Hey everybody, we've got about one minute until we're gonna start.

I'm gonna go ahead and start the recording for the meeting.

So it's not like recording in progress.

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

Okay.

Porter, thank you.

Good evening, everyone.

Thank you for joining us for the Sandy City Council meeting.

This is Tuesday, March 3rd.

Um fairly short agenda tonight.

We shall see.

Um we always start our meetings off with a prayer and a pledge, and then we go into the agenda.

We have general citizen comment at 6 p.m.

Um, and so at that point in time, we will take comments from any members of the public who are here to speak on any of our agenda items.

Um I'm looking for a volunteer for the prayer.

Um Shane Pace, we'd appreciate it.

Thank you.

Um the lives that they live.

We're grateful, Father, for uh the city council and this mayor and for their efforts to lead the city in the direction that it needs to go, and we pray that that would please um bless our elected officials that they might uh make good decisions and that they might uh continue to lead us in the right direction, and we say this in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

Thank you.

Will everyone please rise and we'll recite the Pledge of Allegiance?

Before we go into introductions, I do want to tell you guys anyone that's here to speak to the council tonight on any issues at 6 p.m.

Please fill out a blue card that's in that please fill out a blue card in the back of the room, and we'll call you uh up to the microphone when it's time to speak.

All right, Mr.

Fratel, let's start introductions.

Of course, thank you, Madam Chair.

Uh my name is Dustin Fratto, I'm with the City Council office.

There are a couple other council staff members in the back of the room, Justin Sorensen and Liz Terriel.

My name's Tracy.

I'm counsel for the council.

Chris Edwards with the council office.

Chris Nickel, District Three.

Marcy Houseman, District Four.

Cindy Sharkey at large.

Alison Stroud, District Two.

Brooke D'Souza at large.

Aaron DeKeiser at large.

I'm Mayor Monica Zoltanski.

I'm Shane Pace, City Administrator.

Lynn Pace, the attorney.

I know we have our um our last city council member here.

She'll be joining us any second.

That's Brooke Christensen.

She's here too.

All right.

We'll go ahead and go into the agenda.

Item number one is the church rezone.

And Jake Warner, I'll invite you down to present to us.

Good evening.

City Council, good to be with you again.

Um for the public.

My name is Jake Warner, long-range planning manager for Sandy City.

Community development department has received a rezone application from Matt Sneed of the Move Group.

For property located at 166 east to 106 south.

Property, there's one parcel that's approximately 1.94 acres.

The request is to rezone the property from the R140A zone to the R110 zone.

The R140A zone is a uh residential single family residential zone that requires 40,000 square foot minimum lot size with um farm animal rights, and the R110 zone is a single family residential zone that requires a minimum of 10,000 square feet per lot.

The um property is surrounded by other properties that are zoned R120 and R210 to the north, R140A to the east, R110 to the uh south and to the west.

The property is is designated as low density neighborhood on our future land use map, as are the properties to the east, south, and west, and then um the property to the the properties across the 106 south to the north north are also designated low density neighborhood and medium density neighborhood.

A neighborhood meeting was held on February 19th.

Sorry, that um that was the planning commission date.

A neighborhood meeting was held, and uh subsequent to that on February 19th.

Um a planning commission meeting was held on February 19th.

Um the applicant has submitted a concept plan.

Um the applicant there is a uh existing church building on the property and a caretaker home, which is in the southwest corner.

The applicant is intending to keep both of those buildings.

Um the church building would require a modified site plan application if the rezone is approved to uh accommodate revisions, necessary revisions to access parking, landscaping, those type of things.

And then they are proposing to subdivide the property to create three new lots, which would be single family residential lots, and the existing caretaker house would um take up one of those one of those proposed new residential lots.

Religious or cultural activity is uh conditional use in both of the zones, both the existing and the proposed zone.

So the uh church building um, even though it's a non-residential use, would still be an allowed use in both both zones.

With that, um the uh application is a legislative item.

As I mentioned, it was presented to the planning commission in a public hearing.

That public hearing was held and uh is being presented tonight as an informational item to you as the final decision maker on the application, and then is scheduled to come back to you on on March 10th for a decision.

Um the applicant, Matt Sneed is is present and prepared to address you if requested, and and staff is available for questions as well.

Mr.

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

My name is Matt Snade.

I live at 5143 South Chinook Way in Murray, Utah.

I represent the applicant on this uh application, and uh yeah, this one's pretty straightforward.

We've met with planning department a couple times to uh go through a couple of different versions of what zone and what layout would work best, and we settled on this where it had the least impact and fit as well with the neighborhood as possible.

Um there will be those two new lots that are accessed off that road to the west, and then the existing home that will now be accessed off to the west.

Um we will be redoing the parking lot, the the parking spots, the layout, um some entry points for the church, but it will be still being used as a church.

Um we're pretty far ahead on figuring out any other items to address as far as what we'll address in the actual site plan and subdivision process.

But we think this fits with the neighborhood with the least amount of impact on the residents and fits with the general plan as we reviewed with planning partner.

That's everything, unless you guys have questions.

Hold on a sec.

Council, do we have any questions for either Jake or for the applicant?

Ms.

DeSouza, go ahead.

Thank you, Chair.

Um you kind of I think touched on my question in what you had just said, but my curiosity is on the direction of the ingress egress of the lots.

So it's going to be on this crest ridge drive.

Yeah.

Which is actually hollow band.

It got mislabeled.

Okay, okay.

That's I was confused on why that was too.

So yeah.

Since you brought up the road, if I could, um the uh road was originally uh improved as secondary access for the subdivision to the south.

It uh does not meet our current standards for a road cross section.

Uh applicant is aware that we've had discussions, they've been heavily involved with uh public works and planning on that and and looking for how that's going to be handled, and so that would be that would be handled if the rezone is approved with the subdivision application.

However, just wanted to put that on the record that that is an issue we're aware of and working through and and uh already had several meetings on that and and down the road.

Um, as such, that um well, along the lines of that issue, the subdivision to the south is an HOA.

It's my understanding that it's primarily an HOA just for maintenance of the improvements along that road, and uh and so there would be an HOA involved.

The applicant, Mr.

Sneed is aware of that and has had contact with them, and there would need to be a resolution on who maintains what in the future if this application were to move forward.

Uh the code, the city code requires that adjacent property owners maintain park strips, those um adjacent right-of-way improvements, and so there would just need to be an agreement work through between Mr.

Sneed and the HOA on that.

Okay, um, thank you.

That's that's helpful information.

And you know, my my thought process kind of goes to some thoughts that I had when we did the uh general plan update in homes that single homes that um their ingress and egress is along major roads, and that creates problems with traffic as traffic's busier, and so knowing that the they're going to be on a I don't know how you classify that road, but a neighborhood road that then they can enter the main road going forward, is kind of what I was looking for.

So there would no be wouldn't be any individual home access on 106 in this situation.

Okay, and we've reduced the church from two access points down to one.

Okay, thank you.

That's my question.

That was my only question about the driveway access, so thank you for doing that.

And um, that's those seem to be the only questions that we've got.

Um, as Jake said this was an information item tonight, and our plan is to put it on the agenda for a voting item for next week.

All right.

Second item on the agenda is you too, Jake.

That's the Fortner reason.

Yeah, good to be back with you.

Um Child with stance and development has submitted a rezone application for property at 86 8564 south uh 10th east.

It's actually two parcels uh together, it's approximately 0.65 acres.

Um the property was annexed into the city a year ago, and at that time it was given the R110 uh zone.

The applicant is requesting a rezone of the property from that R110 zone to an RM12 zone.

The RM12 zone is a multifamily residential zone of up to 12 units per acre.

The property is surrounded by uh unin unincorporated um county property to the north, and uh property to the east is also zoned RM12 and R210.

Uh the property to the south is zoned R210, and then the property to the west is zoned SDR17.

The R2 zones are our duplex zones.

Um the SD is a special development district, kind of a customized zone, but largely along the lines of the R17 zone, our kind of our base R17 zone.

If you look at the future land use map in our general plan, there's kind of a missing puzzle piece for this property because that area was unincorporated at the time that the general plan was approved.

However, in the general plan, we do anticipate these unincorporated unincorporated areas coming into the city.

So in that window, kind of on the lower right or middle, lower middle, you kind of see that missing puzzle piece for that area.

And the medium density neighborhood land use designation allows for up to 12 units per acre.

If you look at the surrounding properties, the the properties to the east are also designated medium density neighborhood.

Property to the south is also medium.

Property to the west is low density neighborhood.

And then the property to the north, which is not yet annexed into the city is also designated as medium density neighborhood.

The applicant has submitted a concept plan.

The applicant is proposing a duplex and a four-plex, six units on the property.

The applicant has submitted architectural renderings.

Revised these revised conceptual elevations.

Again, a neighborhood meeting was held on January 21st for this, and the planning commission meeting was held on February 19th, as required by state code.

That planning commission meeting was a public hearing.

Again, as a legislative item, it is now being presented to you tonight as an informational item, and then it's scheduled to be brought back to you on February on March 10th.

Can't believe it's March already, sorry, on March 10th for decision.

Let me just mention one more thing.

Well, and around the corner on 8600 south.

So the county is preparing a project to do the improvements.

Regardless, it would be the city's practice to require those improvements if the county property does not proceed.

And so improvements on 10th East will be provided one way or another, whether that's through the county or through the developer themselves, if the rezone, if this project were to move forward.

Both 8600 South and 10th East are designated in our our master transportation plan as major collectors, which would be three lanes at an 82-foot right-of-way.

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

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

Come on down.

Yeah, my name's Josh Becker, and I'm here representing the applicant.

Um, can I scroll back just oops?

Well, I guess that works too.

So, as was mentioned, I mean, we got involved because Jolene Fortner who lives on the property, um, she'd like to stay in Sandy, obviously, and was looking for a way to stay here and transition from a single family residential home to something a little more manageable.

You know, she's um getting later in years and wanted to do something that shouldn't have to maintain so much property in such a big house, and so um she requested that we take a look at at what we could find first, and there isn't much in Sandy that kind of targets that demographic.

Um so we started doing research on what it would take to annex her property first and then get it rezoned and and build something for her so she could stay there.

Um in doing our research, we found that Sandy, you know, kind of has targeted this missing middle between the apartment complexes and the single family residential, and they've designated areas where this works, and this just happened to be one of the areas.

So that was kind of what started the process.

As was mentioned, the stuff to the north is still in the county, but it's a triplex that is adjacent to the north of our property.

There's a duplex adjacent to the south, while our property, her property.

We've tried to target some transition from the R17 through to that RM12 zone to the east.

But we did a duplex in the back next to the other duplex and the triplex that are both to the north and to the south.

And then a townhouse style fourplex on 1000 east, which we feel like provides that transition from the RM12 that's directly to the east.

It stays, you know, kind of in line with what's to the north and to the south, and then being no connectivity to the west.

But it provides a backyard and a little bit of a buffer so that it doesn't feel so you know multifamily esque, if you will.

That said, the as was also mentioned during the neighborhood meeting, and then the planning and zoning meeting, it was expressed, you know, there were a couple concerns expressed.

One being improvements, which we are well aware of need to happen and will happen one way or another.

You know, we'll dedicate that property, or it'll be taken, depending on which happens first, and provide those improvements.

The off-street parking was one which we will also provide, right?

Via driveways and garages, etc.

And then traffic was mentioned in both meetings as well.

And so in doing our study on traffic, what we're proposing would generate approximately 42 trips per day.

If we went single family residential, it would generate approximately 40 trips per day.

So there's really no difference.

I mean, 42 trips per day doesn't even trigger any type of study, but it's still, you know, though that item became kind of negligible, I guess.

Um then we also feel like we're we're hitting that missing middle, if you will, by providing one a place for Jolene to stay, and then we'll sell the other the other homes for people who are looking for something that's a little bit more attainable, and you know, the moderate level income folks that would like to be in Sandy, and there's really nothing for them to do, so or no plate, not a lot of plate options for them to live.

So and then as was also mentioned, these are on roads and close to an intersection that would warrant this type of this type of development.

So we feel like it fits the bill for everything that the city is after, and you know, fortunately enough, it will help Jolene stay in her home.

So anyway, thank you.

Hang there just in case, counsel.

Do we have questions for Jake or for the applicant?

Miss Helsman.

Okay, Jake.

Thank you.

Thank you for that though.

I appreciate it.

Um first I love that he referenced our plan, like did your homework.

Um really appreciate that.

I know one of the things we talked about throughout all of our housing workshops, and we will continue to talk about is um our tools for ensuring this remains owner-occupied.

Um, we're encouraging home ownership, uh, not rental property, etc.

We're trying to ensure that we fill in this missing middle, but to make home ownership a reality for people.

Uh so what does how does that show up in this particular rezone?

I'm obviously the intent is to allow her to stay in her home, um, which takes care of that home.

But what are we thinking about the other two?

Did that has that discussion happened?

Yes, so um a couple of things as you're aware, and as we'll discuss more next week with our joint workshop with the planning commission city has kicked off a comprehensive code rewrite.

From our perspective, a big part of a big reason for that is to align the tools that we have with the vision that is now in place.

And so when we get applications in the interim, we have to deal with the tools that we have currently.

And you know, for example, um, we've tried to work with the applicant on some different um ways to lay this out, and and uh we're somewhat restricted by the tools that we have, and we think that we might have better in-field tools that better address uh some of the concerns in the future for in-field development.

Um that being said, uh we try and establish expectations with with our applicants based on what we've heard.

Um we are very limited right now at on the staff level at requiring owner occupancy.

Uh we can encourage it, we can tell applicants that uh you as elected officials have um at least from my perspective made it clear that that is a desire of yours, and um you know, I wasn't sure going into his applicant if they were proposing to keep them all as rentals, but we had that discussion, and that is not their intent, their stated intent uh to keep them as rentals.

Um at our level with the tools that we have right now, um there's not a lot that we can do from the staff level at um requiring something like owner occupancy.

So we have those discussions with the applicants.

We try and um kind of help guide them in a direction that we think will be palatable based on uh things we've heard from you and things in the general plan.

Um but we also have to work with the tools that we currently have.

Thank you.

Um, and and I you know, reading through the minutes that the planning commission had a significant discussion on this, um, but I didn't see at least in my in my read through that that specific uh a recommendation around that coming from them.

It was just they forwarded a positive recommendation.

Uh did in your professional opinion, is that something that we should be talking about, or do you do you feel that the process that we're about to go through is going to clarify the tools we have moving forward and and you're comfortable with kind of what what has been recommended to us from the planning commission.

So as a legislative item, the planning commission's role is to make a recommendation on the application before them.

There was a lot of discussion about these things at the planning commission.

Um, and you may not get a sense of that from the minutes, they're pretty boiled down.

Um, but they had a lot of discussion about a lot of these issues, and um and they wrestled with it a little bit and how to proceed.

Um I think you see that in the vote that you know it was a four-two vote.

Um generally um in favor of the vision, and um I think they're anxious as well to have good tools to um to codify some of the mitigation measures so that it's not a constant um conflict.

Right.

Okay.

Oh, please.

So Jake is correct.

I mean, the planning commission is is very supportive of the general plan, and I mean they're they're the ones who sent that on.

That was their main body who reviews that as the land use authority for the city.

Um, but in looking at the the I go along with Jake on this, but I did want to mention one thing in looking at properties that will come in, and surely they will before we get the complete codification done of which we have started.

We are gonna have to find ways to to look at that and tools to use on that.

Um I would like to there are some mechanisms.

Everybody is interested in homeowner occupancy and making sure that we you know we have sufficient amounts of that, and that the project, the whole project doesn't turn to rental that we've seen in some other areas that we approved a few years ago.

I won't specifically, but I know you're all aware of it, and that's brought concerns, you know, that we deal with every time we bring a rezoning.

So there are some ways, and I think that that was something that Lynn is gonna discuss at uh in the next couple meetings down the road is on your agenda to discuss some of the ways that we can look at that.

Um he may be able to answer a few of those specifically in the meantime until we get those in place, but there are some things that is gonna be discussed in this on the future agendas.

I think it's I think it's April 28th, or one of those that we're gonna have that discussion with you about certain things that can be done currently to help with um honor occupancy and to make that happen and assure that they stay that way.

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

Thank you.

And I I guess the only other thing I'd say is I'd be interested in in my colleagues' thoughts on that specifically.

What is our stop gap measure until until we do have those tools?

And I mean I'm open to feedback on that.

But that's that's really just the question that I have here.

I think it's it's obviously the kind of thing we are looking for, um, especially Councilwoman D'SUSA has brought forward um housing for you know the 55 and up that's that's all one level and all of the things that are needed.

So there's a lot obviously that is aligned.

I just have that that one burning question.

So thank you both.

Ms.

DeSouza.

Thank you.

So I have a couple of questions.

The first one is I want to understand the improvements that are needed.

Um there's still is there still an open um unused irrigation ditch along 10th there?

I believe so, yep.

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

So it's hard to see on this aerial image, but I believe on the very north end of this image, um, you do have full right of way improvements uh, which would include additional dedication of property and uh park strip and sidewalk or maybe curb adjacent sidewalk.

I can't remember what's there, but uh the county property anticipate or the county project anticipates extending those improvements all the way down and kind of around the corner on 8600 South.

And as I mentioned, our city engineer Brittany Ward is been working with the county on that and could address the specifics.

Do you mind if I share?

Thank you.

Brittany Ward, City Engineer.

Um Salt Lake County got a grant to install sidewalk and curb and gutter along the west side of 10th east, beginning at the northern end where the sidewalk dead ends.

It'll be along the entire front of 10th east and then wrap around the corner and connect to where the new development in Sandy had come in.

Um they uh although this area has already been annexed into Sandy City, they've been very good to work with.

They're still uh moving forward with the contract that they have with the engineer to design the project as well as funding the match for us.

So it's been really nice working with them.

Um the improvements that will be installed as part of this project include sidewalk and curb and gutter, and then asphalt width pavement widening.

And so there will be a southbound right turnpocket as well as a southbound left turn pocket installed.

An ADA ramp will get put in on the northwest corner of the intersection.

A crosswalk will be installed across that North Lake, so crossing 10th East.

Um for the this Fortner property, I am requiring that they dedicate the full right-of-way needed for the uh 82-foot major collector roadway cross section, and they will be required to install improvements as well.

I'm not sure if the county project is gonna come in first or if the foreigner is going to come in first with their development, um, but we'll balance that and uh make negotiations on to who installs those improvements first between the county and the and the Fortner property.

There is an open irrigation ditch along the west side of 10th East.

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

Okay, so the this the irrigation ditch that exists, um, there's not currently active irrigation water flowing through that anymore, is there?

I I don't know.

I don't think so.

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

Correct.

Yeah, we haven't gotten into and we haven't gotten into a deep dive into the utility design yet.

Okay.

Um so I'm not sure how big of a pipe or where that'll be placed underground, or if it's just gonna be end up being just surface runoff that's needed.

We still have yet to do those storm drain calculations.

Okay, and then um my other question um I think is is for Jake.

Uh in terms of this parcel, is it still going to remain one parcel?

It's currently two parcels.

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

Yeah.

Um if the project were to proceed, they would need to follow up the rezone with a subdivision application.

Through that subdivision application, they would take those two parcels and create six separate parcels for each of the units.

So each of the units, you know, the yard space and so forth.

And so um is that a requirement or is that an option?

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

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

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

Okay, thank you.

That answers my question.

Can you repeat that last what was your question?

The last one, Brooke.

Sorry.

Oh, and you had it.

If you want to repeat it.

So um if the zone were to be approved, um they would be able they would have rights to whatever the zone allows, and um the zone does not require owner occupancy or individually subdivided um you know parcels for those units, so okay.

And can I have see the applicant rec one more time?

You're planning on parceling this out, right?

Making it okay.

Um homes.

Okay.

And sorry, yes, the plan is to I mean subdivide them, it'll be six individually platted homes.

They will be, you know, fee simple, they'll be sold.

Okay.

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

Did you happen to look at other zones that may allow you the flexibility to do this?

We did.

We looked at a few.

Um there's really it would be RM 10 or RM12, but because of the dedication up front and then the width of the lots, how much properties left over, etc.

And then trying to we wanted to have yards, etc.

to provide that buffer between the single family that's to the west and these, you know, this duplex without you know putting her in the same position she's in right now, which is too much property to maintain, right?

So with the sidewalk proposed sidewalk easement, that would that you had to um include that, and so the R112 was the only zone that you could do.

R M12 R M12 was the only R10 you couldn't do this in because of that dedication of the sidewalk.

Is that correct?

Well, I mean, that setbacks, the size of yards, the size of the lots, the width of the lots.

I mean, there's a lot of because we've gone through several iterations just working on access, working on mitigating traffic, working on a lot of it.

And and quite frankly, it may be whittled down even more to where we can't even do the full six.

But what I didn't want to do is come before you and say, hey, we propose five, and then be able to build six and build six and have it be a bait and switch situation.

So we just went in and said, look, this is the max we'll we're able to get.

Um, and there's a real possibility that we don't get all six.

So we do a triplex up front and a duplex behind.

The PUD zone is typically um the way it's structured it works better for better bigger properties okay um I believe that our code requires that properties over five acres have to use the PUD um there are some nice things about the PUD but it um is very limiting as far as smaller infill development um it would make it very difficult to develop this property is the road inside the um subdivision would it be maintained by Sanity that is a that would be a private lane um I mentioned some of the restrictions that are current zoning um you know that we have to deal with um you know we've looked at restructuring how these units lay out and so forth but currently a private lane is only allowed to uh provide access to two units so um you know we we couldn't use that private lane to access maybe additional units in the back or anything like that um or flip the garages to the west or flip them exactly um so when I talk about the tools that we have we're we're trying to encourage the applicant to move forward um in a way that mitigates the impacts as best as possible but we we anticipate that um we'll be able to address these better for in fill in fill development with the our code rewrite um you asked about a different zone and uh even an R the applicant mentioned an RM10 um I calculate his density at nine units per acre um with an RM12 uh that that um gives you 7.8 so they would be allowed seven um but there are there are other factors as you mentioned setbacks and so forth there's a minimum area requirement per unit and so um you know the applicant wants six units on this property um is is hopeful to have six units on this property and and we don't see that he could have any more than that and even though his densities at an at a nine the RM10 um the minimum area requirements and setbacks and so forth associated with the RM10 zone would um further limit okay that number so I like the aspect of this is an owner occupied owner occupants tend to take care of the properties a lot better and so I I would like the council to talk about some type of uh agreement that we can make sure that they are uh single family and offered on the open market you know I think maybe flipping the garages to exit on the west would disguise the property or make it blend in a little bit better um that way you're also not seeing the cars in the driveway you're keeping that in the subdivision then I don't know that would be a pretty easy change to get going to have the best development possible that we could unfortunately it's not allowed under our current tools but we looked at that as well in in trying to work with them on the best layout possible you know we don't we don't dictate their concept plan but we encourage yeah um along the lines of what we think would be more palatable to use decision makers and to the public and to address you know potential impacts so we encourage um and uh we've looked at a lot of different scenarios and and with the limitations with infill I mean I I feel this is going to be we we've never really liked back vacation back facing um garages or allow people to have backfacing access a joint uh but each other so this is what we're gonna see from now on so I I would really like to prioritize some of these little key things to maximize the it the amount of homes somebody can put I know that sounds really bad but maximize it to a certain it it varies every parcel so and not necessarily high density medium density or low density like this is being proposed.

That's it thanks Ms.

Um and I love the discussion and you know the the willingness for you guys to make sure that these are owner occupied housing units.

Uh you know, and I was just wondering about I mean the area as a whole.

Do we have information on the current ownership patterns in this area?

So um the adjoining properties, um there are there are several rental units in the area, uh duplexes and apartments, you know, apartments across the street to the east, duplexes uh also to the east and to the south.

Um three plus to the north.

I believe the owner of the property to the north also lives in that property.

I would assume that um that most of the other duplexes and and of course the apartments are rental product.

Um, but I don't know for sure if the owners of those duplexes also live on the property.

I believe the owner of the three plux does to the north, but I'm not sure the other duplexes in the area.

So I believe that they're um as far as the attached product in the area, um, I believe that they're mostly rental units.

Um the uh new development to the west, as we've talked about, is is an SDR 17.

So um those are single family homes on 7,000 square foot minimum lot sizes.

I don't know what the actual lot sizes are in that subdivision, but um, and I you know those would be a for sale product, but don't know uh again that's under development currently I I think a lot of this for me is um keeping stability in the neighborhood.

Um and you know, this area I I think, and that's why I was asking that question, you know, has a lot of rental units, which you know you just get a lot of turnover to it, and the neighborhood is looking for stability.

Um moving in, you know, raising kids, just building those community ties and community bonds.

Um, you know, I mean I'd I'd like to see something where we could start looking at more homeownership and whether that's deed restricting, something to make sure that it's not well, I'm gonna go buy the home, but then I'll send put it in as a rental.

Um, you know, I think that that's that would help with it with a lot of concerns.

Um, you know, another concern that I have, go back to so these are town homes, correct?

Yes.

So I they they are tall, and to have those four units right up front.

Um, sorry, I'm trying to scroll through.

That's here somewhere.

Um, you know, looking at those right off the street, you know, that it's it puts a very different feel in that neighborhood.

You know, when you have four of them together versus, you know, they have there's a lot of the R210.

Um I think most of it on here is R210, um, aside from the still the county parcel, you know, in that area, which are the duplexes, you know, not four units that are town homes that are taller.

Um, you know, what what would the difference be of the R210 of how many units versus the RM12?

Um I'm trying to keep continuity with the area, um, knowing that we have single family lots, little bit smaller lots than kind of our R18, you know, to the back with the Larson, I think it was the Larson rezone.

Um, but even in that surrounding area, it's you know, primarily that R210.

You know, it's not four taller town homes that are right there on 10th east.

You know, we've got the duplexes.

So what you know, for the amount of property that's there, what would just an R210 look like?

I think going to um is it possible?

Any other zone would re would lim would reduce the number of units there.

The R210 is a duplex um zone um that um requires 10,000 square feet per duplex.

And um that would be 0.68 of an acre, and they currently have 0.65 of an acre, and they will be providing some dedication for the right-of-way.

So it it appears that it would be it would limit it to two duplexes.

So four units versus six.

And that's yeah, that's part of the struggle we've had is looking at different um options with the size and shape of the property and and our existing zoning regulations.

So but yes.

So yeah, 30,000, so they would need 30,000 square feet for three duplexes, and that's more than what they currently have.

And for the record, I'm I'm fine with four units instead of six.

Um and I but I really am trying to look for something that we're we seem to be piecemealing a lot of things in this area, putting it together.

Is there some way to um provide more continuity?

Where oh, this is a duplex, this is a duplex.

Um, you know, when we're looking at multifamily housing, not the single home, you know, an R110 um as it as it's currently zoned, but something else that the surrounding neighbors have.

And so I would be more interested in looking at an R210, something that that the neighbors have, that it doesn't look so piecemeal, um, you know, and provides you know, we have a tenth east as you know, a major corridor along there where people aren't driving through and going, okay, we've got all of these different things that we're looking at.

Um, you know, and that's and then just looking at the precedent that it's setting for the future, you know, looking saying, okay, well, you know, we have this medium density.

How many other parcels are going to fall along with that along that area?

Um, and what does that look like?

But you know, that R210 just seems to be a little more uh respectful for the the property owners in that surrounding area and to bring more continuity to it.

So I would be a lot more open to looking at an R210 versus putting in an RM12.

For the record, can I just correct something that I said?

It may not reduce it to four um a single family home is allowed in an R210.

So potentially four or five, just for the record.

But it gets it gets that block of four town homes, and it would it wouldn't allow that block of four right there along 10 east.

Right, because it would allow two.

I mean two, and then somehow putting in if there was one in the back, something, but at least it it looks more fitting for the neighborhood, and the feel is a little is a little more similar with the the surrounding homes with an R210 because that seems to be at least that I mean I wonder.

The height could still be there if that's what you're trying to resolve.

Um our residential zones allow for up to 35 feet, so any one of those properties could already develop up to or build something up to 35 feet.

There's there are well, they're in the county, but there are some large structures in that area.

There are um, but um it would reduce the massing of the building, but the height could still be there, and that's and and the height, um, but it is just that larger block of homes.

I mean, that's you know, to the north the A1 right now, but to the east, R210, and then the RM12.

There is one there, but then R210, R210, and then the SD17.

Um, so it just it it seems that the R210 would be more congruent and and a better fit for potential rezone if we're if we do look more move forward with that, and that's something I I think that maybe we should look at to try to keep the continuity of the neighborhood, you know, just kind of a suggestion.

So thank you.

Miss Christensen okay, so I actually like the R210 as well.

Um, I think it will look better in that neighborhood.

There is already a lot of townhomes in that, and but they're not that dense along the frontage.

Um I did notice that in the planning commission notes, 11 of the neighbors came out to talk against this, which I think is a significant amount of people in the neighborhood, probably hits almost all their neighbors.

Um, and then what type of price point for selling?

I know it's very general, but like do you have like an estimate of what these would sell for?

No, I mean I'm I mean I'm asking just because are we really hitting the missing middle?

Yeah, but are we really hitting that?

Or is it again density?

You go to a duplex and it's gonna command a lot more money, right?

I mean, just quite frankly, like because what ends up happening um is you build a duplex, you build a home, you build anything, and say you've got a 7,000 square foot lot with 10 foot setbacks, right?

So you built to the setbacks, right?

And so if we were to build duplexes, then we'd build the setbacks.

If we're to build a fourplex, we'd build the setbacks.

So a four-plex is going to be smaller individual homes, but a massing-wise, if you're concerned about two-story and hitting the setbacks, etc., it's it's gonna be it's a square footage question, right?

So if you build a 2,000 square foot fourplex that each unit's 2,000 square feet or two, 4,000 square foot sides of a duplex, then the fourplex is gonna sell, or the duplex is gonna sell for you know, 400,000 and the duplex is gonna sell for six.

Right.

So both still hit the middle.

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

That's that's my build costs, or two hundred dollars a square foot.

So if you're a two thousand square foot home, that's four hundred grand to build it, and then twenty percent goes to the land, so now you're up to four eighty, and then a twenty percent margin, you're up to five something on a four-plex.

Yeah, and on a duplex, it's gonna be six hundred thousand and build, let's say, and then twenty percent is another one twenty, you're up to seven twenty, and a twenty percent margin, you're just north of eight hundred.

Okay, I'm chair.

Can I broke that and that speaking to that zone?

That would kind of take away from the ownership because a duplex has single ownership, so you would have a rental regardless um in the other side, right?

If you were built duplexes, I'm talking about duplexes.

I'm not sure.

Yes, two different there's one there's one type of ownership in a duplex because it's singular plat or singular parceled.

I know, but the zone that you guys like would be duplexes.

The one that you're stating is duplexes, and so I'm just pointing out that we still have um it creates a rental situation.

Just wanted to point that out.

What's the twin home then?

I think the difference is so yeah, I mean if we're gonna get specific, there's duplexes and twin homes, and both of those housing types are allowed in that zone.

So you're right that a duplex is typically single ownership, you know, two units single ownership, but um it the two is two units per 10,000 square feet.

They can do two attached, and that could either be a duplex or a twin home.

So um going back to the zone, it could be either, but you're right.

The terminology to be specific is and ownership is completely different.

And I guess that was the question is so the difference of a duplex versus a twin home, could they be a two home is a duplex that is subdivided so that it could be sold off individually?

So they could be, yes, both yep, and and what is a twin home?

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

What is the zone for it for a twin home?

Oh, R210.

That's what I'm saying.

Is in the R210 zone, both of those housing unit types are allowed.

We've been taught we've been saying duplex, but both the twin home and a duplex would be allowed.

So that but they could be each individual owner occupied, it wouldn't have to be okay.

Yep.

So it could be either one of those.

I mean that's a it's an important clarification, right?

Because it's I think you're not, I think Jase's explaining that just so he's saying that if you have a twin home, they have a line down the middle, those could be sold.

That's what they're done.

Yeah, those could be owner occupation.

When you have a duplex, it has one lot.

So usually you have the owner that owns the full lot, lives on one side, rents the other side, or rents both sides.

Okay.

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

And so that I have I probably created that confusion, so I apologize, but both unit types are are allowed in the R210 zone.

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

Again, it's like the RM zone.

We can't require one over the other.

Both are allowed.

And so at the staff level, we would not be able to dictate what that ownership looks like, whether it's a duplex or a twin home.

It could be either both are allowed by the zone.

Sousa.

Thank you.

I just, you know, in listening to the conversation with colleagues.

Um, you know, the one thing I I have to say, I get a little hesitant about looking at even talking about zones that the applicant hasn't requested.

Um, you know, for me, it is about yes or no, um, kind of taking into account what they've requested as opposed.

So if if there is thought or consideration of having further discussion about, you know, uh a different zone, I'm not comfortable having that with this application.

If the applicant wants to amend their application and bring that forward, you know, that might be one thing.

But um, you know, I I lived in the area for a long time.

I still have a home.

My daughter lives there.

I travel that area very frequently, multiple times a week, and you know, I understand a lot of the challenges, the irrigation ditch.

I actually have an irrigation ditch, the same one.

I think it's the same, you know, ownership through my property.

Um, you know, and and it is kind of a hodgepodge, and I think it's a hodgepodge of of zoning because it was county for so long, and and counties um zoning was a little more laxadaisical, and and you got a lot.

Um, but if you do drive further, so if you do drive further north, there are adjoining homes and um along 10th east, closer to the 78th, you know, the mid-mark of of 10th East and 78th, and so um, you know, I know this isn't a decision, but just and I'm very curious to hear the uh the neighbors that have come out to also speak tonight to us.

Um, this isn't a decision night, but just kind of taking in all of the information that we're hearing and that we're discussing.

Um, I just wanted to share kind of where I'm at and my thoughts, and I want to take this on its merit.

I'm not interested in in changing a zone that wasn't asked for.

Um, and I do recognize the the I don't know hodgepodginess of the area, and so you know, I'm not sure that anything could really be defined as um super continuous or provide a lot of continuity because there is so much diversity in the housing stock in the area.

You know, the one thing, you know, council member nickel um having garages space a different way, um stuff like that appeals to me because I do get concerned about adding more frontage to these roads that are getting more traffic.

Um I I'm I'm trying to come up with ways to reduce the instances of ingress and egress onto main roads.

Um, but okay, those are all my comments.

Thanks.

So, Jake, can you describe the process by which we just annexed this in a year ago, you said?

So, what was the process by which we determined the zoning to be at R110?

So the A1 zone in the county is a weird zone.

I I probably shouldn't say that.

Um, it's an interesting zone.

Um, there's some provisions in there that allow it an attached product, there's some provisions in there that are more of a rural uh zoning.

Um but um but 10,000 square foot lots are allowed in that zone as well, and so when we annex property, we try and bring them in as close as possible, apples to apples to our zoning to the Sandy Cities zoning, and with the A1, it's it's kind of difficult.

Um I think we had a zone a few months ago that had previously been A1 in the county and was brought in at an R115 uh because that was kind of in the area, and again, the A1 zone from my understanding is is kind of a different difficult zone from to go from the county to match perfectly to one of Sandy City's zones.

If it was so difficult, if A1 is so hard to define and transfer into our language, was it because of what was what's there right now that we decided that R110 was applicable?

I believe that um the standard practice has been to bring in A1 to R110.

Um we intentionally try and separate the zoning decisions from the annexation decision, but I can answer that just a little bit too.

When we're annexing properties, we're looking at the closest zone in the county, and oftentimes we just have to take the closest zone in the county that matches the best we can match up with the area.

And when we're looking at the A1 zone, the only zone that could really match is a R110.

Um, because that is really the only the only type of residential zone that comes even close to matching some of our areas.

So what we had decided years ago with the city council is that we would take the zone that matches closest to what we have, and we wouldn't discuss that as far as you know, br uh uh rezoning of that as part of the the uh when we annex the property in, but they would have to come back later and apply for a zone that if they wanted something different than what we could match it up with when they came in.

So several people have done that.

If they've come in and they wanted to develop their properties later, they've come in and then said, hey, we really want this, this is what it was brought in.

But we decided with the city council we wanted you to hear that, and we wanted you to hear the process.

If they have to come back, they need to come before the city council.

Because there's oftentimes that does not match up perfectly.

We do the best they can, and that's why they're back here tonight, is because they're asking for a different zone than what they annexed in with.

And that's the best we can do a lot of times, but that is what we've asked them to do through this body is to bring it back, and you have the authority to give them or not give them the zone.

I understand.

I just wondered what the thought process was because R110 really doesn't match much of anything that's around it.

So when we talk about the hodgepodgy nature of what's here, this didn't help.

So anyway, I understand that we're back to defining what it ought to be.

I understand.

I got the thumbs up from our annexation expert.

So either James and I are in line with our standard practice, or he just doesn't want to come talk.

Can you diff describe the mainces between an RM and an R1 zone?

Um in terms of the land use, the design, the site planning, all of those things.

What are the main differences between an R1 zone and an RM zone?

I guess the main difference is the housing types that are allowed between the two.

An R1 is a single family, that's what the one designates as single family residential zone, whereas the RM is residential multifamily.

Um so single family units are allowed in the R1 or are in the RM, but also additional attached housing product types are allowed in the RM as well.

Setbacks are different.

Setbacks I'd have to go to the code.

I believe that it depends.

I mean, from an R16 to an R140, the setbacks are different, you know, ranging from six feet to 10 feet.

Um I believe as far as a side yard setback.

You know, uh off the top of my head, I believe the side yard setback, meaning the perimeter of the RM property being developed is eight feet.

So they would have to be eight feet away from their side perimeter boundary.

Um I believe the rear yard is 20.

It seems like the front is 20, where you know, typically with um an R1 zone, it's 25 to a garage and 30 to living.

But even with that, um Sandy City has what we call our residential conservation overlay, and so by right, they can come in, and if they had a porch and a sidewalk to the um uh a walkway to the sidewalk, they can already reduce that setback.

And so, even within an R1, there are ways to reduce.

Um, in fact, I think that's gonna be come into play with the rezone we talked about earlier.

That existing caretaker house on that church property is too close to um that street.

And so for that house to stay, I mentioned that was in their their intent, but I don't know if that's going to be feasible for that house to stay, they would probably have to um apply the the residential conservation overlay to get reduced setbacks, but that is a possibility.

So there's flexibility regardless if it's an R1.

So I think that um first of all, I agree with Ms.

DeSusa's comments.

It's the right of the applicant to make a request.

Um and we respond with a yes or no to the request.

Um I'd rather do that than make a demand of what it what would it should be to get my vote.

I respect the private property right.

Um this is uh it's it's over a little over half an acre.

When we get into in fill projects, and especially the application or the discussion of the new general plan, this is a problem for me.

Um that's why part of why I voted no to the adoption of the general plan.

We we increase density across the entire city and disproportionately.

Um so when we get to an infill project of a small size like this, if it's a large infill project, you create your own atmosphere, you create your own new community.

When you're talking about half an acre, you're inserting something into an existing neighborhood that may or may not fit.

And when you are comparing it to a general plan that hasn't been adopted as a zoning plan, and you get something that you can have the potential of getting something that simply doesn't fit and won't for decades if you ever get there, right?

And so this is why I think it's so important to consider the context of an individual application within the neighborhood in which it resides and not to compare it against a general plan, which is a potential vision of a potential future that we aren't zoned for at this point in time.

Does this is not proposed to have an HOA?

Since these are all individually plat, no HOA.

So attached, but individually platted with an expectation.

And here we go, right?

I mean, in terms of a vision of what might fit.

I you know, I I appreciate everybody's view of what might fit there or might look good there, or might be an improvement there.

Um I also have some sensitivity to what others have been allowed.

That so this is part of my discomfort.

Recent decisions about what others are allowed or mandated versus the new normal of what is completely different.

We get into this issue of inequity of private property rights and valuation, and uh it is it is a problem.

It's uh it's a problem.

We can either look to the future and say no matter what, we're gonna do what we decided by a majority vote, we're gonna do, or we can just continue to consider what fits in the neighborhood and um what matches and what a stretch is possible, a stretch is possible, but a whole rewrite of what will allow will lead to I think will lead to some problems with continue with some continuance of a community or a neighborhood identity.

So you're getting up to the microphone like you want to say something.

May I only if I'm invited by I mean may I?

Yeah.

So you made a comment that I just need to address because I need to make sure that it's addressed when the general plan, when we brought the general plan, we looked at ranges, and so when you look at these, we're looking at ranges on these, and the general plan also asked the council to look at the character of the area.

So I do agree with you in this in the instance where you said these can be item, or these can be individual individual, you know, where you're looking at that, and I think that is the city council's job.

The general plan looked at that and said there's a range of densities in these areas.

It doesn't have to be stuck on a tan or whatever.

That's what you're here doing tonight, in my view, is looking at a range, and you're looking at that, and you are looking at the character.

Does that match that area?

That's what the general plan asked you to do, or does it not?

That's as a body of the city council, you're you're looking at implementing the general plan, and that is what it asks you to do.

So I think you are doing what you're asked to do in the general plan.

I think you're you're you're simply looking at exactly what the general plan saw and what it's asking you to do, and that's look at a variety.

Every one of you have mentioned some type of a different density or some type of a different thing on there.

That is what you're supposed to be doing.

That's just my humble opinion about the general plan, and looking at that.

That's why I am excited about the general plan, and I think you are doing it right.

I think by the questions you're asking is exactly what it wants you to do, and it is a range, and it is the character that you're looking at, and if it doesn't fit, then you don't approve it.

Or you do approve it if it fits.

So I think you are following the general plan by your discussion tonight.

Okay, are there any other comments or questions on this item?

This was an information item tonight.

It is on the agenda or potential agenda for next week for decision making.

Um with no more questions, we'll end discussion on this specific item tonight, and we will go to general citizen comment.

Um I do have some blue cards here, and so I'll call on the people who have submitted blue cards, and then we'll call on the people online if they'd like to comment as well.

Did Daniel leave?

Mike left.

Mike left.

Daniel's here.

Okay.

So Daniel, come on up.

We've got you.

Three minutes is you're allowed, and um please.

The timer will start when you do.

Thanks.

Very good.

Thank you.

Thanks for your time.

Thanks for all your consideration.

Daniel Ericott.

Did you want anything else said?

No.

Yep, we could.

So I appreciate the what was brought up.

Um, I think those are more in line with the concerns that were expressed in the previous um uh meeting with the general one the precedent that it potentially set with other similar lots in the area and the aging population there, what might happen with those particular lots and the impact on the community, keeping it a residential family type community versus uh a rental property to the South Bay 600 South.

There, yeah, we've got a ton of rental places there.

Great, we need both in the city.

Um, but I appreciate what was said about keeping the as much as possible the continuity, the um of family ownership type stuff.

And uh I believe it was you that pointed out the maintenance, those tend to get maintained better.

I used to live in what we call the gray apartments, which is right across 10 east.

It it's a good spot.

The police end up there, you know, on a regular regular occasion.

They uh and that affects the community in a certain way.

So I uh would encourage you to continue to consider the the impact and precedent it sets for other properties, and uh that will be probably coming up before you at some point and and keeping it a family-oriented type place.

Um I don't have a problem with rentals, but you know, I live in the community and want it to be a place that is good to live in in 20, 30, 40 years from now, and I assume you do as well.

Thanks for your time.

Thank you.

Ron Larson.

Uh thank you, Cindy.

I appreciate you calling me.

Thanks for the time.

Um, first of all, I was told that there would not be not be any allowance for multi-family, new multi-family dwelling units when I subdivide my property.

I'm the property directly to the west, the Larson Development Property.

The lot that borders that is definitely an SD R17 S.

The R17 means that there's a special reason why it's special.

And uh that I believe is because of the school, that's what I was told.

There's an elementary school nearby, which means they don't want a lot of anything in there that's gonna disrupt that school, and they don't want people in there that are gonna cause problems.

They don't want you know businesses that will create an environment that's not protective to the students.

That's what I was told.

Um, I'm not sure that that's the truth or not, but that's what I was that's how I understand it.

So we're trying to protect the students, we're trying to protect the area, we're trying to protect the neighborhood, and when you go vastly beyond the immediate one or two little uh multifamily dwelling areas, they are almost all residential by far.

There's church, there's but by far it's residential.

It's not it's not it's just a couple of small pockets that are that.

So, yeah, there's some stuff stuck in there.

Okay, so I disapprove or I I ask that you disapprove of this multi-family dwelling.

One because I was told not to, two, because we think it might create some problems for the youth, and three, um it doesn't it might lower the value of my properties.

Okay, so that is uh a financial request for me because I think it will reduce my family as well as other single family single residences in the area.

I think it'll reduce the value of those residences.

Um the other thing that I would like to point out is there is almost no on-street parking.

He mentioned that there will not be any allowance for any driveways to come from the one that goes inside with entrances from the west.

There are like they're lined up when you look at the plan, these driveways are lined up, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom.

There will be no ability for anyone to park on the street unless they block a driveway.

And secondly, if they're have a very short setback in order to accommodate it, those cars are gonna be parked out so that it's sticking out into the sidewalk or depending on what the whether how much park strip you have, how much how wide your sidewalks are, how much are is allowed.

Those cars are gonna be blocking that sidewalk.

The other thing I wanted to point out is a friend of mine, Larry Astill was hit by a car when they backed out of the driveway.

They hit Larry Astall and he was put into the hospital, and now he is having to go into a home because of being hit and because of the disabilities and other things, not just because he was hit, but he's also old.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Shannon Maynard.

Sorry, this makes you really nervous.

Public speaking is not, I think.

Um I'm Shannon Maynard.

I live um two doors, two properties down from where this is being done.

Um I am in the area that will be annexed in by 2027.

Um they've been talking about a tri.

Her home is a single family home, so I don't know where they keep getting it.

It's a tri level, but the one at um 8550 is actually a single family home.

Um we'll just leave it at that.

Um, and then all the other homes in that area that are gonna be annexed in, everyone that faces the street is also a single family home.

So um, as to your question earlier, Brooke, um the all the homes, there are plenty, there are homes that have been built along 10th East.

They're actually, as I kind of today, there are about 10 that have been um built within the last, I would say maybe seven years.

So every home that actually faces 10th East is a single family home.

So there may be um like duplexes like, but they're not right on the street.

They're either behind, there are some properties that have two homes, there's some probably that have three homes, but the ones that actually face 1000 east, they are all single family homes with one driveway.

Um so I think that needs to be noted.

Um so I've been a resident of this area for 40 years.

I've seen the fields, I've seen um the growth in this area.

Um I think it's important to note that the apartments were built in 1986.

There was a lot of opposition back then, and a lot of those concerns.

Um what people opposed to back then actually have come have become reality.

There's been a lot of issues with those, um, including crime and um drugs and stuff like that.

So I've seen all that.

It's in front of my house, it's right across the street.

So rentals, I do not want rentals.

There's no way to stop these homes from becoming rentals.

Sorry.

Um I'm really nervous.

Um so, like I said, that's that's a big issue is how do you stop them from becoming rentals?

You can't really stop them from becoming rentals, and that affects me, that affects my kids, that affects my property.

Um, it brought up about the decrease in value and all that stuff, so that is a big that is a big concern.

Um, I believe it's too too dense for the area.

The five driveways is an issue too.

The intersection, it's a crazy intersection, it's a dangerous intersection right there on 86 and 10.

There are stuff put in place for that, but it's not in place yet.

So we don't know when that's going to be put in place with the sandy city and all the um stuff they're gonna be doing, so that's an issue.

Um there is a crosswalk there that is very dangerous for people to cross.

We've talked about it in the past, but yeah, I think five driveways with that so close to the intersection is just not good, and I would hope that this gets denied and um different options looked at in the future.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Paul O'Brien.

Yes, uh, excuse me, I'm Paul O'Brien.

Um, I didn't realize how fast that three minutes went.

So I'll I'll try not to repeat uh uh what other people have already said, but I am uh not in favor of the Fortner rezone, and I have some some thoughts about it.

Uh one of the biggest concerns is that we have an intersection right now at 10th east and 8600, which is terrible in terms of trying to drive through that intersection or especially try to walk through the intersection.

I have talked to the county, I know what they're doing on the west side, and that is good, but it's not going to help.

And because it's only doing the west side, it doesn't help anybody trying to cross 860.

My concern is that a reason like this will only create more traffic, both pedestrian and automobile traffic.

And frankly, the intersection is overused right now.

And uh like the the Larson development will has already been approved, it's fine, but more cars, more people just up the street are um were approved some duplexes.

That's gonna create more traffic.

So what I'm asking read my nose.

Uh so I think we're really putting the cart before the horse.

I think what we need to do is make sure that we have a safe uh area for people to both drive and walk before we approve having a higher density.

I'd also like to uh I I think it was touched on the uh planning meeting, and I went there and it was interesting because it was uh there were I counted 12.

I think you said 11, but um anyway, there are a lot of residents that came out and spoke against it.

The only one who actually spoke for it was the gentleman back there, who I think he just represents a construction firm.

So there I mean the property owner was not here.

I mean none of the people that live around there said, hey, this is a good idea.

So that gave me some concern, and I wow I'm running out of time.

Okay, I was gonna talk about the uh your budget priorities, and I highlighted these because I think safety is a theme there, and you know, a um making a good place to live, and this intersection really needs to be addressed.

I'm going slightly over, but this is important.

The map that is being shown as part of the um production thank you.

My job is to tell you that we're done, so we can hear from everybody else.

So thank you very much.

Hey, Paul, you can go ahead and email us.

Okay, our staff can tell you how to do that, and we'd love to hear what you have to say in saying go ahead and do that.

All right, that's all the blue cards that I have here.

If anyone else would like to speak, you're um welcome to do that.

But let's go ahead, Dustin, when you have a second and tell our online audience how they can make public comment if they'd like to.

Of course, thank you, madam chair.

Uh, if you're joining us virtually this evening via Zoom and you'd like to comment on any city business, now's the time.

Go ahead and click the raise hand button on your screen.

I'll call your name in the order in which you raised your hand, and you'll have three minutes.

Not seeing any hands raised, madam chair.

Same.

We'll close public comment and move forward in the agenda.

We have two planning commission reappointments, and so I will hand it over to the mayor if you're presenting, Mayor.

Yes, thank you.

Thank you, madam chair.

We are um asking the council to consider reappointment of Dave Bromley and Ron Mortimer to the Sandy Planning Commission.

Um, Dave Bromley has served for two terms and has a professional background in property development.

Ron Mortimer has served for three terms and has is a civil engineer and has an engineering background.

Both of these uh existing planning commissioners have served for uh very long tenure and have uh bring with them valuable institutional knowledge, uh knowledge of the growth of the city, of the long-term planning strategies of the city and add valuable professional and community perspective to the planning commission.

Uh both have agreed um to uh my great appreciation to serve for another term if approved by the city council.

Thank you.

Council neither um commissioner Mortimer or Bromley are here tonight.

But I'm sure if we have any questions, that either the mayor or the community development department can answer them.

Any questions?

I'd like to go ahead, Miss Nickel.

Yeah, Madam Chair, I've worked with both of these gentlemen, and they are very professional in what they do, and they're very successful at what they do.

So I would go ahead and make a motion to approve resolution.

This is an information item tonight.

We vote next week.

But thank you for your advocacy and endorsement.

And I do want to make the same comments.

I have worked with them both, and I think they're outstanding.

And uh I appreciate the fact that they've agreed to continue to serve, and I agree with all of your comments.

So is that it on these two items, Council?

No further questions or comments.

Okay.

Um to um the next item on the agenda, that is Ms.

Housman with a proposal.

Uh thank you, Madam Chair.

Uh so just uh some additional, I'll just share a couple of of thoughts in addition to what you saw in the packet.

Um this this proposed amendment is essentially formalizing good governance.

You kind of hear me kind of been focusing on that a lot lately.

Um, a consolidated staffing schedule that is adopted as part of our annual budget, um, and any increase in full-time benefit positions should require the same process as any other budget amendment.

So that's really kind of what I'm focusing on with with this uh proposed amendment.

My focus really is ensuring transparency for taxpayers, um, so that there's clear um a clear process by which staffing levels grow and that is done through this amendment that you know staffing is adopted through the budget process, and so that's the FTEs that are adopted, and a change to that would simply come to the council for approval.

Um so just kind of providing some oversight of head count.

I think that's um good governance and and ensuring taxpayers have insight into the financial obligations that come with come with that.

That's really all I had.

It's pretty straightforward.

Anyone with any comments?

Ms.

Nickel, go ahead.

I really like this idea uh a lot, and I'm planning on voting for it when it comes back.

I was just wondering um why the decision was to do full-time benefited.

I I think that maybe uh because this has been done in the past, people have been hard uh hired part-time mid-year with the um thought that they would increase head count, you know, next year.

So I like to see part-time um benefited or non-benefited, excluding seasonal.

I mean, if it if you look at it when you bring it back and you think no, it doesn't apply, then that's fine too.

May I, Madam Chairman?

Yes, please.

Yeah, I think um that some of the feedback I received was specifically seasonal.

Um their needs departments need, especially like parks and recreation, for example.

Um, they need some flexibility around seasonal, but if you're asking me to think uh separately, like in terms of there's part-time, seasonal, and then there's part-time.

Is that what you're asking me to look at?

Yeah, okay.

So, yeah, let me take that back.

That's why there's it's the value of a first reading is to hear things like that.

So I had not actually considered the the feedback was make sure we're providing flexibility for seasonal.

Yeah, um, is what what is an example of are you so is your worry a part-time position becoming a full-time?

Yeah, that there were two people h hired part-time with the salary savings of whatever it was, and I would like to um address that in yours got if you think it's outside the lines, then I'm fine with that too.

And you're you're saying these two individuals distinguish between their they were not hired as seasonal employees, they were hired as part-time to become full-time, correct?

I think that yeah, let me let me definitely take that back and consider that for the second reading.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, Mr.

DeKaiser.

Thank you, madam chair.

Um I I have a few questions.

I'm really just trying to understand this.

So maybe kind of along the lines of what council member Nickel was talking about in that staffing change.

I'm wondering, Councilmember Housman, if you could elaborate on like specific instances or experiences that have arise that you feel um, you know need need the council to restrict the mayor's authority regarding staffing changes.

Well, first, let me start with your second point because I I don't think that's what this does.

Um we're not talking about restricting mayor's authority.

Uh so but to your first question, uh, as an example.

So a few years ago, administration hired um eight full-time firefighters as a one-time expense, which isn't when you're talking about staffing, you know, staffing is ongoing expenses, benefits, etc.

Um, and so this was this was done, and and obviously we had conversation around that, but it was done um prior to council approval.

And so what this kind of addresses is making sure that the process is uh that it starts with the council.

So we we should have had kind of a flipped experience.

The council should have um been approached for that first and then and then move forward with it.

So I'm just ensuring that we have a process by which the council approves, and and my understanding is if the um if the increase does not require further appropriation, there is no requirement for like um a public hearing, a public notice, etc.

The only time a public hearing would be required is if the approval of the increased FTEs requires an additional appropriation with an additional appropriation that sets in motion the public hearing process, uh public notice, etc.

But if all we are doing is approving a change to the staffing schedule and no appropriation required, there is no public hearing required, is is my understanding.

Um Mr.

McDeKaiser, does that answer your question?

Uh yeah, thank you.

Um I'm wondering, does um, and I don't know if you can answer this, Councilmember Housman, or maybe Mr.

Shane Pace can answer this, but was there a change made in the prior administration that that this policy kind of reverts back to.

I'm not too clear on the history of that, or maybe to Councilmember Housman, you could speak if if those changes had it have anything to do with this.

I'm not tracking your question.

I I don't understand it, sorry.

Maybe Mr.

Pace, do you do you understand the question?

Um I might.

Um I know that uh I was not here at the time, but I know during um during uh the prior administration of Mayor Bradburn, there was something added to the budget document that um that allowed uh movement in between uh approved budgets that was put into the budget document at the very top of the staffing document.

Um there are a couple of of situations uh for that is that um there are times when somebody will um decide they want to retire.

Not all of our employees say they're gonna retire at the at the before the the budget year starts, and sometimes uh because they're in a singular position, in other words, there's nobody else that does that job, uh, there's a desire to bring somebody on a couple months before they um retire, and so that um they can be trained up in that position by the person who's doing that position.

Uh I think that was one of the reasons why that was uh put in place.

A second reason, of course, is if you have an employee who goes on FMLA and is on FMLA for 12 weeks, um and uh they that job that work is not being done, uh hiring uh a temporary seasonal person to do that job during that time uh is very helpful, and so that's I believe that's why I wasn't here at the time when it happened, but I believe that's why that that uh policy was put in place.

Um it was a you know it was a it was part of the budget book and was approved by the council.

But Brian, you might have more information on that.

Thank you.

Um Councilmember Housman, do you know um how a policy like this uh work works in other cities and what what the outcomes of those cases have been so what uh what I know, and I'm sorry, I'm looking at this way because I see you on the screen.

I'm trying to make eye contact, even though you're joining personally, so I know it's weird uh because you're I I just realized you're looking at the side of my head.

So maybe I should look at the camera.

Um so so my understanding is in all cities um with our form of government, this is absolutely within the authority of the city council, like adopting the staffing schedule is part of our budget authority, and so a change to the FTEs, um, it's an appropriate, you know, uh it's an appropriate aspect of our budgetary oversight to ask that there be an approval given by the city council.

So I wouldn't say that I researched other cities as much as knowing what our governance model looks like and what's appropriate within our governance model.

Okay, thank you.

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

Yes, um that that was absolutely part of our process is making sure that Mr.

Pace had a chance to I should clarify.

Uh Mr.

Lindpace um as the city attorney had a chance to look at it.

We've had discussions and um obviously cross-departmental, or I don't know if it's the right word, but uh between our staff and uh Mr.

Pace as well.

So yes.

Okay, thank you.

Um I just want to finish by saying that uh, you know, I I understand the the need for oversight in our city's governance, especially regarding budgetary matters and um like you're you're talking about good good governance, which I think is great.

I want to approach this from the best policy perspective, but it um I also want to make sure that the mayor has an ability to um act within the budget um to have that operational flexibility.

Um you know, she's on the ground directly engaged with the departments and understands their needs.

So the proposal uh a little bit initially, and and hopefully we can work this out in the future, but it seems to kind of uh exemplify maybe a lack of trust and leadership, and um I I just want to make sure that we're we're rowing in the boat together, like you would say.

So, you know, I I would definitely consider you mentioned transparency.

Uh I like maybe the idea of doing something like a reporting requirement for staffing changes, but I don't know if if I would want to um to go along with this.

And one thing I hope to talk to more later is I I just have the uh analogy in my mind of like uh a corporate uh board of directors um uh kind of limiting the CEO's ability to uh manage their people, and it seems to me that that would be counterproductive and maybe an overreach.

So I would just um you know what want to urge my uh colleagues to to think about this in terms of collaboration and effective governance and um look forward to continuing the conversation.

Thank you.

Can I please uh thank you, Mr.

DeKaiser?

I I know we've heard this a few times now, this comparison to CEO and a and a board, and I don't think that's an accurate um representation of our governance.

Um we are equal bodies, equal branches of government, and I have verified that this is 100% within our lane.

Uh so I I I want to make sure I I put your your mind at ease there, Mr.

DeKaiser, um, that this is a this is appropriate.

And I did take into consideration administration feedback because initially I was to to Miss Nichols' point or councilwoman Nichols' point, originally I had um just unilaterally thought about all um employees, and it was recommended that we think uh intentionally about flexibility for seasonal and and so just focusing on full-time benefit.

So I do believe this is representative of collaborative efforts while also making sure we are thinking about um governance.

And so I think uh the other thing I would just really reiterate is as as the budget authority and and making sure we are clear with taxpayers, staffing decisions again, those are not um one-time expenses when we when we exceed or or or go beyond the FTEs that have been adopted in the staffing schedule.

Um in essence creating ongoing salary, ongoing benefits.

So I I think it's appropriate um for for us to move forward and continue to to talk about this.

I I appreciate the feedback.

I I see it differently.

I don't see this as any form, like all this is saying is if there is a need to go beyond the FTEs that are in the staffing schedule that get adopted as part of the process, all we are asking is come back to the council, have a conversation about that need, um, and and we do an approval process.

And again, I want to say it again, because just make sure it's very, very clear.

We're not requiring a public hearing for this.

This is um come to the council, make the case, hey, we need to go above the cap.

I will not require um an additional appropriation for this.

It's just we're gonna you know move the move the FTE up in this manner.

There's a there's a collaborative conversation, and it's it's a very simple approval process.

The only time we would have to have more than that is if we are in fact uh there will need to be an additional appropriation to do it.

Then we're talking uh public process.

So but I feel like I I don't know, I don't want to, I don't want to make an assumption here.

So I guess what I'm seeking for is with the feedback that I have heard, of course, we'll go back, revisit it, and then is there it i I'm not hearing in a strong resistance to me bringing this back for a second reading?

Miss Christensen has a question.

Yeah, I just comments.

Um you already answered about the process, which was the question that I had, um, making sure we didn't have to go through like the entire budgeting approval process.

So that makes me feel better.

I am Shane's point about the FTEs, like those are like extremely good examples of when we might need to make adjustments.

So I don't know how that fits in.

I'm not opposed to the part-time adding in, but like maybe those positions count as seasonal, or somehow so that they don't have to go through all the hoops to do that, like if someone's retiring or you know what I mean?

FMLE, those types of situations considered.

And then do you mind if I just we check in with Brian to make sure he doesn't have any other Madam Chair?

That's okay.

Is there anything he came all the way down?

Oh, just to respond to the question of um Councilmember DeKaiser on the history.

If I that's all I'd have to add, is like Mr.

Shane Pace was mentioning early on in the Bradburn administration, there was some desire to have the more flexibility to work with the FTEs within the budget constraints, and the legal council at the time researched it and came back and said that essentially the budget constraints, the amount of budget appropriated by the city council was the threshold or the limit put upon administration to operate within, and that the code was kind of silent basically on the FTE.

That was his interpretation at the time.

So as to respond to that or to include that in the budget, we put a note in the staffing consolidated staffing schedule.

It says the staffing schedules provided for informational purposes only, positions, ranges, and FTE counts may be adjusted during the fiscal year as allowed by budget appropriations.

So that's how we've been operating on for you know the last more than eight years.

Um some of the cases uh Mr.

Shane Pace mentioned on flexibility is come into play.

It doesn't rare happen that often, but um my memory on the three-two staffing issue was we were three-two staffing was implemented, um, but we were filling that by backfilling with um extra shifts.

I don't think we um adjusted the appropriation until that went through the council budget process and then the FTE count.

I don't think we ever exceeded the FTE count during that process because it was just being backfilled by existing people through overtime and such.

But that's my memory on it.

Do you see this being like a uh significant issue in what you have to do in terms of budgeting, like coming bringing it back, or is that the it's more just more you know, process to go through and get your approval.

It limits the administration's flexibility, so I don't love that, but um it's another step to go through.

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

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

Okay, thank you.

I have a quick question for Brian about that.

So what was adopted that you said you had a note in the consolidated budget?

Yeah, was that in the budget book?

It's in the budget book yeah, yeah.

So just by adopting that language, um it there was a change of policy.

Yeah, we put that in there to clarify.

So the the FTE counts were just for informational because we track those internally as administration.

Uh you know, we're we're making sure departments are staying within budget and accounts as well.

Cool, thank you.

Uh yeah, Mr.

Lynn Pace.

Yes, thank you.

I just wanted to clarify one comment that council member houseman.

The way you this language is drafted right now, any change to the staffing would require all of the same process as a form of budget amendment.

If that's not what you want, you can change it.

But right now it says uh unless the consolidated staffing schedule is amended by the city council pursuant to the same procedures required for amending the annual budget.

So if you want an easier process to add staffing, you want to change this language.

Right now, you have to use the same process you do to amend the budget.

That's just the way you've drafted it.

If that's not what you want, then fix it before next week.

So Madam Chair, may I?

Yes.

So just to be clear, there's multiple processes for amending the budget depending on what you're what you're amending.

You have to hold a public hearing if you're increasing appropriations.

But for example, let's say you're amending the budget to move money from the police department to the fire department, right?

You're not but you're not increasing an appropriation necessarily.

That doesn't require a public hearing.

So I think that the language is I mean, we're happy to clarify if you'd like to.

But I think the point is it I don't know that it specifically requires that unless an appropriation is a new appropriation being requested.

I don't want to believe the point, but but if there were money in the budget and somebody wanted to add an employee right now, amending that staffing document can only be done pursuant to the same procedure required for amending the budget.

If that's not what you want, then just change the language to reflect it.

That's all Madam Chair, could I comment on this too?

Yes.

So I appreciate um what the council's trying to accomplish here.

And I think it might be helpful just to think about uh how the budget, how you adopt the budget anyway.

Um and I think there's been concerns about the mayor's ability to uh and and and by delegation and assignment or professional staff is going to be able to function under these um perceived constraints.

And let's just think about the way the budget works anyway.

It you don't necessarily craft the budget from ground zero, it's the mayor and her team that does.

And if they need additional staffing and people, what this does is just say they have to they have to plan for it, and they're gonna put it in the budget, and they're gonna put where they need the FTEs.

And then when you approve the budget under this model, and the way I read it is you'll approve the FTEs along with it, because the FTEs are essentially but you know, that's what's a that's the budgetary piece that you're that's you're really the authority you're using when you uh are considering a policy like this.

And so I I don't I see it as just uh the the branch of government working together the way you always do.

If uh Shane has a need for additional FTEs in certain places, um then he's not just going to come in and um he's he's gonna he's gonna talk to the mayor and he's gonna talk to Brian and they're gonna tell you why they're increasing the budget, and then they need three or four new people in order to say accomplish this objective.

The only difference is here is we're gonna put a number to that.

And so that's how it'll work practically.

The way I see it is that uh the administration will come in and they'll make recommendations like they always do.

There's this just this additional piece.

And um, and and look, if something happens mid-year and they need to change it like they always do, they'll let you know.

And uh, and I think Lynn's point's a good one if you want to tweak that language a little bit.

Um, but I also think that you do budgetary changes with the resolution that's always been pretty simple and hasn't really been that controversial anyway.

So um maybe if just keep in mind how how does this work practically?

And the way I see it is it'll just work the way it's always worked.

Um there'll be there'll be dollars, there'll be numbers, um, and and that'll be that.

I don't think it'll be that controversial and difficult.

And we have Brian saying that this doesn't happen very often anyway.

And so I think it's uh the way I the way I read the policy is it's a additional layer of transparency in terms of what the council wants to do here.

So I I don't have any concern with with it uh from the policy perspective if you decide that it's good public policy.

That's all I have.

Ms.

D'Souza has something.

I just thought I'd provide feedback and let you know that um uh I I do agree with a lot of what you've said, what's been said, you know.

I see this as again in enacting good governance, um, trying to create more stability and predictability with regard to the budget every year, and um you're right in your in your report or your your memo um on this that you know the largest portion of our budget is um staffing um salaries and benefits and whatnot, and so um I I see this as I love collaboration, um I want more of it.

I think it's amazing, and I see this as a as defining a process that ensures that collaborative um conversation exists, and so um I overall support this I'll add my support as well.

I see it as just nothing more than a safeguard and notification, a transparency is a good word too.

I can't imagine that we would have many, if any, problems, but adding employees, ads cost, and we're the budget authority, so we should know.

I'm sure we would agree if there was a justification for hiring, we'd agree to it.

We just need to know what's ahead of us, how to plan for it, whether it has any impacts, and if so, how are we gonna address those impacts?

So I see it is a good thing.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I have one remark to share with the council.

Go ahead.

So there has not been any additional employees that have been have not been authorized through the budget process of this council since I've been mayor.

So the firefighters were approved by the council.

Um to backfill the three two policy was through overtime.

So there have not been part-time employees hired that have transitioned in it in anticipation of transitioning to full-time employees since I've been mayor.

I just want to put that out there.

Thank you.

All right, you have you need Ms.

Houseman.

Okay, perfect.

All right, we're through the regular agenda with the exception of the consent calendar, which is um a final draft of our budget priorities for the council, three sets of minutes and intent to annex.

Do I have a motion to adopt the consent calendar?

Motion to adopt the consent calendar.

All right, we have a motion and a second.

All in favor, aye.

Any opposed?

None.

All right.

All right.

Okay, that takes us to agenda planning.

Mr.

Fratto.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Uh, just really quickly.

So next week uh is a little bit of a different meeting.

Uh we've done this a few times in the past, but we're gonna start the meeting with a a work session.

It's gonna be a joint city council and planning commission meeting to kind of kick off the land development code rewrite.

Uh so that'll be at the beginning.

Tentatively, we have our presentation of our draft housing workshop final report.

I say tentative because I have given Liz the very difficult task of making it putting it in a really nice looking format, and she is working furiously.

Um so I'm giving her a little bit of leeway in case she's not able to get it complete in time by leaving this tentative.

But our plan at this point is to do it next week.

Uh we've got the in reference to the um land development code kickoff.

Um James has also brought up uh that they would like a couple of uh council members or folks appointed by the council, maybe staff uh to serve on the committee for the land development code rewrite, and so we're gonna discuss that and see how you'd like to move forward there.

We've got the advice and consent voting items for the two planning commissioners that were uh mentioned tonight, and then the two voting items for the two rezones that were mentioned tonight.

The following meeting is canceled on the 17th for caucus night.

Uh, and then a couple other items I wanted to, or not a couple, one other item that I wanted to update you on is related to our uh management study.

Give me just a second to make sure I've got my notes here.

Uh yes, so Matrix, who is our consultant, uh they have provide they provided us, uh actually was this morning with the draft existing conditions report, and so the things are moving along really well.

Uh currently Justin public utilities staff are reviewing that for accuracy.

Uh so they'll be getting back to matrix with that.

And then uh secondly, they are preparing the a draft of the public utilities employee survey, which will go out as a part of this.

I've let them know that they need to send that to us ahead of time so that we can take it through the survey approval team process, which we'll do.

Um, and so things are moving along really well with that.

If you have any questions, again, Justin is heading that up on our end, and you're welcome to reach out to him, and I'm sure to be able to give you all the feedback that you'd like to have from him.

Uh that's it, madam chair.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Council member business.

I'll go this way, Miss Nickel.

Do you have anything?

No, not this week.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Ms.

Howsman?

Uh thank you, Madam Chair.

Uh a bit of a I'll keep it as brief as I can, but I think it's an important update.

Um, want to just share some high-level points from the the Wooford uh Was that front waste and recycling district meeting uh we had yesterday actually.

Um so I am gonna look at my nose because I think it's it's really important to get these these updates uh correct.

So a couple of things that I want to start with celebrating.

Uh I'll just say Wooford.

They implemented several cost saving measures.

I love we all know this.

share some high level points from the the Wooford uh Was that front waste and recycling district meeting uh we had yesterday actually um so I am gonna look at my nose because I think it's it's really important to get these these updates um correct so a couple of things um that I want to start with celebrating uh I'll just say Wooford they implemented several cost saving measures I love we all know this we all love this not just me but efficiencies that yield cost savings always a great thing to celebrate um so so they were able to celebrate several cost saving measures while retaining all lines of service so I won't I won't go through all of that but if you're curious to know specifically what those measures were um let me know but I wanted to highlight that um the amount of that was uh so that cost savings um cumulatively was one million eight hundred twenty thousand dollars so I think that's pretty significant I love I love processes that result in efficiencies and cost savings so wanted to celebrate that um and then wanted to the there was a lot of conversation around some policy updates again much like what we do often is sort of getting our policy in alignment with state code and changes there some grammatical changes etc so I won't go through all of those but I did want to just share um the an update on the landfill voucher program because you might get questions on that so they're they're looking to waive and again this will be voted on it still we've this is the first reading so if you have feedback please let me know um but the change would be that the landfill voucher program shall waive fees for up to it's been two percent the proposal is to change it to five percent of the number of household service by the district so um increasing access to those vouchers I thought that was something important to share um and then the last thing um no we don't I don't need I've got more but I'm trying to be concise here the the most important thing I want to make sure I give all of you is uh an update on the Harriman uh withdrawal I know you probably are are very aware of that uh so I just I'm gonna read what I wrote to make sure that I give the proper update here um so during during the meeting the board authorized staff to negotiate Harriman's withdrawal under a cooperative framework um that aims to be cost neutral so that's a specific question I asked I wanted to make sure that if we were adopting any kind of a framework uh that we were not necessarily setting ourselves up our residents who do pay pay fees um through the service provided by Wifford uh that they were in some way going to have to absorb this these additional impacts so um through some really great analysis they have they have identified ways to absorb this so that uh our our residents and all of the other cities residents will not be impacted so the intent is it will be cost neutral um and then rather than fighting an event inevitable exit given some state legislation that I imagine maybe we'll hear an update on the board chose to negotiate favorable terms now and focus energy on strengthening the district so there's some really good conversation that was had around what does it look like to strengthen the district a conversation about having a specific board retreat to really think about what does it look like to to come together as cities that will remain as part of the district and really kind of create this this vision of how do we how do we remain strong and not um and keep this cost neutral because I I just stress that that was really important to Sandy City so the the board and other the board sheet and other things will focus on strengthening the district for remaining um members and additional operational improvements so like I just highlighted obviously there's a little bit of tension between this member withdrawal and and how that impacts the district's future so continuing to focus on operational excellence and being responsive to our custom their custom our customers' needs so that's a very high level summary it was a very long lots of lots of good conversation but I did want to bring that update back if if you want further insights and I have it but um hopefully that gives you kind of an update general terms and that's all I had thank you Mel Chair.

Miss Christensen yeah to just two things thanks for everyone's patience last week with parent teacher conferences that was new and exciting um and then also you see these rose plantings on your desks mark is very excited about this and so just wanted to make sure you all saw that and know that um anyone's invited to come help plant these beautiful roses in the cemetery I will be there count me in all right um yeah for LPC were in our last week I'll let Ryan since he's sat through the entire meeting he ought to be able to give the full report but I just I do want to say that um I have felt accomplishment this year in terms of our legislators especially the Sandy legislators listening to us and acting on our requests we've diffused some issues and sometimes we think they're diffused only for them to come back to life but I just I I feel like our legislators this year in particular have been really responsive and and um

But I just I do want to say that I have felt accomplishment this year in terms of our legislators, especially the Sandy legislators listening to us and acting on our requests.

We've diffused some issues, and sometimes we think they're diffused only for them to come back to life.

But I just I feel like our legislators this year in particular have been really responsive and listening to Sandy and voting in our interests, and so I think there's a I just wanted to comment on that.

Um I was able to attend Barb's uh farewell, she's heading on to Provo, and we will miss her, but um, I'm sure I'm Provo is lucky to get her, and uh I'm sure she'll do a really good job there.

And thanks to Ben and Jeddah and Lois for the tour that we took of the uh new recreation center um site.

It was to those of you who couldn't make it, it was right after a big rainstorm, and we did get a little bit of rain, and there was a lot of mud.

So whoever chose not to be or came up with a good excuse to not be there.

I think maybe you did the good thing.

I got into my car and stepped in and then lifted my foot and saw that I had covered my carpet mat with bud.

But anyway, that's that's the way it goes on construction sites.

So that's it for now.

I'll let uh Ryan take over the legislative part.

Ms.

Stroud, do you have anything tonight?

Thank you.

Nope.

I was just gonna add with this that uh Mark has invited the youth council, and it sounds like that we will be there.

So the youth council will be there last year at the cemetery.

We um you know tidied up around some of the headstones, but uh you know, super excited to kind of see what they can do with this and uh all these rose bushes.

So you know that'll be a fun event.

So yeah, love to have you guys there.

Uh, we'll be inviting them.

Um, it's provided 40 invitations for all of our kids to have that.

Um so that will be good.

And I'm planning on so my meeting because daytime schedule, very inflexible schedule.

Um, but going uh with uh Ben over to Alta Canyon on Thursday.

Awesome.

Be able to see that watched it a few times driven by over to Home Depot, but it'll be fun.

No, thank you.

Mr.

Susan, go ahead.

Yeah, thank you.

Um again, yes, thanks to the Parks and Rec crew for the Alta Canyon tour.

Um, it is really nice to see.

I do look forward to seeing it again and in more finished state so that my mind can wrap itself around the you know and make sense of the plans, and so um great job.

Thank you for inviting us.

Um, and I also just want to thank Brian Kelly for being so on top of the senior center updates.

Really appreciate it, they really appreciate it.

Um, and I got your most recent one.

Um, I haven't responded, so here's my public response, and thank you so much for always providing those.

Appreciate it.

You did all right.

The mayor's report is next.

Thanks.

I want to thank our friends at the Emerald Hills Institute for hosting the Interfaith Ramadan dinner.

Um, mayors from all over the south end of the valley, faith leaders came together for a wonderful dinner and reflections on uh sharing and building peace, especially at this uh spring season of Ramadan.

Uh we also had the first meeting of the mayor's intersection safety team focusing on the Elta High School intersection.

The working group met last week, and I want to thank council member de Kaiser and Houseman for joining us along with residents from the area and Katie Atkinson who was the group moderator.

Got a lot of uh great feedback and we're able to share with the with the Miss team reporting on not just having the lighted stop signs installed, but that we also have removed a tree that uh several people brought to our attention, obstructed the view, and there has been utility work to install a street light at the southwest corner of the intersection.

So those are some short-term improvements, and then we are beginning to work with the consultant for the major uh infrastructure review and study.

So uh laying out that process and also inviting our team and uh others to participate on that on that study process, and really excited about the feedback and the opportunity for community collaboration.

So thank you, council members, for attending.

And uh Coffee with the Cops is coming up on March 14th.

That's not this Saturday, but next, so that's going to be at the coffee shop that's at the Smiths uh shopping center on 94th in Highland Drive.

There will be police officers there a lot of information victim advocates our VIPs and of course the canine officers so it's a great time to come out with your family meet the officers in a non-enforcement environment and get to know your officers who are responsible for your neighborhood so please if you live in that area in East Sandy 94th and Highland Councilmember Nickel Councilmember Sharkey please plan put that on your schedule for Saturday March 14th 10 a.m to 12 p.m we'd love to see you there.

And that's all thank you.

And Mr.

DeKaiser I am so sorry that I skipped you inadvertently please go ahead.

No no worries at all Madam Chair when I when I had the experience I was terrible at recognizing online participants so thank you.

I too just have a couple items uh like the mayor said last week I participated with council member houseman in the inaugural MIST meeting that's the mayor's intersection safety team and I'm grateful to the mayor for organizing it.

We had a great meeting and discuss the elements that the mayor already um detailed I just uh I I am a little unclear on the scope of it but I would uh hope to see the group discuss more intersections in the future just tonight uh we have residents talking to us about 86 south and 10th east so maybe that maybe that's something they could talk about about excuse me and um look forward to the to these great people uh being uh continued advocates for safety in our city um the other thing I wanted to comment on was last week we talked about the granite study and then it was sent out to the council almost immediately which I appreciate um I just wanted to note that I read it and it was it was pretty surprising to me it seemed very basic and contained um seemingly little qualitative analysis on what I would think are are really complicated intricacies of of the situation and it contained um some some elements that I thought were concerning most significantly is the estimated tax burden on being being annexed into Sandy was nearly double any of the other three options those being self-funding um having a contract with Sandy or continuing with their current municipal services district and that's odd to me because that is counter to the information that I was seeing from the administration many months ago leading up to this so I'm really interested in these future discussions and making sure that uh everyone is all on the same page as this process moves forward.

Thank you madam chair Mr.

Pace we'll come back to you and if you feel like you want to address that at a really high level I feel free.

I'd like to um thank councilmember de Kaiser for bringing that um item for discussion now that the council has taken action to initiate the annexation we will be notifying residents in the granite community and we've also notified Salt Lake County of our reservations over the um deficiencies of the annexation report too so we'd be happy to share that correspondence with the council so that you're up to speed yeah that that um letter to the county will answer a lot of the questions that um on a high level the the main difference is they it purposely exclude the um unified fire authority tax and the unified police department tax when you add that into the formula of course um we're much lower uh and so they were comparing apples to oranges um the other big issue was their anticipated revenues office sales tax it was just flat out wrong so anything else in your CAO report no all right thank you um recreation center construction report is that you tonight Ben okay so we appreciate the council coming up and visiting with us last week and then we got that on Thursday this coming week um we continue to have our weekly construction meetings with latent construction of VCBO architects what's exciting happening this week is uh or has been happening this week is the pillars continue got put up and now they're connecting the roof from pillar to pillar so over the filled house and also over the basketball court the other uh key item is uh I think when we were up there we saw a bunch of blue tarps that look like blue tarps over the basketball court that was in preparation to lay the cement on the basketball court so that has now been laid um so you can actually see the formation of it and it's nice to see a roof on it uh when you step into the space and look up you're like okay I can start envisioning this they also drain the pool um so that they could re-hook up the um the plumbing um uh filtration system to the pool so they were doing a bunch of practice of making sure that the pipes were going the right direction and

That was in preparation to lay the cement on the basketball court, so that has now been laid.

Um so you can actually see the formation of it, and it's nice to see a roof on it uh when you step into the space and look up, you're like, okay, I can start envisioning this.

Um they also drain the pool so they could re-hook up the um the plumbing um uh filtration system to the pool.

So they were doing a bunch of practice of making sure that the pipes were going the right direction and getting that all set back up.

Um and other than that, that's uh that's what uh my report is for tonight.

Any questions on that?

Thank you, Peter.

Mr.

Meekham.

Thank you.

I was gonna start with homelessness, but let's talk garbage.

Uh so the uh uh what we were talking about just a few minutes ago, House Bill 429 does deal with special district uh amendments specifically around garbage disposal.

And uh so that is going through right now.

It's on the Senate third reading calendar, in other words, it's already passed the House, it's over in the Senate, and uh that just creates a process for this to happen.

And um uh so what'll what'll take place though is it still does provide that anyone in this case Harriman who was part of it when they made the capital decisions will still be part of those capital decisions.

So, in other words, everything that was bonded against their participation still is the case.

Um so that will, you know, that will help from uh everyone else whose remaining standpoint.

All right, uh let's talk uh homelessness.

The uh House Bill 596 is the uh bill that's going through the process right now.

Today's Tuesday, uh it's last day or the last week of the session, and since it's Tuesday, it means that every bill that originates in the House has to pass out of the House.

Every one that originated in the Senate can pass out of the Senate.

There are ways to get around that, but as a basic rule of thumb, that's the case.

So uh House Bill 596 in order to continue, needs to pass out tonight.

They're gonna stay until whatever time they need to.

Last I checked, it was item number 12 on the third reading calendar, and Senator Colemore is going to be the Senate sponsor.

So I have no doubt in my mind is going to get out of the house tonight and uh move forward.

So what this does is uh uh we spent a lot of time on it this week.

Um shout out to the Utah League of Cities and Towns.

Molly Wheeler is the one who's been taking point on this.

Uh she in in collaboration with us and other shelter cities came up with many revisions to the original bill.

Uh Steve Elison, representative E.l.son is the one who's running this.

He accepted all those changes.

And so what that means is that there will be uh uh all of the state preemption on land uses out, and uh there will be a one-time increase on the funding, so the non-shelter cities will participate an extra 15% one time, and that will go to help out West Valley City, who's had the unenviable position of having to host a shelter, but also having to pay into the fund.

They're the only ones that are caught in this kind of catch-22, the way that uh the definitions worked earlier on.

So this is gonna help them.

It won't impact us at all because we're not as a shelter city, we're not uh billed any of this amount.

So anyway, that will continue.

And uh so kudos to the league uh and and Molly, like I said, who's taking point on that.

Uh property tax.

There's a couple of uh pieces on property tax.

One that we've talked about extensively is House Bill 236.

Uh, this is already passed out of the House, so meet so it's in the Senate right now, it's on the second reading calendar uh circled, so they'll get to it here pretty soon.

And uh the the main provision of this that relates to us is that if we contemplate a tax increase, so whether the mayor's budget comes out with an anticipated tax increase or if the council decides there needs to be a tax increase, we have a window between May 1 and June 8 uh where we have to state at a public meeting that a fiscal tax that uh that uh that we tax entity are considering levying a tax rate that exceeds the fiscal year tax and entity certified tax rate.

So if we're gonna up the tax rate, we have to make that announcement uh in that window.

Otherwise, with the the windows gone, and uh we we can't come back and uh redo that.

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

So that's what we would explain to folks, and uh that would be the new requirement coming into that.

Ryan, is that one effective um this year or next year?

Or when uh May May's uh May 6.

It's the normal this year, yeah.

Okay.

Yep.

Uh Senate Bill 97.

Um, this is gone through many iterations.

This is the one that had a 5% cap.

So in from in terms of property tax, it originally said that uh any uh local government, meaning uh cities, counties, school districts cannot increase taxes any more than five percent.

That was uh eliminated on the last substitute.

Um the one that is before the Senate right now, which again Senate bill has to pass out of the Senate tonight.

Um they're at least going to talk about it.

Um I think there's a strong chance of a passing out, but you know, we'll see.

Uh what this does effectively for us is it doesn't is it doesn't have a huge impact because uh a lot of cities have a lot of have been carrying on a lot of fund balance, and uh in the past you used to cap out at 25%.

Uh five, six years ago that increased to 35%, but we're at 12%.

So no matter kind of what version of this passes out, um Brian says, hey, don't worry, we keep it at 12, so it shouldn't be that uh big a deal for us.

But what it would do, uh it puts some teeth into it.

So cities um right now, if you go beyond the cap, so you've got a general fund, and if you add on and say, well, I'm gonna keep, you know, I I want to keep 35 percent in addition to my uh in addition to my funds, that's fine.

But if you want to go to 40, 45 percent, what would happen is the state would send the city a letter and say, bad city, you need to get back to 35 percent.

Uh, please do that right away.

Some cities would take the letter and you know, probably I don't know this to be the case, but they would probably ignore it uh because there was really no teeth to it.

It just said you need to do this.

Uh but this would change that.

It would um if if after a five-year period of time, if you were still carrying those kind of balances, it would take it out of your tax rate.

And so there's real teeth in there to uh to lower your tax rate to compensate for that extra amount that you're holding on above, and in this time it has a range 25, 28, and 30 percent, depending on the size of your budget.

Um, but if you carry more than that, they would say, ah, we're gonna claw that back, and we're gonna do that by decreasing the tax rate.

All right, uh a couple more topics.

Let's talk uh land use for a second.

Uh this uh Senate Bill 284.

This is the one that deals with planning commissions.

Uh so there's a a number of changes in this bill, but what one thing that would uh do is it it kind of from uh um in some cases planning commissions haven't been making um what it calls timely decisions, and so it gives the council the ability to uh just to pull an item from the planning commission and deal with it on uh city council level.

Uh there have been other instances where planning commissioners have been um advocating on behalf or against certain things that have come before, and so it creates restrictions around the planning commission as it is uh a quasi uh well as a decision-making body, and so it it puts some more guardrails around that.

Uh quick question on that is that a mayor shall uh is which part the city council may poll it.

May okay.

Yeah, may, yeah.

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

All right, uh housing.

Uh my last topic that I wanted to bring up.

Sure.

Right.

I'm sorry, so uh about that one.

Um what are the qualifications by which a council may pull that off?

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

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

And so I guess I'm a little confused about that.

I didn't know if you had any more clarity on how that's I I would I would characterize it as intentionally vague.

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

Okay, thank you.

Uh last topic I'll bring up is housing.

Um House Bill 492.

Uh, another one of those is a compromise bill that actually does several things.

Um right now there is a um last year, there's a 70 million dollar pot uh here in Salt Lake County that was uh created as a grant in uh to enable um regionally significant infrastructure projects to move forward.

So the problem that they're trying to solve is if you have a bunch of entitled lots that are not able to move forward, so Harriman is usually the poster child for this uh uh case study because it's happening right now.

They've got uh 7,000 entitled lots that could come to the market but can't because they don't have a water tank, and so uh of this money they have an application in for $50 million to build a water tank that then would unlock uh around 7,000 units within Harriman, and so this is what this bill does.

It expands it.

Um last year it was 70 million dollars this year.

They're adding another another 70 here in Salt Lake County, and then in addition to that, they're doing another hundred million as a loan uh in in other parts of the state.

And so um, so basically uh the policy issue they're trying to get at, like I said, is is trying to uh because cities have been very diligent about bringing entitled lots to the marketplace, and there are 109,000 at last count around the state of of entitled lots, but have no way to get to the market because of lack of infrastructure.

So the conversation is really turned from um saying, hey cities, you need to create more uh uh get more lots to the marketplace to a realization that there are problems in our way in order to make that happen.

So that's the main goal of this bill.

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

So, Ryan, yesterday we talked about SB 284 local land use modifications of Fillmore bill that we had supported that was merging with 177, I think.

That I that one didn't anyway.

Uh is that one on its way to passage?

That one is one where that mandates that cities adopt an external ADU ordinance by October.

Correct.

Is that one headed toward passage?

I would say yes.

This is um it's a Senate bill.

Uh so it has passed the Senate.

It the it was in a House hearing this morning.

What the House did is they returned it to rules because they're ahead of time.

That's not a problem because it just has to have a hearing in one body.

Uh so it had a hearing rules committee can also do it, but that's another story.

But in this case, they um uh it it already passed out of the Senate, so it doesn't have to have a house hearing.

And uh yeah, I would predict that it'll be um uh that it's on the uh the house third reading calendar right now, and I predict that it is one of those that will uh that will come out.

Uh and it does it it requires municipalities.

We would fall under this a definition that would um that we would need to allow a detached accessory dwelling unit as a as a permitted use in certain zones.

So that's kind of the general idea.

That's the same one that dealt with the planning commission.

There's uh that bill has got you know probably 10 or 12 different topics, but you are correct.

That is one of them.

Okay, that one is one we need will need to take some action on that if it passes.

All right, madam chair, yeah.

Can I have a little bit more time?

Sure.

Thank you.

Ever to keep you updated on the RBR building.

Brian would like to update you on the selection process for the bonds.

Um good evening now.

Just to give you an update, we're scheduled to close next week on the 13th on the building, and everything's going smoothly.

We did uh select uh lender on the bonds that it's Webster Bank.

Um may or may not have heard of them before, but they are headquartered in Connecticut.

They're they have a strong presence in New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts area.

But um, they're a commercial bank as well as they do some retail and public financing, and they're public financing across the United States.

Um, and they're a strong candidate.

They had the most competitive bid on the interest rate and the term, or as far as the um callable flexibility.

Um there is I know I talked to you about the one of the flexibility is one of our key um attributes we were looking for.

This one is there is a call for three years, so we wouldn't be able to call the bonds for the first three years, but I don't anticipate that being an issue.

Um the only one of the bidders had total flexibility with no call.

Um, but they had a reset of the as a variable interest rate that reset at 10 years, and we've seen some bad experience with that.

Um so we elected to go with this fixed rate option at the best rate, um, even though it has a three-year call.

So anyway, I would just want to give you an update on that.

So, what kind of rate are we talking about?

Is it is it better than we saw in slightly that's 5.4 to two overall, and that's a blended rate between our taxable and tax exempt.

And that's a blended rate between our taxable and tax exempt.

There's a do you remember what each one is?

Um I think it's 5.5 on 55 point um something or 5.5 something on the taxable and 4.2 on the non-taxable.

Okay.

And we broke it out separately because the channel council chambers project is tax exempt, where the building is taxable because we'll be leasing it and um using it for non-governmental purposes, a large percentage of it.

So any other questions?

The reason for the delay on the closing, which we thought was going to happen on March 2nd, is what was the reason?

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

So it cost us nothing.

Yeah, there was no cost on that.

Yeah, that was that was uh factors built into the contract that if they didn't meet it, we could extend it up to 10 days, and so we did make sure they were gonna fix all those things.

Okay, yeah, go ahead.

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

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

Okay, so it shouldn't be delayed yet again.

Right.

We're on track for next week.

Um and the repairs have been done.

So Mr.

DeKeiser, go ahead.

Thank you.

Just since the legislative session ends on Friday, I just wanted to take a moment to recognize uh Mr.

Meekham as he completes his first uh legislative session, having served on this council previously, and you know, here I I really appreciated how thoughtful and steady and deeply engaged member of the body he was, and it has been really great to watch him carry that um same diligence and commitment to public service in his new role as our senior policy director, and just love how he's continued to represent our community with integrity and seriousness, and even just explaining all those different rules and stuff like that really really uh shines light on how how well he's done.

So, thank you so much for your uh continued service for the city, Mr.

Meekham, and uh congratulations on a successful first term at the Capitol.

All right, that is the end of our agenda, and I will accept a uh motion to adjourn if one would like to give one.

Move to adjourn.

All in favor?

Aye, any opposed.

Thank you, and good night, everyone.