[0:00] Welcome to the Pro Mesville Council
[0:01] regular meeting March 24th, 2026 at 5:30
[0:05] p.m.
[0:06] We will do a roll of the elected
[0:09] officials starting with councelor Rachel
[0:11] Whipple, Rachel Whipple,
[0:13] >> Jeff Whitlock,
[0:14] >> Becky Bogden,
[0:14] >> Craig Christensen,
[0:15] >> Krice McKay,
[0:16] >> Gary Garrett,
[0:18] >> and we do have Kyle sitting in for the
[0:19] bear who's unable to be here tonight.
[0:22] Um, we'll have an opening prayer by Doug
[0:25] Robbins.
[0:27] Former
[0:29] Parks and Rec director. We're very
[0:31] excited to see him. He looks so young in
[0:33] his retirement.
[0:34] >> Yes. Welcome home.
[0:37] Our father in heaven, we're thankful for
[0:39] this evening and to be here together at
[0:42] this council meeting. Father, we're
[0:43] grateful for this community and the good
[0:46] people that reside here. We're thankful
[0:48] for the legacy of citizenship
[0:51] and camaraderie that we share here in
[0:53] this community. We ask thee, Father, for
[0:56] thy spirit to be with us here tonight
[0:59] with this community council
[1:02] and the residents of Provo that are here
[1:04] that we might be able to discuss the
[1:07] issues that come before this body.
[1:10] and we pray for thy spirit to be with
[1:13] our elected officials that they'll make
[1:15] wise decisions for the welfare of the
[1:17] community.
[1:19] Father, we're grateful for all these
[1:20] many blessings that we receive on from
[1:23] thee each day and we express our
[1:25] gratitude in the name of Jesus Christ.
[1:27] Amen.
[1:28] >> Amen.
[1:28] >> Thank you, Doug. We'll all stand for the
[1:30] pledge of allegiance, please.
[1:35] I aliance to the flag of the United
[1:38] States of America and to the republic
[1:41] for which it stands. One nation under
[1:44] God, indivisible with liberty and
[1:47] justice for all.
[1:53] right.
[1:56] Oh, we'd like to recognize that Travis
[1:58] Hoben is on Zoom with us. So, we have
[2:00] all seven of us. Um, first of all, we're
[2:03] going to have a ceremony recognizing the
[2:04] proceeding employee of the month. And
[2:05] this will be presented by Tad Smallcom,
[2:09] our interimm director of energy.
[2:21] » Hello.
[2:23] I'd like to introduce to you our
[2:25] employee of the month, Alonso Cardinas.
[2:28] He um he came to Provo Power in 2012
[2:32] with 17 years of experience as a master
[2:35] electrician, seven years electrical
[2:37] engineering consulting experience and
[2:40] with a degree in electrical engineering
[2:41] from Brigham Young University. And then
[2:44] he got busy.
[2:46] He has developed, implemented, managed
[2:50] new and managed new and exciting
[2:52] projects to enable and enhance system
[2:54] automation
[2:56] to boldly and effectively move power
[2:59] forward in our goal to be the most
[3:01] reliable utility in the nation.
[3:04] These include underground and overhead
[3:07] switch automation, which allows us not
[3:10] only to monitor and receive information
[3:13] and data from switches across Provo, but
[3:15] will also provide protection and
[3:18] automatic fault isolation and source
[3:20] restoration when problems arise. This
[3:23] will help reduce the scope and duration
[3:25] of outages. And since automated pushes
[3:27] can't be everywhere, um he's also
[3:30] currently vetting remotely monitored
[3:32] false circuit indicators anywhere else.
[3:46] He's new.
[3:58] fiber connections that uh that run to
[4:00] these pieces of equipment. While he was
[4:02] at it, he uh earned a master's degree in
[4:05] public administration at BYU. In
[4:08] addition, he to developing relay
[4:09] upgrades, in-house steel pole design,
[4:12] skate upgrades, etc., etc.
[4:16] As you see, uh, Alfonso works hard and
[4:19] he's willing to tackle any challenge. He
[4:23] is always happy to work through problems
[4:25] and issues with customers and crews, not
[4:29] to mention jumping in when we need help
[4:31] with electrical needs around the office.
[4:34] Alons Alfonso is an exemplary employee
[4:37] and has implemented numerous changes,
[4:40] improvements and practices that have
[4:42] vastly improved our electrical systems
[4:45] and we are happy to recognize him today
[4:49] as the employee of the month. Thank you
[4:51] Alphonsto. Congratulations.
[5:02] That's what they're giving these days.
[5:07] » And the photo and white.
[5:12] Yeah.
[5:37] Okay, we get close up.
[6:03] That's what I'm talking about.
[6:25] All right. Next, we have a ceremony
[6:28] recognizing Provo City's epic sports
[6:30] park as Utah's sports complex of the
[6:33] year. And we are so excited about this.
[6:35] We built the sports complex as a revenue
[6:37] generator for Provo and when it is
[6:39] finalized it'll be the largest sports
[6:42] complex in the state and that's going to
[6:44] bring a lot of tournaments and revenue
[6:46] to the city and we are so excited about
[6:47] that that that this be presented by Dan
[6:50] Farn sports field management association
[6:52] president from the inter mountain
[6:53] chapter and director of fields and
[6:55] grounds for real Salt Lake.
[7:07] Hello everyone.
[7:10] I just uh erased my talking points.
[7:13] Sorry.
[7:15] Um
[7:17] I appreciate uh the time this evening.
[7:20] Um mayor council people and um yeah, my
[7:24] name is Dan Farms. I'm the senior
[7:27] director of fields and grounds for Real
[7:28] Salt Lake. I'm also the uh president for
[7:32] the inner mountain chapter of the sports
[7:34] field management association.
[7:36] Um over the past few years we've given
[7:39] out these uh field of the years or
[7:41] complexes of the years um awards to
[7:44] people throughout the state and uh I'm
[7:49] excited to be able to um give this award
[7:52] to the Epic Sports Park. Um I have known
[7:55] Cole who runs the park over there for a
[7:58] few years.
[8:00] uh in unique settings where I am a
[8:04] colleague of his and then I also helped
[8:07] with the sod that they put down at the
[8:09] epic sports park as well. So just kind
[8:12] of a unique uh relationship that we have
[8:15] there. Um
[8:18] in my opinion the the sports park is one
[8:20] of the best in the state. Um the amount
[8:23] of fields that you all have were built
[8:25] correctly. They're sandbased fields. So
[8:28] that helps uh keep them level, have good
[8:31] drainage, good playability, so you can
[8:34] program them as much as you as you need
[8:36] to. Um I think what Cole and his staff
[8:39] have done over there has been um
[8:43] amazing. Um I know they've only been
[8:45] open for a couple years. Um but what
[8:47] they've been able to achieve has been um
[8:49] great and we're here to recognize them
[8:51] for that. So I have a plaque for Cole
[8:54] and for Ryland if if those guys want to
[8:56] come up. Um it just says sports complex
[8:59] of the year. Um it's the second year
[9:01] that we've done this. There were five
[9:03] different entries and we felt that uh
[9:05] Epic uh was the best out of all the out
[9:10] of all of them. It just says awarded to
[9:11] Epic Sports Park, Provo Parks and
[9:13] Recreation in recognition of excellence
[9:16] in providing beautiful high quality safe
[9:18] sports fields and playing services for
[9:20] 2026.
[9:22] So uh I'll give this to these guys.
[9:33] Just wanted to say thanks Dan and uh
[9:35] it's an honor to receive this award here
[9:37] in Provo. Um but many past councils,
[9:41] mayors,
[9:42] uh employees, tons have been involved,
[9:45] partnerships that have made this
[9:46] possible. And so for a picture, if it's
[9:49] okay, we'd like to invite anybody who's
[9:51] been a part of the Epic Sports Park to
[9:52] please stand and join us uh in that
[9:55] photo. So if I have to call your name
[9:57] out and embarrass you, you will get up
[9:59] here for the photo. So please come
[10:02] >> here.
[10:04] >> Okay, we'll do it up behind the council
[10:06] up there.
[10:07] >> You guys will be right here.
[10:08] >> Okay, perfect.
[10:12] >> Terra,
[10:15] come on up.
[10:17] Hey, move down, guys.
[10:18] >> Hawk,
[10:19] >> Landon, come on. Lwick. Yep. Here's some
[10:23] of our players, too, that have played at
[10:25] the Epic.
[10:27] Please come up.
[10:43] » Soccer players coming from
[10:51] right there.
[10:53] >> Like a me picture.
[11:25] All right. Next, we have a presentation
[11:27] of a million-doll contribution from the
[11:29] Metropolitan Water District of Provo to
[11:31] support the new drinking water treatment
[11:33] plant project. And this is a very rare
[11:35] thing that we have people give us money.
[11:37] So, we are very grateful and excited.
[11:39] We've done a lot of water projects in
[11:43] the past few years and they're
[11:44] incredibly expensive, but it's um been
[11:46] well worth it. So, we're going to hear
[11:47] from Dan Johnson, the manager of the
[11:49] Metropolitan Water District of Provo.
[11:53] >> I'm just going to quickly introduce Dan.
[11:55] Um I'm Ryan York. I'm the water division
[11:58] director for Provo. Uh I also have the
[12:01] honor of of being the provo appointed
[12:04] member to the uh metropolitan district
[12:07] board. Um and just a really quick
[12:11] background on the metropolitan water
[12:13] district. They were organized in 1938 u
[12:16] to take on the debt obligation of Deer
[12:18] Creek Reservoir.
[12:20] uh the city could not handle that debt
[12:22] obligation at that time and so the um
[12:25] organ the metropolitan water district
[12:27] was formed uh to take on that debt
[12:30] obligation.
[12:32] Uh since that time Provo City has
[12:34] purchased up to 8,000 acre feet of water
[12:36] annually from the district uh from the
[12:38] metropolitan water district of Provo uh
[12:41] who then made payment to Provo River
[12:42] water users uh for construction,
[12:44] repayment and maintenance of the dam. Uh
[12:48] over the more recent decades,
[12:49] Metropolitan Water District of Provo has
[12:51] purchased canal shares, participated
[12:53] financially in drill drilling wells, and
[12:56] most recently helped finance the
[12:58] development of Big Springs in South
[13:00] Fork. Uh today, uh Metropolitan Water
[13:04] District of Provo is back again to help
[13:07] Provo City with our water needs. Dan
[13:10] Johnson is here to uh make a
[13:12] presentation for our drinking water
[13:14] treatment plant.
[13:18] Thanks, Ryan. I'll just read the letter
[13:20] that makes this official and how we came
[13:23] to this point.
[13:25] During a recent quarterly meeting for
[13:27] the Metropolitan Water District of
[13:29] Provo, the board of directors discussed
[13:31] possible ways uh some of their funds
[13:34] could be used to help with Provo's
[13:36] future water needs. This has been an
[13:38] ongoing discussion for the board and
[13:40] Provo City for many years as Ryan said
[13:43] since 1934
[13:45] >> 38 and has led to some very timely
[13:48] funding helping at various times for
[13:51] some excellent water projects that the
[13:53] city has needed. This discussion
[13:56] centered around the new treatment plant
[13:57] being built and the possible need for
[13:59] some additional funding. The board felt
[14:02] like this was an opportunity to help and
[14:05] unanimously agreed to contribute $1
[14:07] million. This money will be transferred
[14:10] electronically for cost related to the
[14:12] new drinking water treatment plant.
[14:15] Sincerely, myself as a manager and
[14:17] Dennis Weir as the chair. And Jimmy's
[14:20] here. Can we do the electronics?
[14:23] Jimmy, I think Gordon is here too.
[14:27] So, I'll give this letter to Ryan and
[14:30] we thank you.
[14:32] >> Thank you.
[14:41] » All right. As indicated on the screen, a
[14:43] required public hearing will be held for
[14:44] certain agenda items prior to council
[14:46] action. After each such item has been
[14:49] presented, time to comment will be
[14:50] provided for all those who wish to
[14:52] speak. For items that do not require
[14:54] public hearing, public comment will
[14:55] start will still be taken following
[14:57] presentation of the item but will be
[14:59] limited to 10 minutes. At this time, up
[15:01] to 15 minutes have been set aside for an
[15:03] open public comment period, which is
[15:05] intended to allow a comment on matters
[15:06] that do not appear on the agenda, but
[15:08] are limited to topics regarding
[15:09] municipal business or within municipal
[15:11] council purview. Persons who speak
[15:13] during this time to an item that is on
[15:15] the agenda will not normally be afforded
[15:16] a second opportunity to speak during the
[15:18] comment period specific to that item.
[15:20] During any public comment period, each
[15:22] speaker will generally be limited to two
[15:23] minutes. Due to noticing requirements,
[15:25] no formal action will be taken in this
[15:27] meeting on matters that do not appear on
[15:28] the agenda. Those with comments are
[15:30] invited to approach the podium. Those
[15:32] participating on Zoom will need to use
[15:33] the raise hand feature to indicate they
[15:35] wish to comment. The chair may choose to
[15:37] alternate between in-person and online
[15:39] commenters. Please begin your comments
[15:41] by starting stating your name and their
[15:43] city of residence. You'll have two
[15:45] minutes to speak. If anyone wants to
[15:46] have public comment, um, now is your
[15:48] chance.
[15:51] All right, we'll move on to council
[15:53] business. First, an implied motion on an
[15:55] ordinance pro city code to require
[15:57] planning commissioners running for
[15:58] public office to take a leap of absence.
[16:01] This will be presented by Tanner
[16:03] Tiguchi, our council policy analyst.
[16:12] » Terrific. Thank you, council, for having
[16:13] me to explain this issue item. Uh, this
[16:16] is a council sponsored issue.
[16:19] uh brought forward by chair mccay and
[16:22] vice chair Christensen
[16:25] and
[16:26] here we go I'll put up the effects of
[16:29] the proposal legal uh legal effects of
[16:31] the proposal the purpose of this uh
[16:34] issue item is to ensure that the
[16:36] planning commission remains a
[16:37] non-political advisory body to the mayor
[16:39] and council and can't be used as a
[16:42] platform for personal campaigning uh
[16:45] during an election year up until this
[16:47] point. Um the practice to avoid the
[16:51] commission becoming such a platform has
[16:54] been that commissioners who run for
[16:56] office would voluntarily resign. This
[17:00] proposal that we're uh considering
[17:02] tonight to change the code does not
[17:04] require a resignation. However, it would
[17:07] require a leave of absence during that
[17:09] campaign.
[17:12] So the this is just one metric that we
[17:15] can use to try to illustrate the the the
[17:18] potential issue here. The city council
[17:20] of course is a political body and so
[17:22] there's no problem there. The
[17:24] neighborhood district uh executive board
[17:26] has a similar provision in code right
[17:29] now to this proposal uh that we're
[17:32] considering for the planning commission
[17:34] already. And you can see there in the
[17:36] graph, uh, the planning commission has
[17:38] much more frequent meetings and a higher
[17:40] engagement than the other boards and
[17:41] commissions in the city.
[17:44] Uh, as I mentioned, the neighborhood
[17:46] district boards have a provision in code
[17:48] similar to the proposal for the planning
[17:50] commission. The only changes that we've
[17:52] made to the language in that
[17:54] neighborhood executive board code is to
[17:57] change the word executive board to
[17:59] planning commission. And I also want to
[18:00] point out one change that has been made
[18:03] since we talked about this in the work
[18:04] meeting that we changed the phrase the
[18:06] election on the bottom half of the
[18:08] screen to their candidacy as you'll see
[18:10] in the top half of the screen. That
[18:13] change was made just to make clear that
[18:15] we're talking about the individual's
[18:18] election. That is to say their
[18:19] candidacy. So if the uh candidate loses
[18:22] in the primary or for another reason
[18:24] stops campaigning then they are free to
[18:26] resume their responsibilities on the
[18:28] commission.
[18:31] Lastly, I just wanted to clear up for
[18:34] the public and for the council just some
[18:36] technical points uh that were discussed
[18:38] in earlier public meetings. The leave of
[18:40] absence would be effective immediately
[18:42] upon filing. So, different uh public
[18:45] offices have different filing periods.
[18:47] For example, if you file for partisan uh
[18:50] state legislative seat, you would have
[18:52] to file in January. If you were running
[18:55] for the city council, that filing
[18:56] period, as I understand, is typically in
[18:57] June. But if you file in January, your
[19:01] absence starts in January. If you file
[19:03] in June, then your absence starts in
[19:04] June
[19:06] until the election is done or the
[19:08] candidacy ends. So, uh, that the
[19:12] proposal is to adopt the ordinance as
[19:15] written. I'm free to answer any
[19:16] questions.
[19:17] >> Thanks, Tanner. Any questions for
[19:18] Tanner? Council Garrett. And just to
[19:21] clarify, Tanner, you did say that the um
[19:25] once, for example, if you were to lose
[19:28] in a primary race, you could retain your
[19:31] seat. You could return to your se your
[19:33] service as a commissioner.
[19:35] >> Yes. So, you would be able to Yeah. The
[19:38] entire time you would maintain your
[19:41] seat. So, to that second point that I
[19:42] didn't talk about, there's no function,
[19:45] there's no provision in the code to have
[19:47] someone step into your seat. You would
[19:49] just be absent. One of the issu is
[19:51] issues that has been brought up through
[19:53] the stages of this uh discussion is that
[19:57] sometimes there's difficulty maintaining
[19:59] a quorum in the planning commission. We
[20:01] have nine members to try to prevent that
[20:03] issue. But if there were multiple
[20:04] commissioners who would were running in
[20:06] a particular year and it becomes
[20:08] difficult to form a quorum, then either
[20:11] council or mayor action would be needed
[20:12] to uh remove those people from the
[20:15] planning commission and appoint new
[20:16] people who could be present.
[20:18] >> Thank you. Any
[20:20] other questions? All right. Thanks so
[20:22] much, Tanner. You
[20:25] >> We'll open this item up for public
[20:26] comment. Is there any public comment on
[20:28] this item?
[20:30] >> All right. We'll move to council
[20:32] discussion. Any council discussion on
[20:33] this item,
[20:35] Council Whitlock?
[20:37] >> Uh I think this is great and I
[20:40] appreciate the work done on this. Uh I
[20:42] was as someone who was on the planning
[20:43] commission who ran for city council, the
[20:45] lack of structure was uh kind of tricky.
[20:48] he was like, "Do I resign? When do I
[20:49] resign?" Um, so I just think making it
[20:52] clear and very structured and then with
[20:53] the opportunity to come back is is is a
[20:56] really good move that makes the planning
[20:58] commission uh fulfill its intended
[21:00] purpose of being a non-political body.
[21:03] >> Thanks, Jeff. Um, any other comments?
[21:07] All right, we will take a vote on the
[21:08] implied motion. Councelor Garrett,
[21:10] >> yes.
[21:11] >> Councelor McCay, yes. Councelor
[21:12] Christensen,
[21:13] >> yes.
[21:14] >> Councelor Whitlock,
[21:15] >> yes.
[21:15] >> Councelor Bogdan,
[21:16] >> yes. Councelor Hoben,
[21:18] >> yes.
[21:19] >> Councelor Whipple,
[21:20] >> yes. That passes 70. Next, implied
[21:24] motion on ordinance enacting anti-
[21:26] idling restrictions for certain
[21:27] commercial trucks. This will also be
[21:29] presented by Tanner.
[21:31] >> Good evening, council. Thank you for
[21:32] having me to explain this issue item.
[21:35] Uh, this issue was sponsored uh by
[21:37] councelor Bogdan and seconded by
[21:39] councelor Whipple. Uh the purpose of
[21:43] this proposed ordinance is to limit
[21:45] potential uh negative impacts uh to the
[21:48] public from engine idling from heavy
[21:51] trucks. So I'll put up the legal impacts
[21:54] here. The context, sorry, the context
[21:58] for this uh issue is that because there
[22:01] is a shortage of trucks along the WA
[22:04] truck stops, designated truck parking
[22:06] spaces along the Wasatch Front, uh truck
[22:08] drivers are forced to use open available
[22:11] commercial lots or public roadways to
[22:14] park to take their mandatory federally
[22:16] mandated uh breaks and that has left
[22:19] some spillover into other places because
[22:21] there's not enough public truck parking.
[22:24] So, we want to not discourage truck
[22:26] parking per se, but to try to mitigate
[22:29] potential negative effects on resident
[22:31] quality of life. Uh, those impacts on
[22:34] resident quality of life will probably
[22:37] be felt most uh keenly in places where
[22:41] commercial lots are immediately adjacent
[22:44] to residential areas. There are, these
[22:46] are just two, but there are a few
[22:48] located throughout the city where this
[22:50] could uh create an issue hypothetically
[22:54] uh with heavy commercial trucks idling,
[22:56] emitting noise and uh odors into the
[23:00] community. Uh not all trucks will do
[23:02] that. Not all trucks will necessarily be
[23:04] idling, but they could to maintain their
[23:07] electricity in their cabin.
[23:09] So, the benefits of the language in the
[23:12] proposed text amendment is that one, it
[23:14] does not uh discourage truckers per se,
[23:16] but puts limits on uh truck drivers
[23:20] impact on the community. Um, as I was
[23:23] researching this issue, I thought about
[23:26] how the current noise ordinance might be
[23:28] able to be applied to achieve the same
[23:29] results. And, you know, in principle,
[23:32] that could be true. Um, what this would
[23:34] do is essentially streamline the process
[23:37] of eliminating that noise without having
[23:41] to take a measurement because the
[23:42] current noise ordinance requires that a
[23:45] noise measurement be taken and reach a
[23:47] certain decel level at a certain
[23:49] distance. So, as it pertains to heavy
[23:51] trucks, that would no longer be required
[23:53] and also um this would address idling as
[23:57] a concept and so it would take into
[23:59] consideration the odors emitted as well.
[24:02] Thank you, Tanner.
[24:04] >> Um, one last thing just this was covered
[24:07] before
[24:08] um in the work meeting, but as I've
[24:10] talked with law enforcement officials,
[24:12] this is not proactively enforced
[24:15] typically in other cities that have
[24:17] anti-aging ordinances, but it does allow
[24:20] the police to respond to complaints and
[24:23] to step in on behalf of citizens who may
[24:25] be affected by this. And as far as um
[24:28] the impact on the truck drivers that
[24:31] would be involved in this, um the state
[24:34] actually requires that our ordinance uh
[24:37] allow for a warning beforehand. So any
[24:40] enforcement officers would have to issue
[24:42] a warning before giving a citation and
[24:44] that citation would follow the uh
[24:47] parking fee schedule, the parking fine
[24:49] schedule.
[24:52] So uh the proposal is to adopt the
[24:55] ordinance as written. I'm open to any
[24:57] questions.
[24:58] >> Thanks, Tanner. Any questions for Tener?
[25:00] All right. Thank you.
[25:02] We will open this item up for public
[25:04] comment. Is there any public comment on
[25:05] this item?
[25:07] >> All right. See no public comment.
[25:08] Council discussion. Any discussion on
[25:10] this item? Councelor Bogdan.
[25:13] >> I just wanted to explain a little bit
[25:14] about this. We have gotten complaints
[25:17] about trucks idling in some of our
[25:20] places and in Provo. And number one, I
[25:24] didn't want to prevent that because we
[25:25] need trucks for the goods and services
[25:27] that we do have here. And truck drivers
[25:30] do need a place to stop. We do have a
[25:33] couple of truck stops further south, but
[25:36] they are pretty full. And if you've ever
[25:38] been to the Springville Walmart, it gets
[25:41] it starts to to impact there. And I've
[25:44] noticed the East Bay is starting to get
[25:46] impacted as well. So, it's something
[25:49] that we wanted to get ahead I wanted to
[25:50] get ahead of. so that we could have
[25:53] something for the residents because
[25:56] there has been a lot of concern about
[25:57] the noise and about the pollutants in
[25:59] the air of the diesel fuel and and the
[26:02] different things. So, I think this is a
[26:03] good compromise and a good start.
[26:05] Thanks.
[26:07] >> Yeah, councelor Whipple.
[26:09] >> Yeah, I was supportive of this with
[26:11] Becky. She's the one who originally
[26:13] raised the concern. Um, I had the
[26:16] experience where a smaller truck than
[26:18] the ones that are are regulated by this
[26:22] refrigerated truck parked on the street
[26:24] by my house on like a Sunday morning and
[26:27] as it cycled on and off like it was a
[26:30] really really loud um I just went and
[26:33] said hi and asked if they needed
[26:35] anything because you know this guy's
[26:37] parked on my street. Nice person, good
[26:39] interaction. But I can see how,
[26:41] especially with the large trucks, if
[26:43] they're in those big parking lots that
[26:46] are close to residents, that could be a
[26:48] much bigger impact. Um, the noise, the
[26:52] fumes, you know, that immediate local
[26:55] air quality really is adversely
[26:57] affected. So, I'm glad that we are being responsive to these very real
[27:06] concerns of our residents who are close
[27:08] to these important commercial areas and
[27:10] that we are giving our police the tools
[27:13] that they need to protect our residents.
[27:17] >> All right. Any other public comment or
[27:19] council discussion? All right. Yeah.
[27:22] Councelor Garrett,
[27:24] >> Becky, maybe you can just um having
[27:26] studied this issue a little bit, you can
[27:28] help me understand a couple of questions
[27:31] uh issues. So, in an official truck
[27:34] stop, can the trucks leave their motors
[27:37] running?
[27:39] If it's an official designated truck
[27:41] stop,
[27:41] >> the reason why we didn't go any further
[27:43] into this is because there is technology
[27:46] now where they don't have to do that.
[27:48] >> Okay? So, it's it's phasing out
[27:50] >> so that in the winter time they can stay
[27:52] warm and
[27:54] >> Yeah. And and Flying J is renovating
[27:57] from what we understand, right? And
[27:59] they're including some of those I would
[28:02] call them like an EV charging station
[28:03] where they can just plug in and not have
[28:06] to pollute because we did think about
[28:08] that. I mean, if you're going to have
[28:10] trucks come to your property, you
[28:12] probably should be a rest a truck stop,
[28:15] >> provide some kind of services, but it
[28:17] didn't make any sense if that's phasing
[28:19] out. Why have companies put forth all
[28:21] that money to
[28:24] >> for what reason in in five 10 years?
[28:26] >> Okay. Just curious. Thank you,
[28:30] >> Councelor Whitlock.
[28:32] >> So, my father is a retired school
[28:33] teacher, now a truck driver. That's how
[28:35] he got bored, became a truck driver. So,
[28:37] I I asked him a lot of questions about
[28:38] this and to uh counselor Bogdan's point,
[28:42] a lot of the newer trucks actually have
[28:44] an automatic uh switchover from diesel
[28:46] to a backup generator after 3 minutes.
[28:50] Um the general feedback I got was like
[28:52] one minute is quite aggressive. Um I
[28:55] still support 100% the intent of this
[28:57] ordinance, but um that was my my
[28:59] father's point of view is that like one
[29:01] minute a truck driver will regularly
[29:02] turn on their engine to like get it
[29:04] going. Um, and it can what be a minute, and a half. He felt like two to
[29:08] three minutes was much more reasonable
[29:09] for the intent, but as you said, it's
[29:11] oftentimes uh not proactively enforced
[29:15] at the one minute. But that would be my
[29:16] only feedback on the ordinance from the
[29:18] questions I asked.
[29:23] » All right, we will vote on the implied
[29:25] motion. Councelor McCay, yes. Councelor
[29:28] Christensen,
[29:29] >> yes.
[29:29] >> Councelor Whitlock,
[29:31] >> yes.
[29:31] >> Councelor Bogdan,
[29:32] >> yes. Councelor Hoben,
[29:34] >> yes.
[29:35] >> Councelor Whipple,
[29:36] >> yes.
[29:37] >> And councelor Garrett,
[29:38] >> yes.
[29:39] >> And that passes 70. Last, an implied
[29:42] motion on ordinance requiring payment of
[29:44] civil fines to renew a rental dwelling
[29:46] license. And again, Tanner, this whole
[29:48] meeting is you.
[29:48] >> Great. Well, I'm grateful to be able to
[29:52] present this issue item that was brought
[29:53] forth by Chair McKay and Vice Chair
[29:55] Christensen.
[29:57] Uh, this will affect the business
[29:59] licensing title of the code. Um, this is
[30:02] being brought forth because as it stands
[30:04] right now, there are a list of grounds
[30:06] under which the city can deny or suspend
[30:09] and revoke a residential dwelling
[30:12] license or RDL. Uh, some of those
[30:15] reasons include misrepresenting yourself
[30:17] in the application or being out of
[30:19] compliance with the zoning code.
[30:21] included in those list or what is not
[30:24] included in that list currently is
[30:26] failure to pay civil fines that were
[30:29] acred because of a violation of the
[30:31] zoning code. So what this would do is
[30:33] add that failure to pay fines as a
[30:37] grounds for denial or suspension
[30:39] revocation of RDL. What it also does is
[30:44] although the current code does allow for
[30:47] denial or revocation based on
[30:49] non-compliance, this actually just makes
[30:50] it a little more clear in the code that can be done and should be done at
[30:56] code enforcement's discretion.
[30:58] So the scope of who will be impacted by
[31:01] this text amendment is actually quite
[31:03] narrow. Uh I've created this just to
[31:06] illustrate that. So in the column with
[31:08] the blue house, if there is a violation,
[31:11] say an over occupancy of a rental unit
[31:13] and that is resolved within two weeks
[31:17] and there are no fines acrewed, um this
[31:21] text amendment will not affect that
[31:22] property owner because they were never
[31:24] at risk of having their RDL taken away.
[31:27] Uh and they still will not be at risk
[31:29] for that. In the column with the green
[31:31] home icon, uh that is representing
[31:34] someone in the same situation. and
[31:36] there's a violation, they refuse to come
[31:39] into compliance for whatever reason, uh,
[31:42] this will not change them because under
[31:43] the current code, they could have their
[31:45] RDL denied or their renewal denied or
[31:49] they could have their license revoked.
[31:51] And this really doesn't change that risk
[31:53] to them. In the orange column, in the
[31:57] column with the orange house, this is
[31:58] actually illustrating what will change.
[32:00] So property owners who had a violation
[32:03] who acrewed civil fines because they
[32:06] took a longer time managing that or it
[32:10] was severe and it merited civil fines.
[32:13] They corrected the violation but the
[32:15] fines are still outstanding and they
[32:17] refused to pay fines. That group
[32:20] previously was not at risk of having
[32:22] their license denied or revoked. But
[32:25] under the current text amendment that
[32:26] would now become a risk.
[32:31] So as I mentioned, so this is
[32:33] essentially a method of incentivizing
[32:36] the prompt payment of fines. One other
[32:38] benefit that this gives that might not
[32:40] be as clear is that when a license is
[32:42] denied or revoked, that property owner
[32:45] is entitled to an appeal with a third
[32:47] party arbitrator. So by adding a grounds
[32:50] for denial, so they're out of compliance
[32:52] after getting their license revoked, for
[32:54] example, now they're out of compliance.
[32:56] And if we levied a fine that that
[32:58] failure to pay fines will also come into
[33:00] play potentially. And I spoke with that
[33:03] arbitrator and they say that that would
[33:04] make this decision simpler. Not
[33:06] necessarily um that they wouldn't make
[33:10] the same decision otherwise because of
[33:11] the non-compliance, but it just makes it
[33:13] more obvious and simple. It strengthens
[33:15] the city's case when it comes to that uh
[33:18] having that decision upheld.
[33:21] So with that uh the proposal is to adopt
[33:23] the ordinance as written. I'm open to
[33:24] any questions.
[33:25] >> Awesome. Any questions for Tanner? All
[33:28] right. Thanks, Tanner.
[33:30] >> Oh, sorry. Councelor Whitlock has a
[33:32] question for you.
[33:33] >> Of course. Um, one other potential
[33:36] benefit of this is what would it also
[33:38] potentially incentivize faster
[33:40] compliance?
[33:42] >> It could.
[33:43] >> I think that depends on the property
[33:44] owner and the reasons that they may be
[33:46] taking their time coming into
[33:48] compliance. But having that RDL loss as
[33:52] a potential um consequence of failure to
[33:56] pay fines or to bring your property into
[33:58] compliance is tough because if you have
[34:01] your license revoked and you continue to
[34:03] operate, then that's a whole set of
[34:04] fines that's going to escalate that
[34:06] balance.
[34:07] >> Yep. And then just uh for the benefit of
[34:10] the public in our earlier working
[34:12] session, we talked about how if someone
[34:15] has acred a hefty backlog of fines, the
[34:18] city will often times work with them to
[34:19] get on a payment plan or something along
[34:21] those lines and if they are uh in an
[34:23] agreement and adhering to that
[34:25] agreement, they could still get the RDL.
[34:26] Correct.
[34:27] >> Correct. So yes, I should have included
[34:29] that in there. Yeah. So, it's if they're
[34:32] working with the city to be on a plan,
[34:34] the city is aware of their intention to
[34:36] make payments or to address their fund
[34:38] balance, their fine balance, then yes,
[34:41] that would count. But this is this would
[34:43] apply in cases where despite the city's
[34:45] best intentions, there still is a
[34:46] refusal to pay the balance.
[34:48] >> Perfect. Thank you.
[34:50] >> All right. Thanks, Tanner. I have to
[34:52] admit, I'm so perplexed why we have so
[34:54] many people here just to listen. We're
[34:57] so lucky.
[34:58] Um, we're going to take a Oh, council
[35:00] discussion on Well, we're going to open
[35:02] this item up for public comment. So, is
[35:03] there any public com Maybe this is what
[35:05] you're here for. Any public comment on
[35:07] this item? No. All right. Council
[35:09] discussion. Councelor Christensen.
[35:12] >> Yeah. Uh, again, thank you. Uh, for
[35:14] those of you who are listening, this makes so much sense. Uh, people who
[35:18] violate the law and aren't keeping the
[35:20] rules. Uh, this isn't an extra penalty.
[35:24] It just clarifies. And so I appreciate
[35:26] you taking the the time and energy to
[35:28] clarify this and making it simpler to
[35:30] enforce.
[35:32] >> Any other discussion? All right, we'll
[35:35] go to a council vote. Councelor
[35:37] Christensen,
[35:38] >> yes.
[35:38] >> Councelor Whitlock,
[35:40] >> yes.
[35:40] >> Councelor Bogdan,
[35:42] >> yes. Councelor Hoben,
[35:43] >> yes.
[35:44] >> Councelor Whipple,
[35:46] >> yes.
[35:46] >> Councelor Garrett,
[35:47] >> yes.
[35:48] >> And councelor McKay, yes. That passes
[35:50] 70. And if there's no objection, we will
[35:52] now adjourn the promises council by
[35:54] unanimous consent.