City Council - Regular Meeting

on August 25th at 6.30 PM in the council chambers of West Valley City, Utah. We have Mayor Lange on line. We have council members Wood, Whetstone, Huon, Christensen, and Nordfeldt. And I'm Mayor Protem Harmon. We're also joined with Ifo Pili, our city manager, and Nicole Kamik, our city recorder. We'll turn some time over to Council Member West.

So if you'll just stand with me and recite the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States

We would have never known.

Great. All right. We have the minutes of July 28, 2026 and August 11, 2026 for discussion or approval.

Move to approve those minutes.

I'll second. We have a motion and a second. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Those minutes have been approved. All right, we will now accept public comment. Comment period is limited to 30 minutes. Any person wishing to comment shall limit their comments to three minutes. You'll hear a ding when your time is up. Upon recognition by the mayor, you will approach the microphone. If you do not sign up, please give your name and address. All comments shall be directed to the mayor. No person addressing the city council during the comment period shall be allowed to comment more than once. Comments shall be limited to city business and matters within the purview of the city council. Speakers should not expect any debate with the mayor, city council, or city staff. The mayor, city council, or city staff may respond after the comment period has concluded. Speakers shall refrain from personal attacks against fellow citizens, city staff, or members of the city council. Speaker number one.

Hi, I'm Jeremiah Wilson. I've been up here a couple times. I'm just here to comment again on the what you're voting on today to change the regulation on 4100 South for the fencing. I just want to express my appreciation that it's gotten this far and that you guys took it seriously. It's such a small issue, but I appreciate you guys looking into it and making a change. And of course, my district leader, Cindy Wood for spearheading it. I do appreciate her very much for pushing it through. So I just want to say thank you guys. Appreciate it.

Thank you. Speaker to.

Good evening, Mayor and council members. My name is Joshua Majors. I'm here tonight because I believe we need to have a serious conversation about the limits of government interference with a person's private property and liberty. I fully recognize that West Valley City has legitimate laws that code enforcement has a legitimate responsibility to enforce those laws. I'm not asking for immunity from the law, and I'm not asking for special treatment. I am asking for something much more fundamental. Where does legitimate code enforcement and unreasonable government interference begin? The Utah Constitution recognizes that every person has inherent and inalienable rights to enjoy, defend their liberties, and to acquire, possess, and protect property. It also expressly protects people from being deprived of their liberty or property without due process of law. My property is not merely a piece of land identified as an address on a code enforcement file. It is my home. It is my private property. I have a constitutional interest in being able to possess, use, enjoy, and protect that property without unreasonable governmental interference. My concern is not simply one code enforcement notice. It is the cumulative pattern. First, there was an issue involving signage, then vehicles, then foliage, then vehicles alongside my home and additional foliage, now swimming pools, storage. I've got a stack of them here. I've gone on for the entire summer. When one issue follows another involving multiple, excuse me, sorry, multiple unrelated aspects of the same private residence, I believe it becomes reasonable to ask whether this simply ordinary enforcement or whether the cumulative attention has become excessive, disproportionate, arbitrary, or selective. I'm asking this council to consider that question seriously. Government power has its limits. The existence of a municipal ordinance does not mean that the government has the unlimited authority to scrutinize, regulate, or interfere with every aspect of a person's private property. If there's a legitimate violation, identify it. Tell me the exact ordinance. Tell me what conduct or condition violates it. Give me the process provided by law to challenge it. I will respect that process. But if multiple unrelated matters continue to be directed at the same property, I believe the city also has an obligation to ask whether its enforcement practices are being applied consistently objectively and equally. Are similarly situated properties being treated the same? They are not. Are the same standards being applied throughout the city? They are not. Are complaints being investigated based upon legitimate enforcement priorities? Or is one particular property receiving a level of attention that comparable properties are not receiving? Because of similarly situated properties are being treated differently. That raises concerns about selective enforcement. If enforcement decisions are being made without a consistent and legitimate basis, that raises concerns about arbitrary enforcement. And if the cumulative effect of the government activity is unnecessarily interfering with my ability to peacefully use and enjoy my own home, then I believe it's appropriate to question whether that interference has been unreasonable. I want to be very clear. I'm not claiming tonight that every action taken by code enforcement is unlawful. I'm asking that this council determine whether the pattern as a whole is consistent with the city's obligations to respect individual property rights and constitutional liberty. That's all I have at this time.

Thank you. Thank you. Speaker three, if you can give your address, name and address.

Hi, in Canada. Did you say address as well?

Yes, yeah.

I'm part of an organization, so it's the organization's address.

Okay.

But yeah, it's in Salt Lake. Sorry, I forgot the exact top of my head.

Hello, S. Valley City Council and Mayor. My name is Anne Canada, and I'm a lobbying leader for the Wasatch Assembly. We are a 501c4 that is organizing a local movement to have municipal government support working Utahns with clear policy. We have sent our policy survey to your inboxes, but did not hear any responses from this body yet. We hope to hear from you. The assembly people of the Wasatch Assembly are encouraged by Salt Lake City's fight against the Salt Lake City Detention Center. We are thankful many cities and counties are mobilizing to fight back against ICE, the violence and terror it brings to our community. We have a list of policies on the pamphlets that I've given you. We hope you find alignment with all these policies. We've prioritized three for our 2026 policies. Stop ICE facilities from being constructed, number one. Number two, no 287G agreements or municipal resources to ICE. And three, free legal services for constitutional rights violations. Our citizens need protection against the unconstitutional nature of ICE. Our policy areas and policies were all generated from our local community. The Wasatch Assembly wants to see municipal government in Utah be more responsive and visionary to meet the material needs of the people. Hardly anyone can afford a house, no one wants to have kids, prices for everything are up, and fascism is again on the rise. We need municipal leaders who will push city, county, and state governments to meet the needs of the people. If our democratic processes continue to fail at meeting the people's needs, trust and investment in democracy will continue to wane. We believe in democracy and we want to preserve it. That cannot happen with bloated, slow, and inefficient local government. That does not mean disinvestment. That means strategic investment. Mayor Mamdani in New York City has shown us what is possible. Now we must follow in his footsteps. A local government who can champion, who is a champion for the people against fascist billionaires, greedy corporations, and late-stage capitalism. If you're open to conversation, I'm going to stand up now. If you're open to conversation, you can reach us to us on the email, which is wassageassemblyatgmail.com. Thanks, guys.

Speaker 4.

Good evening. I want to talk to you guys a little bit about the towing RFP. I just want to make a few points about this. I came to the meeting earlier and wrote down a few notes. Right now, I'm only aware of one city in Utah that does the single source provider, and that is Ogden City. Ogden City is nowhere near the size of West Valley. It's not even close. It's not even comparable. I think that's a bad place to start to make a comparison for a city like this. Earlier, the city attorney said that Stauffer's was classifying their A and B tows as heavy duty and their Class D as the light duty. However, their own personal website tells you that this is a lie. They have it called out very clearly on their website. Class A is their light duty. I invite you all to go look at it on their website, Stauffers.com or something very similar. The city said earlier that they could cancel the tow contract if it were a problem with Stauffers and we're wondering if companies would come back. I don't believe that the companies would have the means to. I'm currently paying $40,000 in property taxes for land that will be basically worthless to me after I'm done with this rotation. I won't need to retain that for any other work that I do outside of the city. I have other properties that I can use going forward, so I have no need to retain that. And I don't think that anybody else will. This is a really expensive city. We're paying a lot of money in property taxes. A lot of people are paying a lot of money in rent, and they're going to run after the contract ends. The city manager earlier said that tow rotation has worked fine for many years, and I believe it's been about 40. So I really would like to know the real reasons why they need to go with the sole provider right now. What is it that TowPro can't do for them that this one provider could do better than 40 or 50 companies put together? I don't believe that what they have can meet the qualifications of a full list of towing providers. There's no way. The city attorney also stated that soft stoppers didn't get their land until the RFP came out, but somehow they received a business license five days later. The RFP was written, came out May 20th. They had a license issued May 26th. That's a pretty short time to go out, find a land, go through the whole process with the city, and have the license in your hand. Okay, as you've all heard, Topro is existing. It's the new app. It's cutting response times in half. They did a study recently where the city was getting response times of 30 minutes. Now with Topro, they're down to 15.

Thank you. Number five. Speaker number five. You can state your name and address.

Kendall Brown, 6551 West 2100 South. And I would like to address some issues that I see with the towing contract. I don't know if the city realizes the area that Stauffer's Towing provides and stretches their equipment out among. But Stauffer's Towing operates half of the state's fatalities contracts, Roy City RFP, Box Elder County, Cache County, Weber County, Morgan County, Davis County, Salt Lake County, Tooele County, Utah County, Carbon County. So How many assets will they be available to stage in West Valley City for your needs? How many calls do they turn down on those rotations that they currently have? Has the city vetted staffers towing through UDOT to find if they have complaints or overcharging or not letting people have their property out of their cars that's deemed by DOT? Also, in the RFP, It states that Stop First Towing has two hours to meet a customer at their yard to get property or get their car. If a customer has to come out, not only is that against DOT's regulation, because you only have one hour by DOT regulation, but if you get your car impounded, it's their two hours. I mean, you have two hours to meet them, and you need your registration out of your car to go to DMV. There's two hours. Then you got to come back to the tow yard to meet them, to get your car. There's another two hours. There's four hours. That's a way for software's towing to manipulate a monopoly and capitalize on this, this contract, um, on the citizens of the city. Um, and I, I just, there's several things that go in line with, with that, but, um, That's about all I've got for right now. Thanks for your time.

Thank you. Speaker 8. Joe?

How you doing? I'm Giovanni Giannoni. My address is 6439 West, 3210 South.

Sorry, we need Joe Parson. He's number 8, I think. He's number 7.

Hi, thanks for hearing me out. My name's Joe Parton. I'm with two companies, AL Towing and Auto Ambulance. I've been towing in West Valley since 1997. Things have really changed throughout that whole time. We've been zoned out of our storage lots and everything. I'm now down to where I have to rent my storage lots from someone else. This whole RFP seems to have been put together very hastily. My main concern seems with Stauffer's is their lot. It's not adequate. It's small. Hastily approved. It's not ready. It can never handle 3,500 to 5,000 cards annually. This is going to make the West Valley residents that are having their cards towed they're going to have to go outside West Valley city limits to get their belongings, retrieve their cars, and whatnot. It's just the whole thing has been put together too hastily, and their yard is too small. As far as the concerns on the rotation, but the response times that the city attorney and the officer spoke about before, I don't know about the other companies, but that's not the case with mine. When we don't return to... turn down calls, everything's done, we're there in a reasonable amount of time. If these companies aren't making that response time, there's concessions in the current contract agreement for the companies to be kicked off. There's no reason that they need to go to one company. They can't handle There's 19 or 20 companies now on the rotation that are handling this volume of cars without any problem. I don't see that Stoppers is going to be able to do that, especially with the lot that they've supposedly approved in the West Valley city limits. I just think you should rethink the whole thing, maybe take a step back, go with TowPro, take that for a year or so, see how that works. and maybe make another decision. I think this is the wrong decision, and the property available in West Valley that's zoned properly is not what they're on. It's not going to handle the job. Thanks for hearing me out. I hope you make the right decision.

Thank you. We're going to try and get back on track. Bill Butcher, you're on here. Are you going to?

Yeah, I'm not in the towing business myself, but my family is. And what I see in here that if you let this go through, you're hurting a lot of families, a lot of families. When it comes to Christmas and New Year's and all that, these kids are going to go hungry. They need a life too. So you go to one, feed one guy the whole bunch, he's going to enjoy it. But the rest of these people are going to go hungry. And it's just not the towing people. It's the people who own the property. They're going to lose a lot of money like we own the property, and they're going to lose money on their business because nobody wants to rent from us. What for? There would be no reason to rent. It's just dirt. That's all it's going to turn out to be. And, you know, if you guys can sleep with that, go ahead. But it's not right. It's not right. You probably got one guy, one cop, he's incompetent. And I've heard people say he can't do it. If you've got a cop who can't do it, get rid of him. Fire him. That's what I say. That's what people do. They get rid of people who can't do their job. So I just want to let you know. But you're hurting a lot of families. Hurting a lot of families that feed one. Thank you.

Thank you. Miles? Is there a Miles out there? Number six is Miles. Oh, is it Mike? Mike. I have a son named Miles, so it looks like Miles.

I try my best. There's a lot of chatter in study meetings, and this is the second time we've talked about fences. I think we need to take a look beyond the fences into the front yards. Jump into your car. Drive down 3100 from Redwood Road heading west. I can't believe some of the yards. The only reason I pay attention to those now is when I'm leaving the Veterans Committee meetings at the Cultural Events Center and I drive down 3100. I think before fences come in, we've got to have yards. Some yards can't have fences because there's front yards full of cars. There's got to be a driveway up over the curb or something for them to get in there. So you can't have a fence if you're going to park all over in the front yard, you know. And I believe a person should be able to do what they want with their yard to a certain extent until it runs the whole community into the ground. And that's the problem we're having right now in some front yards. I always question the backyards of people's houses when they have their family functions in the front yard. Does that mean the backyard is so bad you can't go back there? I walk Valley Junior High with my dog, and I see some of these backyards, and it's astounding to me that they would even live that way. But that's their front yard. Let them do what they want with their backyards. Let them do what they want with the inside of their house. That doesn't affect anybody, what they do to the inside of their house. Let them have chicken coops, whatever they want in there, because we've had some of that. But I think we need to keep an eye on some front yards, especially in the, what do you call them, the main arteries going through the city that people see. We've got to do something there. People track us for violence. We've got all kinds of problems going on in this city and I don't think a person's front yard fence is anywhere near some of the other problems we have. We've had council people drive 4100 and count and see who's got wrought iron fences, who's got chain link fences. Let's count the front yards that don't carry the mustard for our code enforcement people and put some teeth in code enforcement. You know, I don't want to hear this, oh, but he's a good man. And then beyond that, they say stuff. But city's got to do something. I have never in my life been so far open to moving than I am now to a 55 and older community. And I'm sure you guys would appreciate me being gone.

Thank you.

Speaker 9, Kevin. If your address, please. Name and address.

Yeah. My name is Kevin Daly. My address is 2819 Andrew Avenue, Salt Lake City. I'm here on behalf of Stauffers just to essentially give a little introduction with them. Stauffers is a Utah company with Utah roots. It's been around for a long time here in the state. And Stauffers is a good company that has plenty of resources here that will be able to deploy those to West Valley City and be able to answer your needs and get the stuff taken care of that you need to have done. As has already been noted, actually, Stauffers works in a lot of different areas, lots of different cities and counties around the state. And that does allow them to be flexible when it comes time to answer the call when those calls come up. Um, Stoppers has a good relationship with the state, with UDOT, with the highway patrol and, uh, Stoppers is able to, um, work well with all, all the cities and counties that they work in. Um, Stoppers cares a lot about compliance, about following the law, about making sure that their, uh, tow yards are up to compliance with the law. making sure that things are happening as they should be done. I guess in a nutshell, West Valley City will be happy with the services that are provided by Stauffer's. The city will benefit greatly, and it'll be nice to have a single point of contact for stuff that comes up as happens. And Stauffer's is excited to work with the city and to make for the best relationship that we can. Thank you.

Thank you. Speaker 10, Ryan. Good evening, Council.

Chesterfield resident. I'm also the Central Region Chair of the Republican County Party, and I'm also a candidate for State Senate District 13. I'm going to try and touch on a few issues that are in front of the Council, try to keep it together. High density housing. I think we need to take a lesson from Midvale. When we have the opportunity to put out any kind of housing that's residential, single family homes, we should jump at that opportunity. That leads to parking. Anytime that you stack housing, parking becomes a problem. It's not always multiple families in one house or rental units causing the problem. Nowadays, a lot of families have children above the age of 16 and more and more are kids are driving. When these cars are parked and they become an issue, that leads us to our towing issue. The city is considering contracting one company. Free markets equal competition. Competition breeds competitive pricing. When businesses compete, consumers win. That includes the city. Thank you for your time.

Speaker 11, Giovanni.

Good afternoon.

My name is Giovanni Giannoni. My address is 6439 West, 3210 South here in West Valley City. I've been living here for about 36 years and I own Bambino Stone and I'm opposed about the one rule they want to do, one company, because I think this is a community. I don't look at my customers as the customers of my neighbors. I've been living here for so many years. But when you guys talk about staffers, some Somehow you make it look like everything is perfect. Ifo Philly just talked earlier today saying that they're going to save about 20 to 30 minutes per call. It takes 20 minutes to be unseen. So how are we going to save 20, 30 minutes? The gentleman here from Stafford, he said they're about community. He cares. Stafford sent him to talk about them. We're all here. We know each other. We're a community. We help each other. I ran from from Avon. I rent from Kendall. I know Lisa. I know everybody here for years. The person who is here represents Stafford. He just left. Just talk about it. Say where he need to go. And he doesn't care. Because Stafford used to be owned by a Utah company, but it doesn't own by Utah anymore. They make it sound like everything is going to be perfect with them. Topro, we have information that they canceled 19 calls. What happened if Stafford decided to comes to your call on a Friday night. We know because we live here. They make it sound like they're perfect. They're not perfect. They're also going to have six people. But when I'm sick, someone of these guys is going to jump on it because Stafford doesn't have more trucks and more people available to you than we do here because we are 20 different companies anytime, 24-7. We know that. And we've been serving you for so long. She said the customer was good. It was fast. We don't know what you're going to get yourself into it. Because the staffer service all Utah. I don't live in South Jordan. I don't live in Cedar City. I live here. Anything from my house is 15 minutes. So just keep that under consideration. Wherever they try to sell you, they make it sound perfect. But really, stowing is not a perfect scenario. We know that. We've been doing it for more than 20 years. This is what we do. And we've been having a good service. And we love the city. We pay taxes here. We own properties here. And Stafford used to be a company owned by Utah, but they're not anymore. So they can't use that against us. We have a community. Everybody knows here with yellow hats. We know each other. We're buddies. We come to rescue when we need one another. And Stafford is not from Utah, even though when they try to say they're so perfect, it's not perfect. They all say that they miss 19 calls. They cancel 19 calls. And what happens when they say no? Thank you.

Speaker 12, Robbie? All right. Welcome. All right. We've got three more minutes. Is there anybody else who wants to speak? Go ahead.

Good afternoon.

My name is Mariela Montiel. 3937 West, Parachute Drive, West Valley City, Utah, 84120. Dear Mayor and city officials, I would like to express my strong concern and dissatisfaction with the way the towing business is currently being handled in West Valley City, particularly rewarding an out-of-state corporation to put Utah towers out of business. I believe that allowing one towing company to take over such a large portion of the towing business in Utah raises serious concerns about fairness, competition, and monopoly. A healthy and competitive towing industry should provide opportunities for multiple qualified towing companies to participate, while also protecting the interests of residents, businesses, and the community. Are they going to save the city money? And who cares about all the money that towing companies are going to lose? When one towing company is given a dominant position, it can reduce competition and potentially limit choices for consumers and other local towing businesses. This can have an especially significant impact on small locally owned companies that depend on fair access to towing contract and opportunities within the city. I respectfully ask West Valley City to review how towing rotations are being awarded and to ensure that the process is transparent, competitive, and fair to all qualified towing companies. I also ask the city to explain why or what are you doing to prevent one company from gaining an unfair or excessive share of the towing business in West Valley City. I strongly support fair competition and equal opportunities for local businesses. And I believe West Valley City should encourage a towing environment in which qualified companies can compete on the same level. I respectfully request that the city take these concerns seriously and conduct a review of the current towing arrangements and their impact on competition and the business. Thank you.

Thank you. 15 more seconds if anybody wants to come in. 10, 9, I'm just kidding. You got 10 seconds.

My name's Tom Slide. I live in 5540 West Jeanette Avenue. I'm here against the petition to change from non-retail commercial to median density on a property that's just down that street.

Is that for a public comment later?

The property's at 5548 West, 4100 South.

We'll visit that in just a minute if you want to stick around. Okay.

All right.

Thanks. Thank you. All right, we'll close the public comment period. Anything from the council?

Yeah, I have a few words I want to share with them. First of all, I want to say thank you to all of you. You're doing business right now, but you have to come here and sit here and listen to us and speak to us. I appreciate it very much. I personally supporting locally. Mama, pa, business. Maybe I'm going to be a minority for my vote, but I just want to let you know that I don't want some guy from somewhere come over here and take your business. When they have that kind of business, they will control the market because that's where I came from. Vietnam, I've seen this a lot. When they control the market, they control your destiny in Vietnam. But here, the control market, they can do whatever they want. You have the option. The city have the option, maybe six months to pull out and off the contract with them. But that's six months or a year already. It's too late. We need people like here. We have it tonight. You can pay taxes, property taxes, solid county taxes, granite school taxes, and many more. And you are here to support our community, our economy here locally. You're making money, you reinvest it, spend it into our city, and going back to that circle.

Yeah.

And... That why I like locally, yeah, and I'm supporting you. I'm grateful you are here tonight, and I'm grateful for, I know people, you vote for us to sit here, supposed to protect you, help you. We don't want you run into a big problem, financial aid problem. Also, Some of you said about convenient to inconvenient. They're not here. They live somewhere else. They don't care much about it. But you do. You live here. You care much about our city. So that's my vote. It's going to be on September 8th. So I'm going to come back again and speak to the council. Maybe my vote is a minority, but I'll stand up. I believe is what is right. Thank you.

Any other comments from the council? I'd like to take a moment to address some recent comments at our previous meeting about staff and council's research practices and the suggestion that we compare our city of 140,000 residents and roughly 1,000 employees to other cities with less than 20,000 residents, some less than 3,000 residents with less than 50 employees. Looking at what other cities are doing and learning from them is an important part of good government. And I believe our staff and this council takes that responsibility seriously. However, for those comparisons to be useful, we need to compare cities that are reasonably similar. Comparing a city of our size with more than 140,000 residents and 1,000 employees to a community of 2,500 residents and less than 50 employees is not an apples to apples comparison. The responsibilities of our city are much more complex. We manage major roads, infrastructure, police and fire, parks and recreation, planning and development, and many other services that smaller cities just don't provide. Many smaller cities rely on the county services, special districts, or outside contractors for those services. To correct the record, the examples of West Haven and Marriott Slatersville in the last meeting do not have in-house police or fire departments. They rely on county services that tax for that and provide those services. Our residents expect us to make decisions based on facts, good data, and realistic comparisons. As we study, we should make sure we're comparing cities that face similar challenges and provide similar levels of service. Thank you. That means that when we... When we study other cities, whether it has to do with tax policy or services we provide, we can't compare ourselves to Income Idaho with 600 people and two people on staff. We can't compare ourselves to West Haven, Utah, that has 20,000 people and 50 employees. Does that make sense? Is that common sense for everybody here? We could compare ourselves to Salt Lake City or Las Cruces, New Mexico or Boise, Idaho or even Ogden. Somewhat similar to where we're at as far as staff and population. That's what it means. Thank you.

All right. I have a couple words I want to say. Councilman Scott Harmon is the Mayor Pro Tem tonight. He just saying that he tried to reply back what I said last meeting about the taxes. That may be confuse you. Purchase is purchase. The money you spend for the big city or the money you spend for the small city, you have to plan to have that kind of purchase to spend for your city. Yeah, that's what the whole, the main key for that argument. Purchase is purchase. Okay, thank you.

Okay, we will close the public comment period. We will have some hearings that we will start with... The adoption of the 2026 West Valley City's engineering standards. These establish the updated engineering design and construction requirements for public and private development projects within the city. I will now open the public hearing. Is there anyone who wishes to speak on this ordinance? Seeing none, I will now close the public hearing and turn the time to the council for discussion or a motion. I move for approval of ordinance 26-31.

Second.

We have a motion and a second. Ms. Kamik?

Council Member Wood? Yes. Council Member Whetstone? Yes. Council Member Huynh? Yes. Council Member Christensen?

Yes.

Council Member Nordfeldt? Yes. Mayor Lang? Yes. And Mayor Pro Tem Harmon? Yes. Motion passes unanimously.

Thank you. The second is we have ordinance change multiple section of the city code and updated standards for high image arterial streets aligned with proposed changes to the city's engineering standards and address city installed city's trees street trees i will now open this public hearing is there anyone here wishing to speak on this item seeing none i will close the public hearing and turn the time to the council for discussion or a motion

Motion to approve ordinance 2632.

Second.

We have a motion and a second. Ms. Cammett.

Council Member Nordfeldt.

Yes.

Council Member Christensen. Yes. Council Member Huynh.

Yes.

Council Member Whetstone. Yes. Council Member Wood. Yes. Mayor Lang. Yes. And Mayor Pro Tem Harmon. Yes. Motion passes unanimously.

Okay, we'll now accept public input regarding application ZT3-2026. Currently all fences in the front yards of properties with frontage on 4100 South must be black ornamental iron or aluminum that can meet certain rail specifications. This ordinance change would allow other fencing materials along 4100 South except for chain link. I will now open the public hearing. Is there anyone here wishing to speak on this item? Seeing none, I will now close the public hearing and turn the time to the council for discussion or a motion.

I'll move to approve ordinance 26-33 to amend the standard offenses on 4100 South.

Second. We have a motion and a second. Ms. Kamik?

Council Member Wood? Yes. Council Member Whetstone? Yes. Council Member Huynh? Yes. Council Member Christensen? Yes. Council Member Nordfeldt? Yes. Mayor Lang? Yes. And Mayor Pro Tem Harmon?

Yes.

Motion passes unanimously.

Thank you. We will now accept public input regarding application PZ3-2026. The request is for a general plan zone change for the property located at 5548 West, 4100 South. The proposal includes 21 units with three-story units on the west side and two-story units on the east side. All units would be front loaded with two-car garages and include three bedrooms. All garages have driveways that are deep enough to park in. I will now open the public hearing. Is there anyone here wishing to speak on this item? State your name and address.

My name is Thomas Slight, and I live on Jeanette Avenue, right in front of that, where they're proposing that.

Thank you.

There's enough traffic on that road. There's been traffic studies done there. I don't know if they've gotten results on those yet. And all the neighbors along that, no one I've talked to wants some big atrocity where horses used to be. They appreciate, you know, they don't want people looking in their backyards from apartments, not apartments, medium density housing units, you know, in their backyards where there used to be mountains. And so, you know, they're not doing this to be kind or to provide housing. They're doing this for money and they're going to mess up a neighborhood. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else? Seeing none, I will now close the public hearing and turn the time to the council for discussion or a motion. We have three action items this evening, one for the general plan, one for the zone change, and one for the development agreement.

I'll move to approve ordinance 2634 to amend the general plan to show a change in land use from commercial to medium density residential.

Second. We have a motion and a second. Ms. Kamek.

Council Member Wood. Yes. Council Member Whetstone.

Yes.

Council Member Huynh.

Yes.

Council Member Christensen.

Yes.

Council Member Nordfeldt.

No.

Mayor Lank.

Yes.

Mayor Pro Tem Harmon.

No.

Motion passes by majority.

Okay, we have ordinance 26-34, that was 26-34. We have ordinance 26-35. Do we have a motion or discussion on that?

I'll make a motion to approve ordinance 26-35 to amend the zoning map to show a change from residential business to residential multiple, RM, sorry.

Second. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Ms. Hammond.

Council Member Nordfeldt?

No.

Council Member Christensen?

Yes.

Council Member Huynh?

Yes.

Council Member Whetstone?

Yes.

Council Member Wood?

Yes.

Mayor Lang?

Yes.

And Mayor Pro Tem Harmon? No. Motion passes by majority.

Okay, we'll now consider Resolution 26-90. This is the development agreement.

Motion to approve Resolution 26-90.

Second.

Motion and a second. Ms. Cammack.

Council Member Wood. Yes. Council Member Whetstone. Yes. Council Member Huynh. Yes. Council Member Christensen. Yes. Council Member Nordfeldt.

Yes.

Mayor Lang.

Yes.

And Mayor Pro Tem Harmon.

Yes.

Motion passes unanimously.

All right, we have resolution 26 dash 91. This resolution would authorize the development agreement between the city and TRC Lexington LLC to establish minimum standards for a townhome development at 2325 West 3650 South. The property owner owner would like to build 29 new townhomes on the large open space area that exists between existing apartments and 215. I'll turn the time to the council for discussion or a motion.

Motion to approve Resolution 26-91.

I'll second. Can I add some? I guess I can, right? I'm mayor pro tem. I can, until I call for a vote, I guess we can talk more. Steve, does this development agreement allow for basements? Can you come to the podium?

The agreement actually requires basements as written right now.

Is there any appetite on the council to not allow basements in the development agreement to...

I think if it was a through street, I would be more willing. Not that that makes parking on the street any easier for residents that live on the street, but it's a little bit different situation than most streets.

So maybe explain why

Yeah, so we've seen over the years, whether it's built in or not, whether there's a basement entrance or not, that there's multifamily use in our single family. And these are considered single family. They're attached single family. But we see multifamily use in single family applications. And by limiting basements, we've also limited basement entrances to single family use in some cases. That reduces the amount of multifamily that can happen in a property, which when we have multifamily in a single family zone, it changes the way that zone acts. you can be in a single-family neighborhood like Treasure Isle, and you don't feel like you're in a single-family neighborhood. You feel like you're in an apartment complex, and these are brand-new houses. And Treasure Isle is not too far from this, but not that that matters. It's just that that's the reasoning behind it is we see too many developers... bend the rules and turn single family into multifamily. So I'm just trying to find ways to curb that in our city for these communities.

Yeah. The way the world is right now, though, I think there's not that I agree on multifamily housing, but I know at times there are, I mean, You have your married kids live in your basement. That's multifamily. You have your cousin move in. That's multifamily. And I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. I understand where you're coming from. Does this basement, are they allowed to have outside entrances, Steve?

Right now, that's not addressed. So they could. But it's pretty difficult to do a walkout on a townhome. Just because... There's just limited space to be able to do that.

Yeah. So I understand your concerns, but I think we should include basements as an option. That's where I'm at.

My sense. One more question, Steve. I'm thinking about, if I got to ask you before, why don't we build an apartment? Why don't we build a townhouse? Because they already have an apartment right here already.

So the applicant actually proposed the townhomes. So that really wasn't part of their proposal. I mean, in theory, given the zoning, they could propose to do additional apartments, but that wasn't their proposal.

Yeah, because it's the apartment area. So legally, they can do that. Can you, right?

They could.

Yeah. Interesting.

Mayor Pro Tem Harmon, Mayor Ling has a question. Mayor Ling.

Yes, I definitely prefer the townhomes over apartments. I think on the townhomes having walkouts prohibited would be a great thing to add to the development agreement. The reason I'm in favor of basements is because storing your Christmas decorations in the basement instead of your garage Too many people load their garage up with things that belong in their basement and then they don't have a place to park their car. And that's a problem we have in neighborhoods around me is they use their garages as storage.

Thank you.

One more thing right here. Last night they have a private role and they pay us uh they propose to pay us like five hundred thousand dollars but now they withdrew that plan that they do public role correct correct yeah and they pay they pay uh sixteen thousand dollars something what what is that can you explain i heard that lots asked you that question already but i wonder people here can hear that too

Sure. So the original proposal was to make a contribution to the city of 500,000. The reason for that is that right now, by development agreement from the original project back in 1990, this area where the townhomes are proposed was to be open space and to remain that way indefinitely. So right now, from the owner's perspective, that's more of a liability where they have to continue to mow it, water it, maintain it. By the city changing the development agreement to allow things to be built, that instantly creates value for that property that doesn't exist. And so the original proposal was to contribute $500,000 to the city that could be used towards either a fire station or a park. when they change the design to go with the public street, they end up losing a few units. So they propose the payment to be based on a per unit. So it's $16,200 per unit. So at the current $29,000 that's proposed, that ends up being about $470,000.

Okay. I think that's a fair game. The reason it's a fair game is because before they have a private role and we have a regulation or rule that says no private role. And it seemed like, you know, they're paying $500,000 to kind of bribe the city. You know what I'm saying? That first proposal. But now it's the public role, and I'm okay with that public role, and they can still make a contribution to the fire station. I think that's a nice thing for them to do.

Anyone... Have desires to add the basement entrance to the development agreement? Prohibiting that?

Well, we'll make the proposal.

Mend your proposal, Will. Are you willing?

I'm fine with that. It doesn't seem too likely that they would, but I'm good putting it in the agreement if diversity of council would be.

And Council Member Wood, do you second that amendment? Okay. Yep.

All right. We have an amended motion and a second. Who's counting?

Council Member Wood?

Yes.

Council Member Whetstone?

Yes. I want to make sure I will up or down. So you amended, what is it?

So the amendment would be to allow or to prohibit walkout basements in the development agreement.

Half basement or no basement?

Still basement, but no walkout.

Basement, but walkout basement. Okay. Yes. Yes.

Council Member Christensen?

Yes.

Council Member Northelt? Yes. Mayor Lang?

Yes.

And Mayor Pro Tem Harmon? Yes. Motion passes unanimously.

Thank you. Thank you. Thanks, Steve. We have two items on the consent agenda this evening. One is to award a contract to Adam AI for software services. And the other is to approve an amended and restated concession agreement with Diamond Concessions of Utah for services at the Maverick Center. We can take these one at a time or together to the council for discussion or motion. I move for approval of all the items in the consent agenda.

Second.

We have a motion and a second.

Council Member Nordfeldt? Yes. Council Member Christensen? Yes. Council Member Huon? Yes. Council Member Whetstone? Yes. Council Member Wood? Yes. Mayor Lang? Yes. Yes. And Mayor Pro Tem Harmon. Yes. Motion passes unanimously.

Thank you. That is the end of our meeting. Thanks for coming out. We have one more motion to make.

Motion to adjourn.

All in favor, please say aye.

Aye. You're adjourned.