feel like we could be heard and things can move on in a more positive direction. The thought with this open space is that there is already some beautiful fruit trees and garden boxes that have been there for 40, 50 years and there's a lot of things that have already existed and the feeling that somebody may want to just come in and bulldoze and start over with just a bunch of grass that could probably light up on fire real fast, that kind of is a big concern right now, especially for what we just saw with Tanner Park. Since we're in that same kind of corridor area, it is kind of a very big concern. So that's why we were asking for Salt Lake to please put us on that agenda. Please let's have some conversation. We want to be neighborly, want to have that ability to have dialogue, because it feels like with the others, we have not had any, and we would love that opportunity just to be in front of you. and give our opinions of what that could be and give us that chance to be a great neighbor to not only Salt Lake, to the residents there. We value and we cherish that space. It has been a fantastic way for neighborhoods to grow and for memories to be made. One last quick quote. People make history, not the other way around. In periods where there is no leadership, society stands still. Progress occurs when courageous, skillful leaders seize the opportunity to change things for the better. Please seize this opportunity and change it for the better for all of us. Thank you.

Next is Natalia Trofimov, followed by Tim Valentiner and then Amy Beckler. Natalia is here in person.

Good evening, Council Members. I am here tonight because I'm concerned about how public funds are being spent for the 999 ride and the community members for bike riding. As taxpayers, we expect our money to be used in ways that makes our community safer, stronger, and more united, not in ways that create fear or erode trust. Practices should be reevaluated as members of the community are being viewed as targets rather than neighbours. On a ride taking place on June 11th, I was a witness to Officer Brennan Badge X-115 using profanity as city members In reviewing the entry police officer's salary at $36.69, approximately for three and a half hours, the city is roughly spending $3,800 on the expense of trying to patrol these members, excluding any air patrol that has been used excessively. Monthly, it would be about $15,500. I urge you to review these expenditures carefully and make sure that every taxpayer dollar is being spent in a way that serves the entire not at the expense of it. Thank you.

Ms. Next is Tim Valentiner, followed by Amy Beckler, and then Amy Stephenson. Tim is here in person.

My name is Tim Valentiner. I am here also representing 35 Salt Lake City residents who live along Parkway Avenue near Sugar House Park. As the fellow neighbors have already talked, we are here to ask for Salt Lake City's continued engagement and support ensuring that South Salt Lake acts as responsible neighbor and landowner. Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, and Sugar House Park Authority sold this eight-acre piece of land in 1980 to South Salt Lake, which is located just on the other side of Sugar House Park. It's a remaining sliver of the park from when they cut out I-80. At that time, it was sold by Salt Lake City with the legal obligation to South Salt Lake that it be maintained and even landscaped to the standards of the neighborhood or automatically revert back to the original owners, including Salt Lake City. That has already happened, and it needs to be acknowledged. They have not maintained it or lived up to the obligations over the last 46 years. Council Member Young and representatives from the mayor's office have been working very hard with us on this issue, but we felt it important to raise it to the full council. For months now, our neighborhood has raised thoughtful questions regarding South Salt Lake's new plans for the Parkway Easement property, where their underground water tanks are located and have served for some years. However, there was a large open space parcel east of their water tanks that has been abandoned and not used, and as a result, Neighbors have been making productive use of a fire break, even including watering it regularly, putting garden boxes, fruit trees to help create a fire break for safety. No one seeks to prevent South Salt Lake from continuing to access and using their water tanks. We are simply asking for consideration regarding the impact fencing in the entire property will have on the neighbor, the neighborhoods, and in particular, fire safety, which is now hitting very close to home with recent fires all around us. South Salt Lake's proposed fencing could permanently alter a landscape, and we're asking for help to prevent that from happening. We simply ask for a seat at the table, and Salt Lake City's continued .

Next is Amy Beckler, followed by Amy Stevenson, and then Brent Stevenson. Amy Beckler, you may now unmute.

Hi, this is Amy Beckler. I live on Parkway Avenue as well. And as Tim said, the field behind our house is owned by South Salt Lake and they have not maintained it as they have promised or required to do per their deed of sale. We moved in about 16 years ago and we were told upon move in that neighbors had access and permission to use the field and we have been the ones to maintain it and beautify the space. We have mowed fire breaks and watered, pulled weeds, mitigated invasive species.

We have also been able to make priceless connections with our neighbors there.

And that's the part that we really love. My children have gardened with our amazing neighbor. They helped her weed and water while she imparted her 60-year-old wisdom upon them. They have spent countless hours playing with neighbors of all ages. Safely and imaginatively, it is a space we hold very dear to our hearts and a space that has recently created incredible amounts of stress. The inability of South Salt Lake to protect our homes from fires such as the Tanner Park fire is terrifying. We are geographically very similar to the space in Tanner Park. However, Tanner Park has a road and South Salt Lake would like to give us a fence. The fence would install that they want to install would restrict emergency access, especially to firefighters and other emergency workers, it would also take away our ability to take care of what we have taken care of for decades. Without solving the fields maintenance problems, it is a space that could provide so much value to this corner of salt lake salt lake city. It could be a pump track, a pollinator field, a community garden, so many things. But what we need is Salt Lake City to stand up for us. We need to see this space for the value it holds. And can we please add Parkway Avenue to a future work session agenda where those who are impacted can all discuss options for preserving and improving this space?

Thank you.

And next is Amy Stevenson, followed by Brent Stevenson, and then Reza back here. Amy you may now unmute.

Thank you City Council for the opportunity to present or comment tonight. I would like to address the short-term rental ordinance that has recently been established with some of our fellow owners who are here tonight. My husband and I purchased a condo in November last year. We also purchased in good faith thinking that the condo was legally operatable as a short-term rental. And honestly, it's just been a nightmare since then. We are a small family with young kids and this was not a small purchase for us. So what I'm asking for is consideration to change some of the ordinances or the restrictions in this ordinance. I am all for regulation and making it so that short-term rentals are legally operated. especially in the downtown districts. We benefit greatly from short-term rentals as a family with young kids, hotels are not really feasible. So I'm asking city council to address the 10% building cap, especially for condominiums and maybe have some type of a grandfather for people who have been operating for multiple years as a short-term rental. Like my colleague Ashley said, this is gonna greatly affect our property values and we all purchased the condo with the purchase price reflecting short term rental ability. I would also like to address the two night minimum stay and the annual nightcap. These numbers seemed really random and don't make much sense especially in my experience as a short term rental operator. We have had great experiences with just one-night overnighters who are traveling between the national parks. So thank you for your consideration on changing these things.

Next will be Brent Stevenson, followed by Reza Fakhry. Brent, you may now unmute.

Hey there, can you hear me?

Yes, we can hear you.

Perfect. Hey, all. You just heard from my better half. I made public comment previously several months ago around STR. And following up, I wanted to say, of course, that we respect and appreciate the move to introduce this licensing. We have a large group of people that are interested in working with the city, bringing this revenue in and doing so legally. I do feel that the recent ordinance that was passed via the budget was, not to be offensive, but messy and fairly poorly outlined. This is evidenced by some of the response that was given in today's working session. Seemingly, and this is without exception, when the council was challenging different points of the ordinances to the creators and legal counsel present, their answers were, I don't know, and we don't really have the data. I appreciate the board members. I watched that meeting today. Thank you, council members, for pushing on this and exploring some amendment options. This is encouraging to see for a local government. Quickly, we'll rattle these off. 10% rule, we've been told that condos are considered single family homes and in fact different than wholly owned multifamily units. With these units being wholly owned by individual owners, this is quickly putting together and stripping single family property rights of owners that purchased in the area. And these are individuals, not faceless corporations. The two night minimum, The defense that was provided today when challenged was that it would quote unquote cut down on foot traffic in the area. I guess there's no pushback there, but we've also been told that it will cut down on parties. A perspective here, If you're requiring a local contact within two hours, let them deal with the nuisance, potentially introducing decibel readers or what have you, and not penalizing on the one-night requirement. I have other points on the 200-night maximum. That seems erroneous, but I will save comments for another day. Thank you.

And next will be Reza Thakri. Reza, you may now unmute.

Good evening Mayor and members of Council. My name is Reza Fakhriyeh. I'm a resident of Salt Lake City. I've owned a condominium in the Warehouse District condominiums, a building in the D3 zone in Salt Lake City for over 10 years now. I'd like to focus my comments, as others have this evening, on just one area specifically of the short-term rental ordinance, specifically the 10% cap for multifamily buildings. I want to let you know I support the ordinance's goals, licensing, safety inspections, and accountable local contact, honest records. These are all sensible and reasonable objectives that can and should be complied with. My concern is primarily one provision, which is this 10% cap on short-term rentals in buildings with more than 10 units. Here's the problem. Salt Lake City allows short term rentals mainly in the same districts where it allows hotels a pretty deliberate choice for transient lodging. The 10% cap exists to protect long term housing in residential neighborhoods, but our building was never part of that housing supply. It sits in a district The city's own for exactly this use, and this is an hypothetical about 75% of our building has operated as short term rentals openly and lawfully. For well, over a decade, the cap would cut that to 1 in 10, eliminating roughly 7 of every 8 existing rentals retroactively through a 1st, come 1st, serve scramble the pits neighbor against neighbor. So I asked 2 things. First, exempt buildings in the district where short-term rentals are already permitted, the cap solves nothing there. Or at a minimum, grandfather units with a years-long history or more of lawful operation. We're not asking to skip licensing inspections or safety rules. We embrace them. We ask only that a lawful, properly zoned, decade-old use not be erased by a rule built to solve a different problem. Thank you for your time.

that was the final registered commenter thank you everyone for your comments council member young thank you i appreciate it um i'd just like to thank everyone who came to speak tonight with a specific call out to the sugar house residents who came to speak about both the parkway property discussion as well as the experience with artificial turf athletic fields at roslyn heights As mentioned in the comments, although Salt Lake City Council is not the primary decision-making authority on these properties, it's important to note you are Salt Lake City residents and your voices matter. I appreciate the time, thoughtfulness, and advocacy you've brought forward on behalf of your neighborhoods. Thank you for continuing to engage with us, ask important questions, and work collaboratively as these conversations move forward. I'm grateful for your partnership in helping protect and strengthen our community. Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Young. This concludes our Salt Lake City Council meeting. The Council's formal meeting now stands adjourned.