City Council - Regular Meeting

Hey, everybody. We've got about one minute till we're gonna start. I'm gonna go ahead and start the recording for the meeting.

Recording in progress.

Madam chair, we're ready whenever you're ready.

Good evening, everyone. Thank you for joining us for the Sandy City Council meeting. This is Tuesday, March 3. Hopefully, we have a fairly short agenda tonight. We shall see. We always start our meetings off with a prayer and a pledge, and then we go into the agenda. We have general citizen comment at 6PM. And so at that point in time, we will take comments from any members of the public who are here to speak on any of our agenda items. I'm looking for a volunteer for the prayer. Shane Pace, we'd appreciate it. Thank you.

Our father in heaven, we come before thee this evening grateful for the opportunity to live in this wonderful community. We're grateful for the residents who live here and for their the lives that they live. We're grateful father for the city council and this mayor and for their efforts to lead the city in the direction it needs to go and we pray that that would please bless our elected officials that they might make good decisions and that they might continue to lead us in the right direction and we say this in the name of Jesus Christ. Thank

you. Will everyone please rise and we'll recite the pledge of allegiance. Before we go into introductions, I do want to tell you guys anyone that's here to speak to the council tonight on any issues at 6PM, please please fill out a blue card in the back of the room and we'll call you up to the microphone when it's time to speak. Alright. Mister Frado, let's start introductions.

Of course. Thank you, madam chair. My name is Dustin Frado. I'm with the city council office. There are a couple other council staff members in the back of the room Justin Sorensen and Liz Theriault. My name is Tracy.

I'm counsel for the council.

Chris Edwards with the council office. Chris Nicholl, District 3. Marcy Houseman, District 4.

Cindy Sharkey at large. Allison Stroud, District 2.

Brooke D'Souza at large.

Aaron DeKaiser at large.

Mayor Monica Zoltansky.

I'm Shane Pace, city administrator.

Lynn Pace, city attorney.

I know we have our last city council member here. She'll be joining us any second. That's Brooke Christensen. She's here too. Alright. We'll go ahead and go into the agenda. Item number one is the church rezone and Jake Warner. I'll invite you down to present to us.

Good evening. City council, good to

be with you again. For the public, my

name is Jake Warner, long range planning manager for Sandy City. Community development department has received a rezone application from Matt Snead of the Move Group for property located at 166 East 106 South. Property, there's approximately 1.94 acres. The request is to rezone the property from the R 140 A zone to the R 110 zone. The R 140 A zone is a residential, single family residential zone that requires 40,000 square foot minimum lot size with farm animal rights.

And the R 110 Zone is a single family residential zone that requires a minimum of 10,000 square feet per lot. The property is surrounded by other properties that are zoned R 120 and R 210 to the North, R 140 A to the East, R 110 to the South and to the West. The property is is designated as low density neighborhood on our future land use map as are the properties to the East, south, and West. And then the property to the the properties across the Hundred 6 South to the North North are also designated low density neighborhood and medium density neighborhood. A neighborhood meeting was held on February 19.

Sorry that that was the planning commission date. A neighborhood meeting was held and subsequent to that on February 19, a planning commission meeting was held on February 19. The applicant has submitted a concept plan. The applicant there is a existing church building on the property and a caretaker home, which is in the Southwest Corner. The applicant is intending to keep both of those buildings.

The church building would require modified site plan application if the rezone is approved to accommodate revisions necessary revisions to access parking, landscaping, those type of things. And then they are proposing to subdivide the property to create three new lots, would be single family residential lots, and the existing caretaker house would take up one of those one of those proposed new residential lots. Religious or cultural activity is a conditional use in both of the zones, both the existing and the proposed zone. So the church building, even though it's a non residential use, would still be an allowed use in both both zones. With that.

The application is a legislative item. As I mentioned, it was presented to the Planning Commission in a public hearing. That public hearing was held and is being presented tonight as an informational item to you as the final decision maker on the application and then is scheduled to come back to you on on March 10 for a decision. The applicant Matt Sneed is present and prepared to address you if requested and staff is available for questions as well.

Mr. Snead, if you would like to come down and provide some information to us, we are happy to hear it.

Hi. My name is Matt Snaid. I live at 500143 South Chinook Way in Murray, Utah. I represent the applicant on this, application. And, yeah, this one's pretty straightforward.

We've met with planning department a couple of times to, go through a couple of different versions of what zone and what layout would work best. And we settled on this where it had the least impact and fit as well with the neighborhood as possible. That will be those two new lots that are accessed off that road to the West and then the existing home that will now be accessed off to the West. We will be redoing the parking lot, the the parking spots, the layout, some entry points for the church, but it will be still being used as a church. We're pretty far ahead on figuring out any other items to address as far as what we'll address in the actual site plan and subdivision process.

But we think this fits with the neighborhood with the least amount of impact on the residents and fits with the general plan as we review with department. That's everything unless you guys have questions.

Hold on a sec. Council do we have any questions for either Jake or for the applicant?

Ms. D'Souza go ahead. Thank you chair. You kind of, I think, touched on my question in what you had just said, but my curiosity is on the direction of the ingress, egress of the lots. So it's going to be on this Crest Ridge Drive

Yeah. Not

Which is actually Hollow Bend. It got mislabeled.

Okay. Okay. Yeah. That's why I was confused on what that was too. So

Yeah. Since you brought up the road, if I could. The road was originally improved as secondary access for the subdivision to the south. It does not meet our current standards for a road cross section. Applicant is aware that we've had discussions.

They've been heavily involved with public works and planning on that and and looking for how that's gonna be handled. And so that would be that would be handled if the reason is approved with the subdivision application. However, just wanted to put that on the record that that is an issue we're aware of and working through and and already had several meetings on that and and down the road. As such that well, along the lines of that issue, the subdivision to the south is an HOA. It's my understanding it's primarily an HOA just for maintenance of the improvements along that road and.

And so there would be an HOA involved. The applicant, Mr. Sneed, is aware of that and has had contact with them, and there would need to be a resolution on who maintains what in the future if this application were to move forward. The code the city code requires that adjacent property owners maintain park strips. Those adjacent right of way improvements and so there would just need to be an agreement work through between mister Sneed and and the HOA on that.

Okay. Thank you. That's that's helpful information and you know my my thought process kind of goes to some thoughts that I had when we did the general plan update in homes that single homes that their ingress and egress is along major roads and that creates problems with traffic as traffic's busier and so knowing that the they're going to be on a I don't know how you classify that road but a neighborhood road that then they can enter the main road going forward is kind what I was looking for. So there would no be wouldn't be any individual home access on a 106 in this situation.

Okay. And we've reduced the church from two access points down

to one.

Okay. Thank you. That's my question.

That

was my only question about the driveway access. So thank you for doing that. And that's those seem to be the only questions that we've got. As Jake said, this was an information item tonight and our plan is to put it on the agenda for a voting item for next week. Alright. Second item on the agenda is you too, Jake. That's the Fortner reason.

Yeah, good to be back with you. Ben Child with Stanson Development has submitted a rezone application for property at 868564 South 10th East. It's actually two parcels. Together. It's approximately point six five acres.

The property was annexed into the city a year ago and at that time it was given the R 110 zone. The applicant is requesting a rezone of the property from that R 110 zone to an R M 12 zone. The Arm 12 zone is a multifamily residential zone of up to 12 units per acre. The property is surrounded by unincorporated county property to the North and property to the east is also zoned Rm 12 and R 210. The property to the South is zoned R 210 and then the property to the west is zoned s D R 17.

The r two zones are are duplex zones. The SD is a special development district, kind of a customized zone, but largely along the lines of the R 17 zone or kind of our base R 17 zone. If you look at the future land use map in our general plan, there's kind of a missing puzzle piece for this property because that area was incorporated

at

the time that the general plan was approved. However, in the general plan, we do anticipate these unincorporated unincorporated areas coming into the city so in that other window kind of on the lower right or middle lower middle you kind of see that missing puzzle piece for that area That's the the subject property is designated as a medium density neighborhood in our annexation plan and the general plan and the medium density neighborhood land use designation allows for up to 12 units per acre. If you look at the surrounding properties, the the properties to the east are also designated medium density neighborhood. Property to the south is also medium. Property to the west is is low density neighborhood and then the property to the north which is not yet annexed into the city is also designated as medium density neighborhood.

The applicant has submitted a concept plan. The applicant is proposing a duplex and a four plex six units on the property. The applicant submitted architectural renderings. Those renderings have changed since prior to the neighborhood meeting. At the neighborhood meeting there were some concerns about a more modern looking architecture that the applicant was considering at that time and has revised and provided this revised these revised conceptual elevations.

Again, a neighborhood meeting was held on January 21 for this and the Planning Commission meeting was held on February 19 as required by state code. That Planning Commission meeting was a public hearing. Again, as a legislative item, it is now being presented to you tonight as an informational item and then it it's scheduled to be brought back to you on February on March 10. I believe it's March already. Sorry.

On March 10 for decision. Let me just mention one more thing. There was a lot of discussion at the Planning Commission meeting about lack of improvements on 10th East. The city engineer has been working with Salt Lake County. Salt Lake County is preparing a project along 10th East that would complete the improvements from the full improvements just several properties to the north of here and then extending down to 86 Well and around the corner on 8600 South.

So the county is preparing a project to do the improvements. Regardless it would be the city's practice to require those improvements if the county property does not proceed. And so improvements on 10th East will be provided one way or another whether that's through the county or or through the developer themselves if the rezone if this project were to move forward. Both 8600 South And 10th East are designated in our our master transportation plan as major collectors which would be three lanes at an 82 foot right of way. I mentioned the applicant is Ben Child.

He is present but his partner Josh Becker is here prepared to address the council if you desire and again staff is available for questions.

I'd be happy to hear from the applicant if the applicant would like to speak to us. Come on down.

Yeah, my name is Josh Becker and I'm here representing the applicant. Can I scroll back and just Sure? Yeah. That worked, I guess. Oops.

Well, I guess that works too. So as was mentioned, I mean, we got involved because Jolene Fortner, who lives on the property, she'd like to stay in Sandy, obviously, and was looking for a way to to stay here and transition from a single family residential home to something a little more manageable. You know, she's getting later in years and wanted to do something that she didn't have to maintain so much property in such a big house. And so she requested that we take a look at at what we could find first, and there isn't much in Sandy that kinda targets that demographic. And so we started doing research on what it would take to to annex her property first and then get it rezoned and and build something for her so she could stay there.

And in doing our research, we found that Sandy, you know, kind of has targeted this missing middle between city. Bit able mentioned, the stuff to the north is still in the county, but it's a triplex that is adjacent to the north of our property. There's a duplex adjacent to the south, our property, her property. There's no connectivity to the to the west, but it's R 17 and currently being developed like they're moving dirt back there now. And then to the east is this R M 12.

Right? And so as we looked at it and we've been working with staff, we've tried to target some transition from the R 17 through to that R M 12 zone to the East. We're not trying to get 12 units to the acre. It's actually closer to 10 or just under 10. But we did a duplex in the back next to the other duplex and the triplex that are both to the North and to the South.

And then a townhouse style fourplex on 1000 East, which we feel like provides that transition from the R M 12 that's directly to the East. It stays, you know, kinda in line with what's to the North and to the South and then being no connectivity to the West. But it provides a backyard and a little bit of a buffer so that it doesn't feel so, you know, multifamily esque if you will. That said, the. As as was also mentioned.

During the neighborhood meeting and then the planning and zoning meeting, it was expressed, you know. There were a couple concerns expressed. One being improvements which we are well aware of need to happen and will happen one way or another. You know, we'll dedicate that property or it'll be taken depending on which happens first and provide those improvements. The off street parking was one which we will also provide, right, via driveways and garages, etcetera.

And then traffic was mentioned. In in both meetings as well. And so in doing our study on on traffic. What we're proposing would generate approximately 42 trips per day. If we went single family residential, it would generate approximately 40 trips per day.

So there's really no difference. I mean, 42 trips per day doesn't even trigger any type type of study, but it's still, you know, though that item became kinda negligible, I guess. And then we also feel like we're We're hitting that missing middle, if you will, by providing one place for Jolene to stay and then we'll sell the other. The other homes for people who are looking for something that's. A little bit more attainable and you know the moderate level income folks that would like to be in Sandy and there's really nothing for them to do so.

No plate, not a lot of plate options for them to live so. And then as was also mentioned, these are on roads and close to an intersection that would warrant this type of this type of development. So we feel like it fits the bill for everything that that the city is after. And and, you know, fortunately enough, it will help Jolene stay in her home. Anyway thank you.

Hang there just in case.

Yeah.

Council. Do we have questions for Jake or for the applicant? Miss Houseman. Okay. Jake.

Thank you for that though I appreciate First I love that he referenced our plan like did your homework. Really appreciate that. I know one of the things we talked about throughout all of our housing workshops and we will continue to talk about is our tools for ensuring this remains owner occupied. We're encouraging home ownership not rental property etc. We're trying to ensure that we fill in this missing middle, but to make homeownership a reality for people.

So what does how does that show up in this particular rezone? Obviously, the intent is to allow her to stay in her home, which takes care of that of that home. But what are we thinking about the other two? Did that has that discussion happened?

Yes. So couple of things. As you're aware and as we'll discuss more next week with our joint workshop with the planning commission, city has kicked off a comprehensive code rewrite. From our perspective, a big part of a big reason for that is to align the tools that we have with the vision that is now in place. And so when we get applications in the interim, we have to deal with the tools that we have currently.

And, you know, for example, we've tried to work with the applicant on some different ways to lay this out and and we're somewhat restricted by the tools that we have and we think that we might have better infield tools that better address some of the concerns in the future for infill development. That being said, we try and establish expectations with our applicants based on what we've heard. We are very limited right now at on the staff level at requiring owner occupancy. We can encourage it. We can tell applicants that you as elected officials have, at least from my perspective, made it clear that that is a desire of yours.

And you know, wasn't sure going into his applicant if they were proposing to keep them all as rentals but we had that discussion and that is not their intent, their stated intent to keep them as rentals. But at our level with the tools that we have right now there's not a lot that we can do from the staff level at requiring something like owner occupancy. So we have those discussions with the applicants. We try and kind of help guide them in a direction that we think will be palatable based on things we've heard from you and things in the general plan. But we also have to work with the tools that we currently have.

Thank you. I, you know, reading through the minutes the Planning Commission had a significant discussion on this but I didn't see at least in my in my read through that specific a recommendation around that coming from them. Was just they forwarded a positive recommendation. Did in your professional opinion is that something that we should be talking about or do you feel that the process that we're about to go through is going to clarify the tools we have moving forward and and. You're comfortable with kind of. What what has been recommended to us from the Planning Commission?

So as a as a legislative item, the Planning Commission's role is to make a recommendation on the application before them. There was a lot of discussion about these things at the Planning Commission. And you may not get a sense of that from the minutes. They're pretty boiled down. But they had a lot of discussion about a lot of these issues.

And and they wrestled with it a little bit how to proceed. I think you see that in in the vote that you know it was a four two vote. So generally in favor of the vision and I think they're anxious as well to have good tools to codify some of the mitigation measures so that it's not constant

conflict. Right. Okay. Oh, please.

So Jake is correct. I mean, the Planning Commission is is very supportive of the general plan. And I mean, they're they're the ones who sent that on. That is their main main body who reviews that as the land use authority for the city. But in looking at the the I go along with Jake on this, but I did wanna mention one thing in looking at properties that will come in, and surely they will before we get the complete codification done of which we have started.

We are gonna have to find ways tools to use on that. I would like to there there are some mechanisms. Everybody is interested in homeowner occupancy and making sure that we, you know, we have sufficient amounts of that and that the project the whole project doesn't turn to rental that we've seen in some other areas that we approved a few years ago. I won't specifically, but I know you're all aware of it. And that's brought concerns, you know, that we deal with every time we bring a rezoning.

So there are some ways, and I think that that was something that Lynn is gonna discuss at a in the next couple meetings down the road is on your agenda to discuss some of the ways that we can look at that. He may be able to answer a few of those specifically in the meantime till we get those in place, But there are some things that is gonna be discussed in this on the future agendas. I think it's I think it's April 28 or one of those. So we're gonna have that discussion with you about certain things that can be done currently to help with owner occupancy and to make that happen and assure that they stay that way. But I would probably don't know.

Most of those are legal issues, and I would probably defer some of that discussion that Lynn could address as far as some of the things we could do currently rather than, you know, that we don't have to wait till the whole thing is done in case we have these come in until we're, you know, until we're finished working on the other with the Council.

Thank you and I I guess the only other thing I would say is I'd be interested in in my colleagues thoughts on on that specifically. What is our stopgap measure until until we do have those tools. And I mean I'm open to feedback on that. But that's that's really just the question that I have here. I think it's it's obviously the kind of thing we are looking for especially Councilwoman D'Souza has brought forward housing for you know the 55 and up that's that's all one level and all of the things that are needed. So there's a lot obviously that is aligned. I just have that one burning question. Thank you both.

Ms. D'Souza. Thank you. So I have a couple of questions. The first one is I want understand the improvements that are needed. There's still, is there still an open unused irrigation ditch along 10th there?

Believe so. Yep.

So, when you talk about improvements being done either by the county, city, whatever or the developer what improvements specifically are you talking about?

So it's hard to see on this aerial image but I believe on the very north end of this image you do have full right of way improvements which would include additional dedication of property and park strip and sidewalk or maybe curb adjacent sidewalk. I can't remember what's there but the county property or the county project anticipates extending those improvements all the way down and kind of around the corner on 8600 South. And as I mentioned, our city engineer Brittany Ward has been working with the county on that and could address the specifics.

Do you mind if I share? Thank you. Brittany Ward, city engineer. Salt Lake County got a grant to install sidewalk and curb and gutter along the west side of 10th East beginning at the northern end where the sidewalk dead ends. It'll be along the entire front of 10th East and then wrap around the corner and connect to where the new development in Sandy had come in.

They although this area has already been annexed into Sandy City, they've been very good to work with. They're still moving forward with the contract that they have with the engineer to design the project as well as funding the match for us. So it's been really nice working with them. The improvements that will be installed as part of this project include sidewalk and curb and gutter and then asphalt with pavement widening. And so there will be a southbound right turn pocket as well as a southbound left turn pocket installed.

An ADA ramp will get put in on the northwest corner of the intersection. A crosswalk will be installed across that North lake, so crossing 10th East. For the the Sportner property, I am requiring that they dedicate the full right of way needed for the, 82 foot major collector roadway cross section, and they will be required to install improvements as well. I'm not sure if the county project is gonna come in first or if the Fortner is going to come in first with their development, but we'll balance that and make negotiations onto who installs those improvements first between the county and the Fortner property. There is an open irrigation ditch along the West Side of 10th East.

It still exists today, that's one of the main reasons why we haven't been able to improve put improvements along 10th East so far because of the major expense of of that and the county is addressing that and putting in that storm drain infrastructure needed as part of their project.

Okay. So the the the irrigation ditch that exists there's not currently active irrigation water flowing through that anymore. Is there?

I I I don't know. I don't think so.

And so that will be covered covered with a storm drain system installed and then so cars aren't going to be driving potentially into it or it it increases the shoulder, I'm assuming, too, on 10th East.

Correct. Yeah. We haven't gotten into an we haven't gotten into a deep dive into the utility design yet. Okay. So I'm not sure how big of

a pipe or where that'll

be placed underground or if it's just gonna be end up being just surface runoff that's needed. We still have yet to do storm frame calculations.

Okay. And then my other question I think is is for Jake. In terms of this parcel, is it still going to remain one parcel?

It's currently two parcels. It's address it actually has the same address but it's currently two parcels.

Yeah.

So if the project were to proceed, they would need to follow-up the rezone with a subdivision application. Through that subdivision application they would take those two parcels and create six separate parcels for each of the units. So each of the units you know the yard space and so forth and so

Is that a requirement or is that an option?

So they would. I'm trying to, I guess, anticipate why you're asking that, but if they were to not subdivide for individual sellable units, they would need to probably do a subdivision still, but it would be more to address the joining of the two parcels and the improvements, the side improvements for those units.

Okay. And and yes, I'm asking in kind of playing off of what council member Houseman was talking about in some of the necessary steps to create a sellable product and if if if it's not parceled out that becomes challenging.

Based on the zoning at the staff level at at, you know, with the subdivision up subsequent to a rezone, we would not be able to require them through the zone to subdivide those six units into sellable properties.

Okay. Thank you. That answers my question.

Can you repeat that last? What was your question? The last one, Brooke? Sorry.

Oh, and. You had it. If you wanna repeat So,

if the zone were to be approved, they would be able, they would have rights to whatever the zone allows. And the zone does not require Individual occupancy. Your individually subdivided, you know, parcels for those units so.

And can I have see the applicant rec one more time? You're planning on parceling this out. Yes. Right? Making an okay. And

Sorry. Yes. The plan is I to mean, subdivide them. It'll be six individually platted homes. They will be know, fee simple. They'll be sold.

K.

Jolene will keep one, and then the other five will be sold.

Did you happen to look at

other zones that may allow you the flexibility to do this?

We did. We looked at a few. There's really it would be RM 10 or r m 12. But because of the dedication up front and then the width of the lots, how much property is left over, etcetera, and then trying to we wanted to have yards, etcetera, to provide that buffer between the single family that's to the west and these, you know, this duplex without, you know, putting her in the same position she's in right now, which is too much property maintain.

With the sidewalk proposed sidewalk easement that would that you had to include that. And so the R 112 was the only zone that you could do.

R M 12.

This R M 12 was the only zone. R 110 you couldn't do this in because of that dedication of the sidewalk. Is that correct?

Well, I mean, that setbacks the size of yards, the size of the lots, the width of the lots. I mean, there's a lot of because we've gone through several iterations just working on access, working on mitigating traffic, working on a lot of it. And and quite frankly, it may be whittled down even more to where we can't even do the full six. But what I didn't wanna do is come before you and say, hey, we propose five and then be able to build six and build six and have it be a bait and switch situation.

Thank you for

that.

So we just went in and said, look, this is the max we're able to get. And there's a real possibility that we don't get all six. So we do a triplex up front and a duplex behind. That's a real possibility. But we didn't wanna put that forward this early just because if that doesn't happen, we would prefer to do the fourplex up front and the duplex behind.

Thank you. I have some questions for Jake. Would the PUD zone allow for greater flexibility?

The PUD zone is typically the way it's structured, it works better for better bigger properties. Okay. I believe that our code requires that properties over five acres have to use the PUD. There are some nice things about the PUD, but it is very limiting as far as smaller infill development. It would make it very difficult to develop this property.

Is the road inside the subdivision, would it be maintained by Sandy?

That is a that would be a private lane. I mentioned some of the restrictions that our current zoning you know, that we have to deal with. You know we've looked at restructuring how these units lay out and so forth but currently a private lane is only allowed to provide access to two units so you know we couldn't use that private lane to access maybe additional units in the back or anything like that.

Or flip the garages to the west.

Or flip them. Exactly. So when I talk about the tools that we have we're trying to encourage the applicant to move forward in a way that mitigates the impacts as best as possible but we we anticipate that we'll be able to address these better for infill infill development with our code rewrite. You asked about a different zone even in our the applicant mentioned an RM 10. I calculate his density at nine units per acre with an arm 12 that that gives you 7.8.

So they would be allowed seven. But there are there are other factors as he mentioned, setbacks and so forth. There's a minimum area requirement per unit. And so, you know, the applicant wants six units on this property. Is is hopeful to have six units on this property and and we see that he could have any more than that. And even those densities at at a nine the RM 10 the minimum area requirements and setbacks and so forth associated with the RM 10 zone would further limit that number.

So I like the aspect of this is an owner occupied owner occupants tend to take care of the properties a lot better. And so I I I would like the council to talk about some type of agreement that we can make sure that they are single family and offered on the open market. You know, I think maybe flipping the garages to exit on the west would disguise the property or make it blend in a little bit better. That way you're also not seeing the cars in the driveway. You're keeping that in the subdivision.

And I don't know. That would be a pretty easy change to get going to have the best development possible that we could?

Unfortunately, it's not allowed under our current tools. But we looked at that as well in trying to work with them on the best layout possible. You know, we don't we don't dictate their concept plan but we encourage along the lines of what we think would be more palatable to use decision makers and to the public and to address you know potential impacts. So we encourage and we've looked at a lot of different scenarios and and with the limitations.

With infill, I mean, I feel this is gonna be we we've never really liked back facing garages or allow people to have back facing access a joint abut each other. So this is what we're gonna see from now on. So I I would really like to prioritize some of these little key things to maximize the the amount of homes somebody can put. I know that sounds really bad, but maximize it to a certain it varies every parcel. So and not necessarily high density, medium density, or low density like this is being proposed. That's it. Thanks.

Ms. Stroud.

Thank you. I've got kind of a few questions all over the place. And I love the discussion and the willingness for you guys to make sure that these are owner occupied housing units. You know and I was just wondering about I mean the area as a whole. Do we have information on the current ownership patterns in this area?

So the adjoining properties there there are several rental units in the area. Duplexes and apartments, you know apartments across the street to the East. Duplexes also to the East and to the South. 3 plex to the North. I believe the owner of the property to the North also lives in that property.

I would assume that that most of the other duplexes and and of course apartments are rental product. But I don't know for sure if the owners of those duplexes also live on the property. I believe the owner of the three plex does to the North, but I'm not sure if the other duplexes in the area. So I believe that they're as far as the attached product in the area, I believe that they're mostly rental units. The new development to the west, as we've talked about is is an SDR one seven.

So those are single family homes on 7,000 square foot minimum lot sizes. I don't know what the actual lot sizes are in that subdivision but and I, you know, those would be a for sale product but don't know. Again, that's under development currently.

I mean, I think a lot of this for me is keeping stability in the neighborhood. And you know this area I I think and that's why I was asking that question you know has a lot of rental units which you know you just get a lot of turnover to it and the neighborhood is looking for stability. Moving in you know raising kids just building those community ties and community bonds. You know I mean I'd I'd like to see something where we could start looking at more homeownership and whether that's deed restricting something to make sure that it's not well I'm going to go buy the home but then I'll send put it in as a rental. You know I think that that's that would help with a with a lot of concerns.

You know another concern that I have go back to so these are townhomes correct? Yes. So I they they are tall and to have those four units right up front sorry I'm trying to scroll through. That's here somewhere. You know looking at those right off the street.

You know that it's it puts a very different feel in that neighborhood. You know, when you have four of them together versus, you know, they have, there's a lot of the R 210. Think most of it on here is R 210 aside from the so the county parcel you know in that area which are the duplexes you know not four units that are townhomes that are taller. You know what what would the difference be of the R210 of how many units versus the RM12? I'm trying to keep continuity with the area knowing that we have single family lots.

Little bit smaller lots than kind of our our one eight, you know, to the back with the Larson, I think it was, the Larson rezone but even in that surrounding area, it's you know, primarily that R210. You know, it's not four taller townhomes that are right there on 10th East. You know we've got the duplexes. So what you know for the amount of property that's there what would just an R210 look

like? I think going to

is it possible?

Any other zone would would reduce the number of units there. The R210 is a duplex zone that requires 10,000 square feet per duplex. And that would be point six eight of an acre. And they currently have point six five of an acre and they will be providing some dedication for the right of way. So it it appears that it would be it would limit it to two duplexes.

So four units versus six.

And that's yeah that's part of the struggle we've had is looking at different options with the size and shape of the property and and our existing zoning regulations. But yes so yeah 30,000 so they would need 30,000 square feet for three duplexes and that's more than what they currently have.

And for the record I'm I'm fine with four units instead instead of six. And I but I really am trying to look for something that we're we seem to be piecemealing a lot of things in this area of putting it together. Is there some way to provide more continuity where, oh, this is a duplex. This is a duplex. You know, when we're looking at multifamily housing, not the single home, you know, at an R 110 as it as it's currently zoned.

But something else that the surrounding neighbors have. And so I would be more interested in looking at an R 210. Something that that the neighbors have that it doesn't look so piecemeal. You know and provides you know we have a tenth East as you know a major corridor along there where people aren't driving through and going okay we've got all of these different things that we're looking at. You know and that's and then just looking at the precedent that it's setting for the future.

You know looking saying okay well you know we have this medium density. How many other parcels are going to follow along with that along that area? And what does that look like? But, you know, that R 210 just seems to be a little more respectful for the the property owners in that surrounding area and to bring more continuity to it. So I would be a a lot more open to looking at an R 210 versus putting in an R M 12.

For the record, can I just correct something that I said? It may not reduce it to four. A single family home is allowed in a R 210. Potentially four or five. Just for the record.

But it gets it gets that block of four townhomes and it would it wouldn't allow that block of four right there along Tenthies. Right. Because it would allow two. I mean two and then somehow putting in if there was one in the back something. But at least it it looks more fitting for the neighborhood and the feel is a little is a little more similar with the the surrounding homes with an r two ten because that seems to be at least that

The height could still be there if that's what you're trying to resolve. You know, our our residential zones allow for up to 35 feet. So any one of those properties could already develop up to or build something up to 35 feet. There's there are well, they're in the county, but there are some large structures in that area.

There are.

But

it it would reduce the massing of the building but the height could still be there.

And that's and and the height but it is just that larger block of homes. I mean, that's, you know, to the north that a one right now but to the east R 210 and then the R M 12 there is one there but then R 210 R 210 and then the S D 17. So it just it it seems that the R 210 would be more congruent and and a better fit for potential rezone if we're if we do look more move forward with that and that's something I I think that maybe we should look at to try to keep the continuity of the neighborhood. You know, just kind of a suggestion. So,

that's it. Thank you. Miss Christensen.

Okay. So I actually like the R 210 as well. I think it will look better in that neighborhood. There already a lot of townhomes in that and but they're not that dense along the frontage. I did notice that in the planning commission notes, 11 of the neighbors came out to talk against this, which I think is a significant amount of people in the neighborhood.

Probably hits almost all their neighbors. And then what type of price point for selling? I know it's very general, but, like, do you have, like, an estimate of what these would sell for? I'm I'm mean, I'm asking just because are we really hitting the missing middle? But are we really hitting that? Or is

Again, it density, you go to a duplex and it's gonna command a lot more money. Right? I mean, just quite frankly, like what ends up happening is you build a duplex, you build a home, you build anything, and say you've got a 7,000 square foot lot with 10 foot setbacks. Right?

Mhmm.

So you build to the setbacks. Right? And so if we were to build duplexes, duplexes, then we build the setbacks. If we're to build a fourplex, build the setbacks. So a fourplex is gonna be smaller individual homes, but amassing wise, if you're concerned about two story and hitting the setbacks, etcetera, it's it's gonna be it's a square footage question. Right? So if you build a 2,000 square foot fourplex at each unit's 2,000 square feet or two four thousand square foot sides of a duplex, then the fourplex is gonna sell or the duplex is gonna sell for, you know, 400,000 and the duplex is gonna sell for 6. Right?

So both still hit the middle.

So and that's probably low, to be honest.

That's that's my build costs

are $200 a square foot. So if you're a 2,000 square foot home, that's $400 to build it. And then 20% goes to the land, so now you're up to $4.80. And then a 20% margin, you're up to 5 something on a fourplex.

Yeah. And then on

a duplex, it's gonna be 600,000 in build, let's say, and then. 20% another 120 or up to seven twenty and a 20% margin. You're just north of 800.

Okay, thank

you. Can

I speak that and that speaking to that zone that would kind of take away from the ownership because a duplex has single ownership, so you would have a rental regardless in the other side? Right? If you were to build duplexes, I'm talking about duplexes. Yes. There's two different There's one there's one type of ownership in a duplex because it's singular plat or singular parcel. I know. But the zone that you guys like would be duplexes. The one that you're stating is duplexes. And so I'm just pointing out that we still have it creates a rental situation. Just wanted to point that out.

What's the twin home then?

I I think the difference.

So, yeah. I mean, if we're going to get specific, there's duplexes and twin homes and both of those housing types are allowed in that zone. So, you're right that a duplex is typically single ownership, you know, two units single ownership. But the two is two units per 10,000 square feet. They can do two attached and that could either be a duplex or a twin home. So going back to the zone, it could be either. But you're right, the terminology to be specific is.

And I guess that was the question is, so the difference of duplex versus a twin home. Could they be?

A a twin home is a duplex that is subdivided so that it could be sold off individually.

So they could be?

Yes. Well,

yep. And and what is a twin home?

Twin home is just I mean a twin home and a duplex could look exactly the same except they have a property line down the middle.

What is the zone for it

for a twin home?

Oh r two ten. That's what I'm saying is in in the R 210 zone both of those housing unit types are allowed. We've been taught we've been saying duplex but both the twin home and a duplex would be allowed.

So but they could be each individual owner occupied. It wouldn't have to be. Okay. Yep. So it could be either one.

I mean, that's a it's an important clarification. Right? Because it

I think you're not I think Chase is explaining that. Just so he's saying that if you have a twin home, they have a line down the middle. Those could be sold. That's what they're done. Yeah. Those could be owner occupied. When you have a duplex, has one lot. So usually, you have the owner that owns the full lot, lives on one side, rents the other side, or rents both sides.

And that's the word we've been using.

And so

that I have I probably created that confusion, so I apologize. But both unit types are are allowed in the R 210 zone.

And that would be up to would we be doing some sort of development agreement to say this

is Again, it's like the RM zone. We can't require one over the other. Both are allowed. And so at the staff level, we would not be able to dictate what that ownership looks like whether it's a duplex or a twin home. It could be either. Both are allowed by the zone so. Okay.

Miss DeSouza. Thank you. I just, you know, listening to the conversation with colleagues, you know, the one thing I I have to say I get a little hesitant about looking at even talking about zones that the applicant hasn't requested. You know, for me, is about yes or no kind of taking into account what they've requested as opposed. So so if if there is thought or consideration of having further discussion about, you know, a a different zone, I'm not comfortable having that with this application if the applicant wants to amend their application and bring that forward. You know, that might be one thing. But, you know, I I lived in the area for a long time. I still have a home. My daughter lives there. I travel that area very frequently, multiple times a week.

And, you know, I understand a lot of the challenges, the irrigation ditch. I actually have an irrigation ditch, the same one. I think it's the same, you know, ownership through my property. You know, and and it is kind of a hodgepodge and I think it's a hodgepodge of of zoning because it was county for so long and and counties zoning was little more lackadaisical and and you got a lot. But if you do drive further so if you do drive further north, there are adjoining homes and along 10th East closer to the 78th, you know, the Mid mark of of 10th East and 78th and so, you know, I know this isn't a decision but just and I'm I'm very curious to hear the the neighbors that have come out to also speak tonight to us.

This isn't a decision night but just kind of taking in all of the information that we're hearing and that we're discussing. I just wanted to share kind of where where I'm at in my thoughts and I wanna take this on its merit. I'm not interested in in changing a zone that wasn't asked for. And I do recognize the the like, I don't know, hodgepodginess of the area. And so, you know, I'm not sure that anything could really be defined as super continuous or provide a lot of continuity because there is so much diversity in the housing stock in the area.

You know, the one thing, you know, council member Nickel having garages face a different way, stuff like that appeals to me because I do get concerned about adding more frontage to these roads that are getting more traffic where I I'm I'm trying to come up with ways to reduce the instances of ingress and egress onto main roads. But okay those are all my comments. Thanks. So

Jake can you describe the process by which we just annexed this in a year ago you said? So what was the process by which we determined the zoning to be at R110?

So the A1 zone in the county is a weird zone. I probably shouldn't say that. It's an interesting zone. You know, there's some provisions in there that allow it an attached product. There's some provisions in there that are more of a rural, zoning.

But but 10,000 square foot lots are allowed in that zone as well. And so when we annex property, we try and bring them in as close as possible, apples to apples to our zoning, to the Sandy City's zoning. And with the a one, it's it's kinda difficult. I think we had a zone a few months ago that had previously been a one in the county and was brought in at an r one fifteen because that was kind of in the area. And again the a one zone from my understanding is is kind of a difficult zone for to go from the county to match perfectly to one of Sandy City zones.

So difficult if A1 is so hard to define and transfer into our language, was it because of what was what's there right now that we decided that R-one 110 was applicable?

I believe that the standard practice has been to bring in a one to r one ten. We intentionally try and separate the zoning decisions from the annexation decision.

I can answer that just a little bit too. When we're XC properties, we're looking at the closest zone in the county. And oftentimes, we just have to take the closest zone in the county that matches the best we can match up with the area. And when we're looking at the A1 zone, the only zone that could really match is a R 110 because that is really the only the only type of residential zone that comes even close to matching some of our areas. So what we had decided years ago with the city council is that we would take the zone that matches closest to what we have, and we wouldn't discuss that as far as, you know, rezoning of that as part of the the when we annexed the property in.

But they would have to come back later and apply for a zone that if they wanted something different than what we could match it up with when they came in. So several people have done that. If they then come in and they wanted to develop their properties later, they've come in and then said, hey, we really want this. This is what it was brought in. But we decided with the city council, we wanted you to hear that, and we wanted you to hear the process. If they have to come back, they need to come before the city council. Because there's oftentimes that does not match up perfectly. We do the best they can, and that's why they're back here tonight is because they're asking for a different zone than what they annexed in with. And that's the best we can do a lot of times, but that is what we've asked them to do through this body is to bring it back. And you have the authority to give them or not give them the zone.

I understand. I just wondered what the thought process was. Because r one ten really doesn't match much of anything that's around it. When we talk about the hodgepodgy nature of what's here, this didn't help. So anyway, I understand that we're back to defining what it ought to be. I got the

thumbs up from our annexation expert. Either James and I are in line with our standard practice or he just doesn't want to come talk.

Can

you describe the main differences between an RM and an R1 zone in terms of the land use, the design, the site planning, all of those things. What are the main differences between an R1 zone and an RM zone?

I guess the main differences is the housing types that are allowed between the two. An R1 is single family that's what the one designates as single family residential zone whereas the r m is residential multifamily. So single family units are allowed in the r one or are in the r m but also additional attached housing product types are allowed in the r m as well.

Setbacks are different?

Setbacks I'd have to go to the code. I believe that it depends. I mean, from an r one six to an r one forty, the setbacks are different. You know, ranging from six feet to to 10 feet. I believe as far as a side yard setback, you know, off the top of my head, I believe the side yard setback, meaning the perimeter of the RM property being developed is eight feet.

So they would have to be eight feet away from their side perimeter boundary. I believe the rear yard is 20. It seems like the front is 20 where, you know, typically with an r one zone, it's 25 to a garage and 30 to living. But even with that, Sandy City has what we call our residential conservation overlay. And so by right, they can come in.

And if they had a porch and a sidewalk to the a walkway to the sidewalk, they can already reduce that setback. And so even within an r one, there are ways to reduce. In fact, I think that's gonna be come into play with the rezone we talked about earlier. That existing caretaker house on that church property is too close to that street. And so for that house to stay, I mentioned that was in their their intent, but I don't know if that's gonna be feasible.

For that house to stay, they would probably have to apply the the residential conservation overlay to get reduced setbacks, but that is a possibility. So so there's flexibility regardless if it's an r one.

So I think that first of all I agree with miss DeSouza's comments. It's the right of the applicant to make a request and we respond with a yes or no to the request. I'd rather do that than make a demand of what it would it should be to get my vote. I respect the private property right. Is a little over half an acre.

When we get into infill projects and especially the application or the the discussion of the new general plan. This is a problem for me. That's why part of why I voted no to the adoption of the general plan. We we increase density across the entire city and disproportionately. And so when we get to an infill project of a small size like this, if it's a large infill project, you create your own atmosphere.

You create your own new community. When you're talking about half an acre, you're inserting something into an existing neighborhood that may or may not fit. And when you are comparing it to a general plan that hasn't been adopted as a zoning plan and you get something that you can have the potential of getting something that simply doesn't fit and won't for decades if you ever get there. So this is why I think it's so important to consider the context of an individual application within the neighborhood in which it resides and not to compare it against a general plan. Which is a potential vision of a potential future that we aren't zoned for at this point in time.

Does this this is not proposed to have an HOA since these are all individually plat no HOA. Attached but individually platted with an expectation and here we go, right? If there's no HOA then how do you address a private road? I don't understand how this works. I also I mean in terms of a vision of what might fit.

You know I appreciate everybody's view of what might fit there or might look good there or might be an improvement there. But I also have some sensitivity to what others have been allowed. That So this is part of my discomfort. Recent decisions about what others are allowed or mandated versus the new normal of what is completely completely different, we get into this issue of inequity of private property rights and valuation and it is a problem. It's a problem.

We can either look to the future and say no matter what we're going to do what we decided by a majority vote we're going to do or we can just continue to consider what fits in the neighborhood and what matches and what a stretch is possible. A stretch is possible. But a whole rewrite of what will allow will lead to I think will lead to some problems with some continuance of a community or a neighborhood identity. So you're getting up to the microphone like you wanna say something.

May I?

K. Only if I mean by I mean, may

I? Yeah.

So you made a comment that I just need to address because I need to make sure that it's addressed. When the general plan when we brought the general plan, we looked at ranges. And so when you look at these, we're looking at ranges on these. And the general plan also asked the council to look at the character of the area. So I do agree with you in this in the instance where you said these can be item or these can be individual, you know, where you're looking at that. And I think that is the city council's job. The general plan looked at that and said there's a ranges of densities in these areas. It doesn't have to be stuck on a 10 or whatever. That's what you're here doing tonight, in my view, is looking at a range. And you're looking at that, and you are looking at the character.

Does that match that area? That's what the general plan asked you to do, or does it not? That's as a body of the city council, you're you're looking at implementing the general general plan. That is what it asks you to do. So I think you are doing what you're asked to do in the general plan. I think you're you're you're simply looking at exactly what the general plan saw and what it's asking you to do. And that's look at a variety. Every one of you have mentioned some type of a different density or some type of a different thing on there. That is what you're supposed to be doing. That's just my humble opinion about the general plan and looking at that.

That's why I am excited about the general plan, and I think you are doing it right. I think by the questions you're asking is exactly what it wants you to do. And it is a range, and it is the character that you're looking at. And if it doesn't fit, then you don't approve it. Or you do approve it if it fits. So I think you are following the general plan by your discussion tonight.

Okay. Are there any other comments or questions on this item? This was an information item tonight. It is on the agenda or potential agenda for next week for decision making. So with no more questions, we'll end discussion on this specific item tonight and we will go to general citizen comment. I do have some blue cards here and so I'll call on the people who have submitted blue cards and then we'll call on the people online if they'd like to comment as well. Did Daniel leave? Oh, Mike left. Daniel's here. Okay.

So Daniel, come on up. We've got you three minutes is you're allowed and please. The timer will start when you do. Thanks.

Very good. Thanks thanks for your time. Thanks for all your consideration. Daniel Lericott, did you want anything else said?

No.

Yep. We got it. I appreciate the what was brought up. I think those are more in line with the concerns that were expressed in the previous meeting with the general one, the precedent that it potentially set with other similar lots in the area and the aging population there. What might happen with those particular lots and the impact on community, keeping it a a residential family type community versus a rental property.

To the South Bay, 600 or yeah. We've got a ton of rental places there. Great. We need both in the city, but I appreciate what was said about keeping the as much as possible, the continuity of the of of family ownership type stuff. And I believe it was you that pointed out the maintenance. Those tend to get maintained better. I used to live in what we call the Gray Apartments, which right across Tempe's. It it it's a good spot. The police end up there, you know, on a regular regular occasion. They and that affects the community in a certain way.

So I would encourage you to continue to consider the the impact and precedent it sets for other properties, and that will be probably coming up before you at some point and and keeping it a family oriented type place. I don't have a problem with rentals, but, you know, I live in the community. I want it to be a place that is good to live in in two thousand thirty forty years from now, and I assume you do as well. Thanks for your time.

Thank you Ron Larson.

Thank you, Cindy. I appreciate you coming on with me. Thanks for your time. First of all, I was told that there would no be not be any allowance for multifamily new multifamily dwelling units when I subdivide my property. I'm the property directly to the west. The Larson development property, the lot that borders that is definitely an SDR one seven. SDR one seven means that there's a special reason why it's special. And that, I believe, is because of the school. That's what I was told. There's an elementary school nearby, which means they don't want a lot of anything in there that's gonna disrupt that school.

And they don't want people in there that are gonna cause problems. They don't want, you know, businesses that will create an environment that's not protective to the students. That's what I was told. Now I'm not sure that that's the truth or not, but that's what I was that's how I understand it. So we're trying to protect the students. We're trying protect the area. We're trying to protect the neighborhood. And when you go vastly beyond the immediate one or two little multifamily dwelling areas, they are almost all residential by far. There's church. Is but by far, it's residential.

It's not it's not it's just a couple of small pockets that are that. So, yeah, there's some stuff stuck in there. Okay. So I disapprove or I I ask that you disapprove of this multifamily dwelling. One, because I was told not to.

Two, because we think it might create some problems for the youth. And three, it doesn't it it might lower the value of my properties. Okay? So that is a financial request for me because I think it will reduce my family as well as other single family, single residences in the area. I think it'll reduce the value of those residences.

The other thing that I would like to point out is there is almost no on street parking. He he mentioned that there will not be any allowance for any driveways to come from the one that goes inside and with entrances from the West. There are, like, they're lined up. When you look at the plan, these driveways are lined up. Boom. Boom. Boom. Boom. Boom. There will be no ability for anyone to park on the street unless they block a driveway.

And secondly, if there have a very short setback in order to accommodate it, those cars are gonna be parked out so that it's sticking out into the sidewalk or depending on what the whether how much park strip you have, how much how wide your sidewalks are, how much is allowed. It it those cars are gonna be blocking that sidewalk. And the other thing I wanna point out is a friend of mine, Larry Astell, was hit by a car when they backed out of the driveway. They hit Larry Astell, and he was put into the hospital. And now he is having to go into a home because of being hit and because of the disabilities and and other things. Not just because he was hit, but he's also old. Thank you. Have a good day.

Shannon

Maynard.

Sorry. This makes you nervous. Public speaking is out, I think. So I'm Shannon Maynard. I live, two doors two properties down from where this is being done. I am in the area that we'll be annexed in by 2027. And they've been talking about a tri my neighbor actually, her home is a single family home, so I don't know where they keep getting it. It's a tri level, but the one at 8550 is actually a single family home. We'll just leave it at that. And then all the other homes in that area that are gonna be annexed in, everyone that faces the street is also a single family home.

So as to your question earlier, Brooke, the all the homes there are plenty there are homes that have been built along 10th East. They're actually as I counted today, there are about 10 that have been built within the last, I would say, maybe seven years. So every home that actually faces 10th East is a single family home. So there may be, like, duplexes, but they're not right on the street. They're either behind.

There are some properties that have two homes. There's some property that have three homes. But the ones that actually face 1000 East, they are all single family homes with one driveway. So I think that needs to be noted. So I've been a resident of this area for forty years. I've seen the fields. I've seen the growth in this area. I think it's important to note that the apartments were built in 1986. There was a lot of opposition back then. And a lot of those concerns, what people opposed to back then actually have come have become reality.

There's been a lot of issues with those, including crime and drugs and stuff like that. So I've seen all that. It's in front of my house that's right across the street. So rentals, I do not want rentals. There's no way to stop these homes from becoming rentals. Sorry. I'm really nervous. And so like I said, that's that's a big issue. It was how do you stop them from becoming rentals? You can't really stop them from becoming rentals, and that affects me. That affects my kids. That affects my property. It brought up about the decrease in value and all that stuff. So that is a big that is a big concern. I believe it's too too dense for the area.

The five driveways is an issue too. The intersection, it's a crazy intersection. It's a dangerous intersection right there on 86 And 10. There are stuff put in place for that, but it's not in place yet. So we don't know when that's going to be put in place with the Sandy City and all the stuff they're gonna be doing. So that's an issue. There is a crosswalk there that is very dangerous for people to cross. We've talked about it in the past. But, yeah, I think five driveways with that so close to the intersection is just not good. And I would hope that this gets denied and different options looked at in the future.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Paul O'Brien.

Yes. Excuse me. I'm Paul O'Brien. I didn't realize how fast that three minutes went. So I'll I'll I'll try not to repeat what other people have already said.

But I I am, not in favor of the Fortner rezone, and I have some some thoughts about it. One of the biggest concerns is that we have an intersection right now at 10th East And 8600 which is is terrible in terms of trying to drive through that intersection or especially try to walk through the intersection. I have talked to the county I know what they're doing on the West Side. And that that is good, but it's not going to help. And because it's only doing the West Side, it doesn't help anybody trying to cross 8600.

My concern is that a rezone like this will only create more traffic both pedestrian and automobile intersection is overused right now. And, like the the Larson development will has already been approved. It's fine. But more cars, more people just Just up the street are were approved some duplexes. That's gonna create more traffic.

So what I'm asking read my notes. So I think we're really putting the cart before the horse. I think what we need to do is make sure that we have a safe, area for people to both drive and walk before we approve having higher density. I'd also like to, I think it was touched on the, planning meeting. And I went there and it was interesting because it was there were like kind of 12.

I think you said 11 but anyway there were a lot of residents that came out and spoke against it. The only one who actually spoke for it was the gentleman back there who I think he just represents a construction firm. So there I mean, the property owner was not here. I mean, none of the people that live around there said, hey, this is a good idea. So that gave me some concern and I wow, I'm running Okay, was gonna talk about the your your budget priorities and I highlighted these because I think safety is a theme there and no a making a good place to live and this intersection really needs to be addressed.

I'm going slightly over but this is important. The map that is being shown as part of the.

Production here. Thank you. My job is to tell you that we're done so we can hear from everybody else. So thank you very much.

Paul, you can go ahead and email us and our staff can tell you how to do that and we'd love to hear what you have to say instead. Go ahead and do that. All right that's all the blue cards that I have here. If anyone else would like to speak you're welcome to do that. But let's go ahead Dustin when you have a second and tell our online audience how they can make public comment if they'd like to.

Of course thank you madam chair. If you're joining us virtually this evening via Zoom and you'd like to comment on any city business now's the time. Go ahead and click the raise hand button on your screen. I'll call your name in the order in which you raised your hand and you'll have three minutes. Not seeing any hands raised Madam Chair.

Same. We'll close public comment and move forward in the agenda. We have two planning commission reappointments and so I will hand it over to the mayor if you're presenting.

Yes, thank you. Thank you, madam chair. We are asking the council to consider reappointment of Dave Bromley and Ron Mortimer to the Sandy Planning Commission. Dave Bromley has served for two terms and has a professional background in property development. Ron Mortimer has served for three terms and is a civil engineer and has an engineering background.

Both of these existing planning commissioners have served for a very long tenure and have bring with them valuable institutional knowledge, knowledge of the growth of the city, of the long term planning strategies of the city, and add valuable professional and community perspective to the Planning Commission. Both have agreed to my great appreciation to serve for another term if approved by the city council.

Thank you. Council neither Commissioner Mortimer or Bromley are here tonight but I'm sure if we have any questions that either the mayor or the community development department can answer them. Any questions? I'd like to, oh go ahead Miss Nicholl.

Yeah madam chair I've worked with both of these gentlemen and they are very professional in what they do and they're very successful at what they do. So I would go ahead and make a motion to approve resolution.

This is an information item tonight. We vote next week. But thank you for your advocacy and endorsement and I do want to make the same comments. I have worked with them both and I think they're outstanding. And I appreciate the fact that they've agreed to continue to serve and I agree with all of your comments. So is that it on these two items counsel? No further questions or comments. Going on to the next item on the agenda that is Ms. Houseman with a proposal.

Thank you Madam Chair. So just some additional I'll just share a couple of thoughts in addition to what you saw in the packet. This proposed amendment is essentially formalizing good governance. You kind of hear me kind of been focusing on that a lot lately a consolidated staffing schedule that is adopted as part of our annual budget and any increase in full time benefit positions should require the same process as as any other budget amendment. So that's really kind of what I'm focusing on with this proposed amendment.

My focus really is ensuring transparency for taxpayers so that there's clear a clear process by which staffing levels grow and that is done through this amendment that you know staffing is adopted through the budget process. And so that's the FTEs that are adopted and a change to that would simply come to the council for approval. So just kind of providing some oversight of headcount I think that's good governance and and tax payers have insight into the financial obligations that come with that. That's really all I had. It's pretty straightforward.

Anyone with any comments? Ms. Nichol, go ahead.

I really like this idea a lot and I'm planning on voting for it when it comes back. I was just wondering why the decision was to do full time benefited. I think that maybe, because this been has done in the past. People have been hard hired part time midyear with the thought that they would increase headcount, you know, next year. So I'd like to see part time benefited or or non benefited excluding seasonal. I mean if if you look at it when you bring it back and you think no it doesn't apply then that's fine too.

May I Madam Chair? Yes please.

Yeah I think that some of the feedback I received was specifically seasonal. Needs departments need especially like parks and recreation for example they need some flexibility around seasonal but if you're asking me to think separately like in terms of there's part time seasonal and then there's part time is that what you're

asking me to look at.

So

yeah let me take that back that's why there's it's the value of a first reading is to hear things like that. So I had not actually considered the feedback was make sure we're providing flexibility for seasonal. Is what what is the example of so is your worry a part time position becoming a full time?

Yeah. There were two people hired part time with the salary savings of whatever it was. And I would like to address that in in yours. If you think it's outside the lines then I'm fine with that too.

And you're you're saying these The

two individuals were hired

between Yes. They were not hired as seasonal employees. Correct. They were hired as part time to become full time. Correct. I think that yeah let me let me definitely take that back and consider Thank that for the second you. Thank you.

Okay. Mr. DeKeiser.

Thank you madam chair. I have a few questions. I'm really just trying to understand this. So maybe kind of along the lines of what Councilmember Nickel was talking about in that staffing change, I'm wondering, Councilmember Hausman, if you could elaborate on like specific instances or experiences that have have arise that you feel you know need need the council to restrict the mayor's authority regarding staffing changes.

Well first let me start with your second point because I don't think that's what this does. We're not talking about restricting mayor's authority. But to your first question as an example. So a few years ago administration hired eight full time firefighters as a one time expense which isn't when you're talking about staffing. You know staffing is ongoing expenses benefits etc.

And so this was this was done and obviously we had conversation around that but it was done prior to Council approval. So what this kind of addresses is making sure that the process is that it starts with the council. So we should have had kind of a flipped experience. The council should have been approached for that first and then then move forward with it. So I'm just ensuring that we have a process by which the council approves.

And my understanding is if the increase does not require further appropriation there is no requirement for like a public hearing a public notice etcetera. The only time a public hearing would be required is if the approval of the increased FTEs requires an additional appropriation. With an additional appropriation that sets in motion the public hearing process, public notice etcetera. But if all we are doing is approving a change to the staffing schedule and no appropriation required there is no public hearing required is my understanding. Mr.

DeKeiser, does that answer your question?

Yeah, thank you. I'm wondering does and I don't know if you can answer this, Council Member Hausman, or maybe Mr. Shane Pace can answer this, but was there a change made in the prior administration that this policy kind of reverts back to? I'm not too clear on the history of that or maybe to council member Hausman you could speak if if those changes had have anything to do with this.

I'm not tracking your question. I I I don't understand it. Sorry.

Mister Pace, do you do you understand the question?

I might. I know that I was not here at the time but I know during the prior administration of Mayor Bradburn there was something added to the budget document that allowed movement in between approved budgets and that was put into the budget document at the very top of the staffing document. There are a couple of situations for that is that there are times when somebody will decide they want to retire. Not all of our employees say they're going to retire at the before the budget year starts. And sometimes because they're in a singular position in other words there's nobody else that does that job.

There's a desire to bring somebody on a couple months before they retire. So that they can be trained up in that position by the person who's doing that position. I think that was one of the reasons why that was put in place. A second reason of course is if you have an employee who goes on FMLA and is on FMLA for twelve weeks And that job that work is not being done. Hiring a temporary seasonal person to do that job during that time is very helpful.

And so that's I believe that's why I wasn't here at the time when it happened but I believe that's why that policy was put in place. It was you know it was part of the budget book and it was approved by the council but Ryan you might have more information on that.

Thank you. Council member Hausman, do you know how a policy like this work works in other cities and what what the outcomes of those cases have been?

So what I know and I'm sorry. I'm looking at this way because I see you on the screen. I'm trying to make eye contact even though you're joining virtually. I know it's weird because I just realized you're looking at the side of my head. So maybe I should look at the camera.

So my understanding is in all cities with our form of government this is absolutely within the authority of the City Council like adopting the staffing schedule is part of our budget authority. And so a change to the FTE 's it's an appropriate you know it's an appropriate aspect of our budgetary oversight to ask that there be an approval given by the city council. So I wouldn't say that I researched other cities as much as knowing what our governance model looks like and what's appropriate within our governance model.

Okay. Thank you. My last question is just whether there was communication with the administration about this and if so what what their response was.

Yes that that was absolutely part of our process is making sure that Mr. Pace had a chance to I should clarify Mr. Lynn Pace as the city attorney had a chance to look at it. We've had discussions and obviously cross department or I don't know if it's the right word but between our staff and Mr. Pace as well. So yes.

Okay. Thank you. I just want to finish by saying that you know I understand the need for oversight in our city's governance especially regarding budgetary matters and like you're talking about good governments which I think is great. I wanna approach this from the best policy perspective but I also wanna make sure that the mayor has an ability to act within the budget to have that operational flexibility. You know, she's on the ground directly engaged with the departments and understands their needs.

So the proposal a little bit initially and hopefully we can work this out in the future but it seems to kind of exemplify maybe a lack of trust in leadership and I just want to make sure that we're rowing in the boat together like you would say. So I would definitely consider you mentioned transparency. I like maybe the idea of doing something like a reporting requirement for staffing changes but I don't know if I would want to go along with this. And one thing I hope to talk to more later is I just have the analogy in my mind of like a corporate board of directors kind of limiting the CEO's ability to manage their people. It seems to me that that would be counterproductive and maybe an overreach.

So I would just want to urge my colleagues to think about this in terms of collaboration and effective governments and look forward to continuing the conversation. Thank you.

I please? Thank you, Mr. DeKaiser. I know we've heard this a few times now this comparison to CEO and a board and I don't think that's an accurate representation of our governance. We are equal bodies equal branches of government and I have verified that this is 100% within our lane.

So I want to make sure I put your your mind at ease there Mr. DeKeiser that this is this is appropriate and I did take into consideration administration feedback because initially I was to Miss Nichols point or Councilwoman Nichols point originally I had just unilaterally thought about all all employees and it was recommended that we think intentionally about flexibility for seasonal and and so just focusing on full time benefited. So I do believe this is representative of collaborative efforts while also making sure we are thinking about governance. And so I think the other thing I would just really reiterate is as as the budget authority and making sure we are clear with taxpayers staffing decisions Again those are not one time expenses when we when we exceed or go beyond the FTEs have been adopted in the staffing schedule. We are in essence creating ongoing salary ongoing benefits.

I think it's appropriate for for us to move forward and continue to talk about this. I appreciate the feedback. I see it differently. I don't see this as any for like all this is saying is if if there is a need to go beyond the FTEs that are in in the staffing schedule that get adopted as part of the process all we are asking is come back to the council have a conversation about that need and and we do an approval process and again I want to say it again because just make sure it's very very clear we're not requiring a public hearing for this. This is come to the council make the case hey we need to go above the cap.

I will not require an additional appropriation for this. It's just we're going to you know move the move the FTE up in this manner. There's a there's a collaborative conversation and it's it's a very simple approval process. The only time we would have to have more than that is if we are in fact there will need to be an additional appropriation to do it. Then we're talking public process. But I feel like I I don't know. I don't want to. I don't want to make an assumption here. So I guess what I'm seeking for is. With the feedback that I have heard, of course, we'll go back, revisit it.

Then is there I'm not hearing in a strong resistance to me bringing this back for a second reading.

Miss Christianson has a question.

Yeah. I just comments. You already answered about the process, which was a question that I had, making sure we didn't have to go through, like, the entire budgeting approval process. So that makes me feel better. I Shane's point about the FTEs, like, those are, like, extremely good examples of when we might need to make adjustments.

So I don't know how that fits in. I'm not opposed to the part time adding in, but, like, maybe those positions count as seasonal or somehow so that they don't have to go through all the hoops to do that, like, if someone's retiring or Yeah. You know what I mean? FMLA, those types of situations considered. And then do you mind if I just we check-in with Brian to make sure he doesn't have any other Madam Chair?

It's okay.

Is there anything

He came all the way down. Just

to respond to the question of council member to Kaiser on the history if I that's all I'd have to add is like Mr. Shane Pace was mentioning early on in the Bradburn administration there was some desire to have more flexibility to work with FTEs within the budget constraints. And the legal counsel at the time researched it and came back and said that essentially the budget constraints, the amount of budget appropriated by the City Council was the the threshold or the limit put upon administration to operate within. And that the code was kind of silent basically on the FTE. That was his interpretation at the time.

So as to respond to that or to include that in the budget we put a note in the staffing consolidate staffing schedule says the staffing schedules provided for informational purposes only positions ranges and FTE counts may be adjusted during the fiscal year as allowed by budget appropriations. So that's how we've been operating on for the last more than eight years. And some of the cases Mr. Shane Pace mentioned on flexibility has come into play. It doesn't happen that often, but my memory on the three two staffing issue was were three two staffing was implemented, but we were filling that by backfilling with extra shifts.

I don't think we adjusted the appropriation till that went through the council budget process and then the FTE count. I don't think we ever exceeded the FTE count during that process because it was just being back filled by existing people through overtime and such. But that's my memory on it.

Do you see this being like a significant issue in what you have to do in terms of budgeting, like coming, bringing it back? Or is that

that might be It's just more, you know, process to go through and get your approval. It limits the administration's flexibility, so I don't love that, but. It's another step to go through,

but it feels similar to like going back eight years before.

Yeah, I I essentially feel like it's the same as our practice before.

Thank you.

For Brian about that. So what was adopted that you said you had a note in the consolidated budget? Yeah. Was that in the budget book?

It's in the budget book. Year? Yeah.

So just by adopting language, there

was a change in policy.

Yeah. We put that in there to clarify. So the the FTE counts were just for informational because we track those internally as administration. You know, we're we're making sure departments are staying within budget and accounts as well.

Cool, thank you. Mr.

Lynn Pace.

Yes, thank you. I just wanted

to clarify one comment. Council Member House made. The the way you this language is drafted right now, any change to the staffing would require all of the same process as a formal budget amendment. If that's not what you want, you can change it. But right now it says unless the consolidated staffing schedule is amended by the city council pursuant to the same procedures required for amending the annual budget. So if you want an easier process to add staffing, you want to change this language. Right now, you have to use the same process you do to amend

the budget. That's just the

way you've drafted it. If that's not what you want then fix it before next week.

Madam chair may I? Yes. So just to be clear there's multiple processes for amending the budget depending on what you're you're amending. You have to hold a public hearing if you're increasing appropriations. But for example, let's say you're amending the budget to move money from the police department to the fire department. Right? You're not but you're not increasing appropriation necessarily. That doesn't require a public hearing. So I think that the language is

I mean

we're happy to clarify if you'd like to. But I think the point is it I don't know that it specifically requires that unless an appropriation is a new appropriation

I is being don't want to belabor the point. But if there were money in the budget and somebody wanted to add an employee, right now amending that staffing document can only be done pursuant to the same procedure required for amending the budget. If that's not what you want, then just change the language

to reflect it. That's all.

Madam Chair, could I comment on this too? Yes. So I appreciate what the council is trying to accomplish here, and I think it might be helpful just to think about how the budget, how you adopt the budget anyway. And I think there's been concerns about the mayor's ability to and and and by delegation and assignment, her professional staff is going to be able to function under these perceived constraints. And let's just think about the way the budget works anyway.

It you don't necessarily craft the budget from ground zero. It's the mayor and her team that does. And if they need additional staffing and people, what this does is just say they have to they have to plan for it. And they're gonna put it in the budget. And they're gonna put where they need the the FTEs.

And then when you approve the budget under this model, and the way I read it is you'll approve the FTEs along with it. Because the FTEs are essentially, you know, that's what's that's the budgetary piece that you're that's really the authority you're using when you are considering a policy like this. And so I I don't I see it as just the the branch of government working together the way you always do. If Shane has a need for additional FTEs in certain places, then he's not just going to come in and he's he's gonna he's gonna talk to the mayor and he's gonna talk to Brian and they're gonna tell you why they're increasing the budget and then they need three or four new people in order to say accomplish this objective. The only difference is here is we're gonna put a number to that.

And so that's how it'll work practically. The way I see it is that the administration will come in and they'll make recommendations like they always do. There's this just this additional piece. And and look, if something happens mid year and they need to change it like they always do, they'll let you know. And and I think Lynn's point's a good one if you wanna tweak that language a little bit.

But I also think that you do budgetary changes with the resolution that's always been pretty simple and hasn't really been that controversial anyway. So maybe you just keep in mind, how does this work practically? And the way I see it is it'll just work the way it's always worked. There'll be there'll be dollars, there'll be numbers, and and that'll be that. I don't think it'll be that controversial and difficult. And we have Brian saying that this doesn't happen very often anyway. And so I think it's the way I the way I read the policy is it's a additional layer of transparency in terms of what the council wants to do here. So I I don't have any concern with with it from a policy perspective if you decide that it's good public policy.

Ms. D'Souza has something. I just thought I'd provide feedback and let you know that I I do agree with a lot of what you've said, what's been said. You know, I see this as again in in enacting good governance, trying create more stability and predictability with regard to the budget every year and you're right in your in your report or your your memo on this that, you know, the largest portion of our budget is staffing salaries and benefits and whatnot. And so I I see this as I love collaboration.

I want more of it. I think it's amazing. And I see this as a as defining a process that ensures collaborative conversation exists. And so I overall support this.

I'll add my support as well. I see it as just nothing more than a safeguard and notification. A transparency is a good word too. I can't imagine that we would have many if any problems but adding employees adds cost and we're the budget authority so we should know. Sure we would agree if there was a justification for hiring we'd agree to it. We just need to know what's ahead of us, how to plan for it, whether it has any impacts and if so how are we going to address those impacts. I see it as a good thing.

Thank you Madam Chair. Want to share with the council. Go ahead. So there has not been any additional employees that have not been authorized through the budget process of this council since I've been mayor. So the firefighters were approved by the council. To backfill the three two policy was through overtime. So there have not been part time employees hired that have transitioned in anticipation of transitioning to full time employees since I've been mayor.

I just want to put that out there. Thank you. Alright. You have what you need, miss Houseman. Okay. Perfect. Alright. We're through the regular agenda with the exception of the consent calendar which is a final draft of our budget priorities for the council, three sets of minutes, and intent to annex. Do I have a motion to adopt the consent calendar?

Motion to adopt the consent calendar.

Alright, we have a motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? None. Alright. Alright. Okay, that takes us to agenda planning. Mister Fratto.

Thank you madam chair. Just really quickly so next week is a little bit of a different meeting. We've done this a few times in the past but we're going to start the meeting with a work session. It's going to be a joint city council and planning commission meeting to kind of kick off the land development code rewrite. So that'll be at the beginning.

Tentatively we have our presentation of our draft housing workshop final report. I say tentative because I have given Liz the very difficult task of making it, putting it in a really nice looking format and she is working furiously. So I'm giving her little bit of leeway in case she's not able to to get it complete in time by leaving this tentative. But our plan at this point is to do it next week. We've got the in in reference to the land development code kickoff, James has also brought up that they would like a couple of council members or folks appointed by the council, maybe staff to serve on the committee for the land development code rewrite.

And so we're going to discuss that and see how you'd like to move forward there. We've got the advice and consent voting items for the two planning commissioners that were mentioned tonight and then the two voting items for the two rezones that were mentioned tonight. The following meeting is cancelled on the seventeenth for caucus night. And then a couple other items I wanted to or not a couple, one other item that I wanted to update you on is related to our management study. Give me just a second to make sure I've got my notes here.

Yes. So Matrix who is our consultant, they have provide they provided us I actually was this morning with the draft existing conditions report. And so the things are moving along really well. Currently, Justin Public Utility staff are reviewing that for accuracy. So they'll be getting back to Matrix with that.

And then secondly they are preparing the draft of the Public Utilities employee survey which will go out as a part of this. I've let him know that need to send that to us ahead of time so that we can take it through the survey approval team process which we'll do. And so things are moving along really well with that. If you have any questions, again Justin is heading that up on our end and you're welcome to reach out to him and I'm sure he'll be able to give you all the feedback that you'd like to have from him. That's it madam chair. Thank you.

Alright. Thank you. Council member business. I'll go this way. Miss Nicholl, do you have anything?

No. Not this week. Thank you. Thank you.

Miss Houseman.

Thank you Madam Chair. A bit of a I'll keep it as brief as I can but I think it's an important update. I want to just share some high level points from the Woolford Wasatch waste and recycling district meeting we had yesterday actually. So I am going to look at my notes because I think it's really important to get these these updates correct. So a couple of things that I want to start with celebrating.

I'll just say Wifford. They implemented several cost saving measures. Love we all know this. We all love this not just me but efficiencies that yield cost savings always a great thing to celebrate. So they were able to celebrate several cost saving measures while retaining all lines of service.

So I won't I won't go through all of that, but if you're curious to know specifically what those measures were, let me know. But I wanted to highlight that the amount of that was so that cost savings cumulative $1,820,000. So I think that's pretty significant. I love processes that result in efficiencies and cost savings. I wanted to celebrate that.

There was a lot of conversation around some policy updates. Much like what we do often is sort of getting our policy in alignment with state code and changes there. Some grammatical changes etc. So I won't go through all of those but I did want to just share the an update on the landfill voucher program because you might get questions on that. So they're looking to waive and again this will be voted on.

This is the first reading. So if you have feedback please let me know. But the change would be that the landfill voucher program shall waive fees for up to it's been 2% the proposal is to change it to 5% of the number of households serviced by the district so increasing access to those vouchers I thought that was something important to share. And then the last thing I've got more, but I'm trying to be concise here. The most important thing I want to make sure I give all of you is an update on the Harriman withdrawal.

I know you probably are very aware of that. So I'm going to read what I wrote to make sure that I give the proper update here. So during the meeting the board authorized staff to negotiate Herriman's withdrawal under a cooperative framework that aims to be cost neutral. So that's a specific question I asked. I wanted to make sure that if we were adopting any kind of a framework that we were not setting ourselves up.

Our residents who do pay fees through the service provided by Wifford that they were in some way going to have to absorb these additional impacts. So through some really great analysis they have they have identified ways to absorb this so that our residents and all of the other cities residents will not be impacted. So the intent is it will be cost neutral. And then rather than fighting an inevitable exit given some state legislation that I imagine maybe we'll hear an update on the board chose to negotiate favorable terms now and focus energy on strengthening the district. So there's some really good conversation that was had around what does it look like to strengthen the district.

A conversation about having a specific board retreat to really think about what does it look like to together as cities that will remain as part of the district and really kind of create this this vision of how do we how do we remain strong and not and keep this cost neutral because I I just stress that was really important to Sandy City. So the board other the board receipt and other things will focus on strengthening the district for remaining members and additional operational improvements. So like like I just highlighted Obviously there's a little bit of tension between this member withdrawal and how that impacts the district's future. So continuing to focus on operational excellence and being responsive to our customers' needs. So that's a very high level summary.

It was a very long, lots of good conversation but I did want to bring that update back. If you want further insights then I have it but hopefully that gives you kind of an update in general terms. And that's all I had. Thank you, ma'am Chair.

Miss Christensen? Yeah. Just two things. Thanks. For everyone's patience last week with parent teacher conferences, that was new and exciting. And then also you see these rose plantings on your desks. Mark is very excited about this. And so just wanted to make sure you all saw that and know that anyone's invited to come help plant these beautiful roses in the cemetery.

I will be there. Count me in. Alright. Yeah. For LPC, we're in our last week.

I'll let Ryan since he's sat through the entire meeting, he ought to be able to give the full report. But I just I do want to say that I have felt accomplishment this year in terms of our legislators especially the Sandy legislators listening to us and acting on our requests. We've diffused some issues and sometimes we think they're diffused only for them to come back to life. But I just I feel like our legislators this year in particular have been really responsive and listening to Sandy and voting in our interests and so I think there's a I just wanted to comment on that. I was able to attend Barb's farewell.

She's heading on to Provo and we will miss her but I'm sure and Provo is lucky to get her and I'm sure she'll do a really good job there. And thanks to Ben and Jeddah and Lois for the tour that we took of the new recreation center site. It was to those of you who couldn't make it, it was right after a big rainstorm and we did get a little bit of rain and there was a lot of mud. So whoever chose not to or came up with a good excuse to not be there, I think maybe you did the good thing. I got into my car and stepped in and then lifted my foot and saw that I had covered my carpet mat with bud.

But anyway that's the way it goes on construction sites. That's it for now. I'll let Ryan take over the legislative part. Miss Stroud, do you have anything tonight?

Thank you. Nope. I was just gonna add with this that Mark has invited the youth council and it sounds like that we will be there. So the youth council will be there last year at the cemetery. We you know, tidied up around some of the headstones, but, you know, super excited to kind of see what they can do with this and all these rose bushes. So, you know, that'll be a fun event. So, yeah, love to have you guys there. I will be inviting them. It was provided 40 invitations for all of our kids to have that. So that will be good.

And I'm planning on so my meeting because daytime schedule, very inflexible schedule, but going with Ben over to Alta Canyon on Thursday. Awesome. Be able to see that, watched it a few times driven by over the Home Depot, but it'll be fun.

Thank you.

Mister Souza, go ahead. Yeah. Thank you. Again, yes. Thanks to the Parks and Rec crew for the Alta Canyon tour. It is really nice to see. I do look forward to seeing it again in in more finished states so that my mind can wrap itself around the you know, make sense of the plans. And so great job. Thank you for inviting us. And I also just wanna thank Brian Kelly for being so on top of the senior center updates. Really appreciate it. They really appreciate it. And I got your most recent one. I haven't responded, so here's my public response. And thank you so much for always providing those. Appreciate it.

You done? Alright. The mayor's report is next.

Thanks. I'd want to thank our friends at the Emerald Hills Institute for hosting the interfaith Ramadan dinner. Mayors from all over the South End of the valley. Faith leaders came together for a wonderful dinner and reflections on sharing and building peace, especially at this spring season of Ramadan. We also had the first meeting of the mayor's intersection safety team focusing on the Alta High School intersection.

The working group met last week and I want to thank council member DeKaiser and Houseman for joining us along with residents from the area and Katie Atkinson who was the group moderator. We got a lot of great feedback and were able to share with the M. I. S. Team reporting on not just having the lighted stop signs installed but that we also have removed a tree that several people brought to our attention obstructed the view.

And there has been utility work to install a street light at the southwest corner of the intersection. So those are some short term improvements. And then we are beginning to work with the consultant for the major infrastructure review and study. So laying out that process and also inviting our team and others participate on that study process and really excited about the feedback and the opportunity for community collaboration. So thank you council members for attending.

And a copy with the cops is coming up on March 14. That's not this Saturday but next. So that's going to be at the coffee shop that's at the Smith's shopping center on 94th And Highland Drive. It's Ojai Coffee. And that's going to be held at 10AM to 12PM.

There will be police officers there, a lot of information, victim advocates, our VIPs, and of course the K-nine officers. So it's a great time to come out with your family, meet the officers in a non enforcement environment and get to know your officers who are responsible for your neighborhood. So please if you live in that area in East Sandy 94th And Highland, Council member Nickel, council member Sharkey, please plan put that on your schedule for Saturday, March 14, 10AM to 12PM. We'd love to see you there. And that's all. Thank you.

And mister DeKeiser, I am so sorry that I skipped you inadvertently. Please go ahead.

No. No worries at all, madam chair. When I when I had the experience, I was terrible at recognizing online participants. So thank you. I too just have a couple items. Like the mayor said last week, I participated with council member Hausman in the inaugural MIST meeting. That's the mayor's intersection safety team. And I'm grateful to the mayor for organizing it. We had a great meeting and discussed the elements that the mayor already detailed. I just I am a little unclear on the scope of it, but I would hope to see the group discuss more intersections in the future just tonight.

We have residents talking to us about 86 South And 10th East. So maybe that's something they could talk about, excuse me, and look forward to these great people being continued advocates for safety in our city. The other thing I wanted to comment on was last week we talked about the granite study and then it was sent out to the council almost immediately which I appreciate. I just wanted to note that I read it and it was pretty surprising to me. It seemed very basic and contained seemingly little qualitative analysis on what I would think are really complicated intricacies of the situation.

And it contained some elements that I thought were concerning. Most significantly is the estimated tax burden on being annexed into Sandy was nearly double any of the other three options, those being self funding, having a contract with Sandy, or continuing with their current municipal services district. And that's odd to me because that is counter to the information that I was seeing from the administration many months ago leading up to this. So I'm really interested in these future discussions and making sure that everyone is all on the same page as this process moves forward. Thank you, madam chair.

Mr. Pace, we'll come back to you. And if you feel like you want to address that at a really high level.

I'd like to thank council member DeKaiser for bringing that item for discussion. Now that the council has taken action to initiate the annexation we will be notifying residents in the Granite community and we've also notified Salt Lake County reservations over the deficiencies of the annexation report too. So we'd be happy to share that correspondence with the council so that you're up to speed.

Yeah that letter to the county will answer a lot of the questions that are in habit. On a high level the main difference is they purposely exclude the unified fire authority tax and the unified police department tax. When you add that into the formula of course we're much lower. And so they were comparing apples to oranges. The

other

big issue was their anticipated revenues off of sales tax. It was just flat out wrong so.

Anything else in your CAO report? No. Alright thank you. Recreation Center construction report is that you tonight Ben? Yes. Okay.

So we appreciate the council coming up and visiting with us last week and then we got that on Thursday this coming week. We continue to have our weekly construction meetings with Layton Construction and VSPO Architects. What's exciting happening this week is or has been happening this week is the pillars continue got put up, and now they're connecting the roof from pillar to pillar. So over the field house and also over the basketball court. The other, key item is, I think when we were up there, we saw a bunch of blue tarps that looked like blue tarps over the basketball court. That was in preparation to lay the cement on the basketball court. So that has now been laid. So you can actually see the formation of it. And it's nice to see a roof on it, when you step into the space and look up. You're like, okay.

Can start envisioning this. They also drained the pool, so they could rehook up the, the plumbing, filtration system

to the pool.

So they were doing a bunch of practice of making sure that the pipes were going the right direction and getting that all set back up. And other than that, that's that's what my reward is for tonight. Any questions on that?

Thank you, Ben. Mister Meakim.

Thank you. I was gonna start with homelessness, but let's talk garbage. So the what we were talking about just a few minutes ago, House Bill four twenty nine does deal with special district amendments specifically around garbage disposal. And so that is going through right now. It's on the senate third reading calendar.

In other words, it's already passed the house. It's over in the senate, and that just creates a process for this to happen. And so what'll what'll take place though is it still does provide that anyone, in this case, Harriman, who was part of it when they made the capital decisions will still be part of those capital decisions. So in other words, everything that was bonded against their participation still is the case. So that will you know that will help from everyone else whose remaining standpoint.

Alright let's talk homelessness. The House Bill five ninety six is the bill that's going through the process right now. Today's Tuesday, it's the last day or the last week of the session and since it's Tuesday it means that every bill that originates in the house has to pass out of the house. Everyone that originated in the senate can pass out of the senate. There are ways to get around that, but as a basic rule of thumb, that's the case.

So house bill five ninety six in order to continue needs to pass out tonight. They're gonna stay until whatever time they need to. Last I checked, it was item number 12 on the third reading calendar, and senator Cullimore is gonna be the senate sponsor. So I have no doubt in my mind is gonna get out of the house tonight and move forward. So what this does is we spent a lot of time on it this week. Shout out to the Utah League of Cities and Towns. Molly Wheeler is the one who's been taking point on this. She, in in collaboration with us and other shelter cities, came up with many revisions to the original bill. Steve Ellison, representative Ellison is the one who's running this. He accepted all of those changes.

And so what that means is that there will be all of the state preemption on land uses out and that there will be a one time increase on the funding so the non shelter cities will participate an extra fifteen percent one time, and that will go to help out West Valley City who's had the unenviable position of having to host a shelter but also having to pay into the fund. They're the only ones that are caught in this kind of catch 22 the way that the definitions worked earlier on. So this is gonna help them. It won't impact us at all because we're not as a shelter city. We're not a bill that any of this amount.

So anyway, that will continue. And so kudos to the league and and Molly, like I said, who's taking point on that. Property tax. There's a couple of pieces on property tax. One that we've talked about extensively is House Bill two thirty six.

This is already passed out of the House, so meet so it's in the Senate right now. It's on the second reading calendar circled so they'll get to it here pretty soon. And the the the main provision in this that relates to us is that if we contemplate a tax increase, so whether the mayor's budget comes out with an anticipated tax increase or if the council decides there needs to be a tax increase we have a window between May 1 and June 8 where we have to state at a public meeting that a fiscal tax that we tax an entity are considering levying a tax rate that exceeds the fiscal year tax entity certified tax rate. So if we're gonna up the tax rate, we have to make that announcement in that window. Otherwise, with the windows gone and we we can't come back and redo that.

And then the other part, then then it it anticipates that we would adopt the higher budget. But in order to do that, excuse me on a budgetary line item we would have to set aside the money equal to the amount that we would receive and that would also necessitate that we have a document that explains people here's what the budget was before and if there's a tax increase this is what it would look like after and so they can match up where the money would actually go you know department by department so that's what we would explain to folks and that would be the new requirement coming into that.

Ryan is that one effective this year or next year or

May May May 6. It's the normal

this year, yeah.

Yep. Senate Bill 97. This has gone through many iterations. This is the one that had a 5% cap. So in terms of property tax it originally said that any local government meeting cities counties school districts cannot increase taxes any more than 5% that was eliminated on the last substitute.

The one that is before the Senate right now, which again, Senate bill has to pass out of the Senate tonight. They're at least gonna talk about it. I think there's a strong chance of a passing out, but, you know, we'll see. What this does effectively for us is it doesn't is it doesn't have a huge impact because a lot of cities have a lot of have been carrying on a lot of fund balance. And in the past, you used to cap out at 25%.

Five, six years ago that increased to 35%, but we're at 12%. So no matter kind of what version of this passes out, Brian says, hey, don't worry. We keep it at 12, so it shouldn't be that big a deal for us. But what it would do, it put some teeth into it. So cities right now, if you go beyond the cap, so you've got a general fund and if you add on and say, I'm gonna keep, you know, I I wanna keep 35% in addition to my in addition to my funds, that's fine.

But if you wanna go to 45%, what would happen is the state would send the city a letter and say, bad city, you need to get back to 35%. Please do that right away. Some cities would take the letter and, you know, probably I don't know this to be the case, but they would probably ignore it because there was really no teeth to it. It just said you need to do this. But this would change that.

It would if if after a five year period of time if you were still carrying those kind of balances it would take it out of your tax rate. And so there's real teeth in there to lower your tax rate to compensate for that extra amount that you're holding on above and this time it has a range 252830% depending on the size of your budget. But if you carry more than that, they would say, oh, we're gonna claw that back and we're gonna do that by decreasing the tax rate. Alright. A couple more topics.

Let's talk land use for a second. This senate bill two eighty four, this is the one that deals with planning commissions. So there's a number of changes in this bill, but what one thing that would do is it it kind of from a in some cases planning commissions haven't been making what it calls timely decisions and so it gives the council the ability to just to pull an item from the planning commission and deal with it on a city council level. There have been other instances where planning commissioners have been advocating on behalf or against certain things that have come before and so restrictions around the Planning Commission as it is a quasi well as a decision making body and so it it puts some more guardrails around that.

Quick question on Is that a mayor or shall? Is which part? The city council may pull it.

May.

Okay.

Thank you. May. Yeah. It's it's yeah. There isn't a way to do it today with these changes then there is a method for the council to be able to take something to the council in order to make a decision to respect the landowners application to get a decision made so that the so that they can move forward.

Alright. Housing. My last topic that I wanted to bring up.

By which a council may pull that off?

It's it's vague. It mostly talks about timeliness. It's

time I guess if it's on the agenda, then it would be assumed that it it's up for discussion.

Mhmm.

Right? So I guess I'm a little confused about that. I didn't know if you had any more clarity on how I that

I would I would characterize it as intentionally vague.

K.

Meaning that there's some flexibility in there and that if you as a council deem that it hasn't been made in a timely basis then it gives you mechanism in order to deal with that problem.

Okay. Thank you.

Last topic I'll bring up is housing. House Bill four ninety two another one of those is a compromise bill that actually does several things. Right now there's a last year there's a $70,000,000 pot here in Salt Lake County that was created as a grant in to enable regionally significant infrastructure projects to move forward. So the problem that they're trying to solve is if you have a bunch of entitled lots that are not able to move forward. So Harriman is usually the poster child for this case study because it's happening right now.

They've got 7,000 entitled lots that could come to the market but can't because they don't have a water tank. And so of this money they have an application in for $15,000,000 to build a water tank that then would unlock around 7,000 units within Harriman. And so this is what this bill does. It expands it. Last year it was $70,000,000 This year they're adding another 70 here in Salt Lake County.

Then in addition to that, they're doing another 100,000,000 as a loan in other parts of the state. And so so basically the policy issue they're trying to get at, like I said, is is trying to because cities have been very diligent about bringing entitled lots to the marketplace, and there are 109,000 at last count around the state of of entitled lots, but have no way to get to the market because of lack of infrastructure. So the conversation has really turned from saying, hey, cities, you need to create more get more lots to the marketplace to a realization that there are are problems in our way in order to make that happen. So that's the main goal of this bill. Okay.

So I'm sure next week we'll probably have another conversation and I'll be able to say this is what happened and this is why this is what happened but stay tuned it'll all be over on Friday.

So Ryan yesterday we talked about SB two eighty four local land use modifications of Fillmore bill that we had supported that was merging with 177 I think that that one didn't anyway. Is that one on its way to passage? That one is one where that mandates that cities adopt an external ADU ordinance by October. Correct. Is that one headed toward passage?

I would say yes. This is it's a Senate bill so it has passed the Senate at the it was in a house hearing this morning. What the house did is they returned it to rules because they're out of time. That's not a problem because it just has to have a hearing in one body. So it had a hearing.

Rules committee can also do it, that's another story. But in in this case, they it it already passed out of the senate so it doesn't have to have a house hearing and yeah I would predict that it'll be that it's on the house third reading calendar right now and I predicted that it is one of those that will that will come out and it does it requires municipalities we would fall under this definition that would that we would need to allow a detached accessory dwelling unit as a permitted use in certain zones. So that's kind of the general idea. That's the same one that dealt with the Planning Commission. That bill has got probably 10 or 12 different topics but you are correct that is one of them.

Okay that one's one we need we'll need to take some action on if Madam it chair.

Can I

have a little bit more time?

Sure.

Thank you. An effort to keep you updated on the R. Building Brian would like to update you the selection process for the bonds.

Good evening guys. Just to give you an update, we're scheduled to close next week on the thirteenth on the building and everything's going smoothly. We did select a lender on the bonds. It's Webster Bank. You may or may not have heard of them before, they but are headquartered in Connecticut. Have a strong presence in New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts area. But they're a commercial bank as well as they do some retail and public financing. And they're public financings across The United States. And they're a strong candidate. They had the most competitive bid on the interest rate and the term as far as the callable flexibility.

There is I know I talked to you about the one of our flexibility is one of our key attributes we were looking for. This one is there is a call for three years, so we wouldn't be able to call the bonds for the first three years, but I don't anticipate that being an issue. Only one of the bidders had total flexibility with no call, but they had a reset as a variable interest rate that reset at ten years. And we've seen some bad experience with that. So we elected to go with this fixed rate option. It had the best rate even though it has a three year call. So anyway I just wanted to give you an update on that.

So what kind of rate are we talking about? Is it better than we saw in

the Slightly. It's 5.4 to two overall. And that's a blended rate between taxable and tax exempt. There's a Do you

remember what each one is?

I think it's five five on five five point something or 5.5 something on the taxable and 4.2 on the nontaxable. Okay. And we broke it out separately because the council chambers project is tax exempt where the building is taxable because we'll be leasing it and using it for non governmental purposes, a large percentage of it.

Any other question? The reason for the delay on the closing which we thought was going to happen on March 2 is

was the reason? That was due to the seller not meeting the requirements for the estoppels that were required and also the repairs that we were asking for to be done.

So it cost us nothing? There was a on that.

Yeah. Those factors built into the contract that if they didn't meet it, we could extend it up to ten days. And so we did that, made sure they were gonna fix all those things.

Okay. Yeah. Go ahead.

I see council member DeKeiser has his hand up too, but have they have they correct or provided the information yet or do you know when you anticipate the estoppels?

Dan Nelson told me they've provided all the estoppels.

Okay. It

shouldn't be

delayed yet again.

Right. We're on track for next week. Okay. And the repairs have been done.

Mister DeKiser, go ahead.

Thank you. Just since the legislative session ends on Friday, I just wanted to take a moment to recognize mister Meekam as he completes his first legislative session having served on this council previously. And, you know, here I really appreciated how thoughtful and steady and deeply engaged member of the body he was and it has been really great to watch him carry that same diligence and commitment to public service in his new role as our senior policy director and just love how he's continued to represent our community with integrity and seriousness and even just explaining all those different rules and stuff like that really, really shines a light on how well he's done. So thank you so much for your continued service for the city Mr. Meakim and congratulations on a successful first term at the capital.

All right. That is the end of our agenda and I will accept a motion to adjourn if one would like to give one. Move to adjourn? All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Thank you and good night everyone.