Hey, everybody, we've got about two minutes left.

Uh, till we get started.

I'm gonna start our recording though.

Recording in progress.

I want to go.

Stroud is online right now, so we do have a quorum.

If you want to wait, that's fine, but we can also get started whenever you'd like to.

Welcome everyone to the Sandy City Council meeting of April 21st, 2026.

We have a really important special recognition that we're going to start this meeting off with.

Let's take things just a tiny bit out of order.

Madam Chair, on that note, can I uh ask you with the council to move item eight to five or six, possibly.

So they both require comment and voting.

You want to move eight up?

Yeah, to five or six, if possible.

Okay.

Um does the council have an objection to that.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um, so let's do let's do introductions first, and then we'll kind of hand it over to uh the youth council and our staff.

Let's start with introductions.

So, Mr.

Fratto, will you start us off?

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 Terrio.

My name's Tracy, I'm counsel for the council.

Chris Edwards with the council office.

Chris Nichols, Sandy City Council, District Three.

Marcy Housman, District Four.

Brooke Christensen, District One.

Cindy Sharkey at large.

Erin DeKaiser at large.

Alison Stroud, District Two.

Thank you, Allison.

Hi, Brian Kelly, Director of Administrative Services.

Jeff Robinson sitting in for Lindpace.

We are expecting Councilmember D'Souza to join us, so we'll keep an eye for that.

I don't see her online yet, but we are expecting her to join.

Would Colin Rasmussen and Rachel Lowe come?

Oh, she just joined.

Hi, Brooke.

Introduce go ahead and introduce yourself.

Ms.

DeSouza, go ahead and introduce yourself.

Brooke D'Souza at large.

Thank you.

So Colin and Rachel, if you guys will come right up to the podium here.

Colin, you have volunteered to start our meeting with a prayer and Rachel with the pledge.

So Colin, will you go first?

Go right ahead.

Thank you.

Let us bow our heads.

Oh Lord, Heavenly Father, let us pray for those graduating today from our youth council.

As we embark on our next chapter of our lives, give us the wisdom, strength, and courage to lead others in any endeavor we pursue.

Let us further to serve the greater good of our city, valley, and beyond.

Let us pray for those who have made this program possible, for those who have sacrificed their precious time for us, from our advisors to our parents, to our council members, to our city, to every agency and individual we have come across.

Let this program continue to flourish and prosper so that the youth of Sandy may learn, serve, and lead our future.

We say this in the name of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

Amen.

Let's all rise and Rachel will lead us in the pledge.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for St.

One Nation and the God Indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Thanks to the both of you.

The first item on our agenda tonight is a special recognition, and that is recognizing the current class, the graduating class of our Sandy Youth Council.

And this is always a highlight for us.

So I'd like to invite our staff, Chris Edwards and Liz Terrier, to come on down and guide us through this process of recognizing this class of 2025-2026 program year.

Okay.

Good evening, Council Administration and our Youth Council parents.

As the program advisors to the Sandy Youth Council, Chris and I, along with the City Council liaison, Alice and Stroud, are excited to recognize our 2025-26 Sandy Youth Council members.

This is the fourth year of our program, and we continue to be amazed by our members.

This year we had 38 Sandy City Youth Council members.

Our members are all residents of Sandy City, and they attend nine different high schools across the Valley.

Jordan, Alta, Brighton, Hillcrest, Skyline, Beehive Academy, Chesterdon Academy, Ju Diego Catholic High School, and the Waterford School.

Most of our members participate in the program for multiple years, and we're very proud to have a 95% return rate among our SYC members.

A lot of our members here have already sent in their application for next year, which is great.

Tonight, we want to provide the city council with a review of our 25-26 program year.

As part of our civic engagement, we learned more about the city.

This year we met with the public work staff and learned about the important work of that department.

We toured the new fleet building and were amazed at the state-of-the-art facility.

We met with our emergency manager and learned about the importance of being prepared.

We also had a meeting with our Sandy service ambassadors and learned that there are more opportunities for involvement with the city as we as they grow and become adults.

And we also participated in a career panel where we learned about roles in the city and future municipal careers.

Thank you to everyone who participated in that.

Something we will include every year in the SYC program.

We toured our brand new Fire Station 31 and were introduced to the important work of our firefighters and paramedics.

We even had the opportunity to dress in the full firefighting gear and tested our strength by dragging that very heavy fire hose across the building and spraying at a target.

We also went to the Capitol for the statewide youth council event at the local officials day.

Our SYC again was chosen to participate in the mock debate, and our members really impressed not only the other youth council youth councils there, but local officials and the ULCT staff with our depth of understanding and knowledge of the current issues.

Leadership through service is a focus of our Sandy Youth Council.

This year, our Sandy Youth Council had over 850 hours of service to our community.

Each year, we add new opportunities for service.

This year, our whole group service included raking nearly two acres of leaves, which went into 80 leaf bags at the Carmelite Monastery and Holiday, a service project we will not only continue, but will invite other area youth councils to join us next year.

We also helped put together 5,000 swag bags for the educator wellness conference at the Mountain America Expo Center.

And we had to pack those more than once.

Just 6,000.

We expanded our small group service to include helping at the City Council Oath of Office ceremony this year, the Council's Noel Bateman Award Ceremony, and the Senior Central Center annual car show and barbecue.

As we continued our incredible service at our city events, um something popped up on my screen.

Okay.

Okay.

Um we also participated in the uh July 4th parade, light up the Cairns and the Balloon Festival.

Our service does not end tonight, though, and we will again be helping at the Sandy Cemetery on this Saturday at the Sandy Beautification Day.

We're going to trim around the headstones and just make sure that we're honoring our residents who have passed.

Um, and we're also going to help plant some beautiful rare rose bushes with the Parks and Recreation Department.

For the past two years, we have recognized youth council members who stood out in their service to the city.

This year, this recognition goes to Bridger Jones, who had over 55 hours of service.

But she stand up.

55 hours is service.

55 hours of service with the city and consistently showed up not only at our whole group service projects, but many, many of our small group service opportunities, and we thank him for his service.

Thank you.

Okay, now we would like to introduce uh Katriana Kawamoto and Kate Anderson who would like to come up and share just a few words with the council and the administration on their experience.

Um hi everyone, my name is Catarina Kaamoto.

This is my second year on the youth council.

Okay.

Um, and I'm a junior at the Waterford School.

So first, I just want to thank our amazing program advisors, Chris and Liz, as well as Councilmember Stroud for making this opportunity possible for all of us.

It's truly been so rewarding to get to become more involved in my city and see the inner workings of all of our departments.

Um I'd also just like to mention like how rewarding this opportunity has been to me through our service events and getting to meet like little kids at Light the Cairns and help them find where the Elvis are to meeting with our Sandy service ambassadors at our October meeting and getting getting to talk to them and learn from them and learn from their experience, um, becoming more involved with the city.

But most of all, my favorite part of Sandy Youth Council has been getting to meet and be inspired by people who I never would have otherwise interacted with.

Like as Chris and Liz mentioned before, we had a volunteer event earlier in the year at the Carmelite Monastery, and we raked over um 80 bags of leaves.

And I was just it was so fun to be able to connect with like other youth council members and do that.

But also it was amazing to talk to um the Mother Superior after.

And one thing that really stuck with me that she said was how anyone who comes to them in need, she will pray for them, and the sisters will pray for them.

And this idea that we should be open to all of our neighbors, regardless of our differences or like religious affiliation in the case of like the Mother Superior.

It's just been so inspiring to me.

It's been something I try to carry with me through everything.

So I'm just so grateful to have this opportunity, and thank you guys.

Hi, my name is Kate Anderson, and this is my fourth year on the Sandy Youth Council.

I'm a senior and I'm sadly graduating and moving away, but my time at Sandy has always been such a tender place in my heart because I've always lived here and I've always called it home.

And uh for like a long time I like went to school and I did all my extracurricular activities in Sandy, but I never really like explored outside the bubble, and I never really understood how big Sandy was.

Um, and when my mom mentioned, oh, you should like apply to like be part of Sandy Youth Council, like it's new, and I was like, okay, like it'll look good on college applications, I guess.

I never really understood how much of an impact that it would make on me, and I'm so glad that we were able to open up Sandy Youth Council again because I've had so many opportunities meeting new people and having so many hours just exploring Sandy and what we truly are and what makes us a city.

And I'm so grateful for all the people, of course, Chris and Liz and all the all the city council members that make this possible, and of course, our families that allow us to be able to go out, and of course, all the Sandy Youth Council members that I've been able to call friends and now have a good relationship with.

And I'm just so grateful that I've been able to have this experience.

Thank you.

There we go.

So now we would like to, we're gonna honor all of our youth council members uh in a moment, but we'd like to honor our seniors.

So as we call your name, will you please stand and uh be recognized by the council and the community?

So Annie Allrit, who is going to post-high school attend Brigham Young University to study business and stay standing.

We have Jet Webster going to Purdue to study biochemistry.

Colin Rasmussen, who is going to the United States Naval Academy for Mathematics.

For mathematics.

Maya Gupta, who's going to the University of Utah for computer science and business.

And Area Orme, who's going to the University of Utah to study pre med.

Thank you, seniors, for your service.

Don't worry, we didn't forget some of this.

We have four more seniors that we're going to recognize.

And for these people, we'd like you to come up to the front.

So we'd like to recognize four of our seniors who have the privilege of joining the youth council as freshmen.

In our second year of the program, we changed the program to include uh sophomore through seniors, um, just so that we could accept more students and things like that.

However, these four were able to join us.

And so they're the only ones who will have four years in the program, and we wanted to acknowledge them.

So please come up to the dais um as I call your name.

Charlotte Hauser, who's going to the University of Utah to study creative writing.

Do you want that now?

Yeah.

Kate Anderson, who's going to um Salt Lake Community College for nursing.

Olivia Hauser going to the University of Utah to study.

Do you know?

What are you studying?

Not to put you on the spot.

Yeah, I believe in you.

You got it, we'll figure it out.

And Rachel Lowe, who's going to Salt Lake Community College, and then the University or UVU, sorry, uh, to study architecture.

So thank you guys for sticking uh sticking with us for these last four years.

Um, we now like to invite the entire youth council up to the front.

Um, we're gonna do just a quick picture of the four.

Okay, we're gonna do a photo of just you four, real quick.

Smile.

Okay, hang on.

Oh, and then I'll still get now.

Okay, now can we have the rest of the youth council up to the front of the room for a photo?

Do we want to have the council come down?

Uh we're gonna wait for the phone second.

Yeah, we'll need some of you guys probably from the front here.

Okay.

So this is so we have one little surprise addition to the agenda, so bear with us.

We need you all up here.

Um and I'd like to invite the council chair Cindy Sharkey to come up to the podium.

Well, to all of you, uh to all of the parents who are here and anyone else watching online.

We are so proud to have you as part of our council here at the youth council.

We really look forward to recognizing you and all your many accomplishments.

But in addition to recognizing and honoring you tonight, I have one more thing, and she doesn't know about it.

So we also want to recognize Liz Terriel.

Unfortunately, for those of you who are coming back, Liz won't be working with you next year.

So we've had a plaque made for Liz.

We joked about the fact that you were gonna cry.

I didn't know I was gonna cry.

And it says the Sandy City Council honors Liz Terreo for your vision and dedication in creating the Sandy Youth Council.

Your commitment and passion have shaped a lasting legacy for the SYC and will continue to inspire future generations of students to engage, to serve, and to lead.

Thank you, Liz, for what you've done for the SYC.

Thank you.

Council members, right?

Do we need us?

Parents, we're gonna go.

Uh we're gonna excuse ourselves from the council meeting, and we're just gonna go right next door to the overflow room just to finish our presentation and let the council get on with all the other things they have to do tonight.

So please join us just next door for about 10 more minutes.

All right.

As they exit, the next item on our agenda is a presentation by the fire department.

I see we have a lot of chiefs here tonight.

Is Chief McConaughey are you leading us off on the presentation on the 2025 annual report?

Yes, I am.

And uh thank you, Madam Chair and uh council uh and administration and staff, thank you.

It's uh pleasure for us to be here tonight uh to um give uh this presentation for the annual report for 2025.

And I just wanted to clarify a few things.

I uh we printed out a copy for each of you.

Um it's as you see if you've thumbed through it at all yet, it's fairly substantial.

I have no intention of covering it in great detail tonight.

Um there's a long agenda and schedule for tonight, so I'm gonna try to keep uh somewhat concise and short and just touch on some of the highlights.

But having said that, if you are interested in um calling, emailing, texting, or whatever as you move through this over whatever time period, uh feel free to do so.

Um I will also uh mention that in the top corner of corresponding pages.

I have uh we have added um the references from the management study with the um the areas that they um recommended.

So you can actually use that and go back to the management study and reference those areas.

And I've I we've presented them with our title.

So having said that, we'll kind of just uh cruise through this.

Um so starting out, the first thing that I wanted to point out is a uh vision statement document.

Um prior to uh this past year, we didn't have a vision statement.

We had two separate documents, one for the mission statement, one for the values.

Um what we did last year is add a vision statement and then combine it all into one document, um, framed each one of those, and they are now hanging at each of the five stations as you um enter.

So just kind of a good next to a shield that we had um laser cut, so it's kind of just a good reminder.

So we uh we're excited about that project.

Um the next section is the organizational chart.

And as you're probably already aware, that has changed slightly and does correspond with management study recommendations where we have one deputy chief uh before we have two now, and you're probably familiar with uh uh deputy chief of operations uh Chris Aston and Deputy Chief of uh administration uh Michael Bullock.

Um so uh with that we've also added the uh position of emergency manager under the fire department umbrella.

And so all of that um is here in this organizational chart, and then we've also kind of color-coded it for A, B and C shifts, red, green, and blue, and then down the side in black, you can see stations one thirty-one through thirty-five, and the personnel that are um at each one of those stations.

And then down the side in black, you can see stations 131 through 35, and the personnel that are at each one of those stations.

So hopefully that's helpful to you.

Any questions about that, let us know.

Personnel changes, promotions in the last year.

We have had four promotions for paramedics as you see there, and then our fire department coordinator, Carrie Phillips, that was promoted last year as well.

We also have, as some I've mentioned already, some of the new positions, but new hires, our battalion chief uh David Larson for emergency management, and then the six individuals that you see there.

We have two more that are about to complete next month, the Salt Lake City Academy, so they'll appear on next year's annual report.

And then we have the addition a few years back of the firefighter senior step and the paramedic senior step, which allows people within their van to move up and down a little bit more flexibility with some additional training and education, and then gives them some additional roles and management within that area of expertise.

So these five individuals accomplish that senior step.

Pictures of our Salt Lake City Academy and references to the recommendation by the management study of increased budgeting staffing levels.

And I'll just pause for a second to say thank you.

Thank you so much for the support.

And you'll probably reflect back when we were running as two-handed on the heavies on the engines and the trucks, and we've increased that now.

And it's increased retentions, increased our morale, it's increased our response.

And so thank you for that.

Next five slides, I'll just briefly cover the five stations.

If you didn't know, we have a beautiful new station right there off the freeway.

We're so excited about it.

I think in the training room, we probably have an event every single day, and people coming from all over the state.

I know we had a uh wild land saw class today and is going on, and we have had people from all over the state attend that, but the additional bedrooms, the additional offices, the base space, and then just all the storage in general.

Um not to mention you know just how beautiful it is.

It's been a real shot in the arm uh breath of fresh air.

Those that are stationed there just love it, and and we constantly hear about it.

So we're very excited.

It was it was uh long needed.

So it's turned out great, and we're and we're finally at the end of all the touch-up.

So thank you again for your support on that project.

Station 32 is doing well.

It was rebuilt in 2007.

I will mention, and I forgot on 31, I'll mention the specialty of each one of the stations.

Station 31, the specialty is the truck.

We do have a tiller, which is a truck that's on order, we'll be here in a year and a half.

That'll also be stationed at 31.

This specialty is station 32 is technical rescue, and it's strategically located by Dimbledale Park, Bell Canyon, Rocky Mouth, and all of those areas where we have a lot of the technical rescue type type of calls.

Um we have done some upgrades to that station this year with some renovations to both the men and women's bathrooms, and I think two years ago the shingles were replaced, so it's in really good shape.

We've also added some doors and some isolation to the turnouts storage area, which are the fire uniforms that they use.

So that one's going well.

And uh it's if you're not aware where that is, it's directly across from where Alta Canyon uh the rec center is being rebuilt.

Station 33 was built in 78.

It's the oldest of our stations, and we have made some renovations over the years, including some new doors, repainting.

If you refer back to the management study back, it's been three years ago.

They said this station needs to be replaced within three years.

That's kind of the time frame.

Um so we're at that point now.

Um, and so it's had some troubles with water with sewage and some other things, but that's one slated for replacement.

34, oh sorry, the um the specialty on 33 is wild land and has our wildland engine, uh, the heavy type 13 and the type six that we do the deployments with, as you're aware.

Station 34 would be the next on the list that needs to be replaced, and that if you look at the management study was recommended between three and seven years.

Um it is uh the specialty on that one is heavy extrication, and it is also strategically located to have quick access on a 106 south to the freeway and other surface streets where we see a lot of those high accident prone high speed accidents.

So and then 35 was built in 2001.

It is also in good shape.

It is the same floor plan, just flip-flopped as station 32.

And it also underwent some renovations for the men's and women's bathrooms this year.

So that one's in good shape.

Alright, to the data and statistics, we continue on the same trend is 75% of what we do being medical and 25% being fire.

You can see the total responses in green and how they've increased over the last three years.

This is the first year that we've gone north of 10,000 calls, and you can see the climbs from 23 of 8600 and to 9400 and then to 10,000 calls.

The way that that's broken up is between fire and medical calls in the blue and the orange graphs with corresponding years, and you can see how those have kind of shot up.

A lot of that can be is due to the fact that we absorbed the gold cross calls that we were having them go on the lower acuity, lower emergent type calls.

We've now absorbed everything in addition to the fact that we have the MVP and then just the increased volume overall, and that's that's uh a large part of what why those numbers are shooting up.

This is a graph that just shows the peaks and valleys from month to month.

Um the dips in February, it's a little deceiving on the graph.

I mean, just two days shorter in the month of February can make that dip the way that it is.

Um but um you can see on the fire side on the the lower graph there, just the the higher people get out and about, plus you have the grass fires when everything warms up and dries, kind of that peak in the in the graph on the on the lower side with fire.

Chief.

Okay, are you wanting questions along the way or um wait?

Well, that's up to you.

I was gonna just cruise through it all real quick, and then if you guys want to come back, but I I can take them right here and I can take them now, sorry.

I can put a finger, I can put a hold and remember and come back to you.

I'm flexible.

If you would like to ask now, that's fine.

It's quick.

July, the peak in July, everything you just described, is it also fireworks related?

Are we responding to July?

We obviously have the fourth and the 24th.

I wanted to confirm that was part of that.

It is, yep, and and these right here.

This next graph kind of talks about well, almost the one after this.

I'll show you there.

But um, one one last part of these of the graph that I want to talk about was just the transports, because of course you know that every call we go on does not end up in a transport.

And so this graph here in blue represents the transports.

But what's what's kind of worth highlighting is since 2023 we went from 2027, 2800 calls of or transports, I should say, to now, and just this last year, we've almost increased a thousand uh transports in numbers, and so a lot of that again comes back to the fact that we absorbed the gold cross calls that we started taking and and part of the argument and and uh your support and and uh putting into service that fourth ambulance and the uh MVP and uh the additional calls that we go, nearly about 600 per year that we go there.

So uh to your question moving on, uh, Councilmember Housman.

Um, this bottom chart is the 2025 top 20 EMS incident types that you can kind of look through there.

But the next one is the top 20 fire incident types.

Um so you can see on there it's fourth down or the fireworks and those types of calls that we go on.

You wouldn't guess it, but the the second highest one on the list there is water-related problems, and um that explains kind of why we put those uh pictures on there, but one of the bigger water-related incidents from 2025, but kind of breaks it down of everything and what we're going on and why.

And then the response times they've trended down.

I think that uh I'm proud of this that since 2023 we've gone from total response time.

We've knocked off almost a half of a minute in our total response time.

There's not a whole lot we can do about the drive times, you know, and getting from A to B, but we can uh we've we've spent a pretty good amount of time coaching, counseling, training, and encouraging people to get out the door quicker to lower that time.

So I think that's that's helpful, and we're happy about that.

Um, and then we get into just all the narratives, which we hope you guys will take a minute when you get time to just read all the different ones.

This is from the operations chief, and then we've got the administrative chief, and then the different platoon battalion chiefs for A, B, and C.

Um, and then we get into the divisions and the reports and narratives from the fire marshal division, the fire prevention division, emergency management management division, um, and then our specialties.

Um, as you're aware, we have the Sandy Fire SWATs that work along with the police department, our wild land uh specialty that goes as I mentioned and deploys all over.

Um technical rescue, and then our has it hazardous material team.

So we appreciate you guys supporting us.

I know some of you are going to be coming out to help and participate in the um the fire skills day ops 101 that we'll be doing at the end of May.

Um we'll have firsthand experience in participating in some of these technical and specialty uh things, um, and you can appreciate firsthand um how much time um and training that goes into this, and this is aside from just the basic medical and fire training.

Um I was told the other day that we average as a department about 2500 hours per month of training, um, which is substantial.

So the support ongoing for you know, financing that for the uniforms for the equipment and that is has not gone on unnoticed.

So thank you.

Thank you for all of that.

And then to conclude, just uh some fun memories of the ribbon cutting at station 31 with the pancake breakfast.

Um and again, thank you again for that.

This could not have happened without your support.

So we appreciate it.

And uh with that, I'll ask if there's any questions.

Ms.

Houseman, go ahead.

One additional thank you, madam chair.

Um, I know I know you're trying to be brief, and I appreciate that, but um I I as we know we all like data, and I'm just the turnout time, so I'm on page 20.

I I love that all stations' turnout time is under a minute.

I love that you you're sharing that that there's been a lot of coaching and and support.

Um but Spire Station 34 stands out as like the clear leader in terms of 51 seconds for their turnout time.

What I just curious, like what is 34 doing to be the lead on turnout?

Well, like I mentioned earlier, is and you'll see if you look at 33, it's the highest.

Um, and a lot of it just has to do with their access points and how how you know how much of their district are just in clear cut, even uh surface streets.

And if you go up into 33s area, for example, you're weaving and bobbin all over the place.

So naturally it's going to take you longer.

Yeah, and in the case that you're referring to, it just is set up to where it's a little shorter.

Um, because getting out the door is you know, really the only control that we have.

Right.

Once you get on the road, you can't, you know, do anything about that.

Well, I was actually referring to turnout time.

Oh not travel time.

All right, well, then they're in trouble.

Is it no no no?

No, 51 51 seconds turnout time for for station 34.

Oh, they're the waiting.

Is that what you're saying?

Okay.

Yeah, I was like, what what what are they doing?

And well, this turnout is just right within the station, right?

Yes, like how it's that's from dispatch to in route, correct.

Okay.

So we're gonna give them a day off.

But yes, each one of those, you know, we work with the battalion chiefs.

I mean, there's so many different things.

Like, what are you doing?

So yeah, we work with there's all three platoons and how much that plays into it, and so um, but we we publish this, they can look at it.

So I don't know how much of it is just competitive in nature, and um, you know, so um it is nice to have that data and those dashboards um for just quickly referencing if we're in staff meeting, pull it up and let it you know be seen by the battalion chiefs, and okay, how can we adjust, how can we change things so that we can bring down the numbers?

Yeah, well, just let them know I noticed, and that's that's 51 seconds, that's pretty fast.

Yeah, now it is, and that's average.

We appreciate you looking into that.

So, yeah.

That's all I had.

Thank you.

I was searching back for where it was, but yes.

Oh, uh 20.

I think I lost it.

Page 20.

Okay.

Yeah, see you're turning into like don't I wasn't gonna point out the one that's like the highest turnout time.

Oh I was just celebrating the one with the lowest.

But thank you.

They will appreciate that.

We're grateful for all you do and the whole the whole department.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr.

DeKaison.

Thank you, madam chair.

Uh, first I just want to say I think this is a fantastic report.

Um, really well done and like it a lot.

One thing that I thought was interesting, a little surprising, and maybe my perspective on this is just because I don't understand how fire departments work, but the incident types for the fire incident.

Do you know about how much it costs the city to go on each one of those?

You know, we've been asked that before.

There's so many variables.

Just a rough guess.

And don't.

I can I can look into it and maybe come back with you.

But I mean, if you consider everything involved, including the astronomical fee of the heavies, the trucks, the engines, the ambulances, and then the personnel cost.

And that's aside from you know your uniforms, your equipment and supplies.

I'm sure is crazy.

But uh and that's on the fire side.

If you did the same on medical side and you got everything else involved in there, we could probably get a rough guess with a little bit of research, but no, right now I don't.

It's just wild to me that 27% of those calls are smoke detector, unintentional, and no carbon monoxide detector.

Not that people shouldn't be calling the fire department if they're alarmed.

My question is, you know, that could be worth half a million dollars, a million dollars to the city.

Is there any education or uh communication with the public that the fire department can do to get that those numbers of false alarms down?

Yes, and to your point, I wonder where it would be if we didn't have that going on, because we do.

Our prevention department is really top-notch around the state of getting out the monthlies and and then just the social media ads of smoke detectors and all kinds of safety trips and falls, driving bicycles, and they just go through the whole gamut and they do it week to week and month to month, and they continue from year to year.

So I'm hoping that that campaign and that education has brought it down, and this is what we're seeing as a result of that, instead of you know a 10% higher, 20% higher.

But yeah, they they do what they can and and they really push that campaign.

So I'm hoping that it has that.

I hope it keeps going down.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Madam Chair, can I just offer some feedback here at obviously the campaign's not working because station 31 came to my house Sunday morning after I couldn't get my alarm off?

So shame on you for having that happen.

So I I had that happen too.

So I had to go out and do some serious groveling to station 31.

And I reminded him that even though it wasn't the same crew, but station 31 is the station that saved my house about 15 years ago.

And I'm always grateful to you, Chief, and to your team.

But it was a false alarm uh early Sunday morning.

Well, we'll start a new Tracy team and put them in service and get the case.

I just thought, now what moron could do that?

Oh.

I just have a question for you about the growth on page uh 15, the 911 responses.

And you answered a big part of it, maybe the entirety of it, by indicating that the call volume was due, is it largely or entirely to this the good gold cross rearrangement?

Largely, yeah.

We continue to grow in spite of our population not going up, is just becoming busier.

But yes, largely due to absorbing the gold cross calls and the MVP, it's a large chunk of that.

Is there any change?

So these are all 911 calls, whether they're inside Sandy or mutual or automatic aid calls too that might be outside Sandy.

Yeah, that were that we are responding to we're responding to.

And obviously, the other jurisdictions respond to ours too.

Are are you seeing any changes there?

Any upticks or changes there and calls where you're being pulled out of Sandy on a mutual aid or automatic aid kind of arrangement?

As far as it going higher or lower.

Yeah, the numbers.

Um I have the we have that data.

We actually have a report, and so if you don't mind, we'll look at that tomorrow and I can uh reach out to you.

Just curious.

I know you guys keep a lot of very, very, very good data.

Yeah, is that Kerry that does that?

It's it's the whole team, but Mike is the data guy, and Kerry is uh if he has problems, then he asks Carrie.

Mike's got it.

He's finding the file right now.

Any other questions?

Council members, I don't see any hands online either.

So thank you very much.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

Thanks to all the chiefs for coming out tonight.

Oh, sorry.

Yeah, go ahead.

While while we're transitioning, I I saw you all looking at each other when I brought up the the 51 seconds.

Was I not supposed to bring that up?

I'm like, oh no, they're looking at each other like why is she pointing out one individual station?

Okay, so all is all is well.

I love all of our stations.

Okay.

Seems like there could be a rivalry going on there.

Is there?

A little bit.

It's just it's 601, so that is a good time for our general citizen comment.

Um, if anyone is in the room and would like to speak to the council on any issues, please fill out a blue card and hand it to our staff up here.

I do have one card already, so I will go ahead.

Oh, thank you.

Oh, good.

Okay.

Awesome.

Uh Kate Nielsen, would you like to come up and you will have three minutes to address the council?

Thank you.

Actually, maybe less than three minutes.

Um, so I'm actually here to speak on the CDBG, so you guys will be getting to that in a few minutes.

So I just wanted to thank you for your time this evening on behalf of Habitat for Humanity Greater Salt Lake Area.

We appreciate your continued leadership and commitment to preserving affordable housing in Zandy City.

We're grateful for your continued support of our critical home repair program, and we value our partnership with you.

Um, with the support from CDBG and additional funding sources, we repair and uh rehabilitate homes for low-income homeowners who would otherwise be unable to address their critical health and safety issues.

Through this work, seniors are able to age safely in place, families are remaining stable in their homes, and individuals with disabilities are gaining greater accessibility to independence.

I'm gonna go off script for a second.

We're reducing some of your uh calls for um smoke detectors and carbon monoxide detectors because we put those in every home we go in, so hopefully that will help.

Um we just need you know to be able to do that in more homes.

So uh in the past year we've completed repairs benefiting over 159 people across the Salt Lake Valley.

Currently, we have three projects in Sandy City, and they represent an entire blend of what we do in our program.

One household is a single-income family with three children under the age of five.

Um, a second one is a grandmother who recently had an amputation and is also now caring for two young ground children who lost their father, which was a veteran.

Um, the third is a woman who is in her late 60s and she is disabled, so we're doing some um accessibility modifications for her.

These projects are for us, they're more than construction, as well as for the families, they are lifelines.

Uh they prevent displacement and preserve existing affordable housing while strengthening the neighborhoods.

We are grateful to have been recommended for the funding, which you guys will go over shortly, to support the critical home repairs in Sandy City.

This investment supports not just the housing but also long-term stability and well-being of the residents.

And again, I just wanted to thank you for your partnership and your commitment in ensuring Sandy City remains a place where everyone has access to a safe, decent, and affordable home.

Thank you.

All right, Joyce Walker.

Miss Walker, do you want to come on down?

Okay.

I had to leave earlier because I had a scratch in my throat, and I'm sorry for disrupting the meeting.

Do you need an address stated or do I just jump in?

Oh, we're already don't start that clock yet.

I've got what I need from you, Joyce.

Very good.

Okay.

Good evening.

Um, I am Joyce Walker, a long-term Sandy City resident, over 30 years, and I'm the president of the Dimple Dale Preservation Community.

And tonight I am here to state on record on behalf of our organization and many affiliate groups that we strongly oppose any additional roads, specifically the Highland Drive extension over the Dimpledale Regional Park.

From the current master plan for Dimpledale that I was on the steering committee for, uh, this master plan strongly advocates for limiting any future development that involves the extension of any roads over or through the Dimpledale Regional Park.

Um, I have pulled some information and I've brought a highlighted copies for each of you if you'd like to see that.

But um, it looks like from the Sandy Transportation Master Plan of 2021.

So these numbers are likely outdated and on the conservative side, that the environmental impact study would be $4,300,000.

To do the extension, including all of the roads leading to the widening, etc.

We're looking, and that would be to sand uh to Draper.

The cost would be 118 million 900,000 dollars.

And I'm going to advocate as a city of Sandy for that Pandora box to never even be opened.

Um, we will be happy to talk at other meetings about the negative impact to the wildlife, the migration routes, and the wadi that water that uh white city uses.

There is an alternative plan in this study, and that is 1700 east, which ideally, so from the intersection of 1300 east, 10600 south, which is then on the south side of the Dimpledale Regional Park.

You would take a short transit from 1300 east or a drive to 1700 east, and from this, and that cost would be 20 million four hundred thousand, so almost 100 million dollars less.

The option that is presented in this study states that the alignment option would transition southwest at Dimpledale Park and connect to the 1700 East Corridor.

This would go to approximately 123 south in Draper, which would then be a good connection to the freeway.

This analysis attracts as much as 18,000 more vehicles per day than the Highland Drive extension along 20th East.

I would be thrilled to have individual conversation with each one of you.

Um, but we will be persisting and state.

Please do not extend Highland Drive over and through the Dimpledale Regional Park.

Thank you.

Shall I leave this with anyone?

Dustin.

Thank you very much.

All right, Stuart Ralphs.

Stuart, three minutes.

Thank you for coming.

Thank you.

I'm kind of jumping again because it's regarding the CDBG funds, but staff allowed me to go forward, and I'll be really quick.

Go ahead.

Um, I'm the director of Legal Aid Society of Salt Lake.

We provide uh services for victims of domestic violence for all of the residents in Salt Lake County.

Uh we truly appreciate the support that you give us to your CDBG allocations.

We know that there is very little money, and it's hard to make determinations of uh where to invest that money, but we help about 180 residents of Sandy each year, give or take, and with the allocation that you're able to do.

That's a I do really bad math as an attorney, but that's right, counsel.

Uh that's about $33 per person.

Not all of those people get protective orders, but for those that do, as I stand here today, I know that there are women and children in our communities that are still alive today because of the services that we provide and that you support.

And I want to truly thank you for your support.

You had some excess funds available this year, you directed our way, and I wanted to come out in person and tell you how much we appreciate that.

So thank you very much.

Thank you.

All right, I have two other cards for other items, and so I will call on Patricia and Jason later on.

It won't forget, I promise.

Dustin, would you like to call on our online audience to see if we have any commenters there?

Of course, madam chair, we've got one more card as well that we missed.

Let me pass that over to you.

Would you like me to call on my okay?

Uh, if you are 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 here.

Haven't closed public comment yet.

We have one more card in the room, and that's Henry Butters.

Come on down, Henry.

You have three minutes.

Hey, thank you, Sharky.

Thank you, Brooke, for calling me back.

Thank you, Brooke Susa, for calling me back too.

Thank you.

My concern is when I sat down with I've talked to all three of you about my concerns about the meeting I have had.

Where do we stop not helping truck drivers out?

And then all this car parking down there, they want to just put flyers down on there.

Where does it where I get a warning and all them cars down there?

It's not licensed, not get a warning.

How biased is that's my concern.

I think the meeting I had with the police chief and them did not go anywhere.

I hope my city council can work with and try to find truck parking.

There's the one down by Costco will be obsolete when that building goes up.

Six trucks will not be able to park down there no more.

Rather by Costco.

And they're saying the map was not the maps.

And this is what I got from the city council.

One of you guys made this.

That's my personal opinion, and thank you.

Have a good day.

Thank you.

All right.

I will close general citizen comment for this evening, and we'll move on in the agenda to item number three, and that is detached accessory dwelling units.

Melissa Anderson.

All right, thank you very much.

Chair and Council, good evening.

So this is a topic that uh has had lots of previous discussions.

Uh, but finally, the legislature had adopted something this year.

It was uh Senate Bill 284, and what that does is require cities to allow for detached accessory dwelling units.

So in this presentation, I'd like to give an update.

I'd like to give an overview of what this new legislation requires, also the items where we have options, discretion on, and then also to seek your preferences.

And I'd like to go through the whole thing and then go back to about the five or so questions options or preferences of the council.

So I I that's the way I'd like to proceed.

So as opposed to stopping in the middle, and because there might be a lot of discussion on money, and so I just want to make sure you see the whole thing.

Um this applies to all the cities that are required to do a moderate income housing plan, and that can be well, it does include all cities, 10,000 uh population or greater, and several cities that are 5,000 of population or greater, depending on the county.

So it is rather ubiquitous.

Most of Utah must comply with this.

Um also for detached accessory dwelling units, they are different from the internal ones that are just part of the home, like a basement apartment.

Um it seems like a simple subject, but it can be complicated.

So as we go along, it feels kind of like a lot, it can be because there's more things you need to consider when you do detached accessory dwelling units.

So the new state law and SB 284 requires cities to allow detached accessory dwelling units where you have a lot that is 11,000 square feet or greater, where um a home is a permitted use in a residential zone.

Um I did notice that in the workshop series that you spent a lot of time on for um missing middle housing, um, that there was some criteria that you were looking for, you were hoping for detached accessory dwelling units to be in the lower density areas.

Um dimensions and size was important and design standards as well as owner occupancy, and you can basically do all of those except design standards is a little tricky, and uh, but it anyway.

So I I don't what you want to accomplish, I think you're still able to with this.

Um anyway.

Next slide.

Um, yeah, right now we allow for internal accessory dwelling units.

They are currently a permitted with clear and objective standards in all residential zones, for example, basement apartments that's your typical so that is already on the books, and we've been um allowing that for quite a bit of time, and so this one we are required by October 1st to adopt regulations to allow for these detached accessory dwelling, and it's on residential lots of a thousand square feet or greater.

And so this two slides just go over what are requirements of this new law.

So 11,000 square feet or greater lot that contains a single family dwelling in residential zones.

Uh, we need to allow them as a permitted use as opposed to conditional uses where it has to go to the planning commission.

But we can have criteria where you know we have to check if that building permit before they can do that.

And we now for internal ones we require special use permit with business license.

So also that we can or that all detached accessory dwelling units must comply with building health and fire codes.

If it's 650 square feet or larger.

So that's the maximum amount we can require.

Not necessarily tonight in terms of design elements, but just wanted you to know that we do have some ability with that regard.

New state law requirements also require us to provide a process, like a review process, to convert a legal accessory structure into a detached accessory dwelling unit if they meet setback requirements, and they're also meeting building health and fire codes.

So I'll we'll set that aside.

But that is one element that can have a variety of different options that you can go.

Now there's a variety of things that still allow you this flexibility and options.

So just to run through that real quickly, it allows for the detached ADUs on lots less than 11,000 square feet.

We can allow them all over residential zones if you would like to, like we do internal ones.

We can regulate that to ensure that it is no larger than or subservient to in size.

We can prohibit or regulate the parking, as I mentioned, the maximum amount is one for an ADU that's less than 650 square feet, or two if it's 650 square feet or more.

We can require replacement parking spaces if they want to convert a garage into an ADU.

We can also prohibit them from being in the front yard, and we can also prohibit the ADUs if the access to or the capacity of utilities such as water service is not available.

So and that's very straightforward.

So now in terms of the context of our region of what other cities in our area do, common themes are that many of them still require owner occupancy or only one ADU on a lot as opposed to two.

Many of them prohibit ADUs to be detached ADUs to be in short-term rental.

No portable units or units on wheels.

And also meeting all building and fire safety requirements.

That's standard.

And lastly, for common themes in terms of your size and then the height is your size limits, they can vary quite a bit.

So one, for example, could be a maximum of 850 square feet, which does not include a garage, but also it cannot be any more than 50% of the primary dwelling.

So there's a combination of a standard that they're using on that.

One was no greater than 25% of the rear yard.

Another is just a flat no greater than a thousand square feet.

In terms of the height limits, they also vary.

Some can be just a numerical value of a height of let's say 20 feet measured to the peak of the roof, or one or two stories.

Also it could be one story and a maximum of 20 feet measured to the peak, the height of the principal structure, whichever's less.

So that are some common themes in our area, and also some best practices that we do now, or that we would support that we do now, and we'd like to continue, or would recommend continuing.

It's clear and objective standards, but that there is a permit associated with it.

So clear and objective standards, yes, oh owner occupancy, continue with that.

We would recommend one address and one utility meter.

We do that right now for the internal ADUs.

If you allow like two meters, two addresses, it's essentially making the zone like an R2 where you could have duplexes.

And it also kind of opens the door for in the future if you want to subdivide off these lots.

You already have two addresses, you have two meters.

So we like that, and we think it's uh a good practice for both internal and detached to just keep one address, one utility meter.

They can extend the services, but it's still off of that main line to that unit.

And also we do recorded affidavits when they have a permit for this that's recorded on the property.

So now these slides are they'll cover the kind of the questions or preferences that I'm hoping to gather from the council tonight.

And so I'd like to go through those so you'll see all of it, and then we're going to come back to basically this slides, and we'll have a discussion on each one.

So one of the basic questions, well, where should we allow the detached ADUs?

Um of the options would be well, whatever the minimum is that the state requires and no less than that.

That would be all the residentially zone lots that are 11,000 square feet or greater.

Another would be, well, maybe well, it's smaller.

We do have a fair amount of zones that are the R110 zone, which is single family homes on lots 10,000 square feet or greater.

So that would be kind of the next step, or you could go further, 8,000 square foot lots are all over the city, if the lot perhaps doesn't exceed a certain amount of the lot or the rear yard.

So that would be the most liberal.

Recommendation right now from staff is to allow the detached ADUs according to the state law on lots 11,000 square feet or greater, but to consider expanding it to other areas, other residential areas in the future.

Although a lot that's 10,000 square feet, you know, that's not that big of a jump.

We did make some maps that illustrate all the residential zones on 11,000 square feet or greater.

That's what this shows.

Then it's highlighted if the lot is 11,000 square feet or greater.

But it also uh this shows the 10,000 square feet lots or greater.

So that just gives you kind of a visual reference.

The other question that Melissa, do you want to take these questions one at a time with the council?

Do you want to start with the one on the lot size and then progress through?

Or do you want to do your whole presentation and then circle back?

She said she wanted to go on.

I was hoping to circle back.

I would just, but that might be the an easy question, but I'd like to do that and just come right back if you don't mind.

Okay.

Okay, thank you.

So the other question is well, how many detached ADUs or how many ADUs in total do we want to allow on a lot?

Do we want to allow two, one internal to the house, like a basement apartment with the house, as well as a detached ADU, or only one ADU on a lot, meaning you can only have one detached one, or you could have it internal, but you can't have two.

I mean, it it doesn't increase the density.

Um our recommendation right now is to allow only one ADU on a lot, um, but consider allowing two in the future.

That would just be a little more conservative and slower process.

The other question relates to parking and how many parking spaces should we allow?

Uh should we require what the state allows us to, which is uh the maximum of one additional space for a 650 square foot or less ADU or two additional parking spaces if it's more than 650 square feet, or just require one additional parking spaces regardless of the size, or not require any more.

And so right now staff is uh looking at allowing or requiring what the state allows us to, but if you're within proximity of a transit station within a quarter mile, that we could reduce those parking space requirements.

Our existing code requires four parking spaces right now, a two-car garage, and two in the driveway.

If you have an internal ADU, we cannot per state law require any more than those four that we require.

So if you want the detached ADU, we don't have to require any more, or we could require as much as the state will allow us.

Another question would be how large should we allow these ADUs?

Um, no larger than the primary dwelling, uh, no more than a thousand square feet, or it could be less than a thousand square feet or even larger.

And right now we're recommending a thousand square feet in size and no larger than the primary dwelling, or smaller than the primary dwelling because to ensure that it's subservient or you know, accessory to so that could be maybe a percentage of the size of the main dwelling.

So this table on this slide just shows with our accessory structure standards, uh, like sheds, detached garages.

Um, it shows what our existing requirement is.

So if your lot size is less than 15,000 square feet, you know, they it would be a maximum of 750 square feet or 25% of the rear yard, whichever's less.

So this just gives you a relative uh gauge of if someone's getting accessory structures in the rear yard or on the side, what kind of size they're allowed to depending on the lot.

And then how tall should the ADUs be?

Should they we only allow one story, or maybe one and a half stories, which is kind of in a it's a bonus room within the roof like a loft, or up to two stories perhaps.

And staff is recommending one to two stories depending on setbacks.

And no taller than the primary dwelling.

I have some examples to show you.

This just shows some nice looking detached ADUs that are only one story.

This shows some examples of uh one and a half story, like with the the bonus upstairs.

It's not a full story, um, but um it's a little bit larger, and then full two stories.

Um I think there's a lot of it's very attractive to a lot of people to have a garage below and then living space above.

And lastly, setback options.

Um, in our the the cottages that we allow right now, the guest cottage.

Um now those standards are really limited, like it can only be 400 square feet, you can't rent it out, it's only a mini kitchen, no basement.

Um we require on those 10 foot uh setback from the property line.

And so um you could consider like if it's one or one and a half story, you could come up within 10 feet of the property on that's one option.

If it's two stories, um it's maybe recommended to just as long as they meet the setbacks of the primary dwelling, meaning you know, it could be attached to the house or detached, but the the main house setbacks that everybody has to have with the rear yard and the sides has to be met.

So it's it's almost as though though that like it's part of the house.

So that includes everything.

I'll go back.

Future discussion items that kind of uh can go further into the weeds, but though they would be extory structure conversions, design consistency standards, windows, you know, mitigation measures like the windows, doorways, lot coverage, balconies, um, lighting and corner lots.

So what um you know that we can spend a lot of time going over a lot of those details, but I was anticipating we wouldn't have time, so I just set them aside.

And um, so I now would like to go back to that first slide first question for preferences.

How where should we allow detached ADUs?

Ms.

Christensen, go ahead.

Um, I would prefer them to be the 11,000 square feet in size or greater at this point.

Ms.

Halsman, go ahead.

I I would agree.

I would be open to a recommendation around 10,000 in a very strategic way.

I think you you gave some you felt like likely the council would not be interested in 10,000, but you also said that a large number of our not a large number, I don't know if you said large, but you said we do have a number of homes that are already R110.

So they're already on 10,000.

Um so if if there was a strategic recommendation for um, for example, it aligns with our corridors or the places where we have indicated um an interest in increasing density in the right manner.

So for example, our R110 that is in those transition corridors, the um neighborhood activity centers, like a couple of those places that that we have indicated could potentially be increased density if if the right form of that is simply allowing an ADU there on a 10,000 square foot lot, I would be open to that.

Um but as far as a standard, I think I think it's right to go with what the state is in.

Ms.

Nicholas I would be hesitant to answer that question.

I'd like to know how many R1 eight, R16, R110, residential dwelling units we're talking about before.

I look at the minimum lot size.

Um like would it be just for clarification because I want to meet your needs, is uh would it be showing all of the R18 zones or 8,000 square foot lots, etc., or would it be well in that smaller zone?

No, that you could actually do an ADU on it.

Yeah, no, the percentage that is already zoned right now, R18, R110.

Oh, very good.

Okay, you know, now I understand much better.

That would be yeah, percentage, okay.

Information I need before I committed to a number on that.

Mr.

DeKaiser.

Well, I have so much to say.

I'll try and keep it brief.

But first of all, thanks everyone for working on this.

Um I've it's been a long time coming.

I I want to make sure that like Sandy is the best on this.

We did the housing workshop, we're leading out, and my goal is to have the most strategic update to this that we can have.

Um, because if we treat it as a box to check, you know, we've done what SB 284 says, I think we're gonna be missing the opportunity to provide really affordable housing to our residents.

And remember, we're in a crisis, so I think that we should probably be a little bit bold when we do this.

Um for example, if we cap everything at a thousand square foot units, um, as I think about the missing middle, there are so many people who would love to live in that, a small family or something like that.

Yeah about 80% of those are gonna be uh two bedroom, one bathroom units.

There are families that would like to move up into something that's three bedrooms or something as their family grows.

And I think that our lot sizes can accommodate that in certain spots.

So, and I've said this to James before.

I want like a really nuanced code where there's like sliding scales and things like that.

Um, you know, maybe 11,000 square feet, you get 800 square foot unit.

If you're on a 14,000 square foot lot, maybe you can accommodate a 1400 square foot unit.

I I just want to have a little more thought um putting to things like that.

Additionally, I think the parking standards in this are um I don't know, maybe not.

I think they're probably antiquated.

The literature I've been reading on stuff like this is like a thousand square foot or smaller, maybe zero to one parking stall.

Because um I want the code to reflect how people are living, and if there was like a location element, like you're by the school, that same family we're talking about in the thousand square foot unit that needs to go into something bigger.

If they're close to a school and they're walking or they're close to a commercial center or they're close to transit, I like how we've got the quarter mile.

Maybe we should make that bigger, like what does that quarter mile based on?

Um, but I think if we really think about how people are living and what it means for zoning with regard to certain locations and things like that, we could have a really, really, really awesome update.

Um, you asked for feedback, so I just want to say sliding scale for ADU size.

I would like to see some information on that.

Uh modernized parking approach uh that takes into account being near schools, transit, neighborhood services, whatever.

Um I would like to see, and this is maybe too extreme for some people, but a transportation sustainability type menu.

You we know in planning of housing that we need to combine it with transportation planning.

So I want to see more of that too.

So, like, how can we incentivize people to only have one car?

If if a unit is built with like secure bike uh uh storage in the unit, what what kind of an incentive is there for that?

Um incentivizing electric vehicles if you have a charging station in yours.

Clean up our air.

As much as we can make this work with our transportation and other planning, um, I would like to see that.

And the the last item I wanted to mention is um exploring pre-approved uh building plans.

I know those are out there, so I would like to know what the thoughts are of the department on a menu for I'd like to uh just mention on that point the pre-approved idea.

And that is a uh a really good idea.

The only thing is that what I found like on Salt Lake City, they have a list of some pre-approved plans.

But what that is is just that the building code, this meets building code.

Uh so the building staff has already reviewed these for that compliance, but it does not guarantee that on that specific lot with the size that you have, the size of the lot, or what that zone is and and the room in the backyard and all that that that you can accommodate that.

The building code does, but you still have to go through this other.

But I think that's a great ex expediting method, and that I would encourage that.

We can definitely, you know, try to pursue that.

But there's the limitations in that, well, it's approved by building code, but let's look at your lot.

What you know, what do you have enough room for that size?

Can you meet your setbacks?

Um, etc.

So it's kind of a nuanced in terms of the pre-approval.

Sure.

Well, yeah, as much as we can control within the language, but I I really am looking for a nuanced approach, kind of a case-by-case basis, because there are uh there are a lot of lots out there that won't fit our criteria that could have awesome ADUs on them.

I just think we need to have a procedure that could allow for those.

So that's my feedback.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Ms.

DeSouza.

Thank you.

Um okay, so I too don't know that I have enough information to make decisions outside of well, I I you know, I think maybe this.

Um I get that you have to start somewhere, um, and you need some information to be able to pull something together.

But like Councilmember DeKaiser said, I really do feel like this is a little more nuanced.

Um, like for example, the question about all residential zones um for which one should we should allow them in.

If the lot does not exceed percent lot coverage, um maybe this isn't the right way to think about it, but I I know for sure there's another question in there that kind of talks about the size and the percentage of the yard that it would take up and whatnot.

Um, like that can't be the same.

That that wouldn't necessarily be equitable for all lots, smaller lots would have smaller ADUs.

Um, I I don't know that it makes sense to blanket this as much as we might want to for for the sake of ease and simplicity.

Uh I do think that just checking the state's box is a missed opportunity.

Um I you know, I I I hear um some comments about well, they should be on the larger lots.

Well, in this in the general plan that we adopted, um, you know, my my no vote was specifically because of the new sub-low density designation of the ultra ultra low rural designation that but there we're like okay with increasing density in an ADU, but we were we were not okay with considering density um you know from from that standard general plan standpoint.

So some of it seems a little um no offense to anybody, but there's a little bit of hypocrisy in the let's throw density in these you know low density areas and and whatnot.

Um I think that I probably could be more bold in some areas and less and more conservative in other areas, like um I would be open to uh considering more residential zones, even more than just the 10,000 square foot.

Um I do think again though that it needs to be uh balanced with the lot size, and and maybe that's where the nuance that council member de Kaiser's speaking of comes into play.

Um so I guess if we're gonna go through more questions, I'll just kind of end it there because I think that I've answered with that question.

That be accurate.

Yeah, we'll come back to the other questions.

Hang on there.

Thanks.

Ms.

Stroud, are you online?

Oh, there you go.

I am um I I'm happy with the state standards for now, and we can look at it.

We can take it in an incremental process just to make sure that we don't do something and then we'll get it later.

All right, thank you.

Um I am happy with the state standards as well.

Uh 11,000 is an interesting number to me.

And I think what it means is that the state in considering this and probably with the input of the ULCT is questioning whether a quarter acre standard R110 quarter acre lot is too small.

And I so that is my that is my belief that a quarter acre lot is too small.

Uh, we will get into things like backyard coverage and stuff like that.

That's in your questions and so we'll be addressing those kind of issues.

Um, but I too like the 11,000 square foot or larger and would not be inclined to take it to a smaller size.

Okay, very good.

I appreciate the feedback on this this topic.

Yeah, I have worked in uh other states and cities where it's allowed in all all residential zones, but it's the lot coverage that is really the the primary factor because if you just have a small house already, then you know, and it can be relative to that size.

That is the most liberal, and that's uh, but at the same time, we know that on previous discussions that the council has been concerned about ADUs or had a preference to looking at more of the lower density zones.

Um that was one of the reasons why we we thought this would be a first step, but um encouraging revisiting it in the future.

So anyway, just so you know where what we're our thoughts were as planners, we we have all kinds of creative ideas of how we can start pushing the limits at the same time.

Our job is to be sensitive to uh our policymakers should we Madam Chair, do you mind if I ask uh Melissa a question?

Sure.

Is that okay?

Well, so I'm just wondering if I'm correct in this, but the bill that passed it it restricts us more in terms of what we can um regulate on the required any anywhere where they're requiring DADUs, right?

So those lots that are 11,000 square feet are greater, but on lots that are under 11,000 square feet, do we have additional ability to regulate those like design for example?

Oh, I see.

That's a good good question.

I would think no, I probably want to look at look at the language.

I'm thinking detached ADUs, here's your here's what you can and cannot do, and they specifically state in terms of location, it's 11,000 square foot lot with an existing single family dwelling.

It can't be just blank or vacant in a primarily residential zone.

Yeah, I I get what you're saying.

In my region, but but I would think that that I would like to check on that, but my first guess or uh thought is that now that we're still gonna have to um be limited on what we can uh restrict.

But if it if it's broader than that, so if it's an 8,000 square foot lot and we have even further design elements, um, yeah, that'd be great.

Okay, and it's a good question.

Yeah, we're worth looking at for sure.

And then I just had one other comment, Madam Chair.

I this is just food for thought, you know.

You guys are the folks that get a vote on this, not me, obviously, but you know in our housing series, there was a lot of conversation about missing middle housing, moderate income housing and such.

And just something that I thought about as I was reading through these recommendations, you know, don't get me wrong, 11,000 square feet, totally understand that as a starting point.

It's what's in state code, but I would say are most of the houses in Sandy that are going to help bridge that moderate income housing gap on 11,000 square foot lots, or are the smaller lots the ones that would potentially uh benefit from DADUs in terms of providing better middle income housing opportunities.

Does that make sense?

Again, just food for thought as you're kind of thinking about this over the coming months.

Sure.

I I like that you brought that up because I and I want to make sure I'm understanding uh a what if scenario.

So what if a family could afford that small home on a small lot because they will have rental income from that detached ADU, and now they are able to become homeowners because of that.

Is that what you're referencing?

Okay, thank you.

Madam Chair, my thought process was a lot like Dustin's, not as detailed on not choosing um a minimum lot size yet.

Is the my home's on a uh R110 and I've got plenty of land, but I don't um necessarily want or need to, where someone who has a larger family than I do, or and not in such a large house, has a larger family and needs they need to move on with life.

People should be able to move on with life with what they can afford if we have these ADUs in um affluent neighborhoods, they're really not going to be affordable either.

So that was kind of my thinking on that.

Okay, um of the other uh questions for the council is how many ADUs do you like to see on a lot?

Um we could allow two ADUs, you could have an internal, uh like a basement apartment in the house, as well as a detached ADU.

Or it can the state allows us to limit to just one ADU on a lot.

You can either choose you have it inside the house someplace or attached, or detached, but no more than two.

Right now on our internal ADUs on a house, we only allow one internal.

So if you wanted to do even though like uh the second story and then the basement apartment as ADUs, um you're not allowed to do that.

You can only have the once.

So that's just what we do now for the internal.

And um more conservative, slower approach would be just allow one for now, either internal or external ADU, but consider allowing two in the future.

So that would be our recommendation.

Okay, Miss Christensen.

I can answer that one pretty quickly.

One period.

The impacts of two is going to have an impact.

The impact of three units is going to have a very large impact, and I think that's just too much for our residents.

I agree.

Oh, not ready?

Okay.

Mr.

DeKaiser, did you already answer that one?

No, I'm not sure.

Yeah, sorry, I I kind of jumped the gun on mine when the whole presentation.

Yeah.

I was taking notes though.

On this though, I would just thinking in the reading I've done, and I'm kind of more going to into form-based code, but I think that whether or not the primary structure has a family and someone else renting in it, we've got the one structure.

I think we should offer two structures on a lot.

So if you have one of each, that would be fine with me.

No more than two structures.

Two total on a lot.

Two total, and you can have one rental in the primary and one detached, is my opinion.

So we're high patient.

That would be three, right?

A maximum of three.

Two uh accessory units.

Oh, okay, not an accessory dualing unit in interior.

So you could have one internal and one external.

So with that's a possibility of three in my mind.

Total, yeah.

Sure, three with the primary.

I just wanted to clarify that.

Thank you.

Miss Halesman.

Um thank you.

Sorry, I just had to, you know, don't want to talk about I I like the recommendation for now.

I also like that you are encouraging us to consider in the future.

I I think the more we the more we think about um strategic planning, the more we remember what is our goal, our goal, our shared goal is to make homeownership possible for more and more people who want to live in Sandy.

And in certain situations, it could be that it makes sense to move to two, but I I think for now it's it's the the right decision is to limit it to one for now.

You already answered right.

Um Ms.

D'Souza, go ahead.

Okay, so an ADU calling something an ADU only is like a um definition that allows them to rent it to a non-related party.

Is that kind of what the delineation in an ADU is?

Well, um if it's part of the house attached internal to it, or if it's detached, you could just have it as extended family and not rent it out.

But it's well, I know, but I don't have to have a permit to have like my family live with me.

We still uh require an affidavit for um internal, uh we call them extended living areas versus accessory apartment, then requires a special use permit with business license, and so you you know you're not required to rent it out.

Uh it's the option of the the homeowner if you are renting it out though, but and all of them require a type of affidavit by the owner that is recorded on the property, all of them, and then a special use permit though uh if you want to rent it out is required as well as a business license.

Does that help clarify, Brooke?

It does a little bit.

I think that personally, I think that the affidavit is a little silly.

I've I think I've been through that process with something else, and it it seemed unnecessarily cumbersome, and I don't even know from like a from a standpoint of code being able to enforce anything, you know, what that really does.

Um, and I'm thinking about this, you know, one or two in terms of like actual usable space in different scenarios.

And so, like for example, um, I um recently listed a home in Sandy that has a kitchen in the basement, and it's what it's got a walkout.

Um, it's got the potential for an ADU, I imagine.

Um, and the people that were interested in that home were looking at it more for um primarily for like multi-generational living, where you have um the aging parents, and this was a rambler like on the main floor, and then um younger adult children living in the in the basement.

And so then I'm thinking about okay, well from an ADU standpoint, like this is my family, and this is how we're gonna have our living situation for whatever reason, right?

Um, but the large the lot is large, and so then it may qualify for an external ADU, and there may not be you know um any real negative impact outside of um that external ADU.

And so if the house has the space and the owner wants to utilize it for their own internal family and they're taking up all of that space, then I don't know that that that's really different from having an internal ADU um occupied by people that you may not be related to, like you know what I mean?

Like, so from the the amount of people utilizing a space doesn't to me doesn't seem to be important in like should we or shouldn't we?

Um I you're that you can you can if it's not a if we only say one and you have an external, then you can't rent the internal, but you can use that space for your family in the same way.

And so from an impact point standpoint, I just don't see it as a big deal, and so that's a really long-winded way to say I I thought a lot about this and I initially was on just the one, but I actually think that in situations where um it makes sense that an internal and an external um would be acceptable because I just don't see the the reason to decline based off of the fact that the person that lives there is not a blood relative and is renting it.

So okay.

Good.

Thank you.

Ms.

Stroud I I think once again, I I would like to start um more restrictive, and then as we become more familiar with this, um, as we get more of these accessory, you know, these units outside of the main living building that it is, then we can look at it in the future.

Um but right now I'm okay with I would prefer just to have the home and then one ADU, and whether that's internal or external.

And then we just and we can take it, you know, a year at a time.

So I am of the mind of one ADU on a lot.

Um, I think the issue is not the number of people, it's the number of cars.

So when you add people, I mean, okay, you could have a scenario where one person is living in the house, one person is living in the internal ADU, one person is living in the DADU.

You could have that, but that's not likely.

So the more people you have, the more units you have, the more cars you're gonna have.

And therefore, you're gonna wind up having a problem with um even if we can, and I assume we can require off-street parking.

Oh, yeah.

But even if we can, it doesn't mean that's what you'll get.

Um so uh the more people that you have, the more cars you're gonna have, and the more chance of on-street parking overflowing.

So I too, for that reason, would want to start out uh the most conservative assess where we are and what we're experiencing, and then make shifts or changes later.

Very good, thank you.

I think that we have everyone on that particular preference.

Madam Chair, do you mind if I ask another follow-up question?

It's related to you and Councilmember D'Susa's comments.

Okay.

Um so Melissa, we have an internal ADU and we have an extended living area in our code, right?

Those are both they're both within our code.

You can uh an extended living area is basically the same thing, but it you're not renting it out to somebody who's not related to you.

That's correct.

However, you could have uh family, uh extended family members live absolutely, yeah.

Live there, right?

It doesn't, there's no difference in terms of whether there's a walkout or not that has nothing to do with whether it's an extended living area or an internal ADU.

Well, a walkout now, that's okay, okay.

Um so I I guess my question then is is there a way for somebody who has built an internal ADU?

It's been licensed as an ADU, they have the special use permit.

They say, hey, I don't want to rent this out any longer, and I'm just gonna turn it into an extended living area now.

Now I can build an external ADU.

Is there a will there be a process for that?

Or since they build an internal ADU, got the permits, or they stuck with that.

Um we don't have a definitive um answer answer on that.

That is the hardest part is do we require them to de decommission that?

How do we prove and how do we monitor that?

They can easily decommission and then put it right back.

Yeah, there we go.

So I would like to stick with what we have on the slides because I think we need to get that first before we get into some of the deep tools on this, so we can at least get started on a code.

But let us get through what is on the slides first, and then we'll start getting into the weeds a little bit deeper.

But you're doing a great job on what's on the slides and getting some information to write the code.

What's next, Melissa?

Okay, yeah, because it it it is like I said, it seems simple, but the you can start going all these.

Oh, what about this and what about anyway?

Parking, should we require additional parking?

The state allows us to require, but no more than one additional parking spaces if the detached ADU is less than 650 square feet.

But if it's more than that, we could allow up to two additional parking spaces.

We require the four now, and even if you have a basement apartment, we can't require any more than the four.

But on detach, the state is saying for that use, we could require more parking.

We don't have to require more.

You have that option as the maximum.

You could just say it doesn't matter what size it is, we just want one additional parking space for that.

Um so as a kind of a slow approach, staff was thinking, let's just do what the state allows us to do if it's less than 650, one additional parking space, so that'd be total of five on your lot, or it's more if it's greater than six fifty two, but if you're near a transit station, or even possibly another type of a uh a use that enables or the corridors that enables reduced parking or facilitates that to uh consider reducing it or not requiring it, and so that that's what this one is about is the parking spaces additional to what we already require.

Okay, Miss Nichols.

I would say yes, impose the additional as a um minimum because one of the biggest impacts on um streets is off-street parking.

It changes a neighborhood, and it would be my fear that we're allowing another unit on a lot, and without reducing or mitigating some of the residence risk.

And it also goes to go if we point to keeping it at 11 uh hundred square feet, we're talking about a different um different area of Sandy, and it becomes less affordable with those limitations, and the I don't want to walk out on my street and see cars parked up and down it.

And I don't have that now, and I would not accept it in my neighborhood.

So before we move move on, I just wanted to ask, because I I forgot, is I just wanted you to know before we used to require one additional parking space for the basement apartment, the internal ADU, but the state changed that, I think it was last year, so we had to take that away, so then we're maxed out at that four.

But for the detached, they've provided this provision as an option for the city.

Just just so you know that and if you want something like this, you need to be able to maintain it on your own property.

I know the streets property in a different sort, but absorb all of that impact on your lot.

Yes, and that's my perspective.

Yes, that is the assumption when I pose this question that it's on site parking, just by saying, Oh, yes, it's there on the street, is not not the question.

Is it if we want to require it on the site?

Ms.

Halsman.

Thank you, madam chair.

Um, so so just to add to that, um if the addition of the parking spot means so so back to our scenario where we're imagining like where it could actually happen on an 8,000 square lot, like if we were to approve an ADU, and we also had this additional parking space.

Like that.

Oh, like the primary house would have to be like small enough that its footprint allowed for both.

Absolutely.

The ADU plus the additional park.

Okay.

I just want to make sure that we are there is a process.

You know, because I I agree that we need to require that that additional.

So you're saying we would go from four to five.

If we're like four to six depending on the sense.

Yeah, we're sitting on the thing on whatever you do.

I actually do like the idea of uh encouraging the use of transit.

Um you know, and and so we're we're if you're within a mile of of a quarter mile, I guess, of a transit.

I like I like that as well.

I think that's a great recommendation.

I just needed to see it in my head of what that looks like if they if they build that ADU, what what happens if if they don't have the land for that parking spot, but we're they wouldn't be able to do it if that's a requirement, if that's a standard and the state allows us to the max uh these types of standard here.

Um they wouldn't be allowed to do it.

They they'd have to be meeting whatever standards that we are allowed by law to codify and require in our code.

So if they can't meet those standards, that'd be it, be it set back be it parking number of minimum parking spaces, it's they don't be allowed to be a DU.

So they could end up pivoting, let's say they were a homeowner and they wanted to do um uh an a detached ADU larger than 650 square feet and we say you don't have enough space on your lot for the two parking spaces that will be additionally required.

They could pivot down to a smaller ADU with one spot, right?

So that's so that's correct with all other things being met, other standards being met, yes, sure.

If the if the going to two parking spots is a barrier, they could go, well, let me just reduce the size of the ADU I'm gonna build.

Or if it's feasible, they could do an attached ADU, which is not a small job.

I'd say the big cost is when we have to attach it at the roof line because that's a big construction uh project.

But um we do that all the time on building permits.

Okay.

Uh when there's additions or a new house.

They we go through and we cite what they need to do or what needs correction and send it back, and they can save it back.

So this is a standard process.

Uh yes.

Thank you.

So I guess I didn't answer the question though, did I?

Is there any answer?

Okay, something like that.

I think I did answer okay.

Go ahead.

And I wanted to address um Councilmember Kaiser's.

I completely love your vision for reducing cars.

If we could do it, I would mandate it.

But um I don't think that's in practice, we're not there yet.

And up where we live, it's far from um any type of convenient from anywhere.

We don't even have bus service, right?

So again, by limiting that lot size, we eliminate a lot more, and um we could encourage it in places that we could reduce um traffic.

Ms.

Christianson.

Um I would like to have both the one and the two parking requirements, and I am highly opposed to reducing the parking spaces for within a quarter mile of the transit stations.

Oh, okay.

So no reduction, just like I get you I get the vision.

We live in Utah.

No one's walking to the transit station, and everyone who is lives in my neighborhood, and everyone's already parking on the streets, and we don't get our streets clouded.

So I'm highly opposed to that.

Okay.

Mr.

DeKaiser.

Thank you, madam chair.

Um, I yeah, I get that we're car-centric and there's a lot of locations that are not uh practical to have reduced requirements, but I'm telling everyone the literature on this would say that this is super restrictive.

If we we should be doing our code so that, like, yeah, you're within a half mile of the transit and you don't need a car.

I would love to have incentives on top of that, like a rental credit or something, like the the impact that that has on our community would be so huge, and already in the conversation, it's like oh the lot might not have enough parking spaces, so now they can't build the desirably sized ADU, they're gonna have to go smaller.

And again, I think that's a huge misstep.

And so I'd like to have more discussion on that.

But again, I'm on the side of location specific.

How can we reduce the parking requirements?

And to the point, I honestly hate being in some parts of the valley where you drive around and it's like cars everywhere.

That's really, really I mean, it's not the uh feel of Sandy City.

Um, so I I don't want to be like that, but I do think we could have good policies.

One other thing I want to think about in terms of how the city can do this.

I thought of like, what if we required landlords to have like a no on street parking covenant in the lease agreement or something like that?

Just whatever creative ways we can do to make parking more manageable.

Um, because again, the the example I gave at the beginning of the the small family where mom or dad is just walking the kids to school and they're close enough to a grocery store or whatever, and if they can have one car, I want whatever we can do to incentivize that.

Yes, but uh the parking requirement can be costly.

Um it definitely is part of the equation in terms of you know, if you can afford to do that.

There's so many different factors.

Appreciate that.

Ms.

D'Souza Really quick, I have a question that just popped into my mind about the parking requirement.

And would it be um would it pass if the parking uh say just picture like a regular single family house, right?

And you got your driveway and in front of the garage, and then maybe just to the you know, immediate left there's RV par, right?

Like an RV pad.

But instead of having that R V pad where it's you know, you pull in straight, could it could you angle it and increase the amount of parking that way, or do we require it to be, you know, I don't know, parallel to the other.

You know what if you don't have to do.

No, no, that's a great question, uh, Councilmember D'Souza, uh, because there is a nuance about the parking uh design.

The state law requires us now to allow, and like I brought those code changes in, I think last year, requires us to allow tandem parking, so right behind each other up to two.

You can't stack three and count three parking spaces, but we are we are required to allow kind of like you know, how you have one in the garage and one in the driveway right behind it.

That's a tandem, but that's just too deep.

So it would not necessarily have to be like covered and all that, but if they had an existing R V pad already there on the side of the garage, potentially that could serve as the the parking.

Well, well, that's only one part.

I wasn't I was trying to describe a parking situation that was not tandem in that space where it's kind of more at an angle, like when you pull into an angled parking spot and like Smiths, for example, you know.

Um, I have neighbors as an example.

This is kind of what popped into my mind, you know.

Um thinking about some of the parking questions and things that have come up.

Like I I am very sensitive to that too, don't get me wrong.

But even in like my own neighborhood, um, where we have large lots, large houses, um, large families, multi-generational living, there are already multiple cars, and if there are not everybody's teenager is getting their own car, yeah, you know, as soon as they become of age and they're stacking, right?

And so um, like the parking situation is what it is, regardless of an ADU, in my opinion.

But um the neighbors have taken like a they have a they don't have as much room for like a full RV pad, but they have this small little side that they put out that only goes back to their garage.

Um and they don't have a very deep driveway, but they've kind of like made two additional spots right there by angling it.

Does that make sense?

By having the cars like pull in at an angle instead of pull in uh yeah, they don't have to be right behind each other, can them, but uh potentially they uh they could be angled.

Um I'm just wondering because that technically takes up less space, and if our parking requirement is so it is is restrictive in that it says that it must be the length of a car, and it has to be perpendicular or not, you know what I mean, to the home or parallel to the driveway, then you know, maybe that's an opportunity to consider language that allows for that type of parking because space-wise you can fit more in a smaller space.

So our code I don't believe prohibits prohibits that detached ADUs, unless the council required it would do not have to be covered via carport or garage.

And um our dimensional standards about the minimum dimension size, though, is specified, and that's in the code, and that's pretty pretty basic.

Well then angled is not a not necessarily a problem.

Okay, well, I I want to make sure that that type of parking would count.

Um, because I think that we'd be cutting off our nose to spider face if we you know if we didn't, if that type of parking wouldn't pass.

Um, but I I personally think that I would be okay with um requiring one additional parking space, um, but not two for more than 650 square feet.

I was trying one of the things that I'm having a difficult time with is I'm not good with dimensions out, you know, conceptually.

Um that's just not one of my skills, and so 650 square feet, like I'm trying to think of an IKEA room that I saw, you know, how many how many square feet did they say this was posted outside of their door, you know?

Um, and and like what is that really what does that really mean in terms of living space?

Um, it seems like 650 square feet is kind of like a yeah I studio apartment, maybe I can all yeah, I can also bring interior layouts with square footage uh that would help the council visualize what that size means, like you know, you know, 400 square footer, you could probably do a studio.

I had a studio downtown one time in a loft.

Now my house is only 1300 square feet.

So I'm gonna say um I'd be okay with requiring one additional parking space for an ADU regardless of size.

One okay, very good, thank you, Ms.

Droud.

Oh, you ready for me, Madam Chair?

Ms.

DeSouza, were you gonna say more, Miss D'Souza?

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt there.

Was one thought, but I you called on Miss Droud right as I was going.

Go ahead, so go ahead.

She's waiting for you.

Okay.

I was just gonna say, in terms of like transit, um and wanting to encourage that.

One like part of the comment, I didn't finish the entire thought when I was talking about um ADUs uh uh greater than or equal to 11,000 square feet, is you are putting them in areas where there is less transit options, right?

The you're you're on more narrower neighborhood roads that are like one lane each direction, and if you're prohibiting them from any lot smaller, then you're not getting the benefit of some of those other access points to um major roadways or transit.

And so that might be counterproductive if it's going to be limited to just these large lots that are further away.

Okay, that was all thanks.

All right, Miss Stroud.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um I I've had parking complaints, I mean, throughout district too.

Um I've had them at uh apartment complexes, I've had them on streets, so and I I just we do live here.

I think uh Ms.

Christensen brought this up.

I mean, we look we live in Utah.

It's really cold in the winter and it's really hot in the summer.

People and especially in 10 on 10,000 square foot lots, these aren't super close to transit.

If we open that up right now and reduce the amount of parking requirements, I think we're gonna have problems later.

So, you know, I'm definitely one and possibly two.

You know, I do like the idea of taking a look at what 600 square feet or 650 square feet looks like.

Is that a one bedroom?

I can think back when uh when I was first married, you know, we had a 900 square foot apartment and it had two very large bedrooms to it.

So, you know, I but I am trying to picture what that 600 square foot looks like.

Um, I'm definitely one, maybe two.

Okay, very good.

Okay.

So I'm I am Madam Chair.

I just if I may wait make one more comment.

I wonder if it's the best way to think about parking in terms of the square footage, just uh what uh was just said, like maybe a better uh mark is the number of bedrooms or something like that.

I don't know.

We unfortunately the state we we can't regulate bedrooms very well.

So I'm a yes on this staff recommendation.

I've been going with this every time.

One additional for under 650, two additional for over 650.

Um I do happen to agree with um not, I'm sorry, on this case, not allowing the exemption within a quarter mile of a transit station.

Really, all we're doing, I mean, just think about it.

You we're not gonna be no one's gonna be building garages for all the cars when you if you have an ADU internal or external.

So we are gonna be tandem parking in driveways.

So and tandem parking and driveways always invites on street parking.

So even if we're in a lucky situation where what we found at transit is that people are the people own even at our own TODs, they own fewer cars, but not no cars.

So the situation is that we will maybe have an empty space in the driveway.

That's and that is a good thing.

Um that it will prohibit the on-street parking.

So I would not at this part at this point, I would not enact the um reduced or no additional parking within a quarter mile of a transit station, but leave it open to future consideration.

That one I would leave open to future consideration.

This may be you know a little larger, but getting a sense of where people are, you know, and maybe like Councilmember D'Souza was mentioning it's hard to visualize the size, you know, how many bedrooms is that and all that.

But one of the big questions is well, how big do we want to allow these?

You know, we clearly have the ability to say it can be no larger than the primary dwelling, you know, we could require it to be less size than the property primary dwelling.

We can clearly regulate size and uh dimension, like a height.

Um we could, you know, let's say a maximum of a thousand square feet of the ADU and no larger than the the main building, or maybe even less uh we wouldn't, you know, like an 850 square foot size.

Um staff would recommend then going forward with a maximum of a thousand square feet, um and no larger than the primary dwelling, or even smaller than the primary dwelling.

That we can dictate that by a percentage of the size or no taller than, etc., to make sure that it's not like having two the same size on the same lot if the council wants to.

Um so um, do we have a sense of what how large currently our um accessory structures is 25 percent, right?

Oh, for the detached just a uh regular anything, yes.

So that's where this table just shows our existing code for uh an accessory detached accessory structure that is non-habitable, you know.

It's like a shed.

Like a like a or a detached garage, etc.

Is that lot size or square footage of the home?

This is the property size lot size.

Okay, yes.

So right now you can have your home and then 25% of the lot coverage coverage of so if if let's say it's your lot is less than 15,000 square feet that it has to meet these two requirements.

It's whichever's less.

We say that well, that shed that that homeowner wants to build, well, it can't be any larger than 25% of the rear yard.

It cannot be larger than 750 square feet, whichever is less.

So if 25% of the rear yard is only a 600 square foot shed, then they'd have to limit it to that.

So now we're I'm just thinking out loud.

So now we're saying that we have our 11,000 square foot lot, they can have 25% of their lot as a shed, a garage, whatever they want in the rear.

And then we're also saying that we could possibly have another structure that's 50% or a thousand square feet as an EDU or total the shed and the EDU can only be well right now with just these sheds, these detached structures, non-habitable, it's all of them.

You're actually limited to two, unless you have an A zone with animals and barns that you're limited to a maximum of two detached accessory structures, and both of them combined have to meet this standard.

It's either no more than 25% of the rear yard or this square footage, whichever's less to me, and so if we said that ADUs can only we follow our current rule and said 25 on an 11,000 square foot lot, you could only have an ADU that's 25% coverage and 750 square feet or less.

Yeah, on that size lot.

Since right now we're looking at maybe the 11,000 square feet or larger, you know, given that you'd are allowed up to a thousand square feet or 25% of the rear yard, whichever's less.

But if they choose to use it all in their ADU, then their 25% is gone, but they can have no more than two using that 25%.

So my question is why why we're why isn't the recommendation to stay with what we've got?

Oh, I see.

Um is it to stay with a thousand?

No, to stay with our current accessory structures.

I think it is well more than that.

Oh, I see.

So I'm asking this is less than what we're you're recommending to ADUs.

So I'm asking why why aren't we staying with the existing?

Do we are we going to adjust it so that they can have bigger sheds and garages now?

Um I think um initially we were thinking that you know to not propose a whole nother full dwelling unit detached on the lot, wanting it to be smaller.

So and it's very common for us to have multiple codes that we are you know kind of juggling and applying.

And so sometimes one code overrules, well, you could do that, but now that you can't meet the setback, now that's you can't do this.

So um you could.

I I mean it's really up to the council.

We are being kind of conservative now, as opposed to maxing out the limit in understanding kind of the sense, the character of our decision makers or our elected officials, our administration, what we deal with administering our the character of the of Sandy and what what maybe you'd like.

So ADUs would if they decide they want a detached ADU, it would and they had a shed, they would have to take down their sheds.

It it may be or their garages, it could be it it it could be what depending on what we and what you'd ultimately like to do.

Um I think I had um if you want to allow them just to have an ADU with everything else they have, you can do that.

So okay, I got a secondary question that I think will help me tell you what I would prefer.

Oh, okay.

How are we getting okay?

So when you build an ADU on your property, is it taxed at the full second home tax rate?

So 100% of that property will be taxed.

So we're getting zero money for these.

Yeah.

Oh, that was I don't know.

It would increase I mean it would definitely increase your property value.

By by the but only at the 45% amount and not for a full amount of a home.

Probably.

I don't I don't know the answer.

So it would be like, I mean, I'm assuming it'd be like if you buy build a shed, you get like an extra what 20,000 to 50,000 dollars.

I actually know how it'd be taxed, but probably not at the same rate as well.

I'm just saying, like we're increasing all these people and we're not getting any money to support them, is what I'm hearing.

It probably would increase their property value, but the methodology that the accessory uses, I'm not aware.

I just thought they're not like any that's all.

They're not like paying enough to cover fire, police.

Madam Chair.

I can speak to this from personal experience.

In Sandy?

Well, in the county.

I mean, we're all not in not in Sandy, but the county assessor is who assesses your property taxes, not the city, right?

So I built an extended living area in my house.

The city initially that I live in, not Sandy City, but the city I live in initially reported it to the county as an ADU.

And so the county reassessed my house and added a uh def a different definition on the type of property, which increased my property taxes significantly until I let them.

Like double?

No, but it was about a 20% increase, I would say overall.

So until I let them know that it was not in fact an AD.

But I think that's minimal, honestly.

Like that's not enough to cover police, fire, roads, snow plowing, the extra like I I understand what you're saying totally, but okay.

So then I would propose I would prefer to go with the minimum amount, which is what we currently have, since we're not actually getting any money to pay for all of this.

Follow it similar to what we allow for detached accessory.

Okay, that that's size it can't table.

No, uh yes, that table.

The one that's in our books that's on the screen.

Oh, it wasn't on the screen.

Oh, this.

If you go back to the accessory scripture, I mean this one.

Yeah it just is we're just not getting any money to pay for these.

And so we've got a ton of new services we're proposing to start supporting, and we're not getting any money to pay for them.

So now everyone else is in the city who own homes and have like buildings that they actually pay tax on.

That's not that uncommon though, because a single family home generally doesn't pay for its large.

So even if we doubled it, it still wouldn't be enough to cover the additional.

It's closer with a single, this would be a little further away.

So I disagree.

That's fine.

So I would I would prefer to go with what we already have in code.

Okay.

Okay.

Well, not that.

Um chair, maybe asking a question.

Sure.

Um to just clarify, so if I have a 15,000 square foot lot and my house has a footprint bigger than a thousand square feet, I cannot have an ADU.

Is that correct?

If no, no, you're you're right.

You're saying maximum combined building coverage.

That's not including your your main these are just accessory structure.

Your main structure doesn't count in that.

Yeah.

Oh, sorry, it says building footprints.

Yeah, that would be for the the accessory structures.

Okay.

Of all, yeah, the title at the top is combined building coverage of all accessory structures.

Or 25% rear lot coverage, whichever's less than it goes down from the city.

So you would you you would be.

So 25% of your backyard basically could be an ADU.

Yes.

Just not a hundred percent, like in the proposed.

We just don't want full coverage.

Or 50% all over the old.

Yeah.

So I that's why I like this.

I've noted the following the similar we have the same sinking process, but um Mr.

De Kaiser, this kind of that proposal kind of matches what you had brought up earlier, so I'm curious about your thoughts on that proposal.

Where the larger the lot, the larger the accessory dwelling unit gets to be on a sliding scale.

Yeah, that's how I feel.

I I do like this, and I um yeah, I think if we if you can accommodate something bigger, you should.

Um I as I've thought about this in preparation for the meeting in like the missing middle.

I I'd spoken, I've been bugging, it's too bad Lynn's not here, but like all the time I'm saying at ULCT and where because he's works magic on this housing stuff, like get us the condos.

That's the missing middle that we need, and that solves ownership and entry into the market.

But how often do we hear like my kids are never gonna be able to buy a home?

So if the reality is that people are going to be stuck renting for a long time, we need to have bigger ADUs to accommodate those families to move up because the for a single parent working in the family by the school and they've got the car increase, whatever, or the benefit if we did that, um, that you know, uh three, four percent cola in that salary every year, they're never gonna be able to make the jump to a single family home.

I mean, that's like four thousand bucks for a two thousand square foot house now, and so I think we need to have something above the minimum, and yes, I like this, thank you.

Any more comments?

Ms.

Nichols, what's your recommendation?

Can you go back to that slide?

Oh sorry.

I'm with that.

Okay, Miss D'Souza.

Sorry, just coughing over here.

Um, so this recommendation slide coupled with the other one.

I just want to make sure I understand it too.

Are we saying that if the recommendation is given and adopted, then the 25% um like the maximum of 25% of the backyard coverage or you know, whatever that sliding scale based on your lot size is will apply, whichever is smaller.

Yeah, is that what you're saying?

Oh, in terms of terms of our recommendation, that is what you're saying.

Oh, if if your recommendation is given and accepted, so the maximum of a thousand square in size, and then go to the next slide, please.

Does this would this still apply if your recommendation for ADUs was adopted?

Uh right now the the first recommendation was maxing it out at a thousand square feet as opposed to it we're not strongly opposed to larger ones, but uh a percentage of that's not what I'm asking though.

I'm asking if so it's considered a an accessory structure, right?

And so are we saying that this chart would apply to the accessory dwelling unit and a shed or a greenhouse or whatever?

So if if we're saying you can have an ADU and a detached ADU up to a thousand square feet, but you have a shed that's you know, I don't know, 400 square feet, then the maximum external ADU that you could have would be if you have a 15 to 20,000 square foot lot would be 600 square feet.

Yeah, you would be able to you would only be able to max out at what the total is because you would have to count the two, and whatever that is couldn't exceed what you're talking about.

So you're correct in what you're saying.

Okay, well, okay, well, then my comments are gonna say that if we are considering ADUs, then this this scale doesn't make sense and would need to be adjusted too.

Um I think that there's a lot of things that have existed for a long time in the city code related that made a lot of sense at the time.

Um, but even from the standpoint of how people live and larger lots and the cost of water and the you know, people are putting in more hardscapes in general because of the cost of water and landscaping is changing.

That why are we requiring them to have you know to have 75% of land that could be used in a greater way and serve a greater need?

And so I think that it would be appropriate to um if we're going with the recommendation, which you know, I'm I'm okay with that that scale be adjusted, otherwise it doesn't make sense.

Almost everybody's got a shed, you know.

Um maybe not, but it's it's pretty ubiquitous, and so that makes this hundred or thousand square foot maximum like a unicorn that would never happen.

So anyway.

Okay, um actually I I didn't get into the lot coverage, but um and that's that's fine.

I think we we need to look at lot lot coverage because that can affect size as well.

Um so but um are you were you saying that you're thinking that um a thousand square feet maybe is too small or uh no, I'm saying that a thousand square feet for a and a detached ADU.

Um I I would be okay with granted, like we talked about, it would be helpful to understand what kind of living arrangements can, you know, the configuration that can exist within a thousand square feet, you know.

Um I'd like to better understand that.

So the caveat, um, but I think it'd be okay, but if we're only allowing people to have a maximum of a thousand square feet in um in acceptable units, then that needs to be adjusted and looked at if we're adding these ADUs.

I don't think that what we have should apply in this situation.

Oh, okay.

The initial recommendation did not include this as the recommendation.

That this was simply uh in the notation in the slide was a comparison, but it can be used as a tool, uh, and we can go with that, but the initial recommendation was not that it was that was just a comparison.

So um yeah, that that would be adjusted.

Okay, so that's very very good.

I appreciate the feedback.

Yes, it is because it starts to get it's a it came straight out of the code, and it's try applying it.

I know, right?

Exactly, day in, day out, and it's probably the hardest section of our code to apply, and yet everybody has a shed, everybody needs these types of things.

It's the most common and the most uh complicated part of our code, I would say.

Um I do building permits all the time, so I do it day every day.

So I know how how it is to work with that.

Um I was hoping lock coverage could be uh a subject to get to later, but I'm hoping to gather interior layouts and then bring them back, and then you get a better idea, because I was actually surprised when I was on the web looking at those pre-approved plans, um, they're really small, and they have quite a few bedrooms in what is relatively small smaller than a thousand square feet.

It's kind of surprising, but it does help uh to figure out relative size of what we're really talking about.

Ms.

Stroud, your comments.

Uh this is this has actually been, you know, out of all the questions so far, I think probably the most uh interesting component to it because there seems to be a lot of caveats and a lot of questions with this.

Um I'm I'm okay with the um I guess I I'm gonna look forward to maybe you coming back with some more information, but I am comfortable with the recommendation once again.

Primarily it's because let's just start where it's conservative, and then as we look at each of these, then we can move forward with them and adjust as necessary.

You know, if we're looking at something, you know, we we need to have this in place right away.

Um, you know, that's kind of where I'm at, but this one, you know, with it with a shed, you know.

And I guess I look at you know, the shed that I have, you know, 10 foot by 10 foot.

I mean, that's a hundred square feet.

Um I don't know.

I mean, this is a this one is is interesting, so I I would be comfortable with your current recommendation, but looking forward to you know further conversation on it, Ms.

Houseman.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um I I just want to clarify a thought I had.

So we're we're defining this as no larger than the primary dwelling.

So we're we're making an assumption that the homeowner would live in the primary dwelling and would follow the process to get uh an external ADU built.

In the scenario where a homeowner chooses to live in the to make the external ADU the primary dwelling, like they choose to move into there and live because for example, they are uh they want to age in place, but they don't need the large primary home anymore.

They want to move into the accessory dwelling unit and have that be their primary home.

Yes.

That will be allowable, right?

Because here we're saying no larger than the primary dwelling, but what if they want the ADU to be their primary dwelling?

And the only way they get to age in place is move into the ADU and rent out there.

Sure.

So that's acceptable.

That yes, that's allowed.

This and the state law specifically um allows that, and I think um it probably prohibits us from saying you must live in the main house.

So even though the language here either or sure either, okay, that's good to know that that's allowable.

Um but here we're saying no larger than the primary dwelling.

So we're just essentially saying the bigger house, we're considering the primary dwelling, the ADU must be smaller than the primary dwelling.

And it doesn't matter which one they choose to live in.

Okay.

The one they choose to live in could be the ADU, but their other home is still gonna be the primary one.

Because they may choose to live in the ADU and do just what you said.

Right, right.

Or or same thing, like uh a young couple, yeah.

The only way they're gonna actually be able to buy that single family home is they live in the ADU and rent out the rest until they can then afford to move into it.

One is owner occupied and the other one could be a good one.

Okay, just clarify.

Thank you.

So I too find this to be an interesting part of the conversation, and I can see some outcomes, several outcomes that I would be that I would be fine with.

Um the staff recommendation is fine.

I actually do like Ms.

Christians um proposal to increase the maximum size of the ADU in accordance with the lot size.

We could, if we wanted to, eliminate that 750 square foot size and just say anything from 11,000 square feet to 20,000 square feet, it has a maximum of a thousand, then you go up to 40,000 square feet, it's 1500, and above 40,000 gets 2,000.

I think any of these make sense to me.

Okay.

I hate to be like adding yet another nuance onto here, but I do I do agree.

I see the perspective of all my fellow council members here, and I kind of agree with all of them.

What I would want to do though, is to add to make sure that we add that limit on the size of the ADU in comparison to the primary dwelling.

And I would set it at 50%.

So I would say that the detached ADU, and even if we're looking at the graph that we were looking at before, I'd add another column that says that it has to be no more than 50 percent.

The size of the primary dwelling.

Right.

Got it.

Okay, I have um a couple more questions if we if we can.

But you can kick me off stage any time.

I can take the the big stick out.

Anyway, um, how tall should the aid ADU?

Um, should it just be one stories?

Those are the least obtrusive.

One and a half stories, meaning with like with a loft, a bonus room, or uh you know, up to up to two stories, or you know, the maximum you might be able to fit three stories.

Um we'd recommend that it's one to two stories, but depending on your setbacks, and absolutely no taller than the primary dwelling.

Um there are some example images.

I'll just run through those again.

These are some nice cute little one stories.

Um we have the loft of like one and a half uh story type, and the two story, or if you can, you know, have lower ceilings.

We might be able to even pull off three stories.

But those are just some images of what the they might look like.

And if you have a have a sense of um what your preference might be those down.

Um I would prefer one to one and a half stories, um, but no taller than the primary dwelling.

And yeah, just if they're that I don't mind the loft portion of it, it just is if it's taller than the original house, and if it's already like let's just say 50% of someone's backyard next to me that are putting house more than one and a half stories feels really big, nickel.

So size and configuration, that is my jam.

So I I I can visualize a whole lot of things and get very creative with the space, but um I would prefer to see them stay at one level.

Again, being less impactful, because you can depending on where you put it on your property, you can build a two-story building that would um just be in the face of your neighbor.

So when we go and we look at these in fill subdivisions, we try and say, hey, could you just build um single family around the skirts so it doesn't less it's less of an impact?

I would like to, it's not a hard preference for me.

Um the uh standard height on a single family is 18 20 square feet or 20 feet, which is it?

And we can only build the 35, right?

35, yes.

Okay.

So the peak.

To the peak, yeah.

Yeah.

I would even we can add dimensional standards like you know, 20 feet and all that later, but I think it's easier to visualize one story versus one and a half or two full stories, et cetera.

I would like to approach it as a uh uh height dimension.

Also, I just had one question.

So you said uh in one of the uh slides, it says no portable units or units on wheels.

Does that include maybe something that has an axle on it, but no wheels it would have to be on a permanent foundation.

Let that's one way another way to describe it.

It can't be something that rolls in and off.

Uh it can't roll in and out without wheels, but it has an axle.

Well, it'd have to be on a permanent foundation.

I think that would be different from just sitting on the axle.

The the building code has some standards on that.

She just scratched the code.

Okay.

And prefabricated building would be okay, something like uh a tiny home, right?

As long as it met the height and the square footage.

If it meets the whatever standards, whatever council decides to adopt, um, it would have to, but yeah, prefab, I think um that is uh maybe a more affordable affordable option for six for some folks.

Yeah.

Okay, thank you.

Ms.

D'Souza.

Thank you.

I uh on this one, this is where I get a little more conservative.

I think that only that keeping it to one story would be most appropriate.

Um the one and a half, like I don't even get why people do them in the tiny homes.

Like I love watching all of those reels on social media.

I think they're so cool, but I don't know, maybe this is a Chris term, but I think that they like provide functional obsolescence, like that space is almost like never used or it's difficult to use outside of maybe storage, you know.

Um, but I think for mitigating a lot of the privacy concerns that uh have been expressed, I would I would prefer to keep them to one just one story.

Ms.

Stroud.

Um I'm I I really like the one story, you know.

That's the privacy concerns.

I have some pretty significant worries of that, especially I I mean, no matter no matter the setbacks that we have.

So I would definitely prefer to stick with the one story if we even went to the one and a half.

I'm definitely a no on a two, but even if we looked at that one and a half, then maybe that's on I mean, you know, our half acre or acre lots.

Um so I I would say let's just stick with the one story um for now.

And once again, we may look at this or a council in the future may look later and and change their minds.

Um, but I'm I'm really worried about privacy and want to make sure that everyone is still feeling very comfortable.

Um, if their neighbor, if if I buy a home and I've been in my home and my neighbor buys a home and they put this in their backyard, you know, what does that do to me?

So, you know, I'd want to make this as least impactful to surrounding neighbors and property owners as well.

So I'm with the one story.

Mr.

De Kaiser.

Thank you, madam chair.

Again, I I don't want to have a blanket approach to this.

Um my colleagues are saying one story, but I would imagine there we could find situations in the city where a two-story would be acceptable.

Um if you're in a house of all ramblers, yeah, maybe we don't want to allow a two-story ADU.

But if you're in a neighborhood where everything is two stories, um I can think of some of our neighborhoods, like a really tall ADU would look really good on your street.

And so um I I just think that we we would have to allow for it, and it would be awesome if our code was good enough that when the right circumstances came up, you could you could do it.

Go ahead.

I just want to make a clarification.

A one-story home can be as tall as a two-story home in our code now.

You can build to the maximum height of 35 feet, regardless of how many stories you have.

So that was my thinking with the approach of limiting the height.

I think we ought to set a number.

You mentioned that, but you didn't come up with one.

So what is would you have one in mind?

Yeah, that we're be fine to give us that input.

20 feet.

20 feet.

You could build to 20 feet.

You could build a one-story or a one and a half feet.

Yeah, you could get the half story in that, and it could be functional.

I don't know what's a good number.

24?

20, what's the right number?

24 too high.

For uh what a two-story one story?

For one or one and a half story.

I mean, obviously, the wall high, yeah.

You could have a flat roof, or you could have a peaked roof.

You could, you know, so your wall height is typically going to be a minimum of you know, the eight, you need a minimum of eight, but then you've got the risers and everything.

So, you know, maybe 10 feet of that first, you know, livable space, and then you'd have your roof on top, depending on the um the slope of the roof.

So um 15.

Um we you can say um, you know, uh one story, no more than such and such height, but that it's only habitable on the the first story, meaning they can't just sneak in, you know, uh habitable space into that upper roof area.

I'm just thinking if you're if you're allowing a peaked roof and there's room for a loft, why not build a loft?

Right, right.

Yeah, so squeeze has her hand up.

I wonder if she sounds like she wants to weigh in on this subject.

So squeezing um usable space, I don't mind.

Let them use their house how they want to use it on the inside.

Um, how the user spaces we should have no say in.

So do we want to set a height limit and what would it be?

I would like to.

I don't know if we're prepared right now.

If you want additional information, I mean I'm happy to a standard home is probably a standard rambler's probably we're looking from 10 8 by what are studs, what are studs?

Maybe close to a story and a half on typical to the pitch to the top would probably be close to 27.

17 would be maybe more.

But we can look at that and look at some examples and bring back together rather than having to decide an actual number.

Let us bring back some examples with some numbers on that that you can choose.

It would make it a little easier for you.

And then we'll make sure we're on the same page on that.

So, Ms.

DeSouza, I had called on you.

What did you want to add to this conversation?

Go ahead.

Well, I just wanted to say, you know, I I I hear what um Chris is saying and what you're saying, and my thought, and then and then Melissa kind of said it.

My thought and the way that I'm thinking about it is the habitability standpoint.

You know, from a privacy standpoint, if you had a house that went up to the maximum and you had you know two stories, you had a set of stairs that went up to um more habitable space, then you know, your your visibility and the setbacks, even if they're increased from the two feet, you know, still may not satisfy some of those privacy concerns that we're trying to mitigate for.

And so, like, I don't know that I care so much about the the height um and and how high it goes, but I care more about you know what space is habitable in it from to maintain the integrity of everyone's backyard privacy.

Um high, like these are gonna be expensive.

Even the I agree that I'm with the modular kind of prefab options, these are gonna be expensive, especially if they're not, and so like I think that some of this is gonna not be an issue just because there's gonna be some of those other factors that maybe prohibit people.

Um, you might get one or two, but anyway, long story short, I'm not I'm not opposed to some of the height as long as we maintain habitability only on that main floor, like no stairs.

Um well, for me, I I would tie it to a height.

I I don't want um ADU's building to 35 feet.

So if we're not gonna allow it to 35, then I think we do have to set a number because as you said, even a one story could be 35 feet.

So if you guys would come if you guys would come back with a recommendation, sure.

No, we that was my intention, yes.

We'd appreciate it.

Right because this can get so complicated that I thought, well, let's just talk about it in terms of stories and visualize that, then I can combine it with the height.

The state just defined and allowed us to say you can define building height by stories and height combined.

Uh we were afraid they might restrict us to that, but they do allow us that this year.

This year.

Can I just ask one more question?

Sure.

So in a in a detached garage, not we're not talking ADU, we're just talking like a detached garage.

Can they build up to 35 feet or they can build up to um 30 35 if they meet the setbacks of the primary structure is what I believe.

I I could look that up.

I don't have my code handy.

That's a in the detached accessory structures.

Uh, but typically actually anything over 15 feet requires uh permission for the planning commission, meaning it can't we can't just approve it at the building permit conditional use with the uh which is kind of restrictive.

Um but some zones allow you to go up to 20 feet.

Um but even though even though it's allowed up to 20 feet, you still have to go to the planning commission because it's over 15 feet.

And um you can also ask for an increase to the planning commission uh based on criteria to increase the height by a certain percentage, let's say 25% increase, no more than uh so there's uh and depending on the size of the lot, so it's nuanced.

Okay, it is, and I can't.

But I can bring that back.

I can bring I can I can bring those specifics back.

I don't know that it's super important.

I just and thinking about you know, if we are gonna limit height, and I can understand the conversation.

I just want it to be like intentional and make sense if we're gonna do it and not just arbitrary, especially if you know, well, okay, if you like a garage, um, my neighbors, I'm pretty sure is pretty gosh darn tall, but there's no living in it, and so it's less of a concern to me because I don't have like that that living privacy element.

Granted, it is two feet away from my property line, right?

Yes, and so anyway.

I just I just want to be intentional about some of the changes that we're making as it relates to other things that are allowed if the use is different.

That's just my thought.

Yeah, the interesting thing on a on an accessory one though, as the height increases, the setback has to increase as well.

So it is a moving scale on that in a way that you do have to have a larger setback as the higher you go.

Yeah, more nuances about the the code.

It's all not necessarily bad, but there's a just a lot of variables that go into uh that so yes, that it makes sense uh to the lot, the size of the lot, and it etc.

Okay.

anybody else?

Do we have any?

I think we covered everybody.

Are you gonna go to setbacks?

That would be the final and and then I I'm done for now.

See, I had all even other questions, but I knew that this might be enough for now.

Uh just setbacks, just your feel, if you're unsure, that's okay too.

But uh one idea is if let's say it's just one story.

Um right now on the guest cottage, this our requirement is a 10 foot minimum setback from like the side and the rear.

And um so um I think that that would be um you know acceptable, and but if you had a two-story basically, we'll have a setback that is like your main house.

And so, and if we don't allow two stories, this is kind of a moot point, but that would uh you can you know the the taller it is, or if you allowed for you know loft, you know, you can increase your setbacks or other variables you can increase setbacks.

What's the minimum setback in Sandy?

Well, okay, so it depends on the on the zone.

Yeah, single family, yeah.

Yeah, it depends on the zone, but what I've showing on this particular screen for lots, 11,000 square feet or greater, or you know, I I think it might have might have included the R110 zone.

Um your minimum side setback is gonna be 10 10 feet, sometimes it's 10 with a minimum total of like 24, so um 10 feet, and then your rear, it's gonna range anywhere from 20 to 30 feet.

That rear yard is smaller in like an R18 zone, R17 zone.

But yeah, I think like in my zone, it's like six or seven feet is the setback.

Well, on the side R 1.75.

Right.

And on the side, yeah.

Yeah, uh no, all of historic and the historical, not just the overlay zone.

But yes.

Yeah, so I'm just saying, like it's fine as long as we're keeping this to like 11,000 square feet or higher.

It's if we bring lower that it becomes very problematic in my mind.

But I'm fine with the 10 feet or whatever.

So most of the zones in Sandy are R18.

When you're talking single family residential, most of it is R18, as opposed to RN10, etc.

And those are eight foot minimum side setbacks, okay, eight foot on the side, and your rear yard is probably more like a 15 15 to 20 foot rear yard setback.

So I like the 10 then, or the same as the dwelling, as long as it's over 11,000 square feet.

And then, yeah, and that this just is an example if it was if you wanted something more liberal.

So anything else?

Setbacks.

I would tend to think the setbacks would go with the zoning.

Um, so whatever that zone setback is would be the setback for the the external ADU regardless of the height, correct?

Correct.

Okay.

Miss D'Souza.

I'm good with 10 feet on one story.

I mean, if if depends on what we're talking about, right?

If we're talking about one story, 10 feet, if there is the potential for it to increase, then I would say that that setbacks need to increase.

Ms.

Stroud.

Um I'm good with 10 feet on one story.

One story.

Okay.

Just to clarify why I would like to see it with the zone, the setbacks within the zone.

It's it's con it's continuity, so it's not unexpected.

Um, there's certain continuity with with uh within a neighborhood, and I think that would still match the continuity and allow the APU.

Continuity, yes.

Mr.

DeKiser.

He's good with 10.

Um I'm good with 10.

Um, I just want to, and the re um as we consider this, who knows how many of these will be built, right?

We don't we we have no idea.

We do know we have to allow them.

And so I think we have to envision a future where there are a lot of them.

And one of the things I want to make sure, these are a an accessory dwelling unit.

Yeah.

I think they need to be subservient to the main.

I think they need to be smaller.

I think they need to be more setback.

And as we're talking about height, that goes to the issue of building map of massing.

So I want to make sure on the massing side that we're also building smaller structures.

And I think the more we accomplish that, the less intrusive allowing DADUs will be.

So that's my goal.

I think we covered everybody.

I've I took a lot of notes.

I would uh digest this and synthesize it, and probably come back with a few more questions at another time after we've had a good rest.

How about I just suggest what I would like to do if it's okay with the council, but I want to make a suggestion is that when we bring this back, instead of keeping this type, it would be nice.

I would like to bring it back in the form of a code so we start reacting to code language and looking at it and having our discussion that so we can start moving that forward.

Is that is that okay?

Yeah, we have a deadline of October, right?

So we need to get going.

So we can still bring pictures and back, but we want to start getting into a form code so we can move ahead and start changing code out.

Okay, thanks.

So council, in terms of moving forward, Ms.

Nickel made a request to move her item forward.

I do want to say we have public speakers here that would like to speak to the public hearing and to item number seven.

And our friends from Shelter the Homeless have been waiting online for three hours.

So I um do we need to change the agenda or should we leave it the way it is?

I think in consideration of people who have been waiting for their items to come up.

That's my question.

I don't imagine this item will be as long as the other items.

Okay, I I I'd like the council to speak up on this.

I'd like to leave it the way it is in consideration of the people.

We're gonna be here until the end, right?

So we're not inconveniencing ourselves, but we have other people who've been waiting for hours.

I won't be here until the end.

You won't be here till the end.

Okay, council.

What do we want to do?

About do we I guess I'll take a vote on this.

Do we want to?

Do you have an opinion?

Keep it the way it is.

Anyone online have input on this?

We I mean I hate that we people have been waiting for so long.

Can we table yours till next time?

I'm not sure.

Members of the council, could you please make sure we can hear you uh since we're recording the meeting?

Thank you.

No, I'll have to table my so let's take up the consent calendar, which is uh second reading on the RV parking and um the appointment of Chad Littlewood to ARC.

Do I have a motion to adopt the consent calendar?

Motion to approve the consent calendar.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed.

All right.

Next item is a public hearing for CDBG.

Thank you, Council.

Um I shouldn't be too much longer than the last item.

So for the public, uh my name's Jake Warner, long-range planning manager and CDBG administrator, and with me is Sarah Stringham, uh senior planner and um assistant CDBG administrator or something along those lines.

Um we appreciate the opportunity tonight.

Um somebody left some glasses up here.

Um we are um gonna start with Sarah tonight, uh and she'll give a brief introduction into um the CDBG program, and then we'll get into the specifics of what uh is being presented uh as far as uh for your consideration and and uh substance for the public hearing tonight.

So, madam chair, if it's okay, uh we will bring up Sarah Stringham and start off the presentation.

Thank you.

Welcome, Sarah.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um, just want to go over uh just some general CDBG information really quick, uh, and then Jake will get into some more of the specifics for um our annual action plan this year.

Uh so the C D BG program is run through the Department of Housing and Urban Development, uh, specifically within uh the community planning and development division.

Um, and the community planning and development division and also the HUD mission are very similar to provide decent housing, suitable living environment, and expand economic opportunities for low and moderate income persons.

Um so within that division, uh the CDBG and the home program are both run.

Um, and we um have our own CDBG program here in Sandy, and then are also involved with the home county uh consortium.

Uh so with CDBG, there's several national national objectives that have to be met.

Um that first national objective is that any C D C D BG program has to fit into one of these categories, low to moderate income, um, and that's gonna be the one that we almost always see.

Umcasionally there are other projects that would qualify for slum blight or the urgent need.

Um, the next objective that has to be met is that it has to be an eligible activity.

Um so you can see there's a list of different eligible activities and some of the more nuanced things, there's ineligible activities that wouldn't qualify for the C DBG funds.

Uh and then the last objective is that it has to meet uh federal regulations.

So there's lots of different projects that have to fit into these regulations.

Some of the ones that we dealt deal with uh environmental review, lead paint hazard reduction, and Davis Bacon labor laws.

Um some years there's lots of different things that the city council has to approve.

Um years ago we had multiple things that were being um brought before the city council with uh renewing the home consortium membership, um, updating the consolidated plan as well as the action plan and um we had some CARES Act money a few years ago.

This year we just have our annual action plan.

Um we had our consolidated print five-year plan approved last year, and so we're in the second year of that process with the annual action plan.

Program year runs from July 1st to June 30th, um, and we always want to make sure that we are lining up our consolidated plan goals with our annual action plan.

Um with each funding year, there's funding caps that have to be met with planning and administration and also public services.

Um we go through a comp uh a process that lasts throughout the year with um starting with our needs analysis, our public hearing in September, moving through applications and the process uh to review those and get those approved by our awesome committee, um, and then moving into uh getting those approved and receiving our funding amounts.

And Jake will talk more about those specifics for our program this year.

So, yeah, I'll uh I'll talk about the application of the things that Sarah discussed to Sandy City this year.

As Sarah mentioned, uh the process to get this before you starts in September, so it does take almost a year to prepare for the next year.

And uh as you might as she mentioned, we hit we do have an awesome citizen advisory committee for CDBG, and they hold they actually hold a public hearing in September to discuss community needs for consideration as they prepare funding recommendations for you to bring forward to you, which we're doing tonight.

And um again, here's the timeline.

As Sarah mentioned, we um review uh we open the application process for funding requests.

Um we have a scoring process that the committee goes through and uh reviews those applications and scores those applications, and then uh we take a couple of months to to do that and then formulate a recommendation, and we're here before you tonight for the public hearing, and um then we are scheduled to come back to you on May 12th for a decision.

Uh the annual action plan, which includes the list of projects and the recommended funding, is a large document.

It's currently available for public review, and um upon your approval and completion of that public review process, it'll be submitted to HUD.

When we talk about a program year with CDBG, Sarah mentioned it runs from July 1 to June 30th.

What we call program year 2026 is actually fiscal year 2027, and that can be confusing as we're talking about program year, and a lot of people think in the terms of fiscal year.

So you may see program year 2026.

That is the year that we're planning for.

This year, surprisingly, we have our grant amount.

So we have actual numbers that we're presenting to you.

We actually got that.

I got an email a week ago Saturday.

Strange that the federal government would send out an email on a Saturday, but we got our awards Saturday.

We met with our committee on Wednesday night and finalized the recommendation based on the actual award amount.

And so we're excited about that.

We're also reprogramming almost $55,000 in prior year funds.

Those are projects that were approved that didn't come to fruition or projects that were completed under budget.

And so we're able to reprogram those funds.

So for a total of about 429,000 that is being programmed for next fiscal year.

So we um this starts to break out the actual applications.

It's divided into categories.

So I've got two slides here that show the applications.

This slide shows just the public service applications, and then those are divided into our five-year strategic plan goals.

So Sarah mentioned the consolidated plan.

That's our long-term strategic plan.

And so all of the projects that we fund every year need to fit into a goal of our five-year strategic plan.

So these bullet points are those goals from that five-year plan.

So we received 125,000 in requests for public services.

So that cap is five $56,209.

And our citizen advisory committee feels strongly about maximizing that cap to fund these great organizations that submit for that for this category under public services.

And this is our most competitive category.

So Big Brothers Big Sisters submitted for their mentor program.

Community health centers runs health and mental health clinics for low-income persons.

Legal Aid Society you heard from Stuart Ralphs earlier today.

South Alley Services with their domestic violent shelter and victim services.

And then United Way was the 211 program.

And so you see the request in the left-hand column and the recommendation by the committee in the right hand column.

And so again, this is our most competitive category.

We had to cut it down quite a bit.

Those are always tough decisions because all of these organizations are great organizations and very deserving.

And then the road home under that second goal there submitted for their MVP.

And so that's the public service category.

And I can come back to this for questions in just a minute, but if I can finish here, actually, two more slides.

The housing category, there has been a shift over the last couple of years to focus more on housing with CDBG funds.

And so we did receive more requests in requests this year than we have ever have in the past.

Assist requested 100,000, community development corporation, 150,000 for their so assist, sorry, assist provides accessibility improvements, emergency home repair, such as roof repairs or plumbing leaks.

Provides larger scale home rehabilitation.

They go in and kind of do a full analysis, lead testing, radon testing, those type of things, and and they'll provide larger grants for home rehab.

And so the committee recommended full funding for assist community development corporation half funding.

This is a new application.

Down payment assistance sometimes can be difficult with these funds.

So the committee wanted to encourage them and maybe get the foot in the door there to get that started and see how that goes.

And then nearly full funding for habitat.

And then administration part of my salary, part of Sarah's salary gets paid out of this administration line item.

All the administrative costs with this program.

We do pay a portion of the city's IT bill, the phone bill, the risk management bill because of the relationship to the program.

We have training costs and so forth that go into that line item.

That is capped at 20% of the grant amount, and we always try to stay under that, but our for a long time our grant amount was going down, and administrative costs continue to go up.

And so we got concerned about that as far as hitting that cap.

But uh with the increase in the grant amount this year over last year.

Well, in the current year, we received 355,000, as I mentioned.

For next year, we received about 374,000.

So it actually went up this year over last year.

Um I mentioned we met with our committee Wednesday night last week, and they said is that admin number a good number?

And I get those numbers from our HR department from our finance department based on the proposed city budget.

We don't know where that number will end up, but as of Wednesday night, that was a good number.

Thursday morning, it had changed.

So staff is proposing a slight um revision to the committee's recommendation.

Again, the numbers you're seeing are the committee's recommendation.

Um staff is recommending I got new numbers from Katrina Frederick, the HR department Thursday morning after our committee had met, and that um the admin number had gone up what about a thousand dollars.

And so the habitat line item was kind of the last kind of catch-all line item that this commit that the committee funded, and so we took the thousand dollar or yeah, the thousand dollars in increased cost for admin out of the habitat recommendation.

So um we as staff are going to be recommending um this revised um recommendation based on the committee's recommendation, and uh this has been noticed for a public hearing, and uh we like to get that input ahead of you in front of you ahead of the decision for your consideration.

That's why we don't wait for the public hearing with the uh decision itself.

But um, with that, I'm available.

Both of us are available for questions.

Um, and uh again, we ask that you open it up for public comment.

Council members, any question for Jake or Sarah.

I see no hands online either.

All right, we'll open up the public hearing.

Tonight is not a vote, council members.

We're doing that later.

Tonight is just the public hearing.

Jason Wheeler, will you please come down here after waiting so very long?

Thank you so much.

No, it's uh the hardest part is not making comments about the ADU ordinance because I have lots of thoughts on that as an architect.

But um, I'm Jason Wheeler, executive director of Assist Community Design Center, and I want to talk about the importance of place.

I grew up in a teeny little town of Hyde Park, Utah, and it was fun for me to see the youth city council here tonight because I was on the inaugural youth city council 30 years ago, plus um for my town, and um connections that I built with my mentors and peers at that time continue to shape who I am today.

My parents still live in the same home, a home that they've been in for 47 years now.

Their neighborhood and community truly mean everything to them.

Um and even though it's been nearly three decades since I moved away, going to visit my parents always feels like going home.

The built environment of our homes and our neighborhoods creates a backdrop for our daily lives.

As the cost of housing has exponentially increased and as wages stagnate, staying in our homes and communities has become increasingly challenging, especially for individuals who are on fixed incomes, for individuals who are disabled or for people who are elderly.

Since 1970, our organization has been helping preserve existing naturally occurring affordable housing in Sandy and throughout Salt Lake County.

We achieve this as we help individuals and families stay in their neighborhoods by repairing the most critical components of their homes, including roofs, furnaces, water heaters, plumbing lines, and electrical systems.

Additionally, as an architecture firm, we leverage our experience in design and uh implementing accessibility modifications to help those who are aging or disabled.

The strategic interventions are performed free of charge for income qualifying families, thanks to the generous financial support of Sandy and other CDBG entitlement cities throughout Salt Lake County.

Um we're exceptionally grateful for the recommendation for continued funding for this coming fiscal year.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, I have no other blue cards.

Would anyone else in the room like to comment on the public hearing for the CDBG funding?

Please come on down.

Would you mind filling out a blue card when you're finished when you're all done and just giving it to me?

Thank you so much.

There at the back of the room.

Thank you so much.

Hello, I'm Jay Leonard from The Road Home.

I'm one of our grants and compliance officers.

And we are coming to request um continued CDBG support from Zandy City for one of our shelters that's in the area, the medically vulnerable populations shelter.

As you know, um it's very important to help protect our most vulnerable in our community.

And uh with cost of housing going up, people um who have disabilities frequently lose housing and struggle to get back on their feet.

And our shelters are one of our most important um emergency uh lines to help people to make that first step back into housing.

Um and from there, it's the next step into helping them reach achieve permanent housing, which is part of the programs that we fund.

Um we have six shelter we operate six shelters in addition to our housing programs that help people come back into our communities.

Um we have served 5,377 individuals in those shelter programs.

Um 97 of those who were from who reported that they were from Sandy City itself.

Um, in our MVP facility, um, it is a low barrier shelter that helps medically vulnerable populations, um people who have disabling or chronic medical conditions that make staying in congregate emergency shelters unsafe or inappropriate, and it's a place for them to have that safety while they are looking for permanent housing back in our communities.

Um last year we served um 500 uh 455 unique individuals through this program, eleven of which were specifically from Sandy City in our MVP specifically.

Um participants in our program have their own um private or semi-private rooms where no more than two occupants are in each room, um and they have a private private um facility with a toilet sink and shower, um, which helps support their dignity, accessibility, and infection control for that medically vulnerable population.

Um we are looking to um use this funding to, as we have in the have in the past to support our staffing at this site uh where we help people um we work with the Fourth Street Clinic to support these um individuals.

Um while this program doesn't directly construct or rehabilitate housing, it advances the affordability in homeless response schools by prioritizing housing focused services and rapid connection to permanent housing.

Um we always focus on that a path back to um housing and back into our communities by first having that emergency shelter and then having those housing programs that help place people back in our communities.

Um this is a very important service that helps our most vulnerable populations of people who are medically vulnerable.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, I see no more commenters in the room.

Uh would Dustin would you like to invite our online participants?

Of course, thank you, Madam Chair.

Uh, if you're joining us virtually this evening via Zoom and you'd like to comment on this evening's uh public hearing, uh which is item number six on the agenda.

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

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

No raised hands, madam chair.

All right.

We'll close the public hearing.

Um this comes back in mid-May, I think.

Is that right, Jake?

That's correct.

So, council, just in case it would be helpful to staff, even though we're not voting on it tonight.

It would be helpful if anyone's thinking of advocating for any changes on the funding to let them know.

Any input tonight in that regard?

Okay.

Thank you.

We will see you again next month.

Thank you.

All right, item number seven is the um revised MOU with shelter the homeless.

And Tracy, you've been working on that on our behalf.

Will you please introduce this item for us?

And Madam Chair, there's a couple of representatives from uh Fourth Street Clinic and the Shelter of the Homeless Online.

I'm just gonna go ahead and promote them to panelists.

Yes, please.

So, Madam Chair, members of the council, and others who are here today.

Yes, we're talking about uh Shelter the Homeless and an MOU that we have entered into with Shelter of the Homeless.

If you'll remember back in September of 2023, I think those of us in the legislative branch were surprised to learn that an agreement had been reached with Shelter of the Homeless and that they were coming and moving into a hotel that was just located off 90 South.

Its address is 8955 South Harrison Street.

And so by virtue of uh conditional use and some other things that made its way to you, and um and the council directed me as uh legal counsel for uh you to work with uh shelter of the homeless, uh their attorney to see if we could come up with uh an agreement on how uh our branch of government might see some things uh moving along.

The executive branch was I think was pretty satisfied because they'd had a lot of conversations with them, but but but you weren't, and so uh you tasked me to meet with them, and we sat down and to their credit, um, they worked really hard with us to try to get something that was workable, and it was um it wasn't a one-sided negotiation, it was um you know, we had some things that we wanted to see, and they had some things that were more workable for them, and there were some things that were less workable for them.

And so, over the series of a couple of it was really a truncated negotiation, um, and you may remember.

I think I was calling uh I was calling you kind of on a Monday morning as we were trying to finish this up uh for council meeting on the next day.

Um, and so we came up with this agreement, and so far it's been um it's it's been pretty workable.

Um, and I don't think we would be talking about this today, but for um uh shelter of the homeless approached us and said uh in a in a report they made to you that said we'd like to make a couple of changes, and those changes really uh were in from our view uh an improvement based on the existing agreement.

So while that uh while we were looking at the agreement, we worked on just a couple of provisions, and as you can see, we're calling this uh we're styling this an amended and restated agreement.

And essentially the agreement is really the same except just a couple of really small changes.

There's a change in one in one of the recitals that came at Shelter the Homeless uh at their request.

Um, and and this was this was this was a negotiation because in preparation for um looking at this agreement and how it was amended.

We uh I talked to Shane about it considerably.

And uh Chief McConnegan and I also had a short conversation about it just to ask how this was working, especially for station 31.

I know that uh council member D'Souza had some questions about that, and based on my conversations uh with Shane and a quick conversation with the chief, um, it it seemed like that we could keep this language in here about about continuing to evaluate to look at the data and to see if circumstances have changed.

Something else I think that would cause circumstances to change would be our allocation of funds that we get uh for uh allocated to us uh in light of us having this uh a center here in Sandy.

So as you can see, that recital sort of memorializes that thinking a little bit.

I mean the recital isn't necessarily part of the agreement, but the idea is to sort of preserve this legislative history in terms of the conversations that have been going on.

And then there's really only two changes to the agreement.

One comes from Shelter the Homeless, which is under this uh provision that's the 2.1 C, which is just a simple strikeout that eliminates the mobile medical clinic and adds uh uh a health clinic inside the facility.

So we thought that was great, and that was there, wanted to make that uh improvement, and obviously we feel great about that.

And then Marcy, the uh rather council member houseman.

If you'll look one of the things that you mentioned um was uh that kind of the section nine had sort of a shelf life to it, it expired in terms of reporting.

And so uh Shelter the Homeless has been fabulous about coming in anytime.

Uh and they said, look, we don't necessarily need this, we'll come in anytime the council wants us to come in.

But in light of your comments, um we we thought it was important to include this uh annual and semi-annual reporting.

So they'll come in twice and just report to you how things are going.

So those are really the only changes.

Everything else stays the same, um, just that change, which is an improvement in terms of services being provided on site, and then uh council member houseman this notion that hey, we don't want this to be a thing in the past in terms of reporting that uh they'll still come in twice a year and and and report.

Um I we did talk about the big picture, which is okay, um, look, what kind of burden that we're seeing with station 31 and um and I felt pretty good after talking to Shane.

He's not here today, but I can I can represent to you without any concern that um he felt like that with the resources that we're getting from the state um that it's still workable, even though it undoubtedly there's a lot of visits from Station 31, undoubtedly.

And the chief may be able to give you more detail on that.

But Shane felt like that everything was that it was still workable.

And the chief actually made me feel pretty comfortable with it too.

So that's really uh all I have to report.

Um it's a really simple amendment.

Um and uh remember this is a negotiated agreement, right?

This isn't one of those things where where we tell the shelter the homeless what how it's gonna be.

This is one where we enter into a conversation with them, and they've been really great, really willing to listen to our concerns and address those concerns.

So if you if I'm happy to answer any questions, I know Shelter of the Homeless has two representatives online, they may want to address this.

And if I've uh made any misstatements, I'm sure they'll correct them.

But do you have any questions for me about about this document in front of you?

Miss Halsman, go ahead.

Thank you, madam chair.

Um like I won't reiterate all the things that you said.

Uh I think you said it very well.

So grateful for the collaboration for for the the ability to to return, revisit, monitor and adjust.

That's an education uh go to monitor and adjust.

And that other well, I think we've definitely done that, and I think this is actually improved.

I think it's an improvement.

So we've monitored adjusted, and I think we can add an improve on this too.

Yeah, I like that.

And and I appreciate you calling out the because that was one of the questions I had was was actually kind of that section nine.

I think you said it was section nine, but um so uh love that we're continuing with the the reporting.

The one piece I did not see, and I may have overlooked it, is I part of my recommendation last time was um the that the measurement approach be shifted from counting number of services to actually measuring the impact of those services, so not just you know, number of people met with in terms of behavioral, for example, yeah, behavioral services, but actually shifts in behavior as a result.

So, like what was the impact achieved?

But maybe I maybe I overlook that or or where is that represented and I might have missed it.

So it's it's it's not necessarily um, like I mentioned, it's a negotiated agreement, and the the data that we'll use, if we we certainly could include that data in terms of the discussion, but in terms of the specific data and how we're using it for the discussion, that's not necessarily reflected here.

If you if that is an essential piece to you, um council member, you can tell me that it is and we can go back and talk about that.

We um we basically uh if it and in fact, if you another way to do this, if if you wanted to set a framework that we asked the administration to go back when they're talking to shelter the homeless in terms of these measurements and these this matrix, we're happy to do that.

I don't the way that we've adjusted it now, is that we'll just continue to refine and look at the fiscal impacts, that we'll look at the that will collaborate.

It's just it's a lot of general language, it doesn't include that level of particularity.

If that is really something you want to to talk more about, I'm I'm sure that we could continue to have that discussion.

I I would appreciate it.

I mean, I um I really would love, and I've been talking about this ever since I was elected to the council, that not just not just shelter the homeless, but in within our own conversations.

I've been asking, even in our budgets, that that the data points we present as we are listening to each department that it's outcome data, not just here's what we delivered, the number of whatever touch points we deliver, but actually what were the outcomes?

What what did people experience as a result of?

So this is sort of just something that is always really important to me is outcome-based um pre representation of the data.

So maybe that's something that shelter the homeless could um answer for you today, and maybe it's maybe we maybe you could have that discussion with them in real time and see if it's something that when they're making their presentations, we could you could get that presentation.

That yeah, and that maybe that's the maybe that's the right approach is is just it doesn't need to live within the MOU as long as we have this shared understanding of that's when there is reporting to us.

I'm really eager and hungry for outcomes-based data.

I I think that I I can tell you this that Lori's got our hand up.

The conversations that we've had about this, and I've talked to Shane about when they get together, the discussions they're having is this very thing.

Okay.

Um but if we if I'm sure that Shelter the Homeless would be very comfortable in making that presentation in terms of what you'd like to see.

One of the things that I think I don't want to put words in their mouth, but I know they'd like to keep a document like this as lean as possible.

Um so maybe they maybe when it's their turn to chat, you could ask that question.

Okay.

Okay.

All right.

That's really the only question I had.

Um, because it does it.

I appreciate you kind of just going through and saying based on our original intent.

This feels like we monitored, we adjusted, and we approved.

So I appreciate that.

That's all I had, Madam Chair.

Thank you.

Any more questions for Tracy from the Council?

I'm not seeing any.

Lori, we'd be happy to have you speak with us.

Um to answer yeah, either to answer Ms.

Houseman's questions or to give your um your view on what we're voting on this evening.

Absolutely.

I really appreciate uh the council addressing this issue with us tonight.

Thank you so much for your attention to this matter, and I really appreciate Tracy as well for his presentation.

I just wanted to reiterate that really this uh particular request that we're making is um uh reflecting uh that fourth street has added even more medical staff than was originally promised.

And it's it's really um something that we want to continue to look at and are agreeing to do so in the MOU.

And as it relates to Councilmember Housman's uh request for the data, when we do the semi-annual reports, uh we are happy to include the impact data that you're requesting.

In fact, each time uh as we prepare for those presentations and come before you, we do ask uh Justin Fratto uh and the team uh if there's anything in particular that we should be addressing, and so we can take this on and simply make sure that it's something that's in our uh every six months reporting for you.

So I appreciate the uh you know the the idea.

I think that that's really where uh we can land with that particular one.

And I I welcome my uh colleague from Fourth Street Clinic, uh Janice, uh, to also make comments at this time if that's okay with you, Madam Chair.

Please welcome Janice.

Nice to have you here tonight too.

Thank you.

Um I just want to echo what Lori said.

We're really grateful to you for addressing this with us.

Um and reiterate that this you know, we are proposing an enhanced service of the MVP.

Um we do feel that having a provider of uh regular provider at the on-site clinic uh up to twice a week is an enhancement in the service.

And just to speak to the outcome measures, we did hear that loud and clear last meeting, and so have been working uh as a team with our electronic health record system to look at what we can provide for you at our next check-in in July.

And we did also meet uh with Deputy Chief Bullock this morning and a few weeks ago, and are looking in great detail at EMS data.

So we will have um hopefully a joint presentation for you at the next meeting.

Great, thank you.

Council members, any questions for our friends from Fourth Street Clinic and Shelter the Homeless.

Please go ahead, Miss Housman.

Um it's so I hard.

Like I know I'm looking down at the screen, but we can't really make eye contact, but I'm trying to make eye contact.

Um thank you for that.

Thank you for for responding and and um as always just for the collaborative approach.

We really appreciate it.

Yeah, I think we all want to extend our appreciation.

Thanks for staying through a very very long meeting tonight.

We really appreciate that.

And uh it's a voting item, so we'll be needing to take public comment on it.

So hold on just a second.

Um let's go ahead and open up public comment on this item.

I do have a card from uh speaker in the room, and that would be Patricia Jones.

Go ahead and come on down.

I don't usually do this, but it's easier for you to have a question.

You can hand them over to me.

Thank you.

It's okay.

And I want to apologize to I didn't know that um wasn't expecting the two ladies uh on the zoom.

So I don't have this copy for you, but I thought it's easier if I have it typed out because um the section nine that I'm referring to.

If you have it in front of you, you can uh it's easier.

So I want to first say that we in Sandy should be so happy that the transitional housing facility in Sandy is operating successfully for the medically vulnerable people with no great fiscal impact on Sandy's public safety, emergency medical services, and other municipal resources.

This is a win-win for the medically vulnerable people in need and our Sandy community, and I really appreciate the way that Laurie has responded to Marcy Houseman's uh request.

You know, when I heard you make that suggestion, I thought that is that is a good thing to have.

We want to have impact outcome, yeah, data.

Because when we have that, we can even put in more support for the facility, isn't it?

Okay, regarding the uh MOU amendment, I would like to propose to two parties to apply a safeguard to future communication reports between the two parties.

For this, I'm suggesting just to add two simple words, which are increase or into the second sentence of the first paragraph under section nine, communication with Sandy City.

This would change the wording of that sentence to that end each calendar year, STH shall provide at least two in-person report at the city council meeting, one mid-year report, and one end of year report unless and until the city council and st agree to these other two words increase or decrease the frequency or cease the reporting requirement.

The two-word addition does not change the spirit of section nine communication with Sandy City, but enhances it.

I just thought that that would be a good thing to add those two words, and I hope very much that both parties will see the logic into that and agree with it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, that's the only blue card I have in the room, unless someone else would like to speak to this item.

All right, we'll move on to our online audience.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

If you're joining us virtually this evening and you'd like to comment on item number seven, 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.

No raise hands, madam chair.

All right, thanks.

We'll close public comment on this particular item and bring it back to the council for action.

I do want to point out that this actually this is an increase.

We went from quarterly to then annual to now we're bumping it back up to semi-annual, right?

So, in keeping with what you're asking for, Pat.

I mean, we definitely are considering that and acting in that way.

All right, does someone have a motion?

Um, I would make a motion.

I lost it to approve resolution 26-54 Cond.

We have a motion and a second.

Any discussion, council?

Seeing none, we'll take a roll call vote.

Ms.

Edwards, please.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Ms.

Christensen, yes.

Ms.

DeSusa, yes.

Mr.

DeKaiser.

Yes.

Ms.

Stroud.

Yes.

Ms.

Houseman.

Yes.

Ms.

Sharkey.

Yes.

Madam Chair, that motion carried six to zero.

Thank you once again for staying with us.

We appreciate you.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair and Council members.

Good evening.

Good evening.

Thank you.

Good night.

So in terms of agenda item number eight, which we're not hearing tonight.

Okay.

I'd like to make a motion to table that item to our next meeting.

Second.

So our next meeting is the 28th, correct?

Madam Chair, so we have a training scheduled next meeting.

It would be a pretty awkward meeting to have a to hear this agenda item.

We can do it if you'd like to.

Um to your guys' call.

It's a budget workshop training in the multi-purpose room.

And we've done we've done simultaneous like workshop plus a little bit of business before.

I mean, we haven't necessarily it's not been the greatest, but I feel I feel bad that we did not get to hers tonight.

And if we do it, I would suggest that we try to maybe move locations.

I don't know the setup is going to be an around the table setup.

It'll just involve some thinking.

It's up to you.

Um I yeah, it's up to you.

The budget workshop is going to be three hours.

Is that what we've allocated for time?

So it's a training, it's not necessarily a workshop, but uh the uh they're they're expecting two to three hours.

And we do have a uh closed session after, so we were planning on ending going down into the uh uh conference room for a closed session.

So training meaning, but not in here.

Training is we're relocating for the training.

The plan was to do it upstairs if the council would prefer to do it down here.

We can I can have that conversation with Carrie Nakamura who's doing the presentation.

Um the assumption has been that we were gonna do it up in the multi-purpose room though.

Okay, but we are coming back down here for the closed session into our in our meeting room.

So we could do it after the training.

No.

Oh, we could do the so we couldn't do it after the closed session because we have to have a continual recording.

No, but after the training before the closed session down here.

I know it's awkward.

We could I would I would really prefer not to, but it's it's up to you guys.

We'll make it work.

Um I would say we just do it in the same room wherever we're at, though.

I don't know that we need to necessarily change rooms.

It'll just be you'll all be sitting around, you know, some tables that are set up in a certain fashion.

It's not gonna be up around a dais or around a specific table.

Um I just don't know that that setup is gonna work for for a training.

I wonder if Chris even realizes when I she asked you to make this motion, right?

If she even realizes what she was asking for, because she's the one that scheduled the Kerry Nakamura budget training.

Her her request just she said regardless of what the next meeting is.

Uh I'd like to I'd like to discuss it in our next meeting.

We can do it, madam chair.

I'm just letting you know that it will be upstairs, and the if it's a long conversation, that could be interesting.

We we won't necessarily have access to microphones, etc.

We didn't for our workshops in the past, so as long as you all stand underneath the ceiling microphone, I think we'll be okay.

When's the next the next meeting's May May 5th?

I think so.

Could we just do we okay?

We have a motion and a second to table till next week.

So we will need to take action on that motion, unless the motion's withdrawn.

Um I just don't think Chris knew what she was asking for.

I mean, if we if we move forward, just vote on it.

Um we can then talk with then talk with Chris.

Yes, and and she might on her own say, oh, I mean, like it just she's just not here, so she can't hear you.

Can I make a suggestion?

Yeah.

Number one, I if you guys want to do it next week, I have no concerns.

We can even move down here.

You know, we can pull it up in here, we can come down here for one item.

Whatever you'd like to do is fine.

I I don't know that we need to make a motion to necessarily table the item.

We could just skip it with the understanding that um you know the chair will have a conversation with Chris, and if Chris wants it next week, we'll put it on.

And if she says, Oh, never mind, I forgot about the training, and we'll do it the next week.

That's why I was talking about a withdrawal of the motion to do that.

Okay.

Um, but the motion's been made and seconded, so you have the right to ask for a vote on your motion.

Well, I mean, I know we don't, it doesn't require it, but I I'd like to just vote on it just okay so that we have an official, but I really do trust that.

Well, first we'll vote, but yeah, I also trust that there will be a conversation.

I just I'd like to I'd like to just follow through.

Okay, we'll do and then we'll make a decision if she wants to keep it, we'll make a decision and if we're moving everything there, doing half and half, or moving everything down here.

So we'll make that decision.

Okay.

All right, a motion and a second.

We'll take a roll call vote.

This is to table item number eight on tonight's agenda until next Tuesday.

Madam Chair, just to clarify, did Miss Housman make the motion of Miss Christensen second?

Correct.

Okay, thank you.

Miss Houseman, yes, Miss Christianson.

Yes, Ms.

D'Souza.

Yes, Mr.

Tekaiser.

No.

Ms.

Stroud.

I have a I I should have done something at you know, in discussion on it.

So a yes is to table it till next week.

A no is to discuss it right now, or it's just gonna fail, and then we're just not discussing it.

Um how do you see that?

I would say that at this point it has four votes to be tabled, and so the question is moot the question is moot since it has four votes in favor so far in the vote campaign.

Unless I'm miscounting no Alison said yes.

So if you vote yes, no next week, no matter who that was.

Okay, no, no, I don't I don't think we should do it next week.

That's what I'm I'm getting at.

No.

Yeah, so my apologies.

I I thought uh Councilmember DeSusa had already voted.

I would say that if she did she did, she okay.

Then I'm it's three to two.

Aaron was no.

It was three to one.

Three to one.

Alison just said no.

Allison, what is your vote?

Can you clarify what your vote is?

I well, I um I don't want to do it next week, but I'm trying to to question if okay.

If I so if we don't table it, I mean Chris isn't here, so you if you don't want to do it next week.

So yeah, Madam Chair, if you don't table, then you have the option to discuss it tonight if you'd like to.

You don't have to.

You could just not discuss and continue on, and it can be put on a future agenda.

Tabling tabling this item is not a requirement.

That's again we had a motion and a second, so voting on a motion that is seconded is a requirement.

So if what you're saying to the motion makers is that we don't need to do that, I think we've already discussed that and they decided to.

They decided to.

Yes, I'm trying to out.

I'm trying to answer council member Stroud's question.

My answer to her question is you can discuss it tonight if you choose to.

You can choose not to discuss it, but a motion to table is not required to do that.

I understand the motion's been made and it's being voted on.

That's the best that I can answer.

So I can answer the question.

No.

Okay.

No.

Yeah.

Okay.

Ums Sharkey.

Yes.

So then that motion carries four to two, correct.

Okay.

I I don't want to do this talk to Chris.

Yeah.

That's all I need to do.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Okay.

All right.

We're on to item number nine.

Can you imagine if we had heard eight?

Uh this is um can oh, yeah.

We need to um I'm gonna make a motion that we recess the city council meeting and convene a meeting of the Sandy City RDA.

Second.

All in favor, aye.

Any opposed?

All right.

Good evening, madam chair.

Um I guess we'll find out if this one will be quick or not.

Uh just one item on the agenda tonight, and this is resolution RD 26-04.

This is a resolution um approving the occupancy in the city-owned building, which is the Arbor building located at 126 South Seagalilly Drive.

And this was uh presented and discussed in last week's um RDA board meeting by Mr.

Dan Nelson.

So Dan is here if there's any further discussion or or any questions that you may have.

Council, do we have any questions for Casey or for Dan?

It looks like we do.

Okay, Miss Christensen.

I don't know like what I missed here.

I thought when we talked last week we were coming back with an updated version before we voted on this.

Did I miss that?

Did I make that up?

You made that up.

Okay, great.

Never mind then.

So what did you think we were going to modify?

I thought everyone or number of people wanted uh how this affected the city employees overall before we voted on this.

Maybe I just imagine that I'm fine voting on it.

But I like how it was freeing up space for police.

So we can address that because um I brought I did bring that up.

That was my issue, and I've had discussions with administration.

So Dan, why don't you come on up and we will talk about that and we will find out.

My understanding is that we'll be imminently addressed.

Maybe you're not the right one to answer that question.

Let's drag this out longer.

I'll answer what I can.

So what I was told by both Martin and Shane was that yes, um, police will be addressed imminently, not in this particular proposal, but in the uh in another one where public utilities moves out out of their space, and it but instead of moving to the Arbor building, they will move to their operations building, and that will free up the space that I was looking for for police to expand and have breathing room and grow in City Hall.

And the time I asked about the time frame for that, and it was projected to be approximately six months.

Okay.

I actually did not find it.

Okay, go ahead.

I'm not sure why that reminded me, but it did, but it's nothing to do with the police.

It just reminded me I did have a question.

And I think you have shared this before, so apologies if this is redundant.

Um the the use case, since we used RDA funds for this.

Is there a limit to the use case?

Uh because you know what what is being recommended, everything seems to fall in beautifully as RDA adjacent, except parks and rec.

And and is that okay?

Like that would because I thought it had to be project area related or economic development related, but maybe I'm just casey to that one.

Yeah, I can I can address that.

Um board member Housman.

No, the the as long as the the use is um we looked at it at from an economic development perspective on purchasing the building and keeping businesses within the building.

So that's really okay, the crux of it.

And it wasn't the majority of the payment, and that's why the requirement of having some of the lease revenue come back to the RDA proportionately, and then locating the RDA in the building as well.

So I think we've met all those conditions, yeah.

That really was the only um thing I was like noodling on.

I'm like, I know I know this has been answered, but I can't remember how, so I just wanted to ask.

Um, but I'm good.

That's all I needed.

Thank you.

So that clarification.

Okay, and just to actually enhance that answer a little bit more.

You are still trying to figure out whether suite 270 can be marketed, should be marketed.

Basically, you that is up in the air still.

If we did need to move a department out of city hall, and it wasn't public utilities.

270 is still not that's that is available, correct?

It's available.

It's on the market, so yeah.

But the current plan is to move public utilities out.

Um gotcha?

Is that good?

Good.

So motion to approve so far.

I excuse me so far.

Council member D'Souza has her hand up.

Oh thank you.

Thank you, Jeff.

Councilmember D'SUSA, please.

I did have questions about the um I so I I was not at the last meeting.

I apologize, and um I have a question about the RDA to be determined by the end of summer, and I you know, I see all of this, but I I guess I'm hearing Dan, you're saying that 270 is currently on the market for lease.

Yeah, I mean, you know, when we bought this building, we knew what we were buying was flexibility, and a lot of that's going to be, you know, making changes as we go along.

As we started placing these departments in there, uh, the RDA uh, well, suite 265, uh, they would like out of their lease, they're in there for another 18 months.

Um, I think that would make a great suite for the RDA, but uh, you know, right now we'd like the income from the rent.

Um 270 is big.

So the thought was if we could find a tenant for 270, then we would um you know, then we we would let the suite 265 tenant buy out its lease and then maybe put the RDA in there.

We have a little bit of time this way.

Um I think this the plan for the current RDA space is for the city council to expand into there while this while their space is being renovated, which I'm told isn't gonna happen until end of summer.

So we were deferring that decision as to where the RDA would go into the Arbor building um, you know, for a few more months.

Okay, um and I I do get that.

I guess 270, you know, I remember that suite.

It is larger.

Is that the one with the balcony?

It is, uh-huh.

Okay, and yes, it's too big for um economic development RDA.

Sorry, Casey.

It is though.

I agree.

Um so it's part of I just want to make sure that we don't end up with three employees in suite 270.

Um, because that doesn't make sense.

So we're approving this with the it sounds like we approve this, and the administration can make any of those decisions work because we've said yeah.

I think that's the way the resolution reads.

I mean, I would defer to Tracy, but uh yeah, I think that's correct.

Yeah, that is correct.

That's basically it's the way the resolution is uh drafted.

It's pretty general and open that way.

If it were part of 270, why why just part?

You know, I I get that you could change up the floor plan or whatnot, but why would we do that?

Uh you mean part?

Why would we put yeah?

Why would we put the RDA in part of 270?

Yeah.

Well, I mean, they you know, they only occupy what three people, so then that I think that space would fit, I don't know, depending how you do it, 12 to 17 people.

So yeah, I think that would that would be an oversized suite for that for that staff.

Okay, well, it says, or you know, sweet, I guess I'm confused by what you just said.

I'm sorry.

So suite 195B, 265, or part of 270.

So why is part of two why is 270 even on the table in in part?

Because you're right, like that suite's too big, and so why is that even here?

Um, well, you could split it up, I think, you know, and and that happens all the time with office buildings like this.

You get a tenant in and they want to reconfigure the space.

Um, you know, if you walk down that hallway in such a wide hallway, you know it wasn't designed that way.

I think there may be some ways you could split that up to where you know the RBA RDA would take a fourth of 270, and then you would put that out for lease for another tenant.

Um, you know, or we would come back to the RDA board and say, hey, we want another department in there and we need a new resolution.

So um, yeah, all those decisions I think are you know down the road, but these are the considerations we're looking at.

Okay, well, okay, so I'm gonna say that I think um just for the sake of of holding to the spirit of the agreement that we can approve what we know, but I think that the RDA should come back for approval when you know what you're doing with them.

Can I make are you?

Well, I guess that's I go ahead.

I mean, obviously it's is the council's call or the RDA board in this case their call, but um yeah, this is a decision that we were deferring um until end of summer because we aren't gonna need the RDA space until then.

And you know, the thought is that hopefully we'll have some feedback from the market on what our tenant mix is gonna be by that point.

And I think why can't we just peel the RDA off of this vote until you know what you're doing with the RDA and then come back for this one piece?

Uh that's certainly an option, yeah.

Yeah, we can do that.

We can just take the if that's what we you know the board chooses to do, then yeah, we can take the RDA out of that and then just approve the ones you feel comfortable with or the board feel comfortable feels comfortable with tonight.

I mean, if you recall board member D'Souza, I believe in the amendment it gives you till the end of this year that if there's any other changes going forward till the end of the year, uh just like uh Dan said, we'd come back with a resolution again.

Yeah, I think it's important that the RDA go into the building because they provided some of the funding for it.

But yeah, I don't I don't think it would slow us down at all at this point to peel off the RDA uh from this proposal.

Okay, well that's those are my thoughts and my comments, and I don't know why we would you know why we why why we wouldn't or so whatnot along those lines let me uh why don't why aren't we putting RDA in suite 195B?

Uh it's an option.

Um I so 195B is a thousand forty-two square feet.

Yeah, we're not what are our odds of being able to rent it rent it to somebody else for it lower, right?

So I'm not under I actually have been picturing that RDA would go into 195B.

So we would leave all of 270 to be rented.

That's 4,000, that is something like that, right?

4,000 square feet.

4800 square feet.

So can't but there's resistance to that game plan.

Why is there?

Why is that?

Oh no, I I I think that's a viable alternative.

Um, you know, I'm here to just speak on the you know proposal, which is getting approval for these three departments.

Um but yeah, as to the merits of that, I know that's something that there's you know administration is having discussions on.

Why doesn't Casey like it is my question?

Does it show poorly?

I am I I'm that's not a decision for me.

I'm uh, you know, I uh at whatever administration recommends.

Um I think you know, of what I know that of that suite, and Dan could, you know, state this better than I or knows more than I about that, but I believe there's a few, only a couple of offices currently.

So it would require, you know, some immediate tenant approvements for us to move in.

I think would be the only hesitancy, but that's not a hesitancy on my part.

We're okay.

I mean, I've always joked about give me a desk and a computer and we'll go to work and make things happen.

Um it would just require some more upfront tenant improvements to that space, I believe.

I don't Dan could probably answer that better than I can.

Yeah, I mean, I think you know, suite 265 is a much nicer suite.

Um, you know, 195B is is not as nice a space.

So I think part of the consideration or the question I would ask, and I don't have an answer, but it the question would be do you want your RDA in 195B, which isn't as nice, or upstairs in 265, which probably gives a better uh presentation.

Uh so 265 is the tenant that would like to leave and is looking for a sublet right now.

Correct.

So is that part of what you're waiting for?

Is to see what happens with that.

Well, I think we're waiting to see if we can find a tenant for 270.

And then at that point, you know, we would consider allow you know, if we wanted suite 265, then um we could talk about a buyout of their lease.

What is the future of 195B?

Emptiness.

Uh I don't I don't know yet.

Yeah.

And Madam Chair, let me be clear.

We're I'm absolutely okay.

I mean, if if that's what the the recommendation is for the RDA to go in there, that's a viable space for the RDA to use.

And it might just make make sense to do that.

Well, I would have to say that I would be of the same mind as council member D'Souza, which is if if what we're waiting for on RDA is to see how things play out with 270 and 265, then let's bring it back with the RDA portion.

Let's bring that back at a later time and just deal with what we know we're dealing with.

That would be my point of view.

Ums Christensen.

Um I'm fine with this.

So I'm gonna make motion, might fail.

Who knows?

Um that we adopt resolution RD 240 2604.

Second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second.

Go ahead.

Uh um actually, okay, is there discussion on this?

Because I'd like to discuss okay.

So I'm I'm pretty sure that my um no vote on this will be clear from from previous, but I just want to restate like um I think that when we're making these decisions and with the spirit of the agreement that was reached, that it only makes sense to bring this back when you have a definitive ask.

Um, and so that because we're we're trying to make decisions about the viability of this building and can and taking to consideration the viability of the proposition that that put us in the position to agree to the purchase of this.

And so um I I don't see any reason why we shouldn't um why we can't do community arts and parks and rec, but why we need to jump the gun on RDA when there's three options that are all very different, have very different financial propositions for the city, um, you know, to just be left to whatever without understanding you know what what the final request is gonna be um and the potential impact on that.

So um until we know what what suite you are recommending for RDA.

Um, I won't be able to vote on the motion.

Well, I'll be able to vote, but I won't be able to support the motion that was made.

Are you ready for a vote, madam chair?

Everybody ready for a vote.

Any more discussion Casey, just a note, board member Stroud is online, you just can't see her.

Thank you for the reminder.

Board member Christensen.

Yes, board member De Kaiser?

Yes, Madam Chair?

No.

Board member Houseman?

Yes.

Board Member De Souza.

No.

And board member Stroud.

Yes.

I believe that passed four to three.

Four to two, excuse me.

I'm used to saying four to three, but four to two.

Thank you.

And that's all we have.

All right, thank you.

Motion to adjourn.

Uh RDE board, yes.

And go back to City Council.

Did you just do it?

Yes.

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

All right.

Um gosh.

Um Jeddack, come on down.

All right, I'm here to give a construction update.

Um, Ben's not here, but I do want to say thank you to him for covering for the past several weeks.

Um, I unfortunately got in a car accident and ended up with a terrible concussion.

So I'm happy actually, still at 920 to be back well enough to be here to give an update.

Well, you can talk for as long as you want.

No, I'm good.

Uh sleep is number one right now in healing, so anyway.

Um, construction is going really well.

Um, and if there's any positive of being out for a little while dealing with this concussion, it was that I got to take several weeks off of seeing the construction updates.

So when I came back, it was like the whole building went up.

Um, and it was it was really exciting, really fun to see.

Um, this last week at our construction update meeting, we were able to actually get up on the second floor um where the walking track is gonna be.

So they have poured the concrete for half of that.

Um, and it was incredible to see it's been really fun in the last little bit to see these spaces actually come to life and be able to envision them and see the views of the mountains that you're actually gonna be able to see from inside the center.

Um it's been it's been really fun um in the last couple of weeks.

So if it's been a while since you've been up there, you want another tour, let us know.

Um, but the nitty-gritty details, um, still working on utilities, they did some excavation in the West parking lot to connect to the sewer line out on the street.

Um they finished the CMU in the locker room area, so again, it's fun to see that space actually come to life and see what those changing rooms will really look like.

Um yeah, they're still finishing up steel and they're moving right along, right on schedule.

So any questions.

I have a question.

Go ahead.

Uh it's not related to the rec center.

Um, what can we do?

I had no idea that you were recovering from a car accident concussion.

What do you need?

Nothing.

I'm good.

You want to talk to me six weeks ago?

I wouldn't have said that, but I'm good now.

Okay.

Well, thank you.

I'm sorry, I could have done something.

I'm good.

Thank you for thank you for hearing.

I'm glad you're okay.

Thanks.

Thank you, Jenna.

Thanks for coming tonight.

All right.

Um Dustin, what you got for the director's report?

Madam Chair.

Yes.

Sorry to interrupt.

Um, I am gonna hop off early.

It's my birthday, and I'm leaving for the conference tomorrow, so I'm gonna spend a little bit of time with my family before they go to bed.

So are you sure that's the way you want to spend the rest of your night?

Okay.

Happy birthday, Brooke.

Thank you.

All right, Dustin.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Uh, a couple of notes uh related to the agenda planning calendar, just a reminder we do have uh budget training next week on uh budgeting in the in our form of government.

Um Carrie Nakamura, who's actually presented to us before, I think uh at least at least Brooke was there at the time.

I can't recall if the rest of you were uh there when we had the video.

She's great.

She presents at ULCT a lot.

Those of you who are going down to ULCT, I know she's presenting down there.

You might catch her and say hi, uh, just as an introduction to next week.

Um, other than that, we have a closed session after that uh item next week, and then a just a note that on the 5th, that's the first Tuesday in May, which is when we will receive the tentative budget presentation.

We are already there.

Um, a couple of other notes.

Apologies, give me just a second.

Uh okay, just a reminder that uh next week, or I'm sorry, not next week, it's getting late, guys.

This Saturday is beautification day.

Chris sent out the project list.

Uh youth council will be at the cemetery at 10 a.m.

Um the other note is that we have received a good chunk of the report, a final report from uh Matrix for the management study.

Uh it's a draft, it's for initial review from department leadership.

Justin is looking at it as well, so I mentioned that just to let you know that we are moving along really quickly on that.

There's still a lot to come, but uh they're making progress.

Uh and I'm gonna leave it there, Madam Chair.

Thank you.

Councilmember business, Miss Housman.

Go ahead.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um, a couple things really quickly.

First, I'm sad to be missing um Saturday's beautification.

I am a state delegate doing my civic duty at um convention on Saturday, so that's where I will be all day.

The other update I had um our Sandy Arts Guild was yet again honored with some best of state awards.

Um for 2026, we were the winner in community arts.

The arts guild was.

Um, the amphitheater won two awards public sector entertainment venue and public sector event performance venue.

This makes 13 best of state awards in total for our um Sandy, our Arts Guild's uh all all-encompassing department, which is 11 awards since uh 2022.

So significant recognition for our arts guild, and I'm just grateful for all they do.

So when you get a chance, pass it on tomorrow, and and everybody.

But congrats, best of state.

Yeah, um water week.

PUAB met this last week, and water week is May 3rd through the 9th.

They're doing some really cool things.

You'll get some updates on that um through social media and different things you can share, and then I'll save all of my cool water facts until that week to tell you about.

All right, I'm looking forward to tomorrow night, uh, the messy game at the stadium.

We all are, I think.

I'm really excited for the Larry H.

Miller Corporation, who are the new owner owners of the team, and we get to have such an exciting game.

I'm looking forward, the council has invited some very important guests to the suite that night.

I I think we'll have a really good evening.

Um, and thanks to Miss Christensen too.

We also had a game in the suite last weekend, and we invited realtors and home builders kind of in keeping with our theme of housing.

And so we had a really eventful night there too.

I will be heading to uh St.

George for the ULCT conference as well.

And I'll be reporting on that when I get back next week.

Mr.

De Keyser, do you have anything for us?

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I had an onboarding meeting for Jordan River Commission, which was super informative.

I don't want to spoil any of Councilmember Christianson's water, cool water facts.

But so I'll just say that Sego Lilly Guardians is a new youth program that we've set up, and they're uh accepting applications now.

So uh if you're interested in that, people in the community should apply.

And uh also only 12% of our residents have signed up for the Water Smart app.

So sign up and know what's going on with your water.

Thank you.

I don't think we have any reports from do we have any reports over here?

No, we don't have any.

Okay.

Is that it?

Oh my gosh.

Motion to adjourn.

Second.

All in favor.

Thank you, everyone.

I appreciate you all staying till 9 30.

Thank you.