City Council - workshop

Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah.

How deep are you going? Keep going down.

I don't want to go. It's going to an exotic location. I don't think so. You're allowed to see that one.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay, we'd like to welcome everyone and call to order the study session tonight for the West Valley City Council. It's July 28th.

We're beginning our meeting at 4.32 p.m. in the multipurpose room of City Hall. Council Member Norfelt is excused this evening. In person, we have Council Member Christensen, Council Member Wood, Council Member Westrom, Council Member Huynh, Council Member Farman, myself. We're also joined at the table with our City Manager, Mr. Peely, and our City Recorder, Ms. Kamik. We have our minutes of July 14th, 2026. Turn those to the council for discussion or a motion.

Second.

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

Aye.

Any opposed? I'm going to stand approved. Tonight, we're going to introduce our new employees. So we'll first turn the time over to Chief Jacobs for her new employees. I think a couple might be stuck somewhere else.

Yes, that's always the unfortunate part of it. I have to weigh out doing, risk them being on duty and not being able to make it, or pull them in off duty for 30 seconds. So we've got a combination of both, right? With us today is Officer Austin Campbell.

Hi, this is Officer Campbell. I'm happy to be here. I've been here a couple weeks, really loving it so far. Fun fact about me.

And then we have Officer Jose Martinez.

So yeah, we'll get the other ones to you next month.

Okay, thank you. Thank you. It's nice to meet you.

All right, we'll now turn the time over to Ms. Young to introduce her two employees.

Thank you, Mayor and Council. I'm excited to introduce you to a couple of our newest employees in Parks and Recreation. Sadie Collins comes to us in our Park Maintenance Division. She had some really great experience and learned a lot working as a seasonal for both South Jordan City and River Harriman City. but couldn't work for those agencies due to family members working for those agencies full-time. We were really excited to steal her from those other cities. She's learning the ropes and doing great things, and we're excited to have her as part of our park maintenance team. Sadie, do you have anything you'd like to add? We also have tonight Soraya Griffin. Soraya is an activity specialist at the Harmon Senior Recreation Center. She came to us with a lot of experience as well. She had been volunteering at the South Jordan Senior Recreation Center. And we were really excited to get her with some great experience. And she just has hit the ground running and has been a really great fit over there. And we're really excited to have her. Would you like to say anything about yourself?

No, thanks for having me.

Yeah, they're really great additions to both the Hartman Recreation Division and the Park Maintenance Division. We're excited to have them.

Thank you. You're welcome. We'll now turn the time over to Mr. Johnson for his new employee.

Good afternoon. This is Dayton Newell. Dayton is our stormwater inspection manager, recently hired in the engineering division. We're really excited to have him. He comes with a lot of amazing experience, and I'm going to give him just a minute to introduce himself.

Yeah, I'm Dayton Newell. I'm here from Clearfield City. I'll work as a staff engineer there before coming here. Then we work a little bit over at Longwood. the Stonewater Advisory Council Chair. So it's been great to work with Dan and the public works team to learn how West Valley City works. It's been a good experience so far.

His experience on the Stonewater Advisory Committee is very valuable to the city. We're grateful to have somebody with some good background there.

Thank you and welcome. All right, we'll now turn the time over to Mr. Zubel. NEW EMPLOYEE.

NEW EMPLOYEE. NEW EMPLOYEE. NEW EMPLOYEE. NEW EMPLOYEE. NEW EMPLOYEE. NEW EMPLOYEE. NEW EMPLOYEE. NEW EMPLOYEE. NEW EMPLOYEE. NEW EMPLOYEE. NEW EMPLOYEE. NEW EMPLOYEE. NEW EMPLOYEE. NEW EMPLOYEE. NEW EMPLOYEE. NEW EMPLOYEE. NEW EMPLOYEE. NEW EMPLOYEE. NEW EMPLOYEE. NEW EMPLOYEE. NEW EMPLOYEE. NEW EMPLOYEE. NEW EMPLOYEE. NEW EMPLOYEE. NEW EMPLOYEE.

NEW EMPLOYEE. NEW EMPLOYEE. NEW EMPLOYEE. NEW EMPLOYEE. NEW EMPLOYEE. NEW EMPLOYEE. I've been with the company for 24 years. I recently also came from which is a special district in the state of Utah. And I was an assistant director for them. And so with all that experience with the construction, we've been on that for years.

Thank you. As you can see, we're very fortunate to have this caliber of employee with us. I think he's a great asset. He's made such a big difference just these last couple months he's been here. It's great to have him in our facilities and also our West Valley City team. Thank you.

Thank you. Welcome. Okay, now, final, we'll turn the time over to Mr. Colbert for his new employee.

Thank you. I'd like to introduce Oscar Hortado. He was born in California, has lived in Utah for most of his life. He has completed two years of college and plans to continue his education towards his degree in college. Oscar is passionate about fitness and maintaining a healthy lifestyle. He enjoys hiking and exploring new outdoor places. We welcome Oscar. He came from another quarter, and I think he's going to be a great asset to our team.

Thank you. Welcome. All right. We'll now have a review of tonight's regular agenda and the special development agency. There were no new additions. Did anybody on the council have any questions? I'll move forward with them then. And we'll go to our public hearing. and have a presentation by Mr. Welch discussing our budget items scheduled for August 11th, our funnest meeting of the year.

Say that with a smile. That's great. This year, as we've talked about, is somewhat different than what we've had in the past. Again, it's Jim Welch, Finance Director. There are a number of different disclosures and public postings that we need to have. This is one of those. statement that were required by the Senate bill that was passed in the last legislative session. We're not required to read this in this particular meeting. There will be a little bit more narrative in the next one. You'll recall the back and forth narrative that the Mayor and I had when we presented the tentative budget. That will be required in the final adoption of the budget and consideration. That would be in August the 11th, I believe. So with that, this is the statement required to publish and have evidence that it's there. And then the final budget will be presented. It has not changed from what the tentative budget was presented to you. Everything should be aligned with what we talked about before. As a reminder, we also were required to publish the property tax impact statement. That includes the amount of the property tax increase, which is about a 5% of West Valley City. That represents about 1% general total increase over the total bill, but our part is 5%. That is intended to cover the salaries for nine new firefighters and compensation for non-sworn personnel in the police department, along with an increase in employee compensation at the police department. And we've gone over that multiple times. Happy to answer any questions we might have on that one. And then some other things that we will have in the regular meeting, along with a summary of the budget, which I will present like I did in the tentative budget. I'll have the same slides. But I'll also have this one. And this is the notice that was published in the newspaper, which, yes, we still publish things in the newspaper until they change that. And then a couple of notes off to the side that I put in there where our rates have been. One thing that's kind of interesting is the tax rate history in fiscal year 26 was .02647.

This year it's .02694.

about 5% rate change because the values of the properties really didn't change this last year so it's been pretty flat. Usually as the rates go up, I mean as the values of properties go up, the rates come down and it's hard to make a comparison but they were fairly close this year. There's also included a judgment levy and as you will recall it's a small amount this year. It's $41,000 but we've seen that as high as over $2 to $3 million, depending on what the appeals have been from larger businesses. Any appeal over $5,000 is eligible for a judgment levy. We have a number of appeals that are less than that, usually residential properties. So this is the total of those that were over $5,000. And as you recall, we every year have made it a practice to hold truth in taxation to consider a judgment levy as an option to – recapture that one time amount of money that's lost, but also as an opportunity to get before the public and talk about property tax. And it's been, I think, very beneficial over time. We intend to continue to do that. Because we have a property tax increase and a judgment levy, this time they're combined in this ad. This is the slide that's a little bit difficult. I won't explain a whole lot about this. It's in your packet. This is the combined ad that was published by the county. And they're required to publish it the same way we do with it in the newspaper, on the website. And then we're also required to include this in our public hearing. These are the public entities that are considering property taxes, tax increases within our county, along with the individual information for those. And I think that pretty well takes care of it. If anybody has any questions about this, happy to answer them. If not, they won't be doing this again in two weeks.

Any questions? Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. All right. We'll now go to our second public hearing and turn the time over to Mr. Wilson for the updated engineering standards.

Good afternoon, Council. Coby Wilson with the Engineering Division. We are bringing some updated engineering standards for your review. The last time that we updated our engineering standards was back in 2020. Just for a little bit of background, The Utah chapter of the American Public Works Association, they actually publish some standards and specifications that are available for different cities to adopt. Right now there's approximately 50 cities across the state that adopt those as their standards with some minor tweaks to them. We are one of those cities. APWA typically used to update their specs and standards about every five years. The last time they did it was in 2017. And so we were waiting for the 2022 update to come, which never came. They ended up kind of changing their policy, and in 2026, they finally released updated standards, and they're going to start releasing those every year now on an annual basis. So the purpose of these updates now are to adopt the latest APWA specifications, again, with some minor tweaks. But it was time to address those and adopt the latest APWA specs, and that's the issue before you.

Okay, any questions?

Thank you. Thank you.

We'll now let Mr. Pastry come up. And he has application ZT20-2026.

community development. So this item is a request to amend the zoning ordinance in a number of sections. You can see those are listed here. Some of these are actually to align with engineering standards that we just referred to. But to just kind of go through the list here, the first is, as far as a change is concerned, we have our code, what are referred to as high-emission arterial streets. These are major streets where we have certain landscaping requirements. So the first change would be to add two streets where I drive this section basically between Mountain View Corridor and 5600 West, which is essentially 31st South. And then also SL111, or as it's referred to as Backus Highway. So it's adding those two streets. So that's the first change. Another change is just clarifying that right now the ordinance says that When it comes to landscape, it gets measured from the sidewalk back towards the property. And it's clarifying that that landscape should be measured from the property line. Now, in most cases, the sidewalk is the property line, but there are situations on roads like I-215, for example, where you don't have sidewalk as it's a freeway. So it's just clarifying that it's measured from the property line. We also have, and this is a minor change, but on streets like these that are highlighted, so Redwood, 35th South, 5600 West, certain street light standards. And so instead of having some, we simply refer to the engineering standards, which, again, COVID just referred to. Another change has to do with street trees and street lights. So right now in our code, For this section of 35th South, there's language about maintaining the street trees that UDOT installed years ago when the road was widened. The change here is that there are two parts. So first, since this was done, we now have many streets that are shown in this slide that have street trees that were installed either by the city or UDOT. And so we've basically expanded the code to address all of these streets. And again, the intent is that we maintain those trees and don't lose them. And in some cases, there's opportunities to sort of fill in the gaps so that if the property redevelops and a curb cut goes away, we can actually add additional trees. So one of the changes again is that on these streets and frankly, other streets the city may in the future develop and put in street trees that those would be maintained. And then for 35th South, we're actually expanding the language to say between 27th West and 60th West, we could have a street light standard of what we refer to as the double acorns. So right now, that type of street light exists between Bangor and 27th, and then also out between 60th West and about . And so the code would be updated to say essentially close the gap, right? So we've got it sort of the bookends, right? You've got those kinds of lights where we want to have it fill in to where over time you would have those same streetlights between Bangor and Mountain View Quarter. So a number of changes that are related to streetscapes, but again, dealing with streetlights, street trees, and landscaping on all these major streets.

Okay, is that it?

That's it.

Okay, any questions for Mr. Patrick?

Yes.

So this one's referring to streets where either UDOT or the city installs street trees in the park strip. And what the code is meant to say is in any scenario where you have street trees that are maintained by the city in the park strip, that we want those to stay and don't want those displaced. And so it's written in a way that in the future, the city adds streets. So for example, 3650, which is recently completed, as we add other streets, they would automatically be included.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Now we'll let you move on to application ZT3-2026. Thank you, Mayor.

So this one is actually a request the council made to change our standards for fencing along 4100 South. So you'll recall back in 2021, the council changed the code to allow, at least in front yards along 4100 South, a certain type of kind of black ornamental type fence. And after discussing this a couple of times in study session, the council decided to amend the code and this This is the current language, and then this language is just much shorter. So we're now, for properties that have, that are along 41 or south in the front yard, that they can do any type of fence except for chain link. So it's just making it a little more flexible than it is right now. So we're just in response to direction.

Any questions or comments on this one? Okay. Thank you.

And then.

On a roll.

We have application GPZ 3-2026.

Thank you. Mr. Pastrick. Before we move off the last one, we do have a discussion later on the agenda to talk about chain-link fences more broadly, so we'll get to that one later. So this next one is a request to amend the city's general plan and zoning for property at 5548 West, 4100 South. You can see the general plan currently is the non-retail promotion. The request is going to be against the residential. And a zone change from RB, the residential business, to the RM zone. So this is the property in question. And this is zoomed out quite a ways. Here's a close up. So just to orient everyone. So the property to the north and east are homes. Then you have on the west side, starting here, you have a church. This is a Starbucks credit union, another home here. And then you have commercial uses on the south side of 4100 South. This property is a little unique in that you've got a couple of what I'll call fingers, if you go extending down here. where there's essentially curve cuts here along 4100 South. And then you have the access here to the north to 4005 South. So this is a concept that, or the original concept that was reviewed by the Planning Commission. So the initial proposal was for 22 townhomes. They were all three stories. And after the first hearing with the Commission and feedback from neighbors, The commission tabled this and asked the applicant to consider changing the product type along the east side so that it's not as tall. And so this proposal now, this is the latest plan, has two-story units along the east side, so the north is on the left, and then retaining the three-story units along the west side of the property. So a total of 21 units, so dropping in. This would be the floor plan of the three-story unit. So essentially you have the ground levels is the garage and stairs. Main level, or excuse me, second level would be the kitchen, living, and then bedrooms on the upper level. The elevations on our little watchtower here, we have renderings so it's a bit easier to tell. So this would be the rendering of the three-story unit with the, you can see the balcony up on the third level, and then another view of that three-story unit. Again, these would be along the west side, and the west side is the side that's adjacent to the commercial uses. Then the two-story unit, so in this one you have the garage and kitchen living on the main level, and the bedrooms on the second floor. And then renderings of the two-story units, which again would be on the east side, and these would be the units adjoining the residential uses for the homes to the east. In this one, the applicant just provided this sort of example of a commercial building, just to make the point In the current zoning, the RV zone, you can actually build a building up to 35 feet tall. So that just shows that if someone were to build a commercial building under the current RV zoning, that's how tall it could be. So obviously the two-story units would be quite a bit shorter than that. So here's some pictures of the site. So this is looking north from 4100 South. So you'll recall there's the home right on 41, and you have those two kind of strips of property that extend down to 41. And then you can see the commercial uses off there to the left. Just another view from 41. This is from the north side looking south, so from 4005 south looking to the south. This is where the access would be. This is looking west along 40 to 5 south to, you can see like the Lowe's and Smith's out in the distance. This is looking to the east along the same street. This is that one of those strips of property that extends down to 41 on the west side. And then this is the other strip of property that extends down to 41 on the east side. This shot here is actually taken from the commercial property. So where that wall ends is roughly the end of the memory service in America, the first credit union. So you have a number of businesses there where there is no masonry wall that was installed. development agreement requirements would be to extend that wall wherever it does not exist. You can see here's another vantage point. So you have the auto zone you can see there and then where the wall just ends here on the right side of the picture and then you just kind of have a farm fence that would be replaced with the masonry wall. And I believe this is the last image here is looking more towards the northeast. So you have the homes out in the distance with a kind of mixture of different fences along that east side. So just to maybe hit on some of the high points with the development agreement that's proposed. So again, it's addressing the number of units, so it's 21. There's the minimum sizes units which exceeds the code is addressed the rendering Fencing as I mentioned you'd have the precast Concrete wall along the west side and the other sides of the final fencing again against the residential For parking if you go back to the concept and sorry, I know this is goes back a ways and I think it's helpful to see. So the council recalled that the code requires 4.75 stalls per unit, which is basically two in the driveway, two in the garage, and another .75 kind of throughout the site. In this case, the .75 would yield 15. In this concept, they are showing 14. But what's a little bit unique about this project, so as required by code, this room is public. And so you wouldn't be able to park anywhere along here, just given the spacing of the driveways. But there are spaces like along here, for example, where you could park. At the end of the day, I think if the council was leaning towards approving this, they could get another stall to get to 15. They're asking to do 14 simply because there are places along the street where you actually could park on the street, but they could hit 15 if that's the desire. There's also language in this about setbacks in terms of front and rear setbacks, height restrictions. So again, as the Planning Commission desire, specifying that the units along the east side would be two-story, that you can only have three-story units along the west side. And then there's language in the agreement as well about restrictions, which is something that's been done in some more recent development. And I'm happy to get into more detail if desired, but that's it.

Any questions for Mr. Pastrick? Yes.

Right, what's shown right now is those would be part of the common area. So just, and right now it's just extending

way down to the sidewalk on 41 or south. They're not probably wide enough to do any type of like active recreation. So I think that's a decent use of those. They're just, they're too, they're too narrow to have anything inside. So it's a little unusual.

That's one of the moms. And I read in the Planet Mission that some of the neighbors in Philadelphia don't want us, some do, so...

Anyway, that's it. Thank you.

I know it's not big enough for a traffic study, but what do you think the potential impact could be if we don't have direct access to 4100 going through the neighborhood?

It's not. And the reason for not having access, even though there's actually curb cuts on 41 and talking with Public Works, given the proximity to 56, they actually don't want the access on 4100 or south. And so, if memory serves, and this is the ballpark of it, last I recall, townhomes are probably in the somewhere in the six trips per day type traffic volumes, like if you know where on is. The size of this project is not gonna make a huge impact on traffic.

In the development agreement, it talks a little bit about stairs, exterior stairs.

I don't know if we've seen before.

Talk about that. Absolutely. So one of the things we have been doing in some of our, well, most of our development agreements involving townhomes or apartments is we include a section we refer to as public standards. Really, that's just taken straight out of our code. The reason we do that is, just being candid, the legislature has threatened over the years to basically prohibit our ability to have design standards. And so by keeping them, essentially copying those standards into the development agreement, if those go away, they're still in the agreement. So that's just straight out of the code. And they were never intending to do exterior stairways. That's just something that's in the code.

Looks like that's it. Does the council have any questions they want to ask the developer? Or did you get all the information you need? Okay. Thank you.

Thank you.

All right. And then we'll move on, continue with the Steve Pastrick show and move to Resolution 26-91.

Thank you, Mayor. Let's get to those slides here. All right, so this next one is a little bit different. It involves a development agreement cleared back from 1990. So this one goes back a ways. So you can see the APCA here. This is property of 2325 West, 3650 South. So the property is already settled with RM. It has a general plan designation, which goes up to 12 units per acre. So this is the property in question. So you can see here that it involves what's referred to as the . And the overall property, so including both of these properties, just about 10.3 acres, and then you have this area here that's mostly just landscape. That's 3.2 acres. So a little bit of history here. So when this project was approved back in 1990, there was a development agreement that caps the density at essentially what is existing. So it was you get to build this number of units and that's it. And the intent was that a lot, as you can see, a lot of open space. And for, I will say for an apartment complex, at that time, this was, this like far exceeded the amount of open space that most apartment complexes have. In fact, I would say it's probably the highest that you can have any And usually apartments are somewhere in the high teens, or these kinds of apartments where they're stacked flat, usually in the high teens to about 20 units per acre. This is eight. And so that has been in place, again, since 1990. And just to give you some ideas of what this looks like. So this is taken from 22 Midwest. This is the existing apartment complex. This is taken from 3650 South. It's on the north side looking south. This is from 3650 South looking towards I-215. So you can see the road, just the improvements kind of peter out there as you head closer to 215. And then this is looking south at that kind of just grass or landscape here on the west side. So the request here from the owner is to be able to add some town homes to the west part of the property. So I have some numbers here to kind of give you an idea of what the request is. So the current project has 81 units on the 10.3 acres. You see the density's roughly eight units to the acre, and then 64% landscaping or open space. With the proposed project, the apartments would stay and there'd be 31 new town homes You can see the density would still be within the general plan range at about 11, and then the open space would still meet the code requirements. And what the developer owner is proposing here is that in exchange for being able to build the 31 townhomes, that they would extend 3650 south and terminate it in a cul-de-sac and have a drawing that shows that. And then also that they would pay the city $500,000 that could be used for either park improvements or a new renovated fire station. Just to put that in context for a minute, we go back to the aerial photo just to refresh the council. The city acquired this property just kind of to the northeast with the intent of actually building a fire station. So that was part of the thought is that's going to be essentially right across the street that could help fund that facility. So we'll get back to that. So there are a few code exceptions requested in this and you'll see these in the concept plan. So the first is that our code right now prohibits private streets. Now, the extension of 3650 South would be public, but then they are asking to be able to do one practice street. I'll show you what that is here in a second. And there are a couple of exceptions requested off the townhouse themselves in terms of design features that are outlined there. So here's the concept. So again, you have the wider gray area here would be the existing apartment buildings. And then these darker gray buildings represent the proposed town hall. So this area, as I mentioned, is the extension of 3650 South. So right now, the improvements, at least the complete improvements, ended about this location. So this would be, the road would be fully improved as shown here. And then there'd be some right-of-way dedication involved in that. And then what's proposed is at least this road here would be private. Really, it's just a function of just the space that's involved here. So there are some easements for utilities along the west side of the property that really kind of pinch the site. And so if they were to put in a full public street, it'd just really make it to where they couldn't do this type of a concept. And these are the proposed elevations of the townhomes. And so just to go back and summarize, I think really this is a question going back to that original development agreement. So you had a development agreement from 1990 that capped the density at eight and provided a substantial amount of open space, more than what the code requires today. And the request here is, again, to be able to add the townhomes and guess what the city gets in exchange if if the council extension of 3650 and then a payment that can be used for either the fire station or park improvements and that summarizes this this okay any questions from the council

So when they say park improvements, is there a specific park?

That would be completely up to the city where we would put those. If I had to guess right now, we'd probably lean towards the fire station, since that's right across the street. And we know that's where we actually spend within the last year that that property was acquired for the fire station.

Yes? I'm concerned about the private street. We just went through that and saying we're not going to put any more in. Ten good reasons why.

Well, I don't know if I can give you ten reasons, but I'll go back to the concept plan here for a minute. So really, it really does boil down to, in this situation, just the space constraints of the site. So, and I wish I could load this up on the screen a little bit more, but given those utility easements that they really can't shift these buildings along the west side any further west, and so a public stream just consumes more, it's wider, right? It consumes more property. So by putting in a public street and then doing another cul-de-sac here at the end of the street, it really just did end up with significantly fewer units and I think just makes it towards not a practical project at that point. So it really is just a space constraint is the main reason.

When they fill them with parked cars, and can't get through the private street, who do they complain to?

So in this case, they are providing the parking ratio that the code requires. And there really isn't a place to park aside from the actually in the scenes a little bit here in the Wisconsin plan. There are designated, like, so here, here, and then here are designated parking spaces as well as down at the south end. Anywhere else, the road really isn't wide enough, the curb would essentially have to be painted red. And just from the fact of where the driveways are located and where existing parking spaces are designated, there really isn't any other place you could park, right? It's just the street's not wide enough and there's not... We've got a lot. There isn't any place else they could park, but they still park. Yeah. And at that point, where it's a private street, it would actually be the HOA's responsibility to handle any complaints.

Or anything else if they park and block the road and suddenly we need to get a fire truck down in that area and get through. Brother-in-law who was a fireman all his life said we'll just drive over but He was in Salt Lake City, not in this valley.

Councilman Weston, did you have something?

So it's a separate HOA, separate from Lexington. So they maintain their private streets, obviously.

Right. So, and the gap is here, if you have specific questions. I will say, so it's a little bit different in the case of a An apartment complex, it's an apartment complex, it's all one owner, right? So it's basically whoever's managing the apartments is responsible for the maintenance. In the case of a private street, you would have an association, but the association in this case would be limited to the town homeowners for just that one street. The rest of it would be like all of this, the parking and all of this would be still the apartment management company that would be responsible for that.

The original proposal mentioned that the contribution would be made with what building permits were pulled, but then the development agreement said after certificate of occupancy in half the units or so.

I was going to just look at that specific section here. that specific page printed out. What's in the agreement has to do with when the certificates are basically saying the COs would be held until that payment is made. But if the council feels more comfortable having a different standard for that, that's something we can change. But basically, we just wanted to make sure there's there's some form of leverage to make sure that that is done before the project is completed. So for example, with the road improvement, this extension of 3650, we basically said we won't issue permits until that's done. So nothing could start until that's done. That could be a potential amendment to make that provision stricter as it relates to the payment.

um you know fire department we uh you know we really like uh the money to support the fire department to build a station right here it's great um let's look like uh you know what i'm saying we have to go back to london christiansen we have a regulation or maybe rule or laws everybody have to You know what I'm saying? It's a public street, a public street. If you look like someone to a private city, well, I can give you $500,000 so I can have a private street. And then next in line is going to be someone who will come over so I can give you $750,000. I can get a private street. That can create a big problem for our city. Yeah. So I prefer not to do that. fire station. Not that way. Put it that way. Yeah.

So my one, well, one of my questions. The six units to the far south, where is their street parking? Where's their parking? Their driveways come off the public street, correct? 3650? Correct. Right.

So the amount of additional off-street parking is based on the total number of units. So basically, they're meeting that 0.75 for all of the units within or all in the private street. And there's essentially four locations. It's here, here, here, and up in this corner here. So it's all on that private street.

And the odds of those six occupants going into there to park and not just parking on 3650 are slim to none?

It's probably not as likely. They might be the ones closest, but not as likely to go further south on the street.

I think I agree with the private street problem. At first, it works beautifully, and then their sewer line goes out, or they start booting every car that's parked illegally, and then we hear all that again. I'd rather see them do it with a public street than a private street. I don't know. I'm not the architect person that knows how to determine what you would lose and what you would keep.

And so, yeah, they're here. And so, yeah, if they feel like they can reconfigure this with a public street, I certainly convey to the council's concerns about private streets. And now they're hearing it straight from the council, so.

Any other comments? Does the council have any questions they have for the applicant? I mean, I wouldn't mind a really short, abbreviated answer to how many units would be lost with a private street. I mean, public street. If somebody wants to.

I think it will save us.

You come to us a week, so we'll have to come back, but we'll have to get some information.

I think what would happen is... Well, would you give us your name and who you're... Right here at the mic. I'm Ashley Atkinson. I am a development consultant for Table Rock. We'll probably have to get some actual engineering done, but we can probably have that within a week or so. I think what would happen is, and this is why we're avoiding the public street, is the public street is going to come along the freeway, and right now there's really... tall trees right there, which is going to create a nice buffer for these new homes, like a nice backyard. And so it would be tearing those out and would have to match the public street with all of the utilities that Steve just talked about. And then the homes would kind of sit back in the front yards, would be looking at the freeway. So it's just overall not as nice. And we're trying to hit that missing middle, trying to create nice homes. So I think we could do it and we probably wouldn't lose that many units it would it could also potentially create like more of a three-story product or like a more apartment feeling um situation which is what we were trying to avoid but we can definitely see what will fit there i also just wanted to point out there is a two-car driveway for every single unit so and a two-car garage so If you just think about that's four dedicated spots per unit plus .75, that's quite a bit of parking.

Yeah, we just have historical actual practicality that nobody parks in the driveway because nobody wants to move their car before somebody else can get their car out. So in theory, it's awesome. But in practice, it's not.

But we're happy to get back to you in the next week or two and let you know what a site plan would look like.

Okay. Well, and, yeah, if it's going to take more time, it might be best to have us continue it and come back instead of having it denied in a public hearing. Yes. Okay. So if you'd work that out with Steve, that would be helpful. Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

Mayor, I just wanted to add that. So this actually isn't scheduled until the 25th of August. So that does give us quite a bit of time to massage this and potentially look at an alternative. Okay.

And you could send those out in emails because we don't, we'll have a study session that night of the budget or not?

We will not, no.

Okay. So we just won't be able to review it two weeks before the regular. So if we could get it in emails or something, that would be very helpful. Is everybody good with that? Okay. Okay. Thank you. Are we done with you, Steve? I'm going to charge us overtime here soon. So we'll go to resolution 2692 and invite Chief Jacobs to come on up. Good evening.

This amendment had a last-minute adjustment that was needed, so we are not prepared for council to consider right now. Apologies for that. We'll bring it back to you when it's ready.

Okay. Thank you. Okay, we'll now go to Resolution 2693 and turn the time over to Ms. Urkel for new software stuff.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Mayor and Council. I'm Jenny Urkela of IT Deputy Division Head. Eighteen years ago, we implemented CityWorks platform, and it has served the city pretty well, but it is reaching the end of its functional life. So as a team, we conducted a formal RFP process across all our functional areas, and we selected the software company, Atom AI. I'm sorry. Atom AI is a modern cloud-hosted solution that is built on the Google platform. It leverages Google Maps, Street View, and it also integrates and leverages our existing GIS investment. It is a proven intelligence solution that is used by public agencies nationwide, including UDOT down the street. It would also unify our service request platform and our public portal into a single AI-assisted platform and give all of our residents, contractors, and staff one intuitive experience for all permitting, licensing, applications, payments, inspection scheduling, and service requests. So we are proposing a two-phase solution. to go live with our asset management and work management in February of 2027. And all of our permitting, licensing, and the public portal would launch June 2028. For fiscal year 2027, the cost is $244,000. And then future expansions to the platform would likely include Fleet and our Parks and Rec Recreation Department.

Okay, that is all. Any questions? So would we finally get animal services licensing on a website? Would we be able to do it?

We have the ability on our current system to pay for animal licenses, but they are running on a different system.

So would this incorporate them into the system?

They absolutely can.

But will it?

Yes, it will if they choose to come along. Our cows are on a different system, so I guess that's kind of up to animal licensing or somebody else. But this system could accommodate them.

Yeah, because I just think it's easier if it's just all in one. You go to one place and take care of everything instead of having to know. Because the regular citizen is not going to know. You have to go to a different platform. I agree.

When they do renewals, when people do renewals, they do the renewals on the existing system. So we'll keep those in our system. I think the difference is that the chameleon system manages animals in the facility of the shelter. And I think that's where this system definitely, neither the current system, CityWorks, or Atom AI, currently hosts that kind of system. So I think we'd have to look at it and see if that's something we would want to expand into. Okay. That's nice to know.

Okay, doesn't look like any other questions. Thank you. All right, we'll now go to Resolution 26-94 and turn the time over to Mr. Carroll with diamond concessions.

Andy Carroll, Asset Optimization Director. It's great to see you all. In 2002, we entered into an agreement with Diamond Concessions of Utah for exclusive food and beverage rights at the Maverick Center. In that agreement, we had an opportunity to renegotiate the fee structure, which we successfully have done in a new amended agreement. We took the opportunity at that same time. So in that agreement, it allowed us to renegotiate the fee structure. We also took the opportunity at that time to restate and amend that agreement to remove the Grizzlies language because it just needed to be cleaned up. And then also, because the original agreement is subsequent to the Olympics, it was in June of 2002 that the agreement was entered into, There was no provision that provided that we could grant those exclusive rights to the Olympic Committee in the event of a future Olympics, which is what we also were able to do. So with the fee structure, we've improved it significantly, which is gonna be a great benefit from revenue growth for the city. And then we're also able to make those other revisions. So we're just going to be recommending that we enter into that new restated and amended agreement.

Thank you. Any questions from the council?

Go ahead. There were two five-year extensions, but they're only at guidance discretion.

Is that correct?

That is correct. I don't know why the city wouldn't have that option as well.

That was from the original agreement back in, it's a good question, but not sure we're going to get an answer to it.

I'm sorry, whether or not the city would have that option to renew.

Yeah, it just said that it was at the sole discretion of Diamond.

In the original agreement, Diamond was given the opportunity at their discretion to extend the agreement, and they have. But we didn't – I mean, that was all – predates all – everyone.

And I guess for us it would be – not necessarily be – for us terminating the agreement would probably be more important than extending, right? I mean, it would be in their favor, not necessarily ours, to have that extension.

It is in their favor to have the extension, yes.

But, I mean, I guess I'm asking the question, too. I don't know. Is that something we would – see as a valuable inclusion in the contract or something that...

It was not an element of the agreement that we were going to be able to negotiate ourselves out of. So the idea was to negotiate better, improved terms, which we have, and the terms that we have negotiated are standard within the industry. So that's what we've done. But, yeah, that was... It is there... exclusive option to extend the agreement, which they have.

So both parties could terminate.

Yes, we still have all the provisions of termination. So other than the restated language that we've talked about here with the Grizzlies being removed from the agreement, we renegotiated the fee structure to our benefit. And then we added the Olympic provision to our benefit. Those are essentially what we're able to do at the time. The only actual opportunity that we had during this time was to change the fee structure. That was in the agreement that we could renegotiate with them, which we did, and then we took the opportunity for these other elements as well.

I think I'm just thinking through it. I think it's a good question. It's making me think about it. Because I'm sure we could have brought it up and negotiated. I'm just wondering if that's something we... I would like... The ability to determine it is probably the most valuable for us, the ability to extend. I don't know if, again, I'm thinking, I'm just thinking out loud if that's something that's important enough for us to bring up, you know, maybe in another amendment or if we care. I guess that's what I'm, we can talk.

Well, it already goes, I mean, the extension is significant. I don't think there's any benefit to us to further extend it.

Yeah, I guess that's what I'm kind of thinking through. If that's something that's got to make me think through about it.

So the Olympic verbiage carves out the time that we had the Olympics there, that there would be I'm assuming another agreement with the Olympic Committee of how revenue is shared for the Olympic time. Right. Is that what we can expect in the future?

Yes. Well, we entered into one, and we need to enter into another. But that agreement, essentially the way the Olympics work is they come in, they give you a venue use agreement. in that venue use agreement, they get the whole venue. So there's a fee associated with it, but they also get rights to concessions. That's just the way it works for all the Olympics. In the initial in the original agreement, we don't have those rights to be able to offer it. Somebody else had actually written in. It says that they have exclusive food and beverage rights. That's not the way that you can manage an Olympic agreement. You have to provide that and then we get compensation through the venue use agreement and 1, 1, 1. Anything else? Thank you.

Okay, thank you. All right, we have one item on our consent agenda, which is to appoint three new members to the 50 West Valley Committee. Does the council have any questions on this item? And would the council like to add any of the full resolutions to the consent? Well, I guess three, because 92 is going to be continued. I think that first development agreement needs to stay on.

Oh, yeah. It's on its own.

And then the school district one is not going to be there. So it would be the software and the concessions. Does anyone have an issue with having C&D be on the consent agenda?

Okay.

We'll go that way. Thank you. All right, we have our communication items. Turn the time over to Mr. Johnson for the Bangor Highway Project update.

Thank you, Mayor and Council. Today's a fun day. We get to start talking about Bangor Highway. We talked about it quite a bit when they were doing the environmental document and the 4700 South was under construction. But here we go again. They've got another project that's funded from the beginning of the 4100 South through Parkway Boulevard. And I'll just introduce UDOT. I want to come up to Samarwan Farah. He is UDOT's project manager. I've tried to talk them into changing the name of Bangor Highway to Marwan Highway or something to that effect. He's been the project manager on, I think, every major Bangor project that you've seen in the last 20-plus years. So Marwan is Mr. Bangor, and he knows that corridor up and down. So he's going to be a great resource for us as we develop this project. So I'm going to turn the time over to Marwan, and he can introduce his team as well.

Thanks a lot. Much appreciate it. Again. Good evening. Everybody can. My name is. Thank you. And it's really kind of a pleasure to meet with you guys all with me. I have also Brian Atkinson. The project manager from Horrocks Engineering, then Brittany Finley, our public information managers, and Justin Bedros, our design manager for the projects. So yes, as Dan mentioned, it's been a while and so on. So as Dan mentioned, of course it's been a while, so we started, this was really a brief timeline, we started back in 2022. with the environmental document. At the time, Alice Fisher was the environmental project manager from Utah. She handled the environmental aspect. Until we completed the environmental, about the spring of 2024, and about 2025, the department had the funds to start the next segment of construction of Bangor Highway. The environmental document, the state environmental study could have finished all the interchanges that are on Bangor Highway all to the north of California Avenue. During that environmental, we evaluated the price tag for to do all the interchange, the remaining interchange on Bangor. However, the price tag was going to be over $1.8 billion. However, in 2025, the state was able to secure some funds. It was slightly over a billion dollars, almost $1.1 billion to do the next four intersections. And that's got a 41st South, 35th South, 31st South, and Parkway, which is the 2700 South. So, we started kind of that program, started with the right-of-way acquisition from last year, and of course, a lot of you guys have seen a lot of the home demolitions, especially like along kind of the Hawkeyes, kind of the street, or kind of the Bluebird, and what have you, so it's kind of a lot of the homes, the residences, are doing a lot of demolition for the expectation for the new one. So, From here, where do we go? Right now, our schedule, from now until the next summer, 2027, that's when we're planning to put the contract to work. So we call it RFP, Request for Proposals, for the design builder sometime in the summer of 2027. And we've got an expectation to... have kind of a winning proposal by late October, November of 2027, and then the rate of kind of start of the construction on the 27th and all the way kind of to the 28th and beyond. 1 of the major elements general throughout this banger as you've seen along the previous factors, we have a little pipe that belongs to kind of the Bureau of reclamation. This pipe is a 66 inch diameter, and it's over 45 years old. And, of course, to supply water to more than half a million people across the valley. It starts from uptown, SR 2-1, and goes all the way down to Bluffdale cities and beyond. So it's a major deal, which is most of the time across the other end of changes that have been involved in. really dictates the alignment and configuration of the interchange because again it's not that easy of course to move the aqua it's not just a pipe but also the bureau has 50 foot wide easement that we cannot kind of construct any kind of a structure permanent structure such as walls noise walls whatever so on of course that has to be absolutely clear which is totally understandable of course that Nobody wants kind of like, of course, you know, God forbid something happened to this pipe. Of course, something happened to that. So, but in any case, so that's what we're working on right now, kind of trying to define, kind of where the best alignment for this aqueduct, you know, so on. Really kind of involves that relocation is at 41st South and 35th and 31st. And that's where we stop, kind of the location of the aqueduct. To give you kind of in comparison, again, of course, it's on 47. We've relocated approximately 3,000 feet of that 66-inch. And this job, we're relocating almost like 8,000 feet. So it's more than twice the amount, of course, that we have to relocate for this over here. So again, a lot of work, a lot of complications. So we're doing this over here. As Kevin mentioned, again, of course, Yeah, we're right now kind of dealing with these four interchanges, and of course kind of the future interglue kind of does, kind of is on top of the fund available. Every time I look at this kind of exhibit, kind of I feel like proud dad, kind of seeing kind of my kids or whatever, kind of all these interchanges that grow kind of with the, throughout the years, kind of I've been working on this kind of corridor. Oh, since I did the first interchange back in 2010, kind of as I'm getting the 107 game, 100 kind of from the Joe Landy, whatever, so on. So it's been really a privilege, of course, kind of seeing the transformation of this corridor, kind of where it used to be, kind of where it's at right now, and continue to to improve, as you all know, of course, the Department's motto is to keep Utah moving, and of course, it's our goal to try to optimize mobility, and of course, improve safety throughout the corridor. So this is an epic example of what the Department's doing as far as optimizing mobility and improving safety throughout this corridor. As I mentioned, of course, get it right now because it's the next phase. Of course, it's going to carry us to get it the part way. And, you know, hopefully, I don't know, before I retire, hopefully those kinds of funds will come in. So it'll be good to like it. Then I'll take that for dinner if they rename this kind of corridor. So it's going to like now, going to totally appreciate it. What's unique about this stretch, of course, of Bangor, is we're adding a shared youth path, which was not included in the previous changes. So, we're adding a trail, kind of, which is that's going to be kind of starting kind of formation. We'll start kind of a portion of it. And then it's going to continue all the way to California. So that's kind of the unique feature of this segment. So, so, um, again, kind of, this is something to get the department as a whole as a whole entire state, because we've been working on as part of the. All of the Utah trail master plan, whatever so on. So that's included part of it. So from there, I'm going to take you from North going South, going to start from the Parkway. This is just an exhibit showing from the environmental study. Now, the interchange is going to lay out as far as configuration. This is going to be an over kind of a pass, similar to other interchanges, like on 54, 78, and so forth. And as I mentioned, of course, it's going to have the trail. You can see it's on the west side. Now, this is something that, Again, during the environmental study, we look at more or less the overall environmental footprint of the impacts. Let's almost think about, of course, looking at the studies, almost whatever, 5,000, 10,000 foot elevations. When we get a design, that's when we start kind of digging into the more detail. Can we optimize it? Can we kind of fine-tune it? Start kind of doing our investigation. Start doing kind of a geotechnical investigation, utility investigation, and so forth. And we can look at it. At this location, as we're discussing with our design team, of course, we think we can be able to optimize the alignment of the parkway over here and really keep it to minimize the impacts, and of course, on the golf course, because it's on the west side, and also minimize the impacts on residential, so we're not taking so many homes and impacting people's lives and so on. I have to take the second look. Of course, throughout my experience, one of the hardest things that I usually do with this over here is basically right-of-way acquisition. They're trying to really, oh, it's dope right now. Of course, after years or whatever, so I cringe when somebody tells me I've got to take somebody's home. So whatever, trying to move them out. But it's part of our nature, part of the growth. I guess with the growth comes some pain. But anyhow, so kind of the goal over here is basically to try to minimize this impact. If we stayed with the same kind of alignment as Parkway, we could potentially eliminate that little hook

Um, on the trail, which potentially could save the bucket of 4 residents kind of go from being relocated.

So, so kind of like, so so again, we're still fine tuning our design and we're trying to see where we can fit the best alignment. It's extremely narrow corridor between the golf course on 1 side worse than then, of course, the days hot on all the businesses, kind of the other sides and whatever so on. So. But we're going to continue improving and looking at optimizing that layout of this interchange. So that's a parkway that makes an interchange at 31st. 31st is just going to be an overpass. It's not going to have an interchange. It does not have ramps. And the main reason for that, if you think about it, usually, Any kind of ramps, an off ramp or on ramps, they're about 2,000 feet long by the time you go from the stop bar to the goal point until you merge. Well, between 31st and 35th, there's only four blocks. So that's basically only 2,400 feet. So you cannot physically put 2,000-foot ramps on and off. in 2400 feet. So throughout the entire environment, of course, it was agreed that basically this interchange or this intersection becomes just an overpass. So what you see over here is, again, this extremely tight corridor. We're showing, of course, We relocated the aqueduct on the east side and so on, and trying to maintain as much as possible, again, impacting a lot of the residents and, of course, the American Academy, of course, kind of looking for us on the east side. So the alignment lines have shifted to the west, but, again, trying to accommodate for the relocation of the aqueduct. Actually, I got to mention over here. Years back, actually, I built that CFI. That's the first time I met them back then. Of course, that's something I can say how long ago. So it's been a long time.

But again, that's part of the relocation. That's what I said before, the construction of 31st.

Even though as simple as it is, kind of as an overpass, it's going to be actually kind of very complicated because normally in all the other interchanges, the way the construction that we've done kind of with all of the interchanges is we maintain kind of the current traffic on bankers on the existing surface and the contractor would build the ramps. Then after constructing the ramps, we flip the traffic and of course we put them on the ramps. So we'll start building the inside, get us along and so on. This, because of the head ranch, is going to create some challenging traffic control, so we're going to be able to accommodate this area. And as we continue going south, 35th South, I have to say that this is maybe one of the most complicated, complex, and impactful get-up and interchange that I've done, get-up throughout, get-up the other interchange. With Ready Get-Up and Acquisition, get-up with the, of course, with the Leshwell, La Frontera, GFC, get-up with a whole bunch of businesses, and of course, with me, get-ups of Wired, get-up with Get-ups of Tackle, And one of the most impactful really is the Tuscany Cove apartment complex. Our footprint kind of was in on during the environmental shows taken based on two of these huge units, each unit that has 18 residents. So multiply that by two, that's 36 families that has to be evacuated, whatever. So I'm kind of extremely impactful just on Tuscany Cove. So, again, I've tasked my designers really to try to minimize the impact as much as possible, but it's still going to be very impactful. Hopefully, we can at least minimize that. At least if we can minimize at least one unit, that's 18 families that we can save without having to relocate them. but we're still kind of working on kind of the details of that. But again, kind of the location of the aqueduct, as I mentioned earlier, kind of a Spooey interchange, kind of a single-point urban interchange, kind of similar to other exchanges that have done. So kind of, again, the concept is basically to finally relocate the aqueduct. The current aqueduct right now is going to run smack in the middle of Vancouver. So that has to be relocated. And, of course, our alignment shows basically shifting to Ecuador to the east side. And from there, if we can build the ramps, and then kind of building the ramps, then, of course, again, as I mentioned earlier, we can take the bangalores, kind of the traffic, put them on the ramps so we can build the center. But the first thing that, of course, that has to be built over the Ecuador, And actually before that, before we have to secure the right of way for it, we have to find the corridor for it. And so we have to get the viewer reclamation, so also kind of a buy-off for this design. So again, this is extremely kind of tight, kind of an intersection, kind of corridor. I'm confident we have an awesome design team that we can minimize and optimize the interchange. And last but not least, the 41st South. There was a lot of discussions about the city, the desire to maybe not to do just an overpass, but maybe do a hybrid. A hybrid meaning, basically, if you've driven on Bangor, especially the 126 south of Riverton, that's basically going to take the limits half-half, so it's not totally an overpass, not totally an underpass like what we've done on 47. However, this hybrid comes with the... A price tag, of course, if we consider the hybrid, that will be considered that as an element for the city, similar to what we've done with other cities. That price tag is going to $4 million. That also comes together with a similar getter to the 47, getters that we went all the way after. There's a proximal getter here of shutdown for east-west that has to be closed. We're not going to be able to build kind of keep traffic moving while we're excavating down and left traffic on the top. I've sent kind of the MOU, the memorandum of understanding to Dan, and of course, that's subject to you guys' approval. But again, kind of like the idea of the hybrid that appears kind of more Kind of some rendering of it. As I mentioned, of course, not going all the way over, not going all the way under. This is a half map. What the price tag for that is really the complications. Assume this is not kind of excavating. Can there be any across the road? Of course, we all know, of course, can there be any? Now, all the detail has to be relocated. Water, gas, sewer, communications, everything has to be relocatable. If we're digging 6, 7, 8, 10 feet, everything has to be relocated. And on top of that kind of the relocation, that means also kind of like now we have to find a corridor for all these utilities. And all these utilities, of course, again, has to run across the Bureau of Reclamation, kind of as Aqueduct. So also kind of complicated things. And it kind of just adds another kind of element of complications now, especially when it comes to the constructability of the utilities. For example, Enbridge, they have their own contractor. It's not going to be part of our contractor. The same thing with Rocky Mountain Power. They're going to have a contractor. So now we're introducing like a third or fourth element. that sometimes kind of like the department does not really have a solid control of these utilities and relocations. So we're going to be under their mercy, but of course that's what they're scheduled and are available when they can get that contract and so forth. So again, the Environmental Government presented some kind of renderings and so on. This is just an overpass, again, similar to other head changes. A lot of you guys can just specifically take a look at this. We took this almost like a view from a range of medical scale, but this is kind of what they see. This corner is a bridge of medical. Pretty much all the residentials and all the other three quarters, including Dale and his church, that's being acquired. So there's not really going to be, I don't know, as far as visual concerns, it's going to be a bridge of medical and so on. But the rest of it, look at east side, north side, whatever so on, it's got to be similar to the other interchanges so that it was done. And here's the hybrid. Again, hybrid half-half.

Again, from a range of medical point of view, really get it with an OSL.

So get a drop in this elevation by 9, 10 feet, get it as half-half, whatever so on. So with that, open to you guys for questions. Any questions?

So if it's an overpass, then you don't have the one-year shutdown on east to west traffic.

No, no. There will be some kind of previous shutdown. Of course, we've got a special one where we've got to construct the life bridge. We've got to wreck in the girders and board the deck, whatever's going on.

Temporary shutdown, but not a one-year.

That's correct, yes.

And then, you know, you didn't talk anything about Pedestrian crossings, but... Not yet.

I'm saving it for another night.

Saving it for another night or just later?

That's good. I mean, definitely, of course, we can talk about it. Of course, I don't really have any kind of a preference, of course. And again, like I said, I've done all the other changes. And of course, there's all the other changes. Of course, we've done the pedestrian bridge. And of course, there's... I like my bridges. We like them too. We like them much more than tunnels. We don't want tunnels. But again, we'll definitely discuss that in another session. As I mentioned, really our main goal is trying to define the alignment, especially trying to find a house for the aqueduct. Of course, everything else will fall in place. If I can figure out, let's say, the configuration of the 41st, if we're going up or hybrid, whatever, so we can start laying down the sure-to-use path, whatever, so I can start evaluating some of that. But, yeah, so right now we're still really doing a lot of geotechnical kind of information. I know, of course, during the environmental kind of stage, there was a lot of discussions about if it's possible to take 41st all the way down to like similar to 47. Of course, the discussion back then kind of appears as well as kind of like we had an issue with the groundwater, right? Well, right now, all our geotechnical groups have been kind of doing some of the investigation for the groundwaters. And actually, the refinement of the groundwaters is about kind of 20, 22 feet, whatever, a lot deeper than what we thought over here. However, it's kind of like we got this information actually this morning. Like at 31st, the groundwater is only like nine feet deep. you know, so on. Of course, as we continue going north, of course, the soils and groundwater, of course, and so on. But again, of course, we spend such kind of a dry few years, you know, so on, kind of like we don't know where the groundwater is going to fluctuate. But, yeah, we're doing a lot of, again, kind of right-of-way acquisition. We're doing a lot of kind of soil investigation. We're also doing a lot of utility investigation right now. So we'll start trying to kind of pin down all the kind of utilities and so forth. But right now we need to find out that again, what kind of soils.

Please. So shared access trail. Yeah. Shared use path, excuse me. It doesn't look like that goes along all of Vancouver. It's just going to be a certain area.

No, you don't get a reservation. The previous Vancouver's, we didn't really have this good of a shirt.

So, to me, that's just invited complaints from neighbors because before we were zen. Yeah, I like, yeah, it's mountain people all over again. So, I don't know why we'd want to do that. I'm concerned about that. On 35th, you mentioned the Les Schwab is going and all of that. I know that the Ken Garf on the other side looks like, I don't know if they're having to be moved. And does it affect the Granger High athletic fields at all?

No. So I'll answer that easy one. We're not affecting the Granger. The football field is exactly going to stay the same. Ken Garfin, again, according to our statement, kind of shows that we're going to do some acquisition but not the full acquisition. I understand kind of the Ken Garfin is such a kind of a major kind of a tax revenue kind of for the city kind of as a commercial. Yeah, unfortunately, I'm not sure. I know for sure that we're not doing a full taking. So on. So now what can Garfkin do if they want to redevelop that and so on? I'm not sure. Of course, they got the bigger shop, of course, right down the street.

It was on the 35th and so on. I guess back to the trail, do we have a say as to whether we want that or not?

I don't believe so.

This is the governor's initiative to have more connectivity with trails, but it only started in West Valley City. It will not south of us, Governor.

And then to $4,100, what's the advantage? Why do we as a city, why would we want to spend $4 million for that?

Past council members wanted it that way for the view.

So is that an advantage for us? No.

You put the overpass in and it blocks everything from this side and everything from this side as far as you or...

So with the hybrid only half of it's blocked. But at 35 it's going to be a full overpass. So that's kind of like every other one's over. Except for 47.

We spent money on 47. We shared that with Taylorville to

Which Taylorsville told me they did not pay the $2 million.

What?

Yeah.

I don't know. They did not. The department ended up picking up the tab.

They did not, did they?

Nope.

So let's just ask for the hybrid and then not pay for it.

Let's try and get Taylorsville.

Yeah. And I don't know why that was deemed as fair.

We should get a refund.

So you said at Parkway, you're thinking of maybe not having the walking path, whatever, do that big loop. When are you going to decide that? Because those five homes, I don't know where they're at in the offer process, but I thought they were pretty close to being offered for their houses?

Not yet. So, kind of, I would start with kind of my right-of-way team is concentrate where the, actually, the relocation of the aqua. So, that's kind of.

Everything.

So, everything, of course, kind of, so I'm kind of like that. For example, we're concentrating on first base, kind of the commercial building over there. It's kind of the corner or whatever. So, also, we're concentrating on that. But, yes, kind of the, I'm hoping, Very shortly, of course.

Because leaving it like it is just puts people walking that in the people left behind's backyards. So if it just went straight along the highway, it would be so much better than that loop. And I know Public Works wants it looped for ease of removing snow, but sometimes life is hard. I see you do it at 31. I watched the guy take the lawnmower from one side to the other the other day. I'm like, hey, that really works. I think parks can, or somebody can do that to remove the snow on that. But is it going to be our responsibility to remove the snow on that pathway? Because it's a state.

Very good question. Right now, honestly, I. With the government, of course, with the whole Utah Trail, kind of a massive plan, we discussed it. We do not really have, as a department, a clear understanding of who's going to be maintaining this.

Because we're kind of getting against protests. Against our will, let's put it that way. So I think Utah should have to plow the snow. Then public works will still like us.

Yeah, most likely it's going to be similar to a model view corridor. Of course, we integrate the maintenance and so forth, whatever, so on. But, yes, I'm talking about good resolution as far as what to do across the whole entire state, right? And, of course, what to do with this kind of trail system. So, but, yeah, there's kind of definitely kind of a parkway, kind of the same resistant alignment. We're going to be able to kind of minimize the impacts and, of course, even the traffic or whatever and so on. There's a lot of kind of really good results. I'm really optimistic, of course, that we're going to be able to optimize this.

That would be great.

No tunnels. We like your bridges as well. We'll even name them after you. Put your name on them.

Just to add to the tunnel concern, on Parkway, you can see at the north end of Parkway, there's a tunnel for the golf course right there. there have been homeless people that hang out in that tunnel. And it's not a very big tunnel. It's a small tunnel, and it's very open. But there's homeless high office right over there. So I've seen them. And so we're really against tunnels.

It's not a tunnel. It's a golf course. This is not the first or the last. Of course, golf courses are going to have these kind of structures, right? And, of course, there are several other structures along the Jordan River Trail where you have a structure. I think it was really going to add up with lightings and, of course, really being part of the golf course. So it was going to have a lot of foot traffic from the players.

I think we're fine with the golf course tunnel, but But that just gives an example of why we're not in favor of other times. Sure.

Well, any more questions? Hey, thank you so much for the update. It was really fun to study this.

It's been a pleasure meeting you all. If you have any questions, please get up. And here's our hotline. Okay. Thank you. Thank you much.

Dan, did you have anything else you wanted to add?

Okay. We'll bring you the MOU shortly. Okay. All right.

So do we still have a call? Yes. She is online and I believe ready to present.

Okay. We'll now go to our PSRB update and we'll turn the time over to Ms. Long for her update. She's online. And then Ryan Robinson is here. If we need that.

Correct.

Okay.

As needed.

As needed. Good afternoon. Can you hear me okay?

We can. Thank you. Okay, great. Well, thank you so much for the information and allowing me to be here online. Unfortunately. Hello to Mayor Lane and to the members of the City Council. You might be in the dresser there, so hello. Again, my name is Abby Duvall-Long. I am the chair of the CSRB. Thank you for inviting me today. Unfortunately, I don't think that my report will be nearly as exciting as the Banger Highway project. Am I allowed to share my screen? Do I have that capability?

Yes, you should have that ability.

Okay, can you hear my screen? Yes. Excellent.

So I'm going to present today on the January through March 2021, also April through June 2026 numbers from our PSRB meeting. What we have here, this is a course that we reviewed for January through March 2026, so for the first quarter of this year. Just to quickly go through this to give you some orientation, OC is OC Spray, Impact Round is non-lethal projectiles from non-lethal weapons. vehicle pursuits, physical force, that's usually a hands-on use of force with an officer and a subject, the show of force is a display, firearm use is a discharge from a firearm, canine, self-explanatory, taser, not display, but a discharge, taser discharge, baton, forced entry into an occupied space, SWAT is our SWAT team. The tire spikes are either the tire spikes that are thrown across the roadway or the dry spikes that are placed behind a car's tires. And then in policy, out of policy are the determinations that we've made and sent back for more info as if we need additional information from the officers.

So for January, you'll see that we reviewed one OC, one impact round, 44 physical,

38 uses, I'm sorry, shows of horse, one taser, one horse entry, one SWAT warrant service, and that's for the entire team, the entire SPICE. Out of all of those 89 cases that we reviewed, we found zero out of policy and zero that we needed to send back for more information. For February, we reviewed 72 cases, found all of them in policy, zero out of policy, and only sent two back for more information. In those cases, what we generally send back for more information is if the narrative of the police report doesn't contain sufficient enough information for us to determine if the use of force was in policy. Generally speaking, the cases that we send back require the officers to include more particular specific details about the use of force or the show of force that they used in the incident. Sometimes what we have been seeing from these officers is that they use language that is not very explanatory. So for example, that they, sometimes the officers literally use the language, I use force to gain compliance, and that for us is not sufficient for us to determine if the use of force was in policy or appropriate for the use scenario. So in February, we returned two to the officers so that we can get more information. In response to those cases that we sent back, the officers will provide a supplemental report so that we can more thoroughly review those incidents. In March, we reviewed 100 cases, so 98 that we found in policy, two more that we sent back. Of the 100 that we reviewed in 1998 in policy, there are out of policy. In addition to these reports that we reviewed pursuant to police policy, we also reviewed complaints that are generated by internal affairs. In January, we reviewed four allegations with one employee, or we're staying zero, we're staying zero on that. In February, we reviewed zero cases, and in March, we reviewed zero cases.

Does anybody have any questions about the first quarter of 2020?

I hope you can hear me. Yep, nope, no questions.

Moving on to the second quarter of April through June, 2026.

We have the same areas of work that we have here that we had in the first quarter. In April, we reviewed 90 cases, 83 of which we found in policy, seven that we sent back for more information. In May, we reviewed 105 cases, or I'm sorry, 107 cases, 105 of which we found in policy, two would be sent back for more information. And in June, we reviewed 108 cases, all of which we found in policy. Zero of those were sent back for more information. In regards to the claims that we had reviewed, we didn't review any interim claims in April, May, or June. Now, to put some of this in context, our officers reviewed almost all of the claims thousands of cases each day. The cases that we review, our general objective is to review cases from the preceding months. So for example, in May, we will try to review cases from April. In June, we try to review cases from May. Now, sometimes there is a backlog, but our general practice, and thanks to Rachel White, we've been able to keep up with this general practice of reviewing the previous month's cases. So the fact that we only have, you know, so for example, April 90 cases that we reviewed show that our officers are showing significant restraint and are not responding to situations that require a use of force or a display of force in order to gain compliance over non-compliant subjects. The remainder of this are just the numerical breakdowns of each one of the types of force that was reviewed. for the, out of the interest of brevity, I won't go through these unless anybody has any questions.

Are there any questions?

I just had a question on the cases that are sent back for more information. What's the timing for resolving those? I'm sorry, can you ask the question again? Sure. So, on those cases,

look at that are sent back for more information? So the seven that were sent back in April, what's the process and timing for resolving those and where are those accounted for?

So the cases that are sent back for more information, our officers, the officers that we have on our team, generally try to get those back to us the following month. I would say that probably 90% of the time, that's the actual timeline. So with this number, if April is true to that pattern, these seven cases that we sent back for more info would appear here in the total number of cases that we ultimately found in April. It is very rare that we'll send a case back and wait for more than a month to get it back from the officer. They're pretty expeditious in returning the cases back to us. Thank you.

Any other questions? I'm not seeing any. Thank you so much for your report. We really appreciate it. Thank you for having me, and I'll see you for my next one. Okay, thank you. All right, we'll turn the time to Council Member Christensen for our West Nile update. Two and a half.

You know, I got a thinking after I asked to get this on as soon as possible. We might not need it. Then I got an email today from Dan. We have three positive pools of mosquitoes, as of the last report, in West Valley. So I'm going to turn the time over to him. I've got about four minutes, because Bangor Highway always takes lunch time.

They're getting me done. We're going to skip over a bunch of different things, but thank you so much, council and mayor, for letting me come. For those of you who are not aware, the South Salt Lake Valley Mosquito Abatement District and the Magna Mosquito Abatement District.

Do you mind introducing yourself? Sure.

I'm Dan McBride. I'm the district manager and director of the Mosquito Abatement District and the current president of the Utah Mosquito Abatement Association. Sorry about that. Anyways, West Valley is one of the very unique cities here along the Wasatch Front that is actually covered by two different mosquito abatement districts. I am the director of the South Salt Lake Valley, and Ryan Lusty, who was unable to come here because he is in the process of actually treating mosquitoes, wished me to just kind of pass along some information. We're not going to go too much into the identification of West Nile virus or what actually goes on behind the scenes with that. I want to skip right to what's actually happening. in 2026. Right now we are dealing with an unprecedented and early emergence of West Nile virus. West Nile virus is endemic. It does happen year after year after year. However, most of the time it follows a very similar pattern. This year we're running about three to four weeks early, which epidemiologically speaking is pretty scary. We are seeing detections of West Nile virus as early as July 8th, which normally our detections come at the end of July, and our surrounding districts, including Magna and Salt Lake City, we're seeing detections as early as the end of June, and we already have a human case within Utah, which is... very, very early. And part of the reason that I know that Don wanted to have us on, but also just kind of in general, we are doing a big press release, both us, the Department of Health, Salt Lake County's Department of Health and Human Services. We're kind of trying to get the message out just as much as possible that we are seeing these things and people need to take some precautions. I did want to just talk very briefly in my last two minutes as to why we're actually seeing this. This year, unfortunately, is kind of the perfect storm for mosquitoes. We saw an incredibly warm spring. It warmed up very, very quickly. And then it kind of cooled off. That is the perfect kind of breeding ground for mosquitoes. And we have roughly about five or six additional generations of mosquitoes out there. That means that we're actually an exponential growth area. That can equate to roughly about 1 billion to 8 billion additional mosquitoes that are actually out there. Because of this mild winter, this early spring hatch-off, we are seeing a lot of mosquitoes that are coming from the Great Salt Lake specifically, and they are moving down and migrating down. We're receiving a lot of different calls of people who have never seen mosquitoes in the valley that are seeing them this year, and this is why. The other thing that's happening in a kind of strange twist of irony is that drought actually compounds the effects of West Nile virus. What happens is what we call spatial convergence. Pretty much what happens is the birds and the mosquitoes get together in very, very small areas, and just like if you lock 100,000 people in a small room and everybody has a cold, you're going to pass it around to everybody. And that's what's happening on an epidemiological kind of focus when it comes to mosquitoes. And so because we don't have a whole lot of water this year because it's drought, because it's hot, we are having mosquitoes that we are detecting West Nile virus at an incredible rate. Councilman Christensen did mention that you have three. That is actually just from my district that you've got three. You have an additional six positive pools in West Valley from the magna mosquito side. And these pools we purposely try to trap near heavy pedestrian areas, the Maverick Center, the Redwood Nature Walk, USANA and different things, and Stone Bridge Golf Course, thank you. And all these places are the places that we're actually seeing Westland Outbacks. Yes, yes. Having used that golf course underpass very late at night sometimes, I can see why you guys don't like to And that is it. Like I said, I think we did it in four minutes. But if there is time or if anybody does have any questions, you can absolutely ask me or I'll stick around and you can ask me afterwards. The slides are available in the office.

Well, the slides are on our agenda. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thank you so much. Thank you. All right. Shane Link. Defense discussion?

I know that Steve was hoping to do it really quickly, but if we don't have time, that's completely fine. I think they just wanted some general. The council's okay with it.

Everybody good? Late to the next meeting?

Do it in four minutes. Or two and a half.

Two minutes. Four minutes or too late, we'll be fine.

Thank you. So, again, council's request was to talk about whether we want to further restrict changing fences. So, again, what we considered earlier was not allowing changing fences in the front yards, but in the south. I provided a couple of options. Again, this is just food for thought. The council may hate these or want to go a different direction, but want to just get these in front of the council. So, the first would be We have what we call our high-image arterial streets. This map highlights all of those streets, including the ones we just recently added. And so one proposal would be just anywhere along these streets, you would not be able to have chain link fences along these streets. So that's one proposal. Another option would be, and I know As I talked in Eagle Mountain, this is the approach they take is chain link fences are prohibited everywhere except for industrial areas. So you can have them industrial, but anywhere else they're not allowed. So those are just a couple of approaches that the city could take. Again, I know this is a topic the council requested that we discuss. So I don't know if you have any thoughts. There's no ordinance for consideration. This is just for discussion.

And these would be new install, existing would be in violation. So does anybody want to make decisions tonight or give some more information? Or do you have a preference? Council Member Harmon?

It's going to be pretty limited, the number of new fences we're going to have in the city.

Especially on main streets.

Yeah.

And I think staff has some other options of different things, so. Anybody have an opinion right off the top, or let's postpone it a little bit? Go into more depth? Okay. That works?

Okay, thank you.

Okay, thanks. Council calendar. Any concerns or questions? Not going to give you much time. Potential future agenda items?

I had one. I was wondering if we could get a communication just to educate the council about, because I've been getting emails and phone calls, discussions about flock cameras and LPRs. I know I had help on a response on one of them. We have 27 in the city and my response to that resident she said well i think there's confusion on what an lpr does and what a flock camera does i don't know if we can get a communication just to put to bed some of the rumors about what we actually have versus what's out there in maybe other cities and We're prepared for questions, because it seems to be coming up more. It's coming up on media and other areas.

Yeah, I spoke to someone yesterday that there's a website, I guess, that lists what cities have what devices.

Right.

And then all the conspiracy theory.

We don't have blocking cameras. We do have LPRs, but... drones that we have are responding to emergencies or not.

So I think it would be helpful. Is anybody opposed to that? Just having some information given to us? Okay. Thank you. And any others? I think we'll hold off council reports until another day. We don't have need for a closed session. So one more action item? Sure. All in favor say aye.

Aye.