[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[1:09] Hey everybody, we've still got about a minute, but I'm going to go ahead and get the recording started, so our online folks can join the meeting.
[1:21] Recording in progress.
[3:11] Thank
[3:14] you for that. Good evening everyone. Welcome. We are grateful to have all of you
[3:19] here in the chambers, as well as those who are joining at home. Just as a matter of reminder,
[3:25] if you are going to speak during tonight's General Citizen comment, we do ask you to fill
[3:30] a blue card there in the back. You'll hand those to Mr. Frado and when we come to that portion
[3:36] of the meeting we'll be happy to hear from you. We do not take that public comment until
[3:41] at least 6 o'clock or later and we find a place in our agenda to naturally close one agenda item.
[3:49] We'll do public comment and then we will continue with our agenda. So just give it everyone a
[3:53] heads up on that. We like to begin our meetings with a prayer and a pledge so I'm looking for
[3:58] volunteer this evening to offer our prayer.
[4:04] Mr. President, please.
[4:08] Our dear is definitely Father.
[4:09] We are so grateful that we have been able to gather together this evening.
[4:12] We thank you for the opportunity.
[4:13] We have to serve and represent our Sandy citizens.
[4:17] Please help us all to listen and understand the things that are being presented.
[4:22] Be able to find the best solutions for our residents and our employees.
[4:27] We are so grateful for this amazing country.
[4:30] we live in. We love the and we save these things. And even if I son, Jesus Christ,
[4:34] amen.
[4:36] Thank you. We'll all stand, please. We'll recite the pledge.
[4:43] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the real public for which
[4:50] dance, one nation under God, in the visible, with liberty and justice for us.
[5:01] Thank you. Thank you for joining us in the pledge. It's always nice to hear multiple voices. So we would like to begin with introductions. We'll start on this side of the room and with our council staff and make our way around.
[5:14] Thank you, Madam Chair. My name is Dustin Fredo. I'm at the city council office. There are a couple other council staff members in the back of the room.
[5:21] Uh, Justin Swanson and Matt Perry and then Mr. Cadel, let me know they'll be just a few minutes late this evening.
[5:29] Chris Edwards with the Council Office.
[5:31] Chris Nicole, District 3.
[5:34] Cindy Sharkey at large.
[5:35] Brooke Christensen, District 1.
[5:38] Marcie Houseman, District 4.
[5:40] Allison Stroud, District 2.
[5:41] Brooke Dysuza at large.
[5:46] A mayor Monica Zaltansky.
[5:48] Martin Jetson, Chief Administrative Officer. Good to be back.
[5:55] Thank you and welcome back.
[5:57] Madam Chair.
[5:59] Council member de Kaiser.
[6:01] Let me know that he'll be probably about an hour late this evening.
[6:04] Thank you.
[6:06] We will keep an eye out for him.
[6:08] So we're going to jump right into our agenda to see.
[6:10] We're starting with a special recognition.
[6:12] Turn it over to you for that.
[6:14] And then we'll resume.
[6:17] We're excited about this.
[6:34] Okay.
[6:35] Thank you Mayor and Council for your time tonight on your agenda for this opportunity to recognize Barbara Dumbledore, our Deputy City Recorder.
[6:46] I am here not only as a City Recorder and Barbara's supervisor, but I'm here also as a Vice President for the Utah Municipal Clerk Association.
[6:54] And we have Alicia Fairborn, who's our Secretary.
[7:01] So tonight we represent the Utah Municipal Clerks Association and our partnership with the International Institute of Municipal Clerks.
[7:09] The mission of our organization is to provide our members with educational and networking support to promote positive professional interaction with the elected officials staff in the general public.
[7:20] to enhance the awareness and value of the Municipal Clerk and Recorder Preset profession.
[7:26] Our International Organization offers two certification designations.
[7:32] The Certified Municipal Clerk designation and the Master Municipal Clerk designation.
[7:38] The programs to achieve these designations are administered here locally by the Utah Municipal Clerk Association.
[7:46] And we have a partnership with Southern Utah University that helped us with those educational opportunities that we meet.
[7:54] Barbara has completed the requirements to obtain a certified municipal clerk designation.
[8:01] To attain this, she has to actively work in a municipal function doing city recorder duties.
[8:09] earned 50 points of related to work experience, complete university level
[8:16] coursework to earn a minimum of 60 educational points, and it's 1 point, you get 1
[8:23] point for every two hours of class time, so this 60 points reflects at least 120
[8:30] hours of class time. As you can imagine, this takes some years to attain, but we're
[8:38] fortunate that you guys in the mayor recognize and
[8:48] I can't remember where is this thing.
[8:51] Encourage and support improving the employees skills and knowledge through continuing education
[8:57] and professional development opportunities.
[9:00] So thank you for that.
[9:03] It's our privilege now to honor honor honor honor with this award tonight.
[9:09] recognizing her professional accomplishments.
[10:04] We're going to get one from every angle, guys. I count five cameras out
[10:21] there.
[11:11] All right. It's always nice to start with special recognition.
[11:15] And thank you again, Barbara, for all of your work and service in our city.
[11:21] All right, we will move on to the first item of your informational items.
[11:26] This is the City Council's receiving presentation on the General Management
[11:30] Appalachian Study, just that I believe you are leading us in this.
[11:33] Thank you.
[11:41] Thank you, Madam Chair and Council.
[11:45] Joining us tonight is our representatives from Matrix Consulting and I'll introduce them
[11:50] in a second but just a reminder council that during the end of 2025 it was time for the second
[11:58] management study that we conducted under the policy that was adopted by the council. So we went out to RFP
[12:05] first study of our public utilities department and selected nature's consulting to help us with that.
[12:10] Once they were selected myself and a team from public utilities then included Tom Ward, Richard Benham
[12:17] Scott Ellis served this executive committee to kind of guide and assist in this study.
[12:24] All that matrix explained their methodology process and a study that they did but I just
[12:29] wanted to give a quick thank you to public utilities staff that were excellent throughout the
[12:34] process. I includes the executive team but also all of the others who participated in the
[12:40] data collection and interviews and anything else that was needed in addition to thanks to
[12:46] So the study was unique for a couple different reasons.
[12:49] There were some challenges that came up.
[12:51] They were unforeseen regarding the proposal of the merger.
[12:56] And they were incredibly responsive to those challenges.
[13:01] And so I wanted to quickly thank them.
[13:03] So joining us tonight, we have Jen Winter and Amy
[13:05] Maybe from Matrix Consulting.
[13:08] I'll turn the time over to them.
[13:09] Let them introduce themselves and walk you through their study.
[13:14] Great. Thank you, Justin. Can everybody hear me?
[13:16] Okay,
[13:21] I am going to share our presentation tonight.
[13:25] So first of all, thank you for having us.
[13:28] We have greatly enjoyed working with the city with Justin
[13:31] and with the staff of public utilities throughout
[13:34] this general management and operations study.
[13:37] So my name is Jen Winter.
[13:38] I've been serving as the Project Manager for the study.
[13:42] My background is in both in the private sector,
[13:46] serving with multiple consulting engineering firms
[13:48] and also within the public sector as a former city engineer and public works director.
[13:55] I have with me today Amy Maybe, who is a manager with major consulting.
[14:00] She has spent most of her career working for Utah municipalities.
[14:04] Most recently as a city administrator and pleasant view and also as a policy analyst
[14:10] with Ogden City.
[14:13] So really quickly what we're going to go through tonight, we want to touch on the
[14:18] in approach. We're going to look at the department at a glance, talk about some of the,
[14:22] what we saw from a high level. We'll look at some of the key findings and then we'll also get into some of the findings and the specific recommendations within each of the areas.
[14:33] And then we'll close out with with our thoughts on where to start and what the high priorities.
[14:38] We would recommend for the department. So when I start off a little bit and talk about some of the goals that were provided to us by Council and staff for the city.
[14:47] So we want to look at the management structures, staffing levels, and resource allocation
[14:52] of public utilities, assess the department against national investment practices, and also
[14:59] benchmark it.
[15:00] Against similar sized, pure cities within a state of Utah. We looked at some of the facilities equipment and technology that was in place. We identified critical issues and opportunities to strengthen service efficiency and financial sustainability and also to deliver clear actionable recommendations to guide the department forward. So how we approached meeting those goals and objectives. The project was performed in three primary phases.
[15:28] So the first phase was an existing conditions assessment.
[15:32] And within that phase, we came on site to conduct interviews.
[15:37] We did facility tours, looked at some field observations.
[15:40] We'd interviews with leadership, including supervisors and some staff,
[15:45] and also data collection.
[15:46] So a lot of what we do, we really tell that we are a data base analysis.
[15:51] So we collect a lot of data and information on staffing, work practices,
[15:56] as metrics, policies, everything that the department is currently doing.
[16:01] The second phase is the primary part of the analysis that we conduct.
[16:06] And within the analysis phase, we look at workloads, staffing levels, work practices,
[16:12] our technology is utilized within the department, and really what the operational efficiency
[16:17] looks like.
[16:18] And then we take a look at the organizational structure to see if the organizational structure
[16:24] in place is effective in allowing the department to deliver the services.
[16:30] Finally, the last phase is the findings and recommendations.
[16:34] So the final report incorporates all of the, all of the interim analysis and deliverables that we have done.
[16:42] It provides the recommendations for improvement and also in a prioritized implementation plan for how to proceed with those recommendations.
[16:52] So,
[16:58] when we do a study like this, it's important to look at what the opportunities for improvement are but it's also important to find the key strengths of the department and looking at the public utilities department.
[17:11] We found that there were multiple strengths, a few of which we've listed here, the water conservation standards that consider resource limitations and provide education.
[17:21] And we found it really a dedicated staff and a strong organizational health and a full sort
[17:29] of safety and regulatory compliance.
[17:32] That was a theme that we heard over and over again from staff infrastructure master planning
[17:36] when you're looking at a utility department that relies on rates and rate fears that
[17:43] master planning to understand where our necessary improvements and how do we prioritize them.
[17:50] Over actually when I was saying that there was a very
[17:52] priceless dedicated staff within all of the units and the departments that we talked to.
[17:59] There was also, of course, obviously, opportunities to improve and to be better.
[18:04] And a few of these will touch on in more detail, but just to highlight them,
[18:09] is a little bit of inconsistency and work management and the use of that technology.
[18:14] And it's really critical that consistency of that technology is important as you get into being able to make
[18:19] data-driven decision, you have to be able to
[18:22] compare Apple to Apple's to be able to implement
[18:24] some improvements in decisions.
[18:27] The operational efficiency is constrained by some outdated
[18:31] and submissive standard operating procedures.
[18:35] So some units were better than others
[18:36] at having standard operating procedures.
[18:39] Most units had these informally.
[18:41] It was just how well they were document and how often they're updated
[18:45] to be able to really allow efficiency in training staff
[18:48] on boarding staff and bringing in new staff.
[18:52] We looked at kind of some targeted investments in technology.
[18:58] Technology is really a challenge that we see across the board a lot of times in public
[19:01] work.
[19:01] Some utilities operations.
[19:03] We have very fueled oriented staff in this profession for a reason they like to be outside
[19:07] their doors and there's some critical steps to making sure that technology can be utilized
[19:14] as effectively as possible and we'll get into those in a minute.
[19:17] So, from a high level, the assessment at the land.
[19:21] So we broke down the study into three primary functional areas.
[19:25] So we looked at leadership and administration.
[19:27] And this looks at not just the leadership, but also any of the best practices that apply
[19:32] to the department as a whole.
[19:34] So anything that would look to cover the entire department not just those in leadership
[19:40] positions.
[19:41] We looked at over 40 best management practices that we benchmark the
[19:46] organization against, and we came up with just under 60 total recommendations within the areas.
[19:55] So we want to get into a little bit of the detail of what we found within each of those areas.
[20:00] So, for each functional area, we'll talk a little bit about what we examined what our key findings were and what some of our top recommendations are.
[20:11] So, the first functional area is leadership and administration. And we really found within that leadership and administration area, strong governance, critical master planning, but there are some gaps in data documentation and some proactive communication.
[20:31] So, what we examined in leadership and administration, we looked at the organization of the department as a whole.
[20:38] So, as a whole, so is there adequate spans of control, are there, you know, in equities in supervisory spans of control,
[20:46] where maybe you have one supervisor overseeing two people and another that has 25 people.
[20:51] So, we looked for things like that in the span of control.
[20:54] We also looked at the impact of the public work merger just in touch on that,
[20:58] But that did come about after we started this study.
[21:01] So we did take into consideration of how that murder
[21:03] might impact any organizational recommendations
[21:05] we were making.
[21:07] We looked at management and administration.
[21:10] So again, those policy manuals, how those are in place,
[21:14] what do those standard operating procedures look like?
[21:17] What do the workflows look like,
[21:18] both within the department and in the overlap,
[21:21] like in the case of procurement workflows?
[21:24] And what does that overlap look like between finance
[21:27] and public utilities staff. We looked at communication in coordination, both internally and externally,
[21:33] so internally within the department, between divisions, between departments, and then also
[21:39] that external communication. What does the website look like? What does the media coordination
[21:44] look like? We looked at a utility planning and management, so this really focuses on the areas
[21:51] of the interlocal agreements, which is the right setting and right policies look like, any
[21:55] reserves and how is the department position to be able to go after grant funding.
[22:01] And then finally within this chapter, we looked at asset management within any public
[22:06] works and utilities organization, asset management is really critical to efficient and effective
[22:11] operations. So we looked at the steps of asset management that were in place and where there is
[22:16] some still some opportunities. So some of the key findings within the leadership and administration
[22:23] area where the, some of the strengths, where the governments and that regional resiliency,
[22:30] the, the in place interlocal agreements, the active advisory board, the diverse, the, the, the diversified water supply.
[22:38] That infrastructure master planning that I'll, I'll come back to in several cases. It's really important to be able to stay up to date on a master plan that understands the criticality and the risk of the infrastructure that you're maintaining.
[22:50] And then that organizational health.
[22:54] So within the leadership groups, within the units,
[22:56] between units, there was a lot of collaboration
[22:59] and coordination and some formalized leadership
[23:03] training that is taking place.
[23:06] Under the opportunities for improvement,
[23:09] we talked about that use of the work management technology.
[23:13] So really able to be able to make data driven decision
[23:16] to be able to tie what those master planings
[23:19] or tell you, needs to come that information from the field.
[23:25] So, you know, how are we prioritizing our work?
[23:27] Is our preventive maintenance scheduled within the asset management system?
[23:31] Are we able to accomplish what we set out to do?
[23:34] Are we reporting on that?
[23:35] And can we clearly communicate what we're doing?
[23:37] And can we tell the public the elected officials,
[23:40] such as yourselves, how we are doing?
[23:44] We talked about a little bit on some of the missing
[23:46] of standard operating for seizures and how crews are using those and operating, public communication
[23:53] is largely reactive.
[23:56] So we found some ways where the department could increase their proactive communication
[24:01] with the public to be able to be a little bit more vocal and proactive in telling the community.
[24:09] Here's what we're working on.
[24:10] Here's why we're doing things in overarching, outfacing communication.
[24:14] And that we looked at the kind of a lack of formal reserve and rate benchmarking policies.
[24:25] So to the actual recommendations within each of these areas, so under the organization,
[24:30] with several recommendations that looked at a deputy manager appointments and specific
[24:40] of inconsistency and confusion on who is responsible for what?
[24:45] And when some of these projects come about, the coordination comes about who is in charge.
[24:50] So we looked at kind of designating people to be assigned certain functions and programs.
[24:56] We talked about the policy manual updating those standard operating.
[25:02] In the budgetary documents, there are some performance information and nothing else in there that is largely an accounting of what we're accomplishing.
[25:12] But there's not really a tie to what is the goal.
[25:16] So, you know, in order for a metric to really be useful,
[25:19] there should be a goal tied to it.
[25:21] So if we are looking at exercising all of our water wells annually,
[25:26] are we accomplishing that goal?
[25:28] If you tell me we're doing 200 of them, I'm not sure what that means.
[25:31] Are we doing all of them or are we doing 10% of them within that year?
[25:35] So we gave some recommendations on really tying those metrics
[25:38] to some goals to be able to a little bit better show
[25:42] the accomplishments of the departments.
[25:45] Within the asset management system with the city
[25:48] works software, looking at department-wide adoption.
[25:52] So there was an inconsistency in how the units had adopted
[25:56] the city works platform and how they were using it
[25:59] to plan, schedule, and complete their daily work
[26:01] was.
[26:02] And looking at developing with some of the recent additions
[26:06] in staffing within that area within the GIS
[26:09] and asset management, there
[26:11] has been a really an increase in the technology capabilities of what the department can do.
[26:18] So looking at increasing the automated dashboards, so that way, different levels can have
[26:24] different information at their fingertips.
[26:26] So what the director might want to see from a high level is different, from what a manager is
[26:30] going to want to see, from what a field, a pro leader is going to want to see on those dashboards.
[26:36] So as you go down those levels, you need more specific information specific to the work
[26:40] that that my unit is doing.
[26:42] So creating those dashboards.
[26:43] And then also with that, creating some of those external dashboards
[26:47] so that information is available on the website
[26:50] and to the public as well.
[26:52] Within communication and engagement,
[26:54] we have six different specific recommendations
[26:57] around communication that, again,
[26:59] go back to the information on that website
[27:02] and looking at what is being provided
[27:04] by the dashboards and that advisory committee.
[27:08] So, one of the recommendations we did make is that advisory board should really move back to City Hall, so it's a little bit more visible and easily accessible to the public, maybe a little less intimidating to be able to kind of not have to seek out the utilities location to be able to find where that board is meeting.
[27:27] In the financial and regional governance areas, we also had six recommendations.
[27:33] Those largely revolved around some of the rate benchmarking reserve and grant policies.
[27:41] So for instance, while the department certainly does go after grant, they do not really
[27:46] have a dedicated approach of types of grants, amounts of grants when we're going to do these
[27:51] in-house, when we're going to ask for a consultant help.
[27:53] So, a little bit more of a proactive formal approach to some of these areas and then also probably more challenging is taking a look at those interlocal agreements and how do you update and keep those in the best interest of everybody that's involved in those agreements, but certainly more geared towards the city of Sandy.
[28:15] Within asset management, we have four recommendations and asset management that revolved around
[28:23] looking at establishing service levels.
[28:26] So for, again, we're managing an asset, a proactive service level.
[28:30] What's the service level that we are trying to maintain this asset at?
[28:35] And then developing work schedules around that.
[28:37] So in order to do that, we need to understand first what do we have, what does that inventory look like,
[28:42] what is the condition of it?
[28:44] and knowing that, then allow us your field staff to be able to input much better information
[28:49] and then use that information when they're in the field to make sure that the SS that you
[28:55] are trying to maintain staff how the the ability and the information to be able to do so.
[29:03] The second area we looked at was engineering. So we found a few of the recommendations in the engineering
[29:11] area. Overall, the theme really was that probably their biggest constraint is on that capital
[29:17] project delivery. So having the staff to be able to deliver what is currently in the five-year
[29:23] plan, which is $47 projects and worth over $35 million dollars. So 47 projects is a lot for the
[29:32] number of staff that are currently there. So we looked at some different areas of capital projects,
[29:40] storm water so what does that annual storm water storm water staff storm water
[29:44] become a much bigger deal and really in all regions across the U.S.
[29:49] we've seen changes in how storm water is being handled we've seen more intense
[29:55] fluctuations between periods of drought versus periods of intense rainfall so
[29:59] how are we managed.
[30:06] We look at the GIS and the asset management staffing, and then what the engineering best practices were. The key findings of what we found is there's really, while there may not be capacity and staff, there is a clear project delivery pipeline of what needs to be done, and in approach of how that's going to be done.
[30:27] The capital improvement program is based on routinely updated master plans, so instead of
[30:33] a staff just trying to decide what I think we should be doing, that capital improvement program
[30:39] is based on those overarching master plans that give you where your most critical needs are.
[30:45] And then the GIS capability that is in place to support asset management.
[30:50] Within the opportunities for improvement, then that capital project staffing.
[30:54] we looked at project delivery and not uncommon to many places we see project delivery is often done
[31:02] through a series of spreadsheets and for, you know, larger organizations that have a larger capital
[31:09] improvement programs and really needing a project management system that allows staff to be able
[31:16] to manage that portfolio of projects as a whole rather than as as individual projects.
[31:23] Stormwater is not, not all the stormwater workload is currently being captured, I think that workload has continued to increase over recent years, and without a lot of metrics or workload being documented, it's hard to sort of quantify really what is that stormwater workload.
[31:44] So some of the key recommendations, what we felt the capital project delivery was on
[31:50] our staff, short-term we didn't recommend staffing what we recommended was really evaluating
[31:55] what the capacity was within public work to assist with that.
[31:58] So kind of looking as a whole to see is their capacity for the public works and engineering
[32:02] staff to be able to help absorb some of the capital project load that is specific to utilities,
[32:10] looking at phasing in some enhanced project management tools so starting a small, which is looking
[32:17] at some project management overlay and automation that can occur within the Microsoft Excel that's already being used.
[32:24] And then eventually looking at a specific project management software that will help staff be able to deliver those project
[32:30] from a high level, make sure that they're staying on schedule or we deliver them within the budgets where some of our
[32:36] areas where we're falling behind and be able to mitigate that as early as possible.
[32:42] With the implementation of that software, then it also gives the ability to do some automated
[32:48] bond and warranty alerts.
[32:49] We actually recommend that you do this in your asset management software.
[32:52] A lot of times those engineering projects get closed out, those bonds and that warranty alerts
[32:57] are still need to be out there and trapped.
[32:59] So a really easy way for staff to be able to stand top of that is to put that as a plan
[33:05] activity within the city works asset management software. Within GIS and asset management,
[33:13] there was a little bit of confusion from staff of kind of what those from operational staff
[33:20] of, you know, since those the GIS staff currently sit within an engineering of what they're doing.
[33:25] They really are operational physicians. They certainly assist engineering and creating masks.
[33:31] We also recommended a title chain this often there is confusion in cities of well why do we have GIS staff in IT and we have GIS staff in the department said
[33:40] It's really it's very different of what the staff are doing so when we are recommending asset management staff we really
[33:47] We typically do recommend that they are GIS people they're it's you know you're not going to find a person that have an asset management
[33:55] technology degree, so the GIS staff are the most competent people to be able to really understand
[34:01] those asset management softwares and systems, but they have a very different role.
[34:06] So, instead of that higher level mapping of the city and producing some of that information,
[34:10] they really are mostly focused on the maintenance and the scheduling of work and the dashboards
[34:15] and the reporting of the work that's being done on your assets.
[34:19] For work planning and training of a couple of recommendations related to, again, back to that
[34:24] during water workload of trying to capture and quantify what does that workload look like what is what are those staff spending their time on and then increasing that city works as that management software training to make sure that staff are understanding how to use the information
[34:41] and be able to put information into the system as well as be able to get it out.
[34:45] And that is usually where we see the shortfall is that we are able to put information into the system.
[34:51] But really are typically unsure of how to use it to make their decisions.
[34:55] How to use it to decide what we are going to do next year.
[34:57] How to use it to decide where our problem is.
[35:00] We should really be the value of the system of why we want to use an asset management software in the first place.
[35:12] All right, within the operations area, so within operations generally found that staffing is broadly appropriate.
[35:20] And the priority is really within data and the consistency of that data collection.
[35:26] So
[35:31] what we examined, so we examined each of the unit within operations, so we looked at the workload, the staffing, and the organization within each of the units within the utilities group and then the operational best practices specific to all of operations, but then also within those specific units.
[35:57] the key findings, so within the strengths of the operational teams, we found that staffing
[36:05] is broadly appropriate, we're able to keep up with the workload that they're being assigned,
[36:11] a strong safety and culture, effective incident tracking, which is excellent to be able
[36:17] to say that everybody that we talk to within the levels of the organization could clearly
[36:23] communicate to us what their personal protective equipment gear was, how to use it, where to find
[36:29] it, all of those things. And adequate facilities and space, there was secure indoor storage
[36:37] for the equipment and by and large crews reported really, you know, commending the city for
[36:44] providing them with the tools and equipment they needed to be able to do their jobs well.
[36:50] Opportunities for improvement. Again, is looking at the consistency in how that work is being tracked,
[36:58] looking at establishing service levels. So, you know, when we're going out to be able to go do maintenance on these assets,
[37:04] do we know what we're doing? Do we know what we're trying to accomplish within each year on each given asset? What are those service levels?
[37:11] And then consistently tracking information, so looking at, you know, we're tracking the information of how long to take us to do something,
[37:20] looking at the equipment that we used to be able to do a task, how that information is being employed.
[37:26] So within the different types of work, how we are, how we are accounting for our productivity and our cruise and our equipment should all be done the same to allow for each,
[37:37] know as you go into those dashboards and roll that information out to make that useful information
[37:42] on the leadership's fingertips when they're trying to make decisions out of how to best
[37:47] go about the maintenance and use the funds that are available. A little bit of a lack of inventory
[37:54] management processes and procedures, so I will say that is one thing that we do know was in
[37:59] process of this. There were some changes in staffing positions and a new person that I come in that
[38:04] was very diligently working, to be able to change that practice, to be able to really understand
[38:10] what the inventory was, put some better procedure than place for what that inventory
[38:16] management looks like.
[38:18] And then, hydrant testing and flushing and street lighting, or if you're opportunity is on
[38:24] to touch on a little bit more on the next page.
[38:27] So within those specific recommendations, we talked about some of that workload data, so looking
[38:32] the data that goes in there primarily just maintaining staffing, staffing was really adequate across
[38:39] all of those operational units. There was a recommendation for a service transition, so one
[38:46] of the areas that is a collaboration between departments is transitioning that hydrant testing
[38:52] from the fire department to public utilities. A lot of times, you know, there's a phase in approach
[38:57] So that where the fire department is still involved in that, they have ISO regulations that
[39:05] they need to need.
[39:07] But because that, that hydrogen is part of a greater water system, it's really critical that
[39:14] if the fire department is doing it, that they become certified, that they get their water
[39:18] certifications to be able to understand the impact of what they're doing on the entire
[39:21] system or the best practice really is to transition that work to the utilities department.
[39:27] We do understand that that takes collaboration between departments and that may not be something that can be done in the short term, but that should be the goal long term is to transition that.
[39:39] Within inventory management, we had a couple of additional recommendations in addition to the general asset management.
[39:46] And once we had on inventory management procedures and some of the asset management
[39:52] expectations of those drainage crews, a lot of that work is not really being done
[39:57] in the asset management system at all.
[40:00] That was still paper-based. So a recommendation to use those tools that are available to you. We had five recommendations in the areas of looking at some of those cost of service and infrastructure planning models, and then also a couple of recommendations within that street light programs of looking at a street lighting policy.
[40:23] across recovery framework and a multi-year replacement plan to transition to elite devils.
[40:33] So where's the full city works adoption?
[40:37] It was clearly a theme of making sure that all of the operational teams are using the
[40:41] tools and technology that are available to them and are using them consistently updating
[40:46] the policy manual and some of those standard operating procedures, where there are gaps
[40:51] and those are where they are perhaps out of date
[40:53] and just need to be refreshed a little bit.
[40:56] Looking at some of the information,
[40:59] not the GIS and asset management team
[41:01] has done taking some of that information public facing
[41:03] to be able to kind of to increase the information
[41:06] that's available to the public.
[41:09] Looking at the cost of service methodologies,
[41:13] what those policies are in relying on the American Water Works
[41:17] Association, the EWWA, rate benchmarking to assist in that, and then taking a look at
[41:24] that capital project management capacity across public works to really develop a plan
[41:29] for how do those capital projects get delivered over the next five years? Is there a capacity
[41:34] internal within the city or will additional staffing be necessary to be able to do that?
[41:42] So overall, our team really believes that these recommendations will help the department.
[41:48] there were a lot of strengths identify there are a lot of things at the department where the
[41:52] department is meeting best practices and doing things very well and we feel like the opportunities
[41:58] and the recommendations that we've made will help the department help US city leaders continue
[42:04] to meet the high service standards for the communities utilities needs as a city progresses.
[42:13] So with that I will just say that we really enjoyed working with the city and with the staff and
[42:17] having this opportunity to be able to work with everyone in the Sandy City and we will
[42:25] open it up for any questions or discussion.
[42:29] Thank you so much for that, Jen and Amy. I will turn to colleagues. What questions do
[42:35] we have? And I hope before we do that, I do want to acknowledge Mr. DeKaiser has joined us
[42:39] online. Welcome. Did you want to introduce yourself quickly?
[42:43] Thank you, Madam Chair and I apologize for being late, but my name is Erin DeKaiser. I represent
[42:49] Thank you.
[42:51] All right.
[42:54] Mr. Erky?
[42:57] Thank you for this report.
[43:01] It's a, yours is a really short presentation and consideration of all the information
[43:05] you provided us in the report.
[43:08] I really just want to give a giant pat on the back to public utilities.
[43:15] In both of the management studies that we have received so far, I'm very gratified to have gotten the sense that I've gotten from these two is that we are doing very, very, very well.
[43:30] And that is especially important to recognize public utilities for that because they're in
[43:38] enterprise fund.
[43:40] There is high expectation that they will balance their own budgets and make the revenues
[43:45] and the expenses work.
[43:47] And we'll be looking at other departments and already have that are part of the general fund
[43:51] and get to draw on the pool of general fund revenues.
[43:55] And that is not true for public utilities.
[43:57] So what I'm reading here is that we are doing an excellent job, there are some tweaks and they're probably going to be helpful.
[44:08] And so there are some really good recommendations here. It sounds nice.
[44:15] And a good time to maybe implement that.
[44:19] I did read with interest in the full report about one of the drawbacks, and this is based
[44:31] on our partnerships, and this also kind of, this kind of measures with the Council's
[44:44] responsibility.
[44:47] It talks about the fact that I see this, there's not a good linkage between
[44:52] the cost of service rate, methodologies, and some of that is our fault, right? We have...
[45:00] We've really had some difficulties trying to find the exact right, right, rate structure.
[45:06] And we know that pooab is made recommendations that haven't always been implemented.
[45:12] There's also some discussion about Metro, and this has come up amongst council members as well.
[45:20] This relationship works well for us in terms of the ability to access water,
[45:25] But it also imposes costs on us and so there's some discussion in here too about looking
[45:34] at those contracts and it's something I know that Council members have brought up is there
[45:38] to wait to reduce overhead or are we where we are and there's nothing to fix there but I like
[45:46] the fact that it brought that up it's something that the Council has questioned as well and
[45:51] It's a part of this report, and so I realize that when public utilities hasn't completely
[46:01] implemented the rate strategies, it's in part because we haven't approved them or we've
[46:07] given, as a council, we've given an indication back that we want to pull back.
[46:13] And so I know that public utility has been constrained by the city council.
[46:18] But I do, I just want to give you guys a pat on the back, I want to recognize you for such a great report.
[46:26] Not only are you an enterprise fund, but another thing that occurred to me when I was reading this is, you're probably the only department where your infrastructure that you're responsible for is buried.
[46:41] it's not visible. So unlike streets, you can't sit there and watch or parks, you can't sit there
[46:47] and watch the degradation and decide exactly when you have to make a capital improvement.
[46:55] So there's unpredictabilities. Your income is completely unpredictable. If it's a wet summer,
[47:02] you're going to sell less water. If it's a dry summer, you're going to sell more.
[47:07] And so in terms of preventive maintenance, that is pretty darn hard to figure out with any
[47:14] exactness when you can't see when all of your infrastructure is buried.
[47:20] And so I think you guys do a phenomenal job.
[47:24] I think this report says that I'm proud of what you do and I'll be looking forward to hearing
[47:30] what you think about this report and whether you think there's some good ideas to implement
[47:35] here. Thank you, Madam Chair. Ms. Nichol did I see your hand there?
[47:40] Yep.
[47:44] So just a quick question about asset management. Does that, is that like the
[47:50] materials, nothing bold to type things, is that what you're talking about, and does
[47:54] that include fleet?
[47:58] So when we're, in this context, when we're talking about asset management,
[48:02] we're talking about the, the infrastructure to be maintained. So that is primarily
[48:07] looking at your water pipes, your valves, your hydrants, your storm sort of infrastructure.
[48:12] So looking at the, um, really the underground, primarily underground infrastructure that
[48:18] the department is responsible for maintaining.
[48:20] Okay.
[48:21] Thanks.
[48:25] Any other questions?
[48:29] I will jump to mine.
[48:32] I echo what's been shared.
[48:34] I think the value of these management studies is, uh, well first, acknowledging the extraordinary
[48:40] effort that happens.
[48:41] So thank you to our consultants, but also thank you to all of those involved in the entire process.
[48:47] These strengths and opportunities would not come to life without participation in engagement.
[48:52] So I really appreciate that.
[48:54] And then just echoing what we've said previously, there's so much value in the management studies.
[48:59] I'm grateful that as the City Council we continue to invest in these.
[49:03] I think the presentation is delivered and then it's kind of what do we do with it and what kind of a roadmap does this provide us with and how do we shine a spotlight on the things that are working I think sometimes and this is true in all industries I believe we are very quick to jump to oh my goodness all these opportunities these things we need to tweak and fix and all of that and we don't necessarily slow down and celebrate
[49:31] Look at all that we are getting right, and I think that's what you were really emphasizing, and both of you, you know,
[49:37] Jen and Amy, I know that you were as well, like, always starting with, here's, here's the strengths,
[49:43] and so definitely hope that we will shine a spotlight on those things.
[49:47] The wondering that I have, and I, I feel like, as you went through the presentation,
[49:51] there was a context you added that answered a few of the questions I prepared.
[49:55] One, I did not fully hear you unpack and...
[50:00] I know it might seem minor, but I'd love to just hear a little bit more about that. Two of the recommendations, sort of, transferred some of of the work across department lines. So, hydrant testing, you are recommending moving from fire to public utilities. I know when the presentation you mentioned some of that, like share that shared ownership. And then the full cost recovery for street lights. So, can you clarify who owns those transitions?
[50:30] what is that cost and and I know this I know this study is complex because it was
[50:37] initiated before the merger was under consideration and then announced and
[50:43] and perhaps this sort of fell to not be in a thing but I would just love to
[50:48] hear either if you elaborate a little bit on that. Sure I could start I think
[50:53] that transition of the maintenance of the water system being done by the
[50:59] So what are utility is going to have to be a city, you know, a department head collaboration.
[51:08] So that isn't something that, you know, public works as public works and utilities has
[51:13] still responsibility over.
[51:15] So some of those that are interdepartment, all we generally acknowledge in the study that that
[51:19] is interdepartmental coordination, we, you know, we would assign ownership to that still
[51:26] the department that we were working with and studying with acknowledgement that this is going
[51:31] to take collaboration from other departments and possibly, you know, city leadership to make
[51:38] that happen. I think within that street lighting fund that that cost of service is also
[51:46] can be held within the department. So, looking at specifically, you know, what is that cost of service
[51:52] model, looking at a more detailed plan of how do we, how do we complete those upgrades.
[52:00] Any user anything that you would like to add on the street landing piece of it?
[52:04] I actually wanted to add something on the other piece with the fire department.
[52:09] And it's just the consideration that there's immense coordination when those types of
[52:22] and so it's almost easier to transition that to a singular department.
[52:26] So that's part of the reasoning behind that recommendation.
[52:30] I didn't have anything specific on the street lights.
[52:32] Just I know there is a big need to make a transition to a plan long-term, especially
[52:39] as the city continues to have more aging assets and transition to that.
[52:46] Thank you.
[52:47] Another question, thinking about the workload data, and I saw, of course, that you emphasize
[52:56] that in several different ways, ensuring that we are thinking differently and perhaps
[53:02] more strategically about data, what would you say is a realistic timeline, where we could
[53:07] achieve a full year of clean systems, standard operating procedures that translate into really
[53:17] clean workload data.
[53:20] Yeah, I think for where you guys are currently sitting, that is a fairly quick transition.
[53:27] So I would say you are sitting ahead of a lot of the municipalities we work with and that
[53:32] You have the Office staff, those DIA, your engineering staff, those DIA, SNS, and management staff,
[53:39] that the capability to be able to make some recommendations and be able to quickly look
[53:45] at what is already in that system and use what we've done in the report as a starting point
[53:51] or identifying where those inconsistencies are and then within the next three to six months
[53:56] making that shift in how we're capturing the data.
[54:00] So I would say within three to six months, you should be able to really shift
[54:05] to capturing more consistent data, so then within 18 months, you would have a full year
[54:11] of better data. You're on a really good starting point to be able to do that, so I think it's
[54:15] a pretty minimal effort to be able to do that. Excellent. Thank you. And then I know it was mentioned
[54:24] are in our meeting that there are still some additional hours perhaps to be filled.
[54:31] I know we'll be talking about that in the future, but I'm wondering I have and this might be
[54:36] for for department has as well, but I'm wondering I'm having I felt that there was a lot of
[54:44] actionable next steps when we did the fire station or the fire department, I should say
[54:49] management study, we were sort of gifted with this hierarchy of needs, so to speak, and of all of the...
[55:00] Recommendations that were provided, they were sort of bucketed into act on this now, act on, you know, these recommendations within the next, you know, short term, they defined that.
[55:11] And then act on these, but build a plan towards it, they're not urgent.
[55:16] Is that something you've thought about and have already communicated and that's going to be what's brought forward from the department in the future?
[55:24] I would just look to hear a little thoughts on prioritization of these, was 58, right? Yeah, recommendations. Yeah.
[55:33] Yeah, that is actually something that we did provide to the Department as a supplementary item.
[55:38] So we do provide, we call it our implementation roadmap.
[55:41] So we did provide the department with an implementation roadmap that we would be very happy to share with you that
[55:49] does include a prioritization in a timeframe in a responsible party.
[55:54] So we've done that by either a division manager or department head.
[55:58] We've given every recommendation of priority and then a separate time frame.
[56:02] We realize that sometimes something that we call out as the high priority is not something
[56:07] that could be accomplished in a short time frame.
[56:09] So we do give that as a priority in a time frame for implementation separately.
[56:13] And we do deliver that to the department as a roadmap.
[56:16] So we'd be happy to show that.
[56:18] Excellent, that's exactly the words I was hoping to hear as an implementation plan or road map with roles and responsibilities in timeline.
[56:26] So you have the answer to my question, I appreciate that.
[56:29] All right, I think that let me just check my notes.
[56:33] Yeah, I think that's everything I had.
[56:35] It'll just quit plans, are we good?
[56:37] Oh, Ms. Charkey has another question.
[56:39] One more thing I just wanted to mention because I found it interesting.
[56:42] Thank you for including Jen and Amy.
[56:44] Is this information in the back that's almost like a little bit of an executive summary for us?
[56:50] About the cost of running the utilities department in Sandy versus other cities?
[56:56] And once again, it's just it's high level, doesn't have a lot of detail,
[57:00] but it gives us a level of satisfaction that we're also doing a lot for a little.
[57:05] We're operating very lean, we're operating very well, and thank God we're not Salt Lake City.
[57:17] Thank you.
[57:19] That is everything.
[57:20] I think that is everything.
[57:22] So thank you both so much for joining a tremendous amount of work when into this and we
[57:26] look forward to sort of continuing to think through next steps with you as we sort of
[57:32] feel out the remaining hours of the consultation and the project.
[57:36] Again, thank you for your time tonight.
[57:38] Thank you for joining us.
[57:39] We appreciate everything.
[57:41] Madam Chair.
[57:41] Thank you for having us.
[57:43] Come on.
[57:43] Yes.
[57:44] Can I just add one comment?
[57:44] Please.
[57:46] So you mentioned this, but I just want to make sure that Council is aware.
[57:50] So we do have some hours left with Matrix.
[57:54] As I understand that this kind of a result of the merger,
[57:58] there's some things happening in the merger that maybe we didn't end up needing to look at,
[58:02] which resulted in some extra hours.
[58:04] So we are having conversations with the Public Works staff,
[58:08] with Martin for sure about what we might want to have them look at.
[58:14] And so we'll be sure to keep you in the loop on that.
[58:16] And then the second thing is I just wanted to give Kudos to Justin.
[58:20] He's back in the corner.
[58:22] He managed this from the very beginning,
[58:24] worked with Matrix, worked with the Public Utilities staff,
[58:27] and just wanted to express thanks to him and let you know how great of a job.
[58:30] I feel like he did kind of managing this management study.
[58:34] So thank you.
[58:36] Thank you, thank you, Justin, as well.
[58:39] OK, so with that, we'll say goodbye to both of you.
[58:42] Thank you, Jen.
[58:42] Thank you, Amy.
[58:43] And we're going to move on to our next item, which, again, informational item, and we have...
[58:51] Do you want it to be?
[58:52] We start another, would you like to take public comment?
[58:55] Yes, I would.
[58:56] I'm hearing it in stereo.
[58:58] That was perfect.
[58:58] Thank you for stopping me because this is the right time to stop and take public comment.
[59:02] So we'll pause in our agenda and begin our general citizen comment.
[59:07] So this portion of our meeting is reserved for the public to come and share things with us.
[59:12] not a back and forth, it's just our opportunity to listen to residents and hear your thoughts
[59:17] on city, city matters. So we have Henry Butters, if you'll come up with join us. And as
[59:23] a reminder to everyone, public comment is limited to three minutes.
[59:31] I don't know how I can handle this out to you guys. This was some stuff.
[59:44] Thank you, Chair,
[59:46] and thank you, everybody, have helped me out on certain things. One thing I'm concerned about,
[59:53] is I feel like San he is trying to sweep underneath the rug is what the mayor did in
[1:00:00] Any property? She said it's not against the law in county property. Here's the code for the county.
[1:00:09] Say, no horse is off-lanards for any animals.
[1:00:17] Okay. There is the law. Okay. Mayor, don't tell me there's not a law.
[1:00:24] Like I got stopped today in a truck for anchor violation, I broke the law, it was out.
[1:00:32] That was my problem.
[1:00:34] I talked to the DOT officer and I said, I'll get it fixed.
[1:00:38] I had a fixed in two seconds flat.
[1:00:41] He let me go on my way.
[1:00:43] You broke the law and you put all over Facebook.
[1:00:49] It's our freedom of speech to come over anybody accountable.
[1:00:53] Even you, Martin, the police chief, and when the police chief got sworn in, he said he would defend our constitutional rights and the laws.
[1:01:05] This is the law, our dear beloved Mayor broke.
[1:01:12] Don't come tell me you broke, did not break the law.
[1:01:17] Okay. If you want to have a conversation, I want Martin involved now.
[1:01:23] Because if you ever come at me like that again under constitutional rights, I will come and have fun.
[1:01:33] I just want to thank you to every city council that have helped me, Sharky.
[1:01:39] Anybody at Brook Christian sin and Brook Suicide?
[1:01:46] Sorry, but I want to tell you guys thank you and this is why I want to come bring this to you guys as a tension she said she did not break the law
[1:01:56] But she did
[1:01:57] Martin has the video she did break the law like I broke the law on a blink of an eye relationship
[1:02:04] Like she hold them kids accountable for still in her science
[1:02:10] it's still a crime what she does. Sorry Mayor, you broke all. Thank you, have a great name.
[1:02:22] Thank you. I do not see any more blue cards and no one waited me down in the chambers here.
[1:02:31] So we'll move to online, Mr. Frato, if you'll give those instructions.
[1:02:34] Of course, we'll do that. I'm chair. If you're joining us virtually this evening via Zoom and you'd like to comment on any city business.
[1:02:41] 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.
[1:02:50] And Madam Chair, while we're waiting, I did receive a comment via email that I was asked to read into the record.
[1:02:59] So if we don't have any raised hands, I'll do that in just a moment.
[1:03:27] Madam Chair, I don't see any hands raised online, but we do have one other blue card. I'll pass that down to you in just a second.
[1:03:33] But it's a Dell Clark.
[1:03:36] So Ms. Clark, if you want to come up to the podium,
[1:03:38] you'll have three minutes.
[1:03:45] Terrence, did you count full?
[1:03:47] I didn't hear her on.
[1:03:48] Ms. Clark, could you just take that microphone
[1:03:50] and put it down so we can hear you.
[1:03:52] Thank you so much.
[1:03:54] I'm here on a rezoning issue for Hagen Road.
[1:04:00] So I want to give you a little background.
[1:04:02] My husband and I purchased Ralland and on Hagen Road in 1991.
[1:04:06] And it took us three years to build on that property, mostly because there are issues between
[1:04:14] Sandy, City, and Salt Lake County.
[1:04:16] It was a pocket of Salt Lake County.
[1:04:19] And so it took us three years to get through all of those issues, three lawyers, two title
[1:04:24] companies, and two engineering firms to get through all of the issues.
[1:04:31] When we got through the issues, we thought we'd get our building permit, but we had to go back
[1:04:35] to seven brothers, again, your seven brothers,
[1:04:39] two of which were deceased and five,
[1:04:41] which were between super nice,
[1:04:43] they do anything for you,
[1:04:45] and some distant one, anything to do with us.
[1:04:48] We had already gone back to them to get,
[1:04:50] to fix some problems with the property,
[1:04:53] and that we thought we were done.
[1:04:55] So Sandy said he required us to go back and get the road
[1:04:58] from just south and west.
[1:05:00] High-prod, property, 105A3, hang-in, all the way to 114 South. It had been
[1:05:12] given to Sandy City, kind of illegally, by the people that we bought the property fund, and so we had to go and get that square away. And we did. So the five-gender, some brothers, came down here to Sandy City, and I signed a deed in 1994, and they worked with the mayor at that time. We took pictures, it was a great thing.
[1:05:32] We got Hagan Road all the way down and we finally got our building permit.
[1:05:37] My husband and I had an acre and we decided to subdivide that acre and we created what's
[1:05:44] called the Clark Mini-Sem.
[1:05:46] In that subdivision, we were zoned our 120 Sandy City told us we had to be zoned our 120.
[1:05:53] We could not have agricultural rights so we followed those instructions.
[1:05:59] we created the mini-sev, one husband and I finally built and moved in in 1995.
[1:06:08] There have been three owners of the property that we sold since that time.
[1:06:13] The current owner has put sheep on those lands and has chickens and they're not zoned to have that.
[1:06:21] So we went, I, my son, who used to be in code enforcement for another city went to code enforcement and asked
[1:06:28] filed a code enforcement violation, and we asked for the sheep to be removed.
[1:06:34] Well, Mr. Grant got permission to keep those sheep. They're still there to this day.
[1:06:43] I was very distraught because the sheep create a lot of noise.
[1:06:50] My husband and I, my husband's deceased,
[1:06:58] and I did a lot of projects.
[1:07:00] And one of the projects that we did was creating this incredible backyard.
[1:07:05] And I can't go out my backyard now because of the sheep I hear them.
[1:07:10] I can't wait my windows open at night because I hear them.
[1:07:13] I can't have the windows open in the morning because they wait me up.
[1:07:17] I can't go out into my greenhouse because I hear them.
[1:07:21] They have been tried across my property.
[1:07:23] They have defecated on my lawn.
[1:07:26] And there in a sense, they have been in a new sense, and the property isn't zoned, never was zoned, never intended to be zoned farmland or agricultural by me and my husband.
[1:07:40] No one on Hagen Road has farm animals, nobody does, except Mr. Grant.
[1:07:48] We don't, we've hit the, we've hit the three minute mark, we have a three minute limit on comments.
[1:07:53] If you have something else, you're welcome to send it in, in the email, be the best way to do it.
[1:07:58] I've tried that, and unfortunately it didn't get into the planning and zoning meeting.
[1:08:04] I don't know why it didn't, but it didn't. That's why I'm here. It's to make sure.
[1:08:08] But I will reach out to each one of you contact you and give you the full details.
[1:08:13] I don't want to live next to a farm.
[1:08:15] You should never have to live next to a farm. Never intended for that to be farm like.
[1:08:19] Thank you.
[1:08:20] Thank you.
[1:08:23] All right, I don't see any more.
[1:08:25] You said you had one to read in.
[1:08:26] If I do, it's quite a long one.
[1:08:28] I'm going to set a timer and we'll end it at three minute mark.
[1:08:37] OK, Madam Chair, this comment is from Steve Andrus.
[1:08:44] Dear Mayor and members of the Council,
[1:08:47] whether due to budget policy, lack of interest
[1:08:49] or just plain ignorance.
[1:08:50] Nothing is getting done to solve the issues of traffic
[1:08:53] and ways in dangerous motoring.
[1:08:55] I have repeatedly made this problem known
[1:08:57] to you, the council, the sandy police, and you dot.
[1:09:00] Some have not even bothered to respond to my concerns.
[1:09:03] Once again, my issue is unique.
[1:09:05] The local and unintelligent road design
[1:09:08] that borders my backyard, my property in about 19 other homes,
[1:09:12] 10 on either side of the street,
[1:09:14] are directly impacted by the dangerous nuisance.
[1:09:17] I will yet again explain the absolute design flaws
[1:09:20] of the road and lack of policing.
[1:09:22] However, for the past two months,
[1:09:23] I have been in contact with Chief Niber and Lieutenant Webb.
[1:09:27] They state their frustrations and not being able
[1:09:29] to be more helpful due to budgeting issues
[1:09:31] and other policing zones deemed to be more important.
[1:09:35] Ironically, it's like the police or the ones who are handcuffed.
[1:09:39] I can understand their frustrations,
[1:09:41] but I'm disgusted by the implication
[1:09:42] that there isn't any more to be done.
[1:09:45] I've been a Sandy Tax pair for about 17 years now.
[1:09:48] My taxes have definitely not been working for me.
[1:09:51] This issue has never been properly addressed
[1:09:53] had any meaningful attempt at correcting the actual problem. I've been given the run around
[1:09:58] by this council in use.
[1:10:00] Read out as you pass the buck to each other or someone else. Enough, just do your jobs. It's been far too long, and I've been more unreasonable with my requests for action. My communications have been numerous, including in-person attendance to the council meetings, phone calls, texts, and emails to every member and the mayor. So you can't say you weren't aware of the problem. Chief Niver was good enough to share his results of the recent traffic study above 2,500 East, and a little con with King and Road, with all their respect.
[1:10:30] That stretch of road is nothing like mine.
[1:10:32] Nor is anything below 2300 East.
[1:10:35] I know that other streets need attention to,
[1:10:37] but mine is absolutely worse,
[1:10:39] especially from a dangerous traffic and noise standpoint.
[1:10:42] I would estimate the average speed here to be in excess of 45.
[1:10:47] The post-it speed limit is 40 and is already too fast.
[1:10:50] And speeding averages like we closer to 50 miles per hour.
[1:10:54] That said, there are slow trucks and cyclists, scooters,
[1:10:57] etc., that register a speed, but don't actually count for real traffic speeds.
[1:11:02] However, the majority of everyday drivers are going faster than the post-it speed limit,
[1:11:07] and that's not taking into account the true violators. Anyone going over 55?
[1:11:13] Chief Kniver's study showed 331 violators over the course of two weeks in the neighborhood, well above my own.
[1:11:19] Where and when they are no longer speeding comparatively, and someone was even clocked at 78 miles per hour way up there.
[1:11:27] That's nothing compared to what happens hourly on my 200-yard stretch of road.
[1:11:32] You have to experience witness it for yourself to truly know what it's like.
[1:11:36] I may not have a speed reader or radar gun, but I know how fast fast is.
[1:11:42] At the very least even a regular,
[1:11:48] that's the three-minute mark on that comment.
[1:11:50] Madam Chair, I did send you this full comment last week when we received it, so you should have it in your email as well.
[1:11:57] And with that, Madam Chair, I don't see any other blue cards or comments.
[1:12:01] All right, thank you, Mr. Fato.
[1:12:03] So without a go ahead and close public comment and move us to our next item on our agenda.
[1:12:08] Brian, I believe you are presenting this.
[1:12:11] Our fraud risk assessment.
[1:12:14] Yes, good evening, council members.
[1:12:16] It's good to be with you tonight.
[1:12:17] As you mentioned, I'm reporting on the Annual Fraud Risk Assessment.
[1:12:21] This is a state program implemented several years ago from the Office of State Auditor and it's an annual assessment that we do internally looking at many different measures of how we can how we're doing as an organization to identify undetected fraud or abuse of resources.
[1:12:41] It kind of at a high level, we scored in the low risk category, similar to previous years.
[1:12:48] We're at one point away from the very low risk.
[1:12:52] Some of the measures are criteria.
[1:12:54] They look at our staff training and knowledge skills and abilities of our staff, the policies
[1:13:02] that we have in place, the internal controls we have in place.
[1:13:06] We have an anonymous fraud report to hotline that the public or employees can report issues
[1:13:14] that they see all of those out of and contribute to our positive score of low risk.
[1:13:21] So, is there any questions I could address?
[1:13:29] Not seeing any.
[1:13:29] I have just one.
[1:13:31] fine.
[1:13:34] The one point away, based on what I kind of looked at, that might be something we could
[1:13:41] adjust with an audit committee. If the City Council were to establish an audit committee,
[1:13:47] which I believe is done in other cities, would that, I know it's...
[1:13:50] Yes, that would. Yeah, that would be, it gives us 20 points if we had an audit committee,
[1:13:56] which would be the way those are usually set up. It's an extension of the governing
[1:14:01] body. You would want to have a member that's not part of management on that and you need
[1:14:09] identify other committee members. They would look at a lot of the same things we're already
[1:14:15] doing. You'd want to make sure we have an external audit that's done which we currently
[1:14:20] do that be looking at our policies. So it's an added step and we could certainly do that
[1:14:28] if you'd like to. It would probably entail possibly some costs and time. I haven't felt
[1:14:35] like the cost benefit reward would be there. That's why we haven't done it, but we're
[1:14:40] happy to look at it if you'd like us to.
[1:14:42] It was just a question. I would love your recommendation at some point because I felt like
[1:14:49] that was something that the council could do to help with the score. If we wanted to get
[1:14:54] that point and, you know, it was important enough to us to be in the very low.
[1:15:00] I also would appreciate a cost benefit analysis, and you come back and let us know. I would be supportive of an audit committee, but not at the expense of taxing you and staff in a way that doesn't make sense.
[1:15:14] But I'm always a fan of outside eyes, other people's thinking, that's why I appreciate our management studies so much. So having a committee that sort of provides some additional oversight, I would be open to.
[1:15:27] But like you offered, cost benefit analysis, if you come back and say, I know whether cities do it,
[1:15:34] but I'm not sure that something we need, I'd be interested to hear that.
[1:15:38] Yeah, and one thing I wanted to mention, you just brought up is the management studies.
[1:15:44] One of the other things is having an internal audit function, and I think that would qualify, hearing their presentation tonight.
[1:15:50] So I think for the fiscal year 27, we could, that would qualify because they're looking at
[1:15:56] processes, policies, best practices, all those are parts of internal auditing.
[1:16:02] So I think next year, I report we would show that we're in the very low risk.
[1:16:07] Well, there we go.
[1:16:08] Yeah, and that's something that council is helping with your funding those studies.
[1:16:13] Okay, good. Well, that was, I mean, I don't want to be particularly over a point that, like, if we can help,
[1:16:19] but it sounds like we have a solution.
[1:16:21] Yeah, I think we do.
[1:16:23] Thank you.
[1:16:24] I think that's.
[1:16:26] All right.
[1:16:27] Thank you.
[1:16:28] Okay.
[1:16:29] Moving on.
[1:16:30] We will move to our Haken Road Reson conversation.
[1:16:33] Again, this is an informational item.
[1:16:34] No vote will be taken tonight.
[1:16:37] Jake, you've got this.
[1:16:38] I believe.
[1:16:46] Thank you.
[1:16:46] Madam Chair.
[1:16:47] Good evening.
[1:16:48] Council for the public.
[1:16:49] My name's Jake Warner.
[1:16:50] I'm a name's planning manager for Sandy City.
[1:16:53] Sandy City has received a rezone application from Matthew Grant.
[1:16:57] He is joined by two of his neighbors, Perry Evans, and Lyle Warner.
[1:17:01] I am not related as far as I know, the Lyle Warner, nor any of the other applicants.
[1:17:05] but they have submitted jointly an application to
[1:17:11] reason on their properties at 1-1-5-6-2, 1-1-5-6-3 and 1-1-5-8-6
[1:17:17] Hagen Road, all three are developed residential properties,
[1:17:23] with homes already on them. The total acreage is about
[1:17:27] 1.79 acres, as was previously mentioned, there are four
[1:17:34] on Hagen Road that are not zoned R1-20A.
[1:17:41] Sorry, I should say there are four homes on Hagen Road zoned R1-20.
[1:17:45] There are 17 homes to the north zoned R1-20A
[1:17:49] and there are 14 homes to the south zoned R1-10.
[1:17:53] The properties to the east are also zoned R1-10.
[1:17:58] The properties to the west are zoned R1-20A.
[1:18:03] The,
[1:18:06] trying to advance the slides here to keep up, the future land use map designates this area as very low density neighborhood or rural neighborhood, the R 120 and the R 120A zones are both consistent with that future land use designation.
[1:18:31] The I failed to mention that the request is to add the designation to their existing zoning.
[1:18:40] So they are requesting they are on 28 zone.
[1:18:43] There was a neighborhood meeting held on August 10th.
[1:18:47] This application was presented to the Planning Commission on August 20th.
[1:18:53] And they forwarded a positive recommendation.
[1:18:56] It is a legislative item so you use the City Council to make the final decision on this.
[1:19:00] And so it is being presented to you tonight as an informational item and is scheduled to come back to you on September 15th for a decision with that staff is available for questions in the applicant as president prepared to present as well.
[1:19:18] Thank you.
[1:19:19] Questions from council.
[1:19:20] Ms. Nickel.
[1:19:24] Thank you.
[1:19:24] I think this has one of the comments that I read in here.
[1:19:27] It's about the, any animal having enough space.
[1:19:33] We have a code.
[1:19:34] We have something in code that states how much a farm animal needs,
[1:19:38] like a horse in the cow.
[1:19:42] The number of farm animals allowed in the proper
[1:19:44] with an native land.
[1:19:45] The amount of land that they need.
[1:19:47] We do not specify how much land has to be set aside
[1:19:51] specifically for those animals.
[1:19:54] So the number of animals they can have
[1:19:55] have is determined by the size of the property overall.
[1:20:00] But generally, we do not have any regulations on how much area is required.
[1:20:07] I can't read the code today. There was something that stated that they need to have a certain amount.
[1:20:12] There is a unique zone, I believe it's for Bel Canyon acres, that does have that.
[1:20:18] That I looked at that, you know what you're just going to say, I'd like that provision.
[1:20:21] That's why it's a going to lend Belmont code.
[1:20:24] So, all right, Austin, thank you.
[1:20:28] Other questions?
[1:20:32] Okay, I will.
[1:20:34] Okay, so just clarifying, in the minutes there,
[1:20:44] the 1988 Christmas and annexation, it's showing
[1:20:49] that it was adopted as by the council as our, our 120, right?
[1:20:56] Correct.
[1:20:59] And then what we are considering is not necessarily how many sheep, it's kind of in line with what you were asking, the maximum number of animals by type on a half acre lot, and you're saying, that's tell me.
[1:21:17] sorry to I was you're getting starting to so without the a designation they are not allowed
[1:21:25] to farm animals on the property and as I mentioned the applicant is here and can speak to that
[1:21:32] but my understanding is that he was not aware that their properties did not have farm animal rights
[1:21:40] so the reason on application is requesting to add the designation that would allow farm animals
[1:21:47] on the property, and all other rights associated with with that designation.
[1:21:53] There's some flexibility that's allowed for accessory structures, for example, when you have any designation.
[1:22:00] So, it's not just the farm animals, there's some other provisions in the code as well.
[1:22:05] But he does have sheep on the property and so he is seeking the a designation so that those would be there in compliance with his zoning if he were to be approved for the reason.
[1:22:21] And then you hit several of the things that I listed here except what I did not hear is whether or not boarding.
[1:22:27] So if if the A designation was given whether or not boarding or renting space for other people's animals would be permitted
[1:22:39] I'm not as clear on the board. I believe we allow I might need to turn to my ask a friend here
[1:22:46] That shows no longer on the air. I don't think is it still phone a friend?
[1:22:52] Okay, that's still an option, right? Yes, I want to be a millionaire. Oh, yes
[1:22:57] But boarding is not allowed except for one area in the city and that's in the Belkanian area.
[1:23:04] So generally, boarding is not allowed within the same city.
[1:23:08] Even with a designation.
[1:23:09] Correct.
[1:23:09] Okay.
[1:23:10] That was a question I had.
[1:23:12] And then this is not a hard and fast question, but a curiosity.
[1:23:17] And as much for my colleagues as the two of you is, is there, or was there considered
[1:23:23] some type of like temporary conditional use permit that allows the lambs to be raised,
[1:23:30] but this is not necessarily like an ongoing designation.
[1:23:37] We don't. It's kind of an all or nothing in our code. I'm not aware of any way that we could do that within the existing regulations in the code.
[1:23:49] So, like, for example, like, I'm going to have to read my notes because I thought this
[1:23:54] through, but I want to get it right.
[1:23:57] So, draft a tiered, farm animal designation rather than gross lot size, just thinking, trying
[1:24:07] to think of instead of a yes or a no, is, is, and if you just tell me, Marcy, it's a yes
[1:24:14] or a no.
[1:24:15] It's a yes or no. We would have to draft a code amendment to come up with it.
[1:24:20] Yeah, anything other than what's before you this evening, which is the request to
[1:24:25] reason, and that's an upper down vote on whether to reason on the property or not,
[1:24:31] whether you want us to consider other provisions that would create a
[1:24:37] farm animal set aside area that mandates a minimum area that's required in order to keep animals,
[1:24:42] or other provisions that would allow for temporary occupancy of farm animals on a property.
[1:24:52] Those are not allowed in our current zone, and that's not an option right now.
[1:24:57] And it's partially because what is-
[1:25:01] It's just the—what's being requested is add, add agriculture designation to our current zoning.
[1:25:09] Correct. That's what being requested so it's a yes or no on that request.
[1:25:16] Oh, sorry. I heard—
[1:25:18] Oh.
[1:25:19] Whoa. I think I triggered something.
[1:25:22] So, who was first?
[1:25:23] Just on the code.
[1:25:24] I was reading today, and two one, 113,
[1:25:31] is talks about.
[1:25:34] That is the section that defines the designation as far as the keeping of farm animals.
[1:25:39] Yeah, but it also printed it so small.
[1:25:42] Let's forgive me.
[1:25:43] Number three is where it talks about having enough space.
[1:25:48] Which code for vision are you in?
[1:25:49] I am in 21, 11, 11, 11, 11, 11,
[1:25:55] A,
[1:26:06] is that a wrong section?
[1:26:08] No.
[1:26:09] So that is the ratio that Jake was referring to earlier.
[1:26:13] It's in regards to total square footage of lot size.
[1:26:16] Oh, OK.
[1:26:16] It is not specific to the area dedicated
[1:26:19] for the keeping of that animal.
[1:26:21] OK.
[1:26:22] What requires 10,000 square.
[1:26:24] OK, gotcha.
[1:26:25] OK.
[1:26:26] It's kind of a point system based on the square footage
[1:26:29] of the property.
[1:26:29] So a half acre lock can have a 10,000 square foot allocation for a large animal and then
[1:26:36] medium animals at a 400 square foot or 4,000 square foot and then small animals at a 400 square foot ratio.
[1:26:47] Mr. Soussa?
[1:26:49] Thank you.
[1:26:49] I don't really have a question.
[1:26:50] I just wanted to kind of share my thoughts on this.
[1:26:53] You know, as I've been on the council, these types of conversations have come up over and over again
[1:26:58] over the last four and a half years.
[1:27:00] And so I feel fairly familiar with some of the concerns.
[1:27:04] This is maybe a different situation
[1:27:06] because it feels like it's maybe going the other way, right?
[1:27:09] Where we don't have an allowance
[1:27:10] and there's a request to add that allowance.
[1:27:15] And so for me, it's not a secret that farm animals
[1:27:19] bring with them nuisance, whether it's sound, odor,
[1:27:24] the flies, the bugs, on the properties,
[1:27:27] where the A designation doesn't exist, you can still have chickens, right?
[1:27:32] So like there's an allowance for chickens in our city outside of the A designation.
[1:27:37] And even with that, there's some nuisance that can be problematic.
[1:27:41] You know, my neighbors, I love my neighbors.
[1:27:43] They don't have chickens anymore, but they did.
[1:27:45] And when they did, we had a lot of rats because of the feed and everything, right?
[1:27:51] And so the nuisance is real, by creating an allowance where one doesn't exist right now,
[1:28:00] nor has it ever, on these particular lots, we are surprising neighbors with nuisance
[1:28:08] that could be a material fact, and whether or not they would have bought that home, had that
[1:28:13] existed at the time that they made that decision.
[1:28:15] I will say in real estate that it may be helpful for the properties that are getting that
[1:28:20] But it's not necessarily going to be helpful for the properties surrounding those that are adjacent to or touching.
[1:28:28] Even dog species is a problem in that area where we have people that have dogs and they don't pick up after themselves and that smell and the sight of dog species is a problem for neighboring homes.
[1:28:45] whether they live there or whether you know whether they're selling.
[1:28:50] So I'm just going to put out there that I'm not inclined to increase the presence of
[1:28:58] nuisance where it hasn't ever existed. There's more properties that touch.
[1:29:03] There's like three properties that we're talking about and there's seven or eight
[1:29:06] that but the properties, right? So we are potentially devaluing or creating a
[1:29:13] situation for eight property owners to solve, I don't even know that it's a problem, right?
[1:29:18] Because it's never really existed, so those are my thoughts.
[1:29:22] I'm really worried about increasing or creating nuisance where there wasn't one in the enjoyment
[1:29:28] of one's property.
[1:29:29] We talk a lot about zoning.
[1:29:31] There's a lot of people that talk about zoning and that you should be able to know what
[1:29:35] to expect when you purchase a home, and I think this is just a surprise that doesn't seem
[1:29:40] the reward for the three properties is worth it.
[1:29:44] I do think that it's no matter where you go in the city,
[1:29:50] there's going to be properties that have eight designations,
[1:29:52] and then there's properties that immediately
[1:29:54] but they don't.
[1:29:55] And so I don't know that having four on a street,
[1:29:58] the street extends quite a ways.
[1:30:00] The rest of those properties don't grant it. They're smaller. When they wouldn't necessarily qualify anyway, but those are my thoughts. So I wouldn't be in support of this.
[1:30:10] Thank you, Mr. Sousa. Mr. Sharkey?
[1:30:14] Just a question. Obviously, this is just a straight-up. We're using on request, right? But there was a little bit of a mystery associated with this. And I kind of wanted to ask you about that, Jake, because it seems like you were the one that maybe looked into this a little bit.
[1:30:28] And that was that you do look at it and you wonder why all the other lots on this street of about the same size have the A designation, but these four don't.
[1:30:41] And see, wonder how did that condition come to exist, right?
[1:30:45] And so from what I saw and read what you found in the record was that the planning commission at one time in terms of
[1:30:59] is it when annexing in these properties?
[1:31:03] The Planning Commission made a recommendation to the City Council for R1-28, consistent with
[1:31:11] all the other properties on the block, right?
[1:31:13] That may not have been listed as the rationale, but it would have been consistent.
[1:31:19] All we know since this was so long ago is that the City Council chose the resolution that
[1:31:27] past shows are 120. So we don't know, you made some kind of effort to figure out, did
[1:31:36] the City Council take the Planning Commission recommendation and decide against it, or was
[1:31:44] there a mistake made by chance in the resolution that it just didn't include in A. Did you try
[1:31:51] to research as well as you could and found that? The file was incomplete at the time I have
[1:31:57] track down with the help of the Council Office in the City of Recorder, some additional
[1:32:02] documentation. We had the Plonic Mission Minutes. We didn't have the City Council Minutes.
[1:32:07] We didn't have the executed ordinance in the file. We only had a draft ordinance.
[1:32:13] There was an amendment to the ordinance. We had that amendment, but not the original.
[1:32:17] That was approved. Plonic Mission Minutes, the Plonic Mission did recommend the R-20A zone
[1:32:25] with the annexation, to clear up one other thing, this annexation happened after the properties
[1:32:32] to the south, but before the properties to the north.
[1:32:38] So, Plonic Mission recommended R12A, I did get the Minister from the City Council meeting,
[1:32:48] and it basically just says that their motion was further discussion, but it made clear that
[1:32:54] discussion was about the A designation, basically, and they clarified that the motion was
[1:33:01] further discussion that all properties annexed would be designated R-12.
[1:33:06] And that's what's in the ordinance, and we go by the ordinance that was approved and submitted
[1:33:10] to the state.
[1:33:11] Okay.
[1:33:12] That's different than I thought I wanted to do.
[1:33:13] We did get the executed ordinance, too.
[1:33:15] The draft ordinance split and said R-12 and R-12A, and it wasn't clear which properties were
[1:33:22] intended to be rich in the draft ordinance, the approved signed ordinance, just as are
[1:33:27] on 20 per the motion that was approved by the city council.
[1:33:32] Thank you.
[1:33:35] Excuse me.
[1:33:36] Thank you for all this information and we've had a lot of emails about this.
[1:33:41] Just my thoughts on this, for can I or wildly different on this?
[1:33:46] I actually think that this is a value add to the neighborhood, I think any neighborhood
[1:33:51] with animal rights, encourages families, and more people to come in and I actually love
[1:33:58] this because I would hate to have someone tell me what I can and cannot do, which I
[1:34:02] know we do all the time, to my property, especially when an animal situation is so beneficial
[1:34:09] to our quality of life. So just another opposite side of the coin.
[1:34:29] Thank you very much.
[1:34:39] I was hoping I'll get a chance to address the issues here with you all.
[1:34:43] My name is Matt Grant. I've lived in Sandy for the last 10 years with my wife, Laura, and her with eight children.
[1:34:49] We would like to hear from the applicant, please.
[1:34:51] Thank you very much. I was hoping I'll get a chance to address the issues here with you all.
[1:34:53] and help us know what we love living in Sandean.
[1:34:56] I'll just start by thanking you all for your service on and on.
[1:35:00] A long meeting, some week nights for you all, and I recognize you do a lot to make our community a great place, and sincerely want to thank you for weighing, especially contentious issues with their difficult, competing interest on both sides, so I appreciate you hearing without anyone with that to say.
[1:35:17] So as noted, two of my neighbors and I have submitted to application, we do feel strongly that we should have a designation on our property, as a bit of background as you first, we got these lands back in April.
[1:35:28] I did research, and I'd probably really like to much on AI summaries of the code that Ms. Nichole
[1:35:35] you mentioned.
[1:35:35] It was kind of hard to understand.
[1:35:36] But the summary I got back was that with the half acre lot in our area.
[1:35:39] We would be able to have lambs.
[1:35:41] We had neighbors on the street who would last couple of years about goats.
[1:35:44] And there's horse properties and lots of chickens.
[1:35:46] So I didn't think too much of it.
[1:35:48] Obviously it was a mistake.
[1:35:49] I apologize for that.
[1:35:51] Since then, I've learned from the city that we didn't need an A designation and understood how that worked.
[1:35:55] And so working with the city, we applied for that.
[1:35:58] And when we mentioned it to either neighbors, I asked
[1:36:00] all four of our neighbors, who are all three of our neighbors,
[1:36:02] who also don't have the A designation that they'd like to join.
[1:36:05] Two of them wanted to, once they understood it,
[1:36:08] and one of them, you first marked it and she chose not
[1:36:11] to join us on this.
[1:36:14] It's just like to highlight a few things.
[1:36:16] It sounds like you've all read the materials,
[1:36:17] which I really appreciate.
[1:36:18] So I won't go into a lot of these telling that.
[1:36:20] But I would just highlight that if you look at our neighborhood,
[1:36:23] that, you know, all of the lots in our broader neighborhood
[1:36:26] from 13th east to the east, that are at least a half an acre
[1:36:31] in size, half the eight is a nation except for these four.
[1:36:34] They are at a significant exception.
[1:36:36] If you zoom out and look at broader sandy city,
[1:36:39] virtually not virtually all, but the vast majority of lots
[1:36:42] that are at least a half acre in size, half an eight is a nation.
[1:36:44] It's certainly the exception of the work
[1:36:47] of properties owned like ours is, or a size
[1:36:49] with at least a half an acre.
[1:36:51] And, in fact, many of the R1-15, which are smarter than the maker, and the majority of those
[1:36:56] also have any designation.
[1:36:58] So, there are thousands of properties in our city that have any designation.
[1:37:02] We're seeking to add our three properties to that list, and we can't believe we think
[1:37:05] it's an interest of fairness.
[1:37:07] As I think, Mr. Susan mentioned, there are a lot of properties.
[1:37:11] We certainly respect them and understand, you know, neighboring properties have rights.
[1:37:15] Many of those neighboring properties are already zoned, are 128, and there's R1-38 in that there are many homes in our neighborhood that are already raised chickens and we feel like the zoning request here is really consistent with the existing neighborhood.
[1:37:32] I also highlight the planning commission.
[1:37:34] I think that a very thorough deliberation here that actually came out of the bus and toward our neighborhood and they walked our property and they saw the layout, which I think was helpful to them.
[1:37:40] voted 70 in favor unanimously of our result. I think with the benefit of seeing that, and I understand
[1:37:48] the city council doesn't normally do that, but any one of you would be welcome to, you know,
[1:37:52] I can continue my contact information. I can see the property if that would be helpful, but I really
[1:37:57] think it's a neighborhood that lends itself to having to aid designation in particular in
[1:38:01] broader city where there are thousands of properties at this.
[1:38:05] The second point I want to make, similar to Ms. Christiansen, is I think in our
[1:38:10] our neighbors, broadly, I think that having this aid information added would be a big
[1:38:14] positive for our neighborhood, and certainly for my own family. As you saw in the meeting materials,
[1:38:19] we had, I think, 10 or so neighbors, some of whom I don't know reached out with emails,
[1:38:22] and supported this many more and stopped by, where they see the lovely orange signpost
[1:38:26] in our front yard that we've had for a few weeks now, and they asked what's going on,
[1:38:29] and they're all very supportive. We've had dozens of neighborhood kids coming over and helping
[1:38:34] feed the lambs, lots of families come over and visit the lambs, it really has, I think, been a very positive thing for the neighborhood, I'm understanding that we have one neighbor who is opposed to it.
[1:38:45] Certainly, a very positive for my kids. In the Sandy City code where it talks about the zoning, if I could just quote one line, it says that the farm animals on a lots can be held for the purposes of family food production, education and recreation.
[1:38:58] And these lamps have provided terrific education for my
[1:39:01] my eight children and as they've learned to help take care of them and help
[1:39:04] keep their space clean and do everything we can to make sure there's no
[1:39:07] nuisance issues there which is something we're very focused on and try to work
[1:39:10] closely with our neighbors on.
[1:39:13] And a few months, if this zoning is approved, which we hope it will be,
[1:39:17] then these lamps will provide food for our family and that's, you know,
[1:39:20] an argue that's a positive as well.
[1:39:22] And we would like to have the right to be able to meet that determination.
[1:39:28] Again, I'd say that even if this is approved, I don't know that we'll ever have lines
[1:39:33] again.
[1:39:34] Lambs are a short duration livestock.
[1:39:36] We do have a few chickens.
[1:39:37] We have chickens for a while.
[1:39:39] Our neighbors is behind us, we have several neighbors on our street for the chickens.
[1:39:43] But I don't know if a lot of lines again.
[1:39:45] I don't know if my neighbors are part of the application, we'll ever have farm animals.
[1:39:49] They haven't told me they're planning to.
[1:39:51] But we do believe that having a designation to be consistent with the rest of our neighborhood
[1:39:54] But it's fair, and as Mr. Warner mentioned, there are lots of benefits to having it.
[1:40:00] A designation, it's not just about these three lands that we're trying to raise for a few more months. We feel like this is trying to bring the zoning in line with the rest of the neighborhood and what we think is fair, and if we want to build a small greenhouse or a shadow, whatever in the future that benefits from having a designation, all of us believe that it's fair and can be consistent with the surrounding neighborhood.
[1:40:20] Before I wrap up, I'd like to just address a few of the concerns that I've heard, both from our neighbors and also from some of you.
[1:40:28] Honestly, the last thing we want is conflict or
[1:40:30] contention with the neighbor neighbors, that's not in our nature.
[1:40:33] We've tried really hard to work things out with our neighbors and
[1:40:35] addressing any questions or issues.
[1:40:38] I don't feel like the lands are that much of a nuisance personally,
[1:40:42] but we've done everything we can to make sure that we don't feed them very
[1:40:44] certain hours to make sure they're quiet and so forth.
[1:40:48] I would say several of the neighbors and a few of you have asked about
[1:40:51] the application of the all or nothing with the A.
[1:40:53] So I think it's a true issue, and it's maybe one for the Council to consider, I don't think it's an appropriate consideration connection with this limited reason request.
[1:41:02] We're one of thousands of properties of this size, and we've gone through a lengthy process journey to get this application approved.
[1:41:09] But I would, you know, I think it makes sense perhaps for the City Council to consider changing some details about the count and otherwise.
[1:41:16] Most of our neighbors who have a concern about this, I think it can be summarized as they're worried that we're going to have cattle and horses.
[1:41:21] I will say, if it came to our property, I think you'd agree, our lot is not when it makes
[1:41:26] sense to have forces or cattle.
[1:41:28] We have a large touch-roggener back here, we have basketball court, the three lambs and
[1:41:32] the handful of chickens we have now is about all we have room for it, and all we could
[1:41:36] have.
[1:41:37] And as I said, I don't think we'll even have lambs very much in the future.
[1:41:41] That said, I don't think the zoning laws as they're written today should be applied to
[1:41:46] specific properties to, you know, to try to prevent specific hypothetical future
[1:41:51] or course yours or cattle or whatever else.
[1:41:53] Our view is there's, there's a lot of other laws.
[1:41:56] The sandy city ordinance says, D1000, how many of the animals you can keep?
[1:41:58] There's nuisance laws.
[1:42:00] There's laws about how you have to, you know, keep your lot clean.
[1:42:03] There are laws with setback.
[1:42:04] There are animal cruelty laws.
[1:42:05] There's all sorts of laws that I think can kind of restrict someone from putting a horse
[1:42:09] in a 10 by 10 pattern for whatever animal or it's a lot.
[1:42:12] And candidly, those laws should apply to the thousands of a lots that are already
[1:42:15] distance and not the in our view and issue for this limited application for these on the three
[1:42:20] properties. Lastly, just to address some of the concerns of our good neighbor and his
[1:42:28] Clark here, you know, everyone has a different perception of noise and different tolerances
[1:42:33] for that and we appreciate and respect that. Our view is the lens really aren't that loud.
[1:42:38] If you have experience with lens which I do, they're very quiet at night unless there's a
[1:42:42] or attacking them or something.
[1:42:43] They usually make noise when they're being fed.
[1:42:46] Or if someone goes back to pet them or whatever,
[1:42:48] but that noise is significantly quieter,
[1:42:50] I would say, than most dogs in our neighborhood.
[1:42:52] Quieter than the chickens that we have in our neighborhood.
[1:42:56] And again, as I said, we do what we can to not be a nuisance
[1:42:59] and defeat them, at least after 7 a.m.
[1:43:03] or before 7 p.m.
[1:43:05] And that's kind of when they'll be a little bit loud,
[1:43:07] but as I said, quiet in dogs, there's some other,
[1:43:10] I guess, accusations, things we just disagree about.
[1:43:13] We have taken the lands on walks around the neighborhood a few times,
[1:43:15] and we do that.
[1:43:16] They're always on a halter, on a leash.
[1:43:19] One of my kids follows with a little bucket and a broom and dust pan.
[1:43:22] If they do defecate, which doesn't happen that much,
[1:43:24] it's similar to deer pellets in the inframental lands.
[1:43:27] It's dry.
[1:43:28] Around the other things, we sweep it up.
[1:43:29] We take it on me throw it away.
[1:43:30] That's been our consistent approach.
[1:43:33] And frankly, that's a time that brings our neighborhood together.
[1:43:35] Everyone comes out to see the lands and the dog walkers love that.
[1:43:38] And we think it's positive.
[1:43:39] But I can promise you, they're not walking through people's yards and letting loose.
[1:43:44] They're kept in the secure pan, which we keep as clean as we can in our backyard, which
[1:43:47] isn't say that gated backyard,
[1:43:51] and when we take them out, we're, I think, very conscientious.
[1:43:54] It's possible that if the pieces we've found in someone's yard, it'll be from deer, but
[1:43:58] I can assure you that it's not us taking our limbs and people's yards.
[1:44:05] I think, I guess just lastly, I do really respect and appreciate Ms. Clark's history with
[1:44:11] property. I didn't know when I acquired the property that she used to own the lot that we're on now
[1:44:15] that wasn't anywhere in our title or any sorts of comments or restrictions. We bought this
[1:44:20] free and clear. There's any other property and either property owner would. And while she has strong
[1:44:24] opinions about what we should do in our yard, which includes the lands and chickens and tree houses
[1:44:30] and any any number of things, ultimately it's it's our property that we bought and we feel like
[1:44:35] this should be viewed and assessed independently by the council of whether these three lots should
[1:44:40] of an aid designation and whether that's fair and you know we just respectfully don't think
[1:44:45] that the ownership history of the land is relevant for who gets to determine now what
[1:44:50] the zoning should be, which we believe is now the state council.
[1:44:53] So, those, thank you for, for the time having answered further questions if there are any
[1:44:58] questions before I turn the mic back over.
[1:45:01] I don't think we have any questions. Thank you.
[1:45:06] Okay, so that brings us to our next item on the agenda. Number five, I believe, is Melissa.
[1:45:14] You will be presenting a minutes to land and don't develop that code.
[1:45:43] Okay, I'm just waiting for this to. There we go.
[1:45:47] All right.
[1:45:48] Thank you very much. Good evening, Madam Chair and the council.
[1:45:52] So, tonight is a work session.
[1:45:55] No decision is required tonight, but to give an overview of the proposed code amendments to the land development code to allow for detached accessory dwelling units, as well as some other updates to that section of the code.
[1:46:14] What I'm going to do is go over the state law SB 284 which was adopted this year and some policies in the general plan.
[1:46:27] Summary of the proposed code amendments such as defining 80 years and extended living areas.
[1:46:34] The application procedures where we're recommending locations and cities for these detached data use and some of the requirements for those.
[1:46:44] We also have examples of ADUs to show you and also some layouts of building ADUs on different
[1:46:54] lot sizes to show the feasibility of that from small lots to larger lots and lastly,
[1:47:02] specific recommendation by the Planning Commission. Two weeks ago we had a public hearing
[1:47:08] with the Planning Commission. They made their formal recommendation to city council
[1:47:14] regarding this package. They do have some amendments that they would appreciate the council
[1:47:19] to take into consideration. And so that the minutes were in the packet. And we've also
[1:47:27] included those modifications in the slideshow.
[1:47:35] So,
[1:47:38] not
[1:47:44] sure if this is working or if you can
[1:47:46] Let me move it forward.
[1:47:50] Just and you want to click on the screen back there and see if it will.
[1:47:56] Oh, there we go. Thank you.
[1:47:59] So the new state law is effective October 1st, so in a month.
[1:48:06] And what it does is that requires cities such as Sandy to allow for detached accessory dwelling units on residential lots that are 11,000 square feet or 4th grader.
[1:48:20] And in our general plan, we also have adopted policy specifically related to accessory dwelling units.
[1:48:31] Generally, there's support for that in the general plan.
[1:48:36] And it supports ADUs both attached and detached and to encourage a variety of housing options for different types of households.
[1:48:47] The policies also include requirements for owner occupancy, mitigating impacts on neighboring
[1:48:56] properties, and to ensure ADUs are subordinate to the primary structure, or not as large.
[1:49:11] So it's both the state law as well as implementing our general plan that we have this
[1:49:17] proposal for you. So first off, a lot of the code relates to whether you're talking about
[1:49:26] an accessory dwelling unit for versus an extended living area. In general, accessory dwelling
[1:49:35] unit or ADU is a rental. It's a self-contained rental and it's going to be inside or outside
[1:49:42] the house. So an adios, self-contained, how do we're living in it, it includes kitchen, bathroom,
[1:49:48] sleeping areas that's used as a rental. Now we used to call them accessory apartments and we're
[1:49:55] proposing to call them accessory dwelling units because that's more.
[1:50:00] Common terminology as well as consistent with state code. So if it's, and we've been allowing those as attached accessory apartment units, and a number of years ago, the state law required us to do so. So we've been, those have been allowed, it's just not the detached that have been addressed to date.
[1:50:23] So, if it's attached, it's incorporated within the existing single-family home, and it will not substantially alter the structure or its appearance.
[1:50:34] Now, if it was detached, it would be subordinate to and detached from the primary dwelling on the single-art or a parcel.
[1:50:44] So, extended living areas are designed for use by the occupants of the primary dwelling on a non-rental basis for family, friends, etc.
[1:50:57] If it's attached, it's additional living facilities within the primary single family dwelling.
[1:51:03] It contains a kitchen or a kitchenette that may also have associated living quarters like a bathroom sleeping areas.
[1:51:10] And if it's detached, it's additional living facilities detached for the primary single family dwelling that contains a kitchen, bathroom, sleeping area or other habitable living areas.
[1:51:26] So the main thing about this is that an extended living area could not necessarily be totally so contained, but you may have a kitchen and a half bath.
[1:51:37] It also could be fully self-contained so that it operates like an apartment and like a rental.
[1:51:49] And so if an example of if it was detached in this definition, it would include things like a poolhouse that could have cooking facilities for barbecuing as well as a full bath with shower by the pool.
[1:52:05] We've had a number of examples where people have gymnasiums with a number of things, you know,
[1:52:14] washing facilities and mini-kitchens and things like that.
[1:52:18] You could have offices and clients coming to visit you.
[1:52:27] But basically it's habitable where you're going to have more intensive use as opposed to just a shed,
[1:52:33] where you're just going there to store some things.
[1:52:37] So in that sense, there is a distinguishing
[1:52:41] between whether it is operating as a self-contained unit,
[1:52:46] that basically could operate like an apartment,
[1:52:49] you could rent it out or not rent it out.
[1:52:51] Or it may have some of those habitable features,
[1:52:56] but it's not totally so contained,
[1:52:59] but it's close and it could easily be changed to something
[1:53:02] like that. I recently had a two-story detached accessory structure like for the pool house but
[1:53:10] it was two stories and the key thing there is that it is the way our code is now, you could
[1:53:18] be as close as two feet to the property lies. Well if it's two stories that you might have to
[1:53:32] Now it's you could just be really close to property line and so we're wanting to mitigate that.
[1:53:38] So anyway, that's the difference.
[1:53:39] What main thing is it's a rental or it's not in this.
[1:53:43] You may have your extended family living there and so you're just wanting to accommodate that for a larger family setting.
[1:53:52] So application process very similar, but extended living areas.
[1:53:57] It's typically through a building permit, and at that time we review it, and it's an affidavit.
[1:54:02] It doesn't really take any longer than the normal building permit price process.
[1:54:09] An affidavit is signed by the owner, and our building staff actually recorded for them.
[1:54:15] Accessory dwelling unit for a rental, same process, it's through the building permit.
[1:54:20] We have a affidavit, it's different if it's for an apartment or I mean a rental.
[1:54:28] But along with that, there's a special use permit and business license that goes along
[1:54:33] with that.
[1:54:37] So for post locations for detached data use.
[1:54:41] So required by state law is would be in residential zones on property 11,000 square feet
[1:54:46] or greater incision. That's what the current recommendation is in the text proposal.
[1:54:53] However, staff does support and would like the Council to consider expanding.
[1:55:00] Any eligible areas or smaller block sizes in the future. Included in the packet here is some maps that show eligible potential properties.
[1:55:14] So this shows if the lot is a residential zone, it's 11,000 square feet or larger, and these residential zones would be single-family zones.
[1:55:25] And we took out the properties that were like a school of park that would include a lot of acres or square feet, but really wouldn't be applicable for this exercise.
[1:55:40] This is an estimate, but it shows those properties that have the potential.
[1:55:45] and it's about 20% of Sandy as this analysis shows.
[1:55:52] It also shows areas for a transit station because that relates to parking,
[1:55:58] one of the caveats of this proposal is,
[1:56:02] if you were within half a mile of the station,
[1:56:05] potentially you could have a reduction in parking.
[1:56:09] The other map is showing 10,000 square lots.
[1:56:12] And that shows about a 5% increase in the potential area of Sandy that could be accommodated
[1:56:22] or would be impacted by allowing ADUs on those properties.
[1:56:28] And then this shows a lot that are 8,000 square feet or larger.
[1:56:33] In Sandy, the R18 Zone, which is minimum loss, I say 8,000 square feet.
[1:56:38] That's our most predominant zone in Sandy.
[1:56:41] We do have R175, R166 as well, so it does go smaller, but these just shows the areas
[1:56:53] of Sandy that could be accommodating 80 use if it's depending on what areas you want to include.
[1:57:03] So some of the standards that we do now, we'd like to or recommending to continue and
[1:57:08] those standards work would be that especially use permit and business
[1:57:14] sizes for the ADU would be required. It would affect those areas that are
[1:57:21] residential single-family areas. The standards would be clear and objective.
[1:57:28] Owner occupancy to be required. Only one address and utility meter and also
[1:57:35] these affidavits that are recorded on a lot.
[1:57:39] So in the proposal, we're recommending the maximum number
[1:57:42] of ADUs allowed on a lot to be one.
[1:57:46] And that could be either attached inside the home,
[1:57:50] a rental, or outside the home detached,
[1:57:53] but no more than one, one of the other.
[1:57:56] And then if we're looking at the detached,
[1:58:00] only one detached self-contained habitable living unit. It could be an ADU or an extended living
[1:58:08] area because if you have this rental and it's a detached ADU and then you decide I don't want
[1:58:14] to rent it anymore. The renter has moved on and I've decided I want my children, my adult
[1:58:24] children to live here or child to live there, then it would be extended living area.
[1:58:29] which is revered to that.
[1:58:32] So only one, as opposed to multiple of these detached on the lot.
[1:58:40] And inside the home, extended living areas are not limited
[1:58:44] within the primary dwelling, but only one, maybe,
[1:58:47] of fully self-contained habitable living units.
[1:58:50] So what this is trying to do is to limit the number
[1:58:55] of potential rentals, someone could be renting out, you know, oh, this unit, detach this unit inside.
[1:59:05] And so, and if the structure can accommodate it, it's often that someone might use it for that without the proper permitting or the proper license and like that.
[1:59:20] this is trying to spell out that there are limits to how many of these that you can have.
[1:59:27] Before you move on, if you could go back to that, Ms. Christiansen had a question.
[1:59:32] Yeah. Oh, we have more. We have several. Just second.
[1:59:34] I just want to like, when I'm reading through this and I've got to note about this,
[1:59:38] I just want to make sure and understanding correctly.
[1:59:42] We're recommending that they're allowed to have one detached ADU, which we have to do.
[1:59:48] but they're also allowed to have a short-term rental inside their home.
[1:59:57] That's it. I'm not.
[2:00:00] Yes. Okay, so this doesn't address addresses like how it's constructed. It doesn't necessarily address
[2:00:15] short-term rentals, but I'll answer first, short-term rentals are not the proposal, does
[2:00:22] not allow a short-term rental in a detached, date, date, and internally, yes, they are allowed,
[2:00:31] but you can't have multiple of these, you can do one or the other, you can't have a short-term
[2:00:42] and then another fully apartment self-contained AU.
[2:00:50] Okay, because I just, when I read it, like, thank you for clarifying it.
[2:00:53] I just don't see that called out in here anywhere.
[2:00:56] Yeah, that's actually a good point.
[2:00:58] It's like, if it's not clear, maybe we need more clarity on that.
[2:01:03] Because this slide is talking about, but it doesn't address that.
[2:01:07] It's another part of the code, but let me, I'd like to make a note of that.
[2:01:11] Okay, it looks not talking about this slide.
[2:01:14] No, I'm talking about like the document that you can have one of each where they are and what you do with them is the only difference, right?
[2:01:23] Yeah, yeah, so it's this isn't about short term rentals, so you can have one of each, but you know more than one, you think you can't.
[2:01:31] So she's saying either or you cannot have both.
[2:01:34] Yeah, that's what I think.
[2:01:35] on ELA or an ADU, or both extended living area, that can be detached or inside the subject
[2:01:48] walls.
[2:01:49] So, and a short-term rental is considered, we're not talking about short-term rentals.
[2:01:55] Oh, you are.
[2:01:56] No, I'm specifically, because in here is a short-term rental prohibited in the detached unit,
[2:02:02] but they are allowed within the primary structure.
[2:02:04] But so to me that says that you can have an ADU and yeah, yeah, you wouldn't be able to have that would basically be two
[2:02:14] Reynolds one a doctor and so you wouldn't be able the intent is that you would not be okay able to have both and so
[2:02:22] It could be we could have a clarification on this my guess the text right here
[2:02:27] So just like if that's true we can only have either or in one property
[2:02:31] I suggest like clarification.
[2:02:35] Yeah.
[2:02:35] Yeah.
[2:02:35] Yeah.
[2:02:35] I'll clarify.
[2:02:36] I'll clarify.
[2:02:37] I'll be reculated to the ML.
[2:02:41] So I don't know if we want to liken this with short term rentals rather than.
[2:02:45] We'll just keep it in half of it out.
[2:02:46] You can have a rental.
[2:02:48] Yeah.
[2:02:49] It's just because we're all 30 days and that's not a short term rental.
[2:02:52] The amendments in one of our documents.
[2:02:55] It called it out in the analysis.
[2:02:56] So that's why I'm just saying.
[2:02:58] Just to clarify, the intent is that you want to ensure that.
[2:03:01] someone that is renting out one of these spaces, whether it's internal or external if they're having the
[2:03:07] NSTR, they can't also have an ADU.
[2:03:11] Well, that's not a question to you guys. Is that what you're saying?
[2:03:13] And that you cannot.
[2:03:14] That is correct.
[2:03:16] Because you're hoping that it's more clear to me.
[2:03:20] Because the way I read this, I would read this and say, I can have both.
[2:03:24] Oh, right.
[2:03:25] So.
[2:03:26] We can work on some clarifying language.
[2:03:28] Okay, thank you.
[2:03:31] Mr. Sussan.
[2:03:33] Thank you.
[2:03:33] My question is kind of around what the discussion has been because it's not completely
[2:03:37] clear to me either.
[2:03:39] So when we talk about an ADU, are we using that term to define the name, like, to name
[2:03:45] the structure, or are we naming the, like, the, the, the, the, the, the, the rental aspect
[2:03:51] the purpose because having one doesn't necessarily mean that it's going, that it's actively
[2:03:56] being rented to, and so the only one, ADU, on an attached law, are we saying only one
[2:04:05] self-contained structure, or are we saying we can only have one in operation as a rental?
[2:04:14] Yeah, in the definition, that is helpful if you want to scroll to the actual specific language
[2:04:24] the definition because we try to work hard on that. I'd say it's both and let's take the
[2:04:32] example that it's just detached from the home that you may start out where you do want to
[2:04:40] rent it out and the idea is that it's fully self-contained. It doesn't have just a mini kitchen.
[2:04:47] It has the kitchen or many kitchen.
[2:04:50] It has a full bathroom sleeping area.
[2:04:53] So it can function self-contains to support someone
[2:04:57] to live there.
[2:05:00] You may start out running it and then a year later you may decide I don't want to run anymore because my daughter's moving back and I want her to live there.
[2:05:11] Then it would you wouldn't renew your permit or business license and it would just revert to an extended living area for your family.
[2:05:18] We do this now for internal addues, so it's the same process that we do for accessory apartments, which is what we're called an internal accessory apartment.
[2:05:28] Or ADU is classified that way. And in the same structure as far as extended living areas, we're just applying to detached structures.
[2:05:37] Okay, so a home that has a mother-in-law apartment, let's say, that it's like fully self-certainty.
[2:05:46] Fully self-contained.
[2:05:48] Separate could be rented out, you know, with going into your process.
[2:05:53] But this household or property owner would like to build a structure detached that may also serve this purpose.
[2:06:01] The allowance of that structure.
[2:06:03] There's an allowance for that structure, but only one can be rented, right?
[2:06:08] I do think that the way that we're talking about this is really confusing because,
[2:06:12] to me, like the accessory dwelling unit is more of like the structure,
[2:06:17] not doesn't have anything to do with the active rental aspect.
[2:06:20] And so even like in real estate when you're listing homes,
[2:06:24] you would say there's been new provisions now that this home has an accessory dwelling unit,
[2:06:30] But that doesn't necessarily mean that it's actively being rented, it's just an accessory structure that's used for that could be used for dwelling or habitable in that way.
[2:06:40] And so in our code, our definitions clearly map out that it's intended for rental use.
[2:06:48] And in code, it's very common that we are piecing things together.
[2:06:55] And so when we are not sure what that term, we'll go to that definition and then that informs us.
[2:07:01] Some of that is reducing repetition and like that.
[2:07:05] It's just different.
[2:07:07] And part of that is because of the owner occupancy requirement.
[2:07:11] I would, I would, anytime a real-liter calls and ask whether an ADU is potential on this
[2:07:17] property, because they have an existing kitchen, you know, area in the basement, and they
[2:07:23] want to be able to rent it out.
[2:07:25] I always clarify that it is not pre-approved for an ADU because it depends on whether they get
[2:07:33] a permit and they have to show that it's on our occupied and they can't just turn it into
[2:07:39] I do collect and rent out both the top and the bottom.
[2:07:41] I guess I'm asking the practical, the practicality of I come to the city and I say I want to build an accessory structure.
[2:07:47] What are you going to require me? Do I have to have a special use permit to even build that?
[2:07:54] Well, yeah building permit initially.
[2:07:56] I didn't say building, I said special use permit because it depends on your intent.
[2:08:01] It depends on how they plan to use the structure.
[2:08:03] Well, okay, so it's so a detached extended living there could be a detached extended living area
[2:08:09] Oh, yeah, yeah, that's part of the definitional changes that we're talking about. Right. That's there's four different definitions
[2:08:15] That's what she I think I'm just gonna say in my opinion, and I'm gonna read through this and maybe you know
[2:08:22] That may change and read through it again. I should say
[2:08:25] But the way that we're talking about it isn't necessarily
[2:08:28] consistent with how like
[2:08:30] people are using the terminology and it is really confusing to
[2:08:35] consider the structure as a purpose, as a purpose in the way that we are.
[2:08:42] So those are my thoughts, doesn't necessarily need to be responded to now, but it's
[2:08:47] confusing.
[2:08:49] Some of it is complicated just because we were having to spell it out.
[2:08:54] Well, that's so my question, I can have both, but only rent one.
[2:08:59] go back? Is that Mike? I can have both but I can only rent one. Correct. You can have
[2:09:07] a detached structure that I call that ace. That is correct.
[2:09:15] How are we going to police
[2:09:17] that? It's just like you police it now. So we don't. No, well, it's complete base, like, and
[2:09:25] how do we prove that? Well, does this deal allow us to do for proving that? Same thing
[2:09:29] that we do for, that we've done for internal apartments, the same thing we do for our
[2:09:37] community.
[2:09:37] But typically, we would only know is if we have a building permit, if people go and make
[2:09:42] renovations without building permits, it would not necessarily look no.
[2:09:50] And then if there is a complaint that we would research about that property, or if they're selling
[2:09:57] and then they're needing to know what's legal, what's not.
[2:10:01] But just as Michael was saying, it's just as we do now that at the building permit, we're going to be looking at the floor plans of building the additions, everything, and oh, if this is an extended living area, then that's what we will default to, but if they want to rent it out, we say you need a special use permit with business license. And it's at that time that we communicate and administer that.
[2:10:28] So if someone has a large number of property that they can have two structures on it, like a garage in an ADU,
[2:10:36] and they decide they don't want to rent out their ADU any more, can they go to another one?
[2:10:43] Oh, if another detached?
[2:10:45] Yeah.
[2:10:46] If they've got to big enough lot.
[2:10:48] They can only build with one, one, or one shed, like remind me how this goes, and one ADU.
[2:10:54] So you're allowed to have up to two accessory structures on a single-family residential property.
[2:10:59] The only exception of that is a designated properties.
[2:11:02] So if someone could, if they didn't have a shed, build two accessory dwelling units, it's gonna only rent out one.
[2:11:08] No.
[2:11:09] No.
[2:11:09] Well, only because it's only one self-contained, habitable, detached.
[2:11:18] So one detached ADU would be allowed.
[2:11:21] You could have a detached office.
[2:11:25] Or, you know, work out room or something like that.
[2:11:28] It would be a detached extended living area,
[2:11:30] but only one could be a fully self-contained ADU.
[2:11:34] That met that definition of a detached ADU.
[2:11:36] I know I'm skipping a little bit,
[2:11:38] but like, is this something that would go through
[2:11:40] the administrative court judge?
[2:11:43] Oh, you mean, if it was-
[2:11:44] As far as enforcement?
[2:11:45] Yeah, I mean, are we going to put in penalties into this?
[2:11:50] Should we be adding penalties into this?
[2:11:52] So if you start renting out an unapproved data you the your fine decks amount of dollars per day or whatever we choose
[2:11:59] Should we be adding this to that?
[2:12:02] Well, I can now James speak to that
[2:12:07] You forgive me a little bit ahead of ourselves. I think we first need to get an ordinance in place and see how it runs and see how it works and
[2:12:15] If we find violations we could certainly come to you to tighten things up if that's what the council wants to do and I totally respect
[2:12:22] And we could go to the ALJ or we could do whatever.
[2:12:25] But I think what we're trying to accomplish here,
[2:12:29] we're just trying to get an ordinance in place first
[2:12:32] to comply with state law and then see how it works.
[2:12:36] And let's run it for a while before we decide
[2:12:38] how to, yeah, I'm not willing to put an ordinance,
[2:12:41] not put an ordinance in place for this without the penalties
[2:12:45] for breaking it.
[2:12:47] I think that's very important for someone in terms of illegal.
[2:12:51] and like enforcement and so forth.
[2:12:53] Well, when we put the coding place, obviously, we're going to have a code that we're going to look at.
[2:13:01] And once the code is in place, and once the council has decided, we have a code that we have to enforce.
[2:13:07] The code in itself is enforceable, and if people aren't living by that, then we enforce that code.
[2:13:13] So I wouldn't worry as much about putting extra stuff in it right now.
[2:13:16] Let's get the code in place and see if it works and then determine if we're having a lot of problems we can tighten it up
[2:13:24] But we'll once we have a code we can enforce that code and that's that is good enough for us to take it to an LJ or wherever our
[2:13:31] processes. If you want financial penalties. If you want financial penalties. If you want financial penalties and that's certainly something the city council could look out and do.
[2:13:39] Okay, thank you.
[2:13:41] Mr. Erky?
[2:13:43] Hey, James, don't go well.
[2:13:46] And it may be helpful to get through the rest of the presentation
[2:13:49] and then we can start answering some of these questions
[2:13:52] as they come up.
[2:13:55] But, you know what's confusing?
[2:13:57] You know what?
[2:13:57] Okay.
[2:13:58] So we all understand STRs and why and how that happened.
[2:14:04] We all understand ADUs and why and how that happened.
[2:14:08] Now we were told we're going to have to comply with detached ADUs.
[2:14:13] We get it.
[2:14:14] We're STR, ADU, DADU.
[2:14:17] You know what's the most confusing part, ELAs?
[2:14:22] Why did we decide that we had to define limit control, living areas that were not rented,
[2:14:35] But just part of the intended use of the home owner, why did we need to fold that in here?
[2:14:42] It seems like that is the complicating and confusing fact.
[2:14:46] That's part of our original code before the IADU ordinance by the state was imposed.
[2:14:53] We have an accessory apartment standard.
[2:14:56] We've allowed that for years.
[2:14:58] Well before the state told us we had to.
[2:15:01] And we've also had a definition for extended living areas, and that was always defined based on how it was used.
[2:15:09] It was fine to have a mother-in-law apartment. If it was for your mother-in-law, it was for your family, for extended family occupancy.
[2:15:16] But once it was used for the purpose of renting it out, it became an accessory apartment. That's how our current code is written.
[2:15:24] We're extending that same paradigm, that same splitting of how those spaces are utilized
[2:15:31] for detached.
[2:15:32] That's the only thing that we're adding is a detached and we're changing the name
[2:15:36] from accessory department to the more commonly used ADU.
[2:15:41] Because that's what people are using for whether it's internal or external, detached
[2:15:46] accessory dwelling is what people are using for that term.
[2:15:51] So that's the more commonly used terminology.
[2:15:54] Everything else within the home or external to the home, it depends on how it's being utilized.
[2:16:01] And if it's being used for purpose of rental, that's when it also requires a permit to be obtained to for that use.
[2:16:10] It's still not calling that out anymore.
[2:16:13] If you're saying it's been there forever and it's part of our code and we're just trying to clarify.
[2:16:18] because an ELA could or could not be an ADU depending on how it was designed, right?
[2:16:27] If it's completely freestand and habitable, you could use it as an ADU or you could use it as an ELA.
[2:16:36] It's both a matter of how it is configured and designed and who's going to occupy it.
[2:16:43] Are they paying rent or are they not paying rent?
[2:16:45] Yeah, as if it's on our market.
[2:16:47] And I think the other side of it is the market
[2:16:50] has kind of changed in how people are utilizing
[2:16:52] their properties, especially since COVID,
[2:16:56] as far as having these accessory buildings
[2:17:00] that used to be primarily just a shed or garage.
[2:17:04] But we're seeing a lot of people wanting to have
[2:17:07] a detached gym or a detached office or other living areas
[2:17:12] that would normally just be part of the house.
[2:17:14] But they're utilizing these accessory structures for different purposes, for living and occupying those spaces.
[2:17:22] And we felt like those also needed to be part of this amendment, so that those uses and how those are being lived in are not set to feet from the property line.
[2:17:36] They have a greater impact than just having a shed in the corner of the lot.
[2:17:39] If they're utilized for occupancy of and living of the family that on the lot, that's good clarification.
[2:17:48] That's part of it.
[2:17:49] We care about, we care about a more of their detached than if they're attached.
[2:17:55] Ailes, okay.
[2:17:59] How,
[2:18:02] I'm sorry, I know you missed part of this from last year.
[2:18:08] How does the city collect revenue to offset the cost of administering this?
[2:18:15] Are they, are they, are they, are they, are they receiving they're not going to be, commercial properties now if you have an ADU so we're not getting 100% of your tax revenue.
[2:18:21] Still only getting the residential discount right?
[2:18:23] I mean, through the building, are we just, is there a standard, like, increased the county's
[2:18:29] going to apply to, so they're going to, everyone who applies for needy youth in theory,
[2:18:37] the county's going to increase the value of their homes.
[2:18:41] Yeah, but I'm sure you could have a license.
[2:18:43] I mean, we're getting some value from license, you know.
[2:18:46] We don't have any control.
[2:18:47] I don't know.
[2:18:48] it's like been something that's come in with this discussion.
[2:18:54] So, as far as I'm concerned, are the county a path forward on that?
[2:18:58] I'm not sure the question, can you.
[2:19:01] So, when someone decides to build an 80 on their property, and then it has to leave you.
[2:19:05] I'm assuming, then the county, because we have business licenses, will increase the value of their homes,
[2:19:11] so they'll pay more property taxes.
[2:19:14] That says that.
[2:19:14] That says that.
[2:19:15] I have no idea.
[2:19:17] Yeah, I mean they could assess the home differently and increase the value of theater
[2:19:21] It hasn't been like brought up
[2:19:22] No, we're not really looking at that part
[2:19:26] I was just the land use part right now
[2:19:27] And how much are we charging for business license?
[2:19:29] We would have to determine that
[2:19:32] It's just the same thing that is what we do now
[2:19:34] I mean we have a small fee when we have a building permit coming in
[2:19:38] In terms of our planning review
[2:19:39] As well as the fee for our inspectors
[2:19:43] Just like building
[2:19:44] also allows additional people to city and roads and water and I mean there's a lot of things
[2:19:48] okay that answered my question thank you okay I'm going to hold mine because you said you'd
[2:19:57] like to finish the presentation
[2:20:00] Oh, Mr. DeKazar, see you. No, you change your mind. You're going to wait to the end of the presentation, do you?
[2:20:07] I just wanted to see the presentation. Continue, thank you.
[2:20:19] Okay.
[2:20:23] Okay, parking spaces. So the state allows us to require additional parking space for a detached ADU.
[2:20:33] Now, it's good to know the contacts because all single family homes are required to have four spaces on site already.
[2:20:43] And actually the state limit system requiring any more than those four spaces except for the detaching to use.
[2:20:50] So two are in the garage and two are in the driveway.
[2:20:54] That's the baseline requirement.
[2:20:56] And even if they have, you know, a apartment inside that that's as many as we can
[2:21:04] as part.
[2:21:04] But for detesting use, they allow us to require additional and so a maximum of one
[2:21:13] parking space if the detesting view is less than 650 square feet.
[2:21:19] And if it's more than that, we can require two additional.
[2:21:23] And they can also can be tandem.
[2:21:25] So if you put one behind the other, it doesn't have to be covered or in a garage, you can do that
[2:21:31] be it has to be paved on site for them to park there.
[2:21:35] So the proposal is going with what the state allows us to and it will be one parking space for a smaller
[2:21:45] one and two parking spaces if it's 650 square feet or larger, but if you're within a half a mile
[2:21:51] of a transit station and on one of those, on those slides it showed the transit stations
[2:21:56] which were really more down in, uh, close to this area as opposed to, um, uh, close to
[2:22:01] the mountains is, uh, would, you could reduce it by one parking space. So, uh, that's the,
[2:22:09] the parking requirement. And so maximum size, um, one of the policies is that it be subordinate
[2:22:17] in size detached data use, so our proposal is that it be no more than 75% or less than
[2:22:28] the size of the primary building, primary dwelling footprint. So we're not taking like every
[2:22:35] square inch of each story, it's just that footprint because what we're using it is a lot
[2:22:43] coverage as well. So no more than 75% of the main house on the footprint. So let's
[2:22:50] say if the footprint of the main house was a thousand square feet, you couldn't go any
[2:22:55] more than 750 square feet. That's 75% of that. But it also has to meet the standards
[2:23:03] of building coverage for accessory structures. So if we were administering this, we would
[2:23:08] calculate one and then we calculate the other and figure out which one's less.
[2:23:13] So in this slide it shows in the accessory structure chapter because we're trying to
[2:23:18] make it a measure with what we already allow now in terms of accessory structures which is
[2:23:25] you're allowed up to two and one or both of them cannot exceed more than a set square
[2:23:32] footage depending on your lot size. So if your lot was, for example, 11,000 square feet
[2:23:40] based on this table, it could not be any more than 750 square feet if that was the only
[2:23:49] accessory structure on the lot. Just like if it was a storage shed, we wouldn't allow more
[2:23:57] more than that. So the lock coverage is commasurate and also it could not be any more than
[2:24:06] 75% of the primary building coverage. So we basically would use both of these whichever
[2:24:13] is less and that is what they're maximum would be.
[2:24:19] The next is location where it could
[2:24:22] you put it in the front yard or just the rear yard. So the proposal proposes the detached
[2:24:28] It would only be allowed on the side in the rear yard and behind the front plane of the house.
[2:24:37] Basically, it wouldn't be allowed in what is defined as the front yard.
[2:24:42] It has to be no further forward than that main house.
[2:24:48] But if a lot was larger, if a lot was 40,000 square feet or larger,
[2:24:53] the proposal would allow a detached ADU to be in front of that house.
[2:25:00] But it has to meet the front setback. We have different definitions for front setback and front yard, but that's the proposal.
[2:25:11] Building height and setback. So the height and setback is really tied together. So in our table of standards, we included those, which are, if we would allow up to a 15 foot building height,
[2:25:27] But it would have to be at least 10 feet from the side and the rear set back and that's basically a one story
[2:25:35] And so these are just kind of some images of what a one story a little ADU would be like so that would be a maximum of 15 feet
[2:25:46] Measure to the peak of the roof and
[2:25:48] And it has to be 10 feet from the side and the rear.
[2:25:53] But if it was taller than 10, 15 feet,
[2:25:57] it could not be taller than the primary dwelling.
[2:26:01] And it would also have to meet the setbacks
[2:26:05] of the primary structure.
[2:26:08] Basically, just like the main house has basic setbacks.
[2:26:13] It would have to meet those setbacks in addition.
[2:26:15] It could be no less than 10 feet from the side and the rear.
[2:26:20] So if it was two stories as an example,
[2:26:23] it was in 15 feet, you're not going to get two stories.
[2:26:25] But if it was two stories, it would have to
[2:26:28] meet the setbacks just like the main home.
[2:26:30] And then it would be allowed on the side, for example,
[2:26:33] you could not be less than 10 feet.
[2:26:35] So that's what is proposed right now.
[2:26:38] These are just some image examples of two stories structures.
[2:26:43] Balcanese index would not be allowed unless they are, it meets the setbacks of the main dwelling.
[2:26:53] So if it was just like if it was part of the main house, you could have a balcony.
[2:26:59] You could have, you know, upper decks.
[2:27:02] So basically if it's meeting those setbacks, just like the main house, well then you could.
[2:27:07] But also, we have provisions where on this detached ADU, you couldn't encroach into that
[2:27:13] setback.
[2:27:14] So that balcony cannot go in there.
[2:27:18] That's part of the, with the policies of the general plan, it does say mitigating impacts
[2:27:22] to neighbors.
[2:27:23] So these are just some of the standards that have been put in, trying to do mitigate for that.
[2:27:29] We have allowed for basements.
[2:27:32] So it could be full story underground basement or one-and-half stories, but they would be
[2:27:42] allowed in this proposal.
[2:27:45] And conversions, the state requires that we allow for a path to convert an existing access
[2:27:51] structure to a ADU and so our proposal would be that it would be a legal structure, but
[2:28:02] the habitable area has to meet the standards of the detached ADU. So this slide tries
[2:28:08] to show where, well, there's a portion of this existing structure that's really close to
[2:28:12] the property line, but that first 10 feet, you wouldn't be able to use that as the habitable
[2:28:19] area of your ADU. You could turn it into depending on the size and location. You could turn it into maybe a storage area or garage, but it cannot be the habitable area.
[2:28:34] And so if you're going to convert that, you may have to wall things off or make storage areas on the outer side that's in that setback.
[2:28:47] Examples here are just some examples of illustrations showing size so you get a feel for
[2:28:55] this illustration is showing two bedroom one bath. It's only 535 square feet and another 800 square feet with two full bedrooms in bathrooms
[2:29:10] and a two story, this is 600 square feet, one bedroom, one bath,
[2:29:20] 1,000 square foot
[2:29:22] in size would accommodate a three bedroom, two bath,
[2:29:28] and then there's several slides here
[2:29:31] that gives an analysis of, well, what if it was a smaller lot in an R16 zone, it's a 6,000
[2:29:38] for a lot. If we use the same standards and calculations would they even be able to have an
[2:29:44] ADU and what would that look like or how big would that be? And so Mike Wilcox had prepared
[2:29:51] these in evaluating what size of an ADU that they could do. So if you're some examples
[2:29:58] in the R16 Zone.
[2:30:00] Where you could accommodate like a 611 square foot ADU. And 265 foot square foot ADU. Another one where an ADU would absolutely not be practical in terms of the amount of area that they could use.
[2:30:22] And in the R18 zone where you have lot sizes typically 8,000 square feet or a little more where you could have 80s anywhere from 516 square feet.
[2:30:36] An example 394 and another is 405 square feet, I believe.
[2:30:44] So this just shows that if it was allowed on smaller lot sizes, it is possible.
[2:30:49] but they have to meet setbacks, the height, size, et cetera, of the standards.
[2:30:58] The proposal doesn't propose that right now, but it does encourage in the future,
[2:31:06] maybe looking at smaller lots of sizes.
[2:31:09] And this is our 110 zone where they could accommodate some larger ADUs,
[2:31:15] 575 square feet, one is the 750 square feet, and then going up to R1-15 and R1-20 zones,
[2:31:23] the 1,000 square foot ADU, 1500 square foot ADU, and then lastly R1-48A examples,
[2:31:34] there's one that's 1,250 square foot or another one because of what they already have on their
[2:31:44] structure.
[2:31:49] Our one for here's some other examples, 1800 square foot. The largest one is
[2:31:55] a 2000 square foot, 80 you. So the Plani Commission had their recommendation to support
[2:32:02] the proposal but with some modifications. I'd like to run through those and that will conclude
[2:32:07] the presentation.
[2:32:12] In the minutes as well outlined in the motion that included all of the proposed
[2:32:18] modifications was some findings or the rationale behind the reasoning behind that and so I
[2:32:29] encourage you if you haven't already to look at the minutes where they're proposing a specific
[2:32:37] modification to the text and why and so that's spelled out in the minutes in detail.
[2:32:45] So, the number permitted is the planning commission had wanted to add that if it's within
[2:32:55] the primary dwelling, you could have any number of living areas, but only two could be self-contained
[2:33:04] habitable living units as opposed to one, they would allow two, but only if there are no detached
[2:33:10] to 80 use on the property.
[2:33:14] So that's one of the changes that they're hoping for.
[2:33:19] On the entrance is right now, and this is existing text,
[2:33:25] the entrance that it's only allowed on the front of the house.
[2:33:29] I mean, the side in the rear of the house, not on the front,
[2:33:33] but the recommendation is to modify that on corner lots,
[2:33:38] to allow an entrance to the ADO if it faces the street that's opposite of the primary entrance.
[2:33:48] A third one is in terms of design that in terms of a connection to the home, this would be where you're adding an ADO or extended living area to your home.
[2:34:00] and you're doing an addition as opposed to requiring it to be a common wall where you have a minimum amount that has to be, you know, connected to the primary structure, the minimum width is currently specified in this text to be at least 20% of the perimeter of the addition.
[2:34:25] So through building permit review, we take those measurements to make the calculation.
[2:34:29] But it wouldn't be allowed through a bees freeze-way or a garage.
[2:34:33] That's the way the text is now, but the planning commission has proposed an amendment where the addition
[2:34:40] could be connected to the existing home by means of a common wall or freeze-way
[2:34:48] that may be attached to a non-habitable space garage.
[2:34:53] And these, these are some examples of, of a, a, a, a, a.
[2:35:00] For these ways where there is a connection,
[2:35:05] but these are pretty large flights too. It's a pretty expansive addition that they've done.
[2:35:14] So those are just some examples to show that. So lighting, this was just a typo to add the word B shall be dark sky compliant. That's already in the text.
[2:35:26] Also, the planning commission is recommending that the minimum lot size for detached
[2:35:32] shade use, instead of 11,000 square feet or larger, to bring that down to 10,000 square
[2:35:38] feet or larger and lots.
[2:35:41] We do have several areas that are one-tenth zone, so it's similar to that zone.
[2:35:49] The planning commission also recommended that this be revisited in the future to consider
[2:35:54] lower minimum lot sizes for detached data use.
[2:35:58] And so the next modification is for the location,
[2:36:05] right now, the location is just on the rear and the side
[2:36:09] and behind the house, out of the front yard.
[2:36:14] But the proposal is for properties that are larger,
[2:36:20] as well as new subdivisions of five or more
[2:36:23] lots to allow the ADU to be in front of that house,
[2:36:27] but it has to meet the front setback.
[2:36:29] So this can't be right up to the side market.
[2:36:31] You know, meet the setback, but it could be in front of that house.
[2:36:35] So the changes to add new subdivisions of five or more lots
[2:36:39] where they're designing it from scratch to meet those standards.
[2:36:44] Another one is for building height and setbacks from the side and we're property lines.
[2:36:53] And so the existing text is where you have a detestate you that's more than 15 feet in height.
[2:37:03] It can't be taller than the building height of the primary dwelling,
[2:37:09] But the recommendation is to only apply that to properties that are 20,000 square feet
[2:37:16] in size or less.
[2:37:18] So anything over 20,000 square feet that it could be taller.
[2:37:23] The detached data you could be taller than the primary dwelling.
[2:37:33] Oh, and then there was a comment that came in during our planning commission public hearing
[2:37:37] process, and they had an example of a one-story existing detached
[2:37:47] accessory structure, and they were concerned that the way it was
[2:37:50] written that they wouldn't be able to do, and convert that to an
[2:37:55] ADU for their family, either rental or non rental, but they were
[2:38:00] concerned about that, and so the Plain and Commission recommended some
[2:38:04] clarification, and so the recommended language is to add, when you're doing a conversion,
[2:38:11] add the language that if it's an existing legal accessor structure, that is one story,
[2:38:18] there's no loft or upper area living, but it is taller than 15 feet, this example that we
[2:38:23] had was only 17 feet, but it was taller than 15 feet. It could still be considered for an
[2:38:29] you, or extended living area, if the converted habitable space meets the ten foot of five
[2:38:36] in your step back.
[2:38:38] So they recommend it just clarifying that to make sure that people have a path forward,
[2:38:44] which is what the state requires us, that there is a path, there is a process for conversions.
[2:38:50] Lastly, there's no specific code change on this one, but the planning commission wanted us
[2:38:56] to consider in the future this section of the code
[2:38:58] was not publicly noticed.
[2:39:01] So we are unable to unless we go back
[2:39:04] and start the process again and do the notice.
[2:39:08] But they had wanted to look at the accessory structure
[2:39:12] section to not, on larger lots of like 40,000 square feet
[2:39:18] or 60,000 square feet or more, just larger lots
[2:39:22] to not have when you have an 80-year to have that take up the square footage allowance that you're allowed.
[2:39:30] So that's not something that's in our the proposal now or that we can amend now, but in the future,
[2:39:37] is the directed estimate, we could go back and look at that.
[2:39:43] I think that is enough.
[2:39:48] Thank you, Melissa.
[2:39:51] So, additional?
[2:39:52] This Christian said.
[2:39:54] Let's hope these make sense.
[2:39:55] Now that I've scrolled them everywhere.
[2:39:57] Okay.
[2:39:59] Um...
[2:40:00] Rear yard percentage in our code we say can only be 25 percent.
[2:40:06] We're keeping that. Just confirm me. Okay. There are some alternative maximals as well.
[2:40:16] And not. So it's, I don't know if we have that chart in here.
[2:40:20] I thought it was the smaller of the two. It is the smaller of the two. So there's 25 percent of your yard.
[2:40:26] 25% or 750 square feet, whichever is less in most lots in Sandy, it does scale up as you
[2:40:34] move up in lots size to 1,500.
[2:40:37] Totally.
[2:40:40] Conversion.
[2:40:40] I'm hearing that's required of us.
[2:40:44] There's a cap, some type of a process work.
[2:40:47] I would prefer our path to be that they move their existing structure or cut that part off.
[2:40:53] Because I don't think, like, it doesn't make any sense in my head to save it.
[2:41:00] You can have the same spot.
[2:41:03] You can keep your shed against the fence line, but you can't use the 10 feet of it.
[2:41:10] Like, I just don't think that's realistic.
[2:41:13] So the intent there is that it retains that's existing use in purpose as a shed or garage
[2:41:18] or storage.
[2:41:20] That's fine.
[2:41:20] It's just that.
[2:41:21] But then they're not converting it.
[2:41:22] that portion could not be converted, it would have to be at least 10 feet away in order for
[2:41:29] some of that space to be converted. So what that means is the entirety of that existing
[2:41:34] accessory building could not be converted if it encroached within that 10 foot set back.
[2:41:41] So I don't like that. Okay. Yeah, I don't want to, like if it's that close,
[2:41:48] I don't want them to be able to put an ADU that close to the wall.
[2:41:54] No, they could keep it there if they would just say this ten feet is storage.
[2:41:59] And the rest of the building is for you to live in.
[2:42:02] It just doesn't seem realistic to me.
[2:42:04] So, just no, you know, I thought it doesn't mean much.
[2:42:08] I don't like balconies or decks at all.
[2:42:11] I don't think that if we're allowing people to be able to attach data using their yards and I'm living next to them.
[2:42:19] It's the same, it's the animal situation from being a nuisance.
[2:42:23] I don't want 15, someone 15 feet up or whatever the world is looking into my yard.
[2:42:30] I don't like that at all.
[2:42:31] So I prefer we get rid of those.
[2:42:35] The parking reduction near transit.
[2:42:38] I don't want to reduce the parking.
[2:42:39] I don't think that if it's within half a mile of transit, the only area that affects is district one.
[2:42:48] And there's not a lot of areas that qualify that are over 11,000 square feet.
[2:42:55] But I still, we already have a problem with parking in those areas.
[2:42:59] And so I do not want to reduce that.
[2:43:02] I would rather keep it at two.
[2:43:06] Okay, the 40,000 square feet.
[2:43:09] It says if you have a lot, the 40,000 square feet, you can have the adieu in the front yard.
[2:43:16] As long as it meets the front yard setbacks.
[2:43:18] So you'd be driving along, you'd have a home there that's on a 40,000 square foot lot.
[2:43:23] And then right next to it, you'd have a tiny home, right?
[2:43:26] And it looked like there were two homes on the same lot.
[2:43:31] Is that what we're seeing?
[2:43:35] Why we did these?
[2:43:36] Oh, not too far.
[2:43:38] Oh, I see, because you're replacing them.
[2:43:39] There we go.
[2:43:41] So in this image, you can see these darker colored boxes.
[2:43:48] So 1542, what it says is that within this dashed line
[2:43:53] is where the building setbacks for the primary structure
[2:43:57] are on that lot.
[2:43:58] Meaning that home could be built up to that red line.
[2:44:05] In this instance, that home is set way far back
[2:44:07] from that property line.
[2:44:09] So what this says is that you could have a detached area in that area but it would have to meet the primary setbacks of the primary structure meaning they could do an addition now and extend their home all the way forward.
[2:44:23] So you're making your own house the flag lock basically.
[2:44:26] I'm sorry.
[2:44:27] You're making your own house the flag lock.
[2:44:29] You're now your home is like we have a couple in his historic area and they're awful and I don't think they promote like your neighborhood at all.
[2:44:38] And so I don't, I don't like that requirement. I don't want them to be able to be in front of the homes.
[2:44:44] Yeah, and it only would apply for lots of 40,000 square feet or larger.
[2:44:48] Totally understand, don't like it.
[2:44:52] The lock coverage, you said something on a slide. Don't have to be with one.
[2:44:57] That shed plus an EDU would...
[2:45:00] Equal, your total amount of like the 700, or even 6,750 square feet you could build. So if your shed was like 200 square feet, you can only have a 550 square foot, 80, total, right? Okay, just want to make sure you're in just on a smaller log. Yeah, it didn't be big.
[2:45:16] It start eating into your total potential size. Okay.
[2:45:19] Because you still can't exceed the total of 750 square feet or 25% of the rear yard.
[2:45:25] Okay, and that's if if someone had two accessory structures, they're not even an ADU, but just two storage
[2:45:35] Sheds the same
[2:45:37] Standard supply no more than two they couldn't add a third so much square feet. Okay, I still would like to see penalties come forward at the same time
[2:45:45] For people who don't comply. I do like the 11,000 square feet. That's quarter acre lots only in larger, right?
[2:45:56] That's quarter acre, right?
[2:45:58] Yeah, roughly.
[2:45:59] As for the planning, I'm just giving you my rundown here.
[2:46:03] As for my planning commission recommendations,
[2:46:07] I don't like number one or two.
[2:46:11] I don't like number three because I think that's just
[2:46:15] a detached ADU.
[2:46:19] Yeah.
[2:46:20] Like the breezeway just makes it a detached ADU in my opinion.
[2:46:23] so I don't like that number four I don't have any problems with number five I don't like
[2:46:32] number eight I don't like number nine I don't like and number seven did you mean that you
[2:46:38] wanted to like I know it's a future but like with an animal rights like it would make it so that
[2:46:46] Like, because there are large relots, it doesn't scale or it's which way.
[2:46:53] So they're looking to expand for lots that exceed 40,000 square feet right now.
[2:47:00] The maximum by-right is 2,000 square feet of accessory building size.
[2:47:06] What the Plan of Commission expressed was wanting to re-look at that to allow for additional
[2:47:12] square footage by-right.
[2:47:13] So through a conditional use permit, they can see could 25% increase beyond that 2,000 square feet.
[2:47:19] But they feel like those are too tight or too restrictive for large lots, like 40,000 square feet.
[2:47:28] There's no bracket for 60 or 80 or such.
[2:47:32] They're on the same scale there, so if they wanted us to re-look at that,
[2:47:38] especially considering these eighties and not wanting to
[2:47:42] constrain them further.
[2:47:43] Can't put it down.
[2:47:44] Those are my problems.
[2:47:46] I think I really appreciate
[2:47:47] of customer appreciation, so could you please
[2:47:50] a number five, did you say no on that one?
[2:47:55] But I did drop it to 10,000, right?
[2:47:57] I want to keep it at 11.
[2:47:58] Okay, and number six.
[2:48:01] No, no.
[2:48:02] No.
[2:48:03] I'm a lot of no, sorry.
[2:48:04] But this is one person.
[2:48:05] Yeah, it's just one person.
[2:48:07] I'm not.
[2:48:07] They're going to get said.
[2:48:08] And it's important.
[2:48:09] I'm assuming.
[2:48:11] And nine was a no as well.
[2:48:13] Okay.
[2:48:13] Thank you.
[2:48:14] Just taking notes.
[2:48:16] Thank you.
[2:48:18] Okay.
[2:48:19] So I'd love to share.
[2:48:21] Just thoughts.
[2:48:22] I have a couple of questions.
[2:48:24] Most of my questions you've already addressed.
[2:48:27] So I'm going to skip over those.
[2:48:30] Let me make sure I start with.
[2:48:33] I'm not going to be announced that one.
[2:48:34] I don't think it's a good use of our time.
[2:48:36] I can do that one separately.
[2:48:39] Let me make sure I'm not.
[2:48:41] Yeah, I'm going to hold on.
[2:48:42] That one can wait, too.
[2:48:44] So I'm just going to kind of share
[2:48:47] High level because I know what you're
[2:48:48] Hope what you're hoping or seeking is just
[2:48:51] Where are we in response to what you've presented
[2:48:54] and what might you need to hear from us
[2:48:58] and then what might you do with what you hear,
[2:49:01] which could be very diverse from one to another.
[2:49:06] So overall, as I reviewed all of these things and I'm going to kind of tailor my feedback to the recommendations towards the end of the planning commission.
[2:49:15] Encouraged because I feel like that would be the most helpful to you as kind of relative to what they were already thinking.
[2:49:21] My goal and I feel in to a large degree you're accomplishing the goal. My goal is to fold.
[2:49:29] We need to be provided as much flexibility as we can within what we feel comfortable doing.
[2:49:37] The whole reason we are considering these things is because we have a housing crisis,
[2:49:42] and Sandy City is trying to do its part, and we have to be responsive to what state law is doing.
[2:49:49] My understanding is if we don't do anything, then by October 1st, state law just kicks in and then we lose any of it.
[2:50:00] Of our ability to shape this, correct?
[2:50:03] More or less yes. We just have to adopt their minimum standards.
[2:50:09] And so we'd like to get our standards put in place, as far as other placement,
[2:50:14] design, setback, articulated prior to their code going into effect.
[2:50:21] So all of the maze that we can do, we want to ensure that we have in place.
[2:50:26] Correct. Correct. Correct. Okay. So, so for me flexibility for homeowners within what we
[2:50:33] feel is appropriate is is the lens through which I am seeing all of the recommendations
[2:50:39] from planning commission and and then thinking also about construction costs. As we are looking to
[2:50:48] give homeowners flexibility within the parameters we design.
[2:50:55] Are we also considering how we make these additional structures possible at the lowest
[2:51:01] cost possible?
[2:51:02] So I saw some recommendations that I felt like a line to both of those things that I think
[2:51:07] are the priorities for all.
[2:51:09] So I like number three, I'm just calling it the breezeway.
[2:51:13] I feel like it has the opportunity to touch every single lot in Sandy, and because I'm after flexibility.
[2:51:24] Yeah, this would apply to interior,
[2:51:29] IAEDUs, interior accessory dwelling units.
[2:51:32] So it does apply to all single-family homes.
[2:51:34] Yeah, that's what I'm clarifying.
[2:51:36] And so, again, if one of my criteria, if one of the things I'm looking for is flexibility
[2:51:45] and helping homeowners see potential in staying in Sandy and their children, potentially
[2:51:53] living in Sandy, all of the things that we've been discussing for several years now.
[2:51:58] So that's one of the reasons I like that.
[2:52:02] And I think that one also is a lower cost.
[2:52:07] It helps them accomplish the goal as a lower cost,
[2:52:11] as long as it's done within our parameters.
[2:52:13] So I like, okay.
[2:52:14] I like number five.
[2:52:16] I like the 10,000 threshold.
[2:52:19] I think that based on what I calculated,
[2:52:22] that increases eligibility by about five percent.
[2:52:26] Five percent.
[2:52:27] That's what you said in report.
[2:52:29] So, the one thing I would recommend is perhaps we identify a specific date by which we will revisit this and what is the data we will use as the criteria by which we determine, yes, this is working or no, it is not.
[2:52:44] So, and I know that doesn't necessarily get written into the ordinance, but it is.
[2:52:52] I think that would be helpful.
[2:52:55] So, for example, we look at a permit volume, complaints received, build, cost, averages,
[2:53:02] et cetera.
[2:53:02] So, just a thought there.
[2:53:04] I also feel like, with my criterion mind, I feel like number nine, the Planning Commission's
[2:53:11] recommendation number nine is a good one, clarifying that a single story shed, garage workshop can convert. Again, habitable space until they understand that meets the setback. I think this is a cost savings for the homeowner while operating within what we feel is appropriate. Because it allows several pieces of the build to, I guess, be skipped because we already have a structure.
[2:53:41] that we can work from. So I like those. So those are the ones I feel like and I think again
[2:53:51] this is a first part. You're coming back so I won't be labor but I wanted to at least signal
[2:53:59] what's important to me and I know I'm one of seven but I want I want to be thinking about
[2:54:06] homeowners and what we can allow them to do with their property and how we can help them maximize
[2:54:11] That property in a way that provides some flexibility and low cost should they decide this is something that could help meet their needs.
[2:54:22] So, and I see Mr. Kizer's hand. Mr. Kizer?
[2:54:26] Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to echo a lot of those comments.
[2:54:30] I really like where chair Houseman is going.
[2:54:33] It seems to me reminiscent of outcomes based philosophies that she's talked about before.
[2:54:39] And so I really need, I think we need to think about this in terms of what, what is the outcome that we want as a city, what is most likely to happen and where are we going to allow that.
[2:54:52] So with that in mind, there's just two comments I wanted to make in addition, I would love to see an exception on lot sizes.
[2:55:00] This is for parcels within station area. I think that outside of that, you're going to have these set up by the wealthy
[2:55:10] e-side residents who are looking to down-sized to age and place. That's what's going to happen, because they're super expensive.
[2:55:19] To me, affordability, type housing goals. I think it would be really great to have a station area exception built in.
[2:55:28] The only other thing I wanted to address is parking, I've said before, I'm on the way progressive end of the parking scale, but I do not think that it should be based on square footage. Instead, it should be based on bedrooms.
[2:55:46] parking demand is, you know, it's based on the number of people living in a place, not the size of the unit.
[2:55:53] So for example, an 800 square foot, one bedroom, ADU, shouldn't necessitate an additional parking spot compared to a 600 square foot,
[2:56:04] ADU, that's also one bedroom, and I just think that bedrooms are a better metric for potential occupancy and thus regulating parking demand.
[2:56:13] Thank you.
[2:56:18] Mr. Nichol?
[2:56:22] Thank you.
[2:56:22] A couple of questions.
[2:56:23] I know what a conditional use permit is.
[2:56:25] What is a special use permit?
[2:56:27] What does that tell?
[2:56:29] It's basically a permitted use,
[2:56:32] but we are reviewing the criteria to make sure they have everything.
[2:56:37] There might be conditions of approval,
[2:56:41] but it's basically a permitted use administrative review by staff.
[2:56:46] State turnaround time is pretty quick.
[2:56:49] We don't need to go to the planning commission.
[2:56:52] The criteria is not subjective.
[2:56:55] Okay.
[2:56:55] It is clear.
[2:56:56] So, because it says, the state says, we cannot require conditional use, but we are,
[2:57:02] that's right.
[2:57:02] Getting special use permits.
[2:57:04] And you do that now for accessory apartments or internal wages.
[2:57:10] They're permitted use as long as all of the criteria are met.
[2:57:14] Okay.
[2:57:16] Can variances be given on an ADU or the other thing, not on the ELA?
[2:57:24] Well, uses are probably not allowed as a variant.
[2:57:29] Various, okay.
[2:57:31] A land use.
[2:57:34] There's features on the lot that strictly prohibit you from meeting a standard.
[2:57:42] then there's potential, if you can meet all the criteria for variance, you can always apply
[2:57:48] but the Board of Adjustment must go by the stretch of the criteria in the state of law.
[2:57:53] Which is very difficult to achieve, it's a very high bar.
[2:57:59] And we're removing guest house and the definition of guest house.
[2:58:04] Being replaced by the Detached ADU definition.
[2:58:10] I've got a lot of comments, I'll put some other, so those were just some things I wanted to get out of it.
[2:58:14] Okay, sorry.
[2:58:15] Other questions?
[2:58:16] Go for it as somebody else for a minute.
[2:58:20] Let me go to Ms. Stroud.
[2:58:22] Okay, Ms. Stroud.
[2:58:25] Thank you.
[2:58:26] I am on the very opposite end of the spectrum of a lot of comments here.
[2:58:34] I really think this has the potential to dramatically change our day.
[2:58:41] I would much prefer to say, let's take the state minimums.
[2:58:46] Let's fill it out.
[2:58:47] Let's see where we're at.
[2:58:49] You know, to start adjusting that.
[2:58:51] I mean, to build a brand new external ADU at a cottage, whatever it is,
[2:58:59] 200 to 400 thousand dollars to do that.
[2:59:03] Here in Santa Utah.
[2:59:04] There is no zero part of me that says somebody is going to say,
[2:59:09] This is going to make this home affordable for me. I'm going to build a 400. I'm going to buy this home, and I'm going to build a affordable housing unit in the back for $400,000, and I'm going to add that to my mortgage. There's no part of me that thinks that.
[2:59:21] We have a problem like housing problem. I get that.
[2:59:26] But that's, I mean, to start reducing and to make a lot of changes right off the bat to me is, is unwise.
[2:59:35] I mean, that's the state did a lot of consideration on this.
[2:59:40] They spent a lot of time and the state, we have seen the state do some pretty dramatic things
[2:59:46] and things that we don't care for as a city and we've said the state stepping on our toes
[2:59:51] or stepping on our toes.
[2:59:52] They have been more progressive than the council has wanted to at certain times.
[2:59:58] And I
[3:00:00] I think we look at this and we go, well, they were a little hesitant on some of this and said, this is what we think, let's see what this does.
[3:00:09] Because we know if the state thinks, oh, you know what, we want to go down to 5,000 square foot lots and we want to allow this, they're going to mandate it, they're going to require us to do that.
[3:00:19] And that's, and then we have to do that. But right now, let's take what they have done, and let's run with it for a couple of years.
[3:00:27] Let's see what it does, you know, how much will it really impact our neighborhoods and maybe it doesn't?
[3:00:34] Maybe some music says there is no way I'm spending $200 to $400,000 on, you know, an external ADU.
[3:00:40] I'm just not going to do it, so it doesn't provide a significant impact to us.
[3:00:46] But I mean, and I know I am way off on an island by myself, but I'm like, they know what?
[3:00:52] Let's just go with what the state says.
[3:00:54] Let's see what it does.
[3:00:56] Let's watch.
[3:00:57] Let's learn.
[3:00:58] I like the idea of coming back and revisiting this.
[3:01:01] Giving it a year or 18 months, whatever it takes.
[3:01:05] Take a look at it and let's evaluate it at that point.
[3:01:08] What has it done to these lots?
[3:01:10] How many have we had?
[3:01:11] Have we had people come in and say,
[3:01:14] here's my, I have $300,000 dollars.
[3:01:16] I want to go right in the middle there.
[3:01:18] Yet I can't because I only have an 8,000 square foot home.
[3:01:22] or a lot, you know, let's track that data.
[3:01:26] Let's see how many people are wanting or desiring this.
[3:01:29] And if we're not getting that, okay, then maybe we've landed
[3:01:33] in the right area and maybe the state what they have put forward
[3:01:36] and their research, their input, is sufficient.
[3:01:41] So I know I'm on that far into it, but for me,
[3:01:44] like, you know what, let's just take it, you can't roll it back.
[3:01:48] You can't say, you know, what we're going to do to loosen all of these, these are different suggestions.
[3:01:58] We're going to loosen it up and then, oh boy, what did we do?
[3:02:02] We didn't realize this problem and this complication and how this is impacted this area.
[3:02:10] How do we, how do we tighten it up? We can't do that.
[3:02:12] So let's just start with small incremental steps.
[3:02:17] This is a step, this is a big step.
[3:02:21] So I'm more of that, here we go.
[3:02:24] So there's my two cents on it,
[3:02:27] which I know the penny is now out of,
[3:02:29] so maybe it's not worth anything,
[3:02:31] but let's say we go to state stop.
[3:02:35] It's nickel.
[3:02:38] I think I've pinned down what my problem is,
[3:02:41] I think it is the ELA.
[3:02:43] And I think they're different enough that they both need a section in code, because
[3:02:56] so in ELA, you can add additional square footage, where as an ADU in an existing
[3:03:06] structure has to be within the original structure.
[3:03:10] It has to be contained within right we can do additions on the
[3:03:14] 80 we're on in the journal because it didn't say they can be an existing space it can be within the existing, but it can also be attached.
[3:03:24] But can you make it like an addition?
[3:03:27] Oh, okay.
[3:03:27] Yeah.
[3:03:30] And so ELA is it can be a poolhouse with a wet bar.
[3:03:35] If it's external, yeah, it would be a habitable space external, if that was the detail.
[3:03:42] It would be a pool house or a gym.
[3:03:46] It could have a shower?
[3:03:49] Yes.
[3:03:49] That would be considered in the LA.
[3:03:53] I think.
[3:03:54] I mean, we get the building permits that oftentimes they are disguised as one thing.
[3:04:00] Yeah, but they're end up being used as another or, but the main thing is that the structure is being used as a
[3:04:08] Habitable space in a more intensive use and if we just regulate it as a normal
[3:04:16] Stratford accessory structure, you can be very, very close to the public
[3:04:20] But in ELA, that's a gym. You're going to have some me go in there three times a week, right in the back below
[3:04:28] You know, relatively low, you have any L.A. That's a two bedroom, two baths. That's a higher intensity.
[3:04:37] And it's the same, listed as the same in our code.
[3:04:42] So it's the use that is critical for me and the amount of intensity of that use that is going to increase to the neighborhood.
[3:04:51] It's not necessarily a club, a pool house, something like that, so the intensity very low.
[3:04:59] So that's the-
[3:05:00] That's the way I look at it in my mind as how big is this impact going to be on the neighbors.
[3:05:06] So I just wanted to do that out there kind of when I had it in my mind, but that's the way I'm kind of looking at it right now.
[3:05:27] So I guess with a broad brush here, because there's a lot of detail in here, right?
[3:05:33] I am going to side with Councilmember Stroud on what I see is the wisdom of taking the conservative approach in terms of implementation and learning lessons along the way.
[3:05:51] So I'd rather dial back to what the state has mandated.
[3:05:56] And again, like I said, learn those lessons.
[3:06:02] I doubt that floodgates of construction are going to open up overnight, but I think we do have a lot to learn.
[3:06:09] And I'd like to take this education that we're about to embark on and make some good decisions for our community.
[3:06:17] And maybe even hone in on those decisions about where we might have gone too far.
[3:06:25] So, I think I too would start at 11,000 square feet.
[3:06:33] I...
[3:06:37] I'm parking.
[3:06:40] So, parking, if you're within a half mile of a transit station on a 650 square foot DADU,
[3:06:49] you wouldn't have to increase parking at all period.
[3:06:52] I don't I don't like that right so I I'm with Miss Christian sin on this no one's going to build a garage or a cardboard or something for a one-bedroom
[3:07:07] ADU so what you're going to wind up with is a spot on the driveway and that's not a bad thing
[3:07:15] Again this one of those things I think we can watch for and learn and refine but I'd rather
[3:07:23] I would be great if we could come up with a perfect parking calculation, but I'd rather
[3:07:30] over park with an under park, starting out and then make decisions along the way.
[3:07:36] And regarding, isn't that the six and one parking space for 6.52 for over, that came from
[3:07:43] state code?
[3:07:43] Right.
[3:07:43] Right.
[3:07:44] Right.
[3:07:44] Right.
[3:07:44] Right.
[3:07:45] Yeah, so that came from state code.
[3:07:48] So as to Mr. DeKyzer's statement that we ought to match it to bedrooms.
[3:07:53] We have to match it to state code on this, correct?
[3:07:57] You could tie a little bit to bedrooms, but what it says is that you can't regulate
[3:08:04] or require more than one additional stall for DADU that's under 650.
[3:08:11] And you can't require more than two for something that's over 650.
[3:08:18] So that's the way I'd like our code to read.
[3:08:22] And it's giving us the maximum we're allowed.
[3:08:25] We don't have to require any parking.
[3:08:28] But I don't want to do the reduction on proximity to a transit station.
[3:08:34] Just a question for staff.
[3:08:35] When we first looked at this back in April,
[3:08:37] when you came to us with some concepts and just ran them by us.
[3:08:43] We were talking about the maximum building coverage.
[3:08:49] Was it coverage?
[3:08:50] Versailles.
[3:08:51] Yes.
[3:08:51] Was it size?
[3:08:52] It was.
[3:08:53] So 50 to 75.
[3:08:56] Now, I even watched the meeting all over again.
[3:09:01] 50 to 75%.
[3:09:02] We didn't really directly answer the question, but it's coming back to us now at 75.
[3:09:08] 75% of the footprint of the main building.
[3:09:12] Primary.
[3:09:13] Well, actually, I did go through that as to previous,
[3:09:20] because there was some different opinions, so it was kind of generally,
[3:09:24] but I did notice that our proposal was consistent with everything we heard as a
[3:09:31] kind of majority in general from the council originally.
[3:09:34] The only thing different was if you want to just specify a maximum square footage number flat out, like, no more than 1,500 square feet.
[3:09:45] No more than 1,000 square feet periode.
[3:09:49] That's the one thing that it's more of a relative size relative to the size of the main home.
[3:10:00] It's also relative to the lock coverage of the rear yard similar to the district. So once again, it's the either or equation that you have, you've included in here. Okay.
[3:10:14] Yeah. So they are considered accessory structures and would count towards the total number of accessory buildings and the total coverage of the rear yard.
[3:10:21] But this would just stay that in no case could be more than 75% of the main dwellings footprint.
[3:10:29] And again, that's trying to get it to the point where we're not approving the structure that is both taller and bigger than the primary structure.
[3:10:37] That they are by design,
[3:10:41] Ancillary too.
[3:10:42] It's important to.
[3:10:43] Which is consistent with the general plan.
[3:10:46] Okay.
[3:10:46] Okay, I'm good with that then. Thank you for that. I think I had a little bit twisted.
[3:10:51] We had talked about like instituting the maximum size or something like that, but we decided
[3:10:56] as we were reviewing this that it would be better to regulate it based on the context of the
[3:11:01] lot and the coverage of the total rear yard area.
[3:11:06] So if you have been throwing out an arbitrary maximum.
[3:11:09] But you could have a secondary structure that is 75% of the primary dwelling building coverage
[3:11:19] and that is also 75% of the square footage of the primary dwelling. Could it wind up that way?
[3:11:32] Let's say you had your primary home as 4,000 square feet.
[3:11:37] Could you have a detached ADU that was 3,000 square feet under this rule?
[3:11:43] Penning on the lot.
[3:11:44] No, 2,000 square feet is the max here, lots that are over 4,000 square feet.
[3:11:51] There's 25% of rear lot coverage or 2,000 square feet, whichever's less.
[3:11:57] Okay, so that's what print of the ADU?
[3:12:00] Yeah, the foot print, but then you'd also have,
[3:12:05] Yeah, then you'd still be, if you had a 4,000 square foot home, you'd still have a, you'd be able to meet that 75% of the footprint of the main home.
[3:12:15] That is if the footprint of the main home was.
[3:12:17] 2000 square feet is the footprint.
[3:12:20] Not the total square footage.
[3:12:24] So if you had a basement, you could double that.
[3:12:28] And so, and if you had a second story on top of that, you could've met all of that to six thousand square feet.
[3:12:34] If you met all of those criteria, but if you had a single story home under our proposed regulations,
[3:12:42] it couldn't be taller than the primary.
[3:12:43] And I want to stick with that.
[3:12:45] I think I saw something from the planning commission that on a large lot.
[3:12:49] For 20,000 square foot or larger, they didn't want to apply that rule.
[3:12:52] Yeah, I would want to keep it.
[3:12:56] It's either accessory and it's subservient or it's not right and so it is possible for the
[3:13:03] Council if you want to have a set you know the total habitable area may not exceed you know
[3:13:08] We can we can have multiple criteria that they need in that building permit. We just calculate those out to make sure they meet those
[3:13:16] Other cities do have a maximum
[3:13:19] amount right now as the proposal is it's
[3:13:23] trying to have it scaled
[3:13:26] to the size of a lot, making sure the footprint is no bigger than the main house footprint.
[3:13:32] It's going to be no taller than the main house.
[3:13:37] And it's, you know, so anyway, it's slowly up to the council as to in terms of that size.
[3:13:45] But it's very good that you understand we're talking about the footprint.
[3:13:53] It's good to understand that because that's not the maximum size of the structure, which could also have a basement and a second story.
[3:14:06] And
[3:14:15] that's why we did those test fits to kind of illustrate to you all to see how these rules would apply.
[3:14:24] Yeah, so, you know, later at your leisure, if you look closely at those slides, it calculates out that my cut gone through what would be the feasible footprint.
[3:14:39] And note that they can't go to a second story unless that box is fully within the foot
[3:14:45] or the allowable setback area of the primary structure, as though it were attached.
[3:14:51] into that issue, the subject of decks and balconies.
[3:15:00] I don't know why we would restrict the DADU from something that the main, if it provided that the
[3:15:08] setbacks are right. Restrict the DADU from something that would be granted to the main building.
[3:15:14] That was the logic behind that.
[3:15:19] So, the breezeway issue, just connecting the ADU or extended living area by a breezeway,
[3:15:32] does that make it attached instead of detached?
[3:15:35] Correct.
[3:15:36] So, that could be a problem.
[3:15:39] That could be a problem.
[3:15:40] Yeah, you could go technically.
[3:15:42] You could have a breezeway and then it could be twice the size of the main.
[3:15:46] It doesn't be considered as part of the main.
[3:15:49] It could be the workaround for wanting to give yourself more accessory dwellings, units in the backyard, right?
[3:16:04] So that could be a problem.
[3:16:06] It's still only limited to one detached ADU, but you can have one attached ADU.
[3:16:13] If you're in a larger lot or an A designation, then it gives you, I think what we want
[3:16:20] to do is prevent filling up the yard with structures,
[3:16:28] right?
[3:16:28] It would be really limited on the smaller lots, but on the larger lots, it might be a
[3:16:36] workaround just to get more billed.
[3:16:38] That's why we attach these examples, because these have been workaround that have been used
[3:16:42] in the past, which is why the code was written the way it is as far as an internal
[3:16:48] ADU, or an attached ADU, needing to have some measure of attachment or connection that
[3:17:01] wasn't kind of a cheap way to try to get a much, much larger building.
[3:17:08] So I'll start to get the main home at the more continuity, so it looks like all one structure.
[3:17:13] It remains the character of a single family home, whereas these examples I think start making it look like it's not a single family home.
[3:17:22] Those look like two single family homes on a lot, it's supposed to a single home.
[3:17:36] But I think the reason we need to go away, I don't think we need to have it.
[3:17:40] type of Bruce Lee requirement nowadays. We have so many other options for them to build and I think
[3:17:48] they can build an addition or whatever. It's a concept of Bruce Lee's kind of dated right now.
[3:17:56] As we look at this in particular. So I have a question. The parking on an interior and exterior is the same?
[3:18:05] No.
[3:18:06] Okay, I think it needs to, that's just what it is.
[3:18:10] So state law restricts us from having additional parking for an internal aid deal.
[3:18:15] And the book thing and being targeted with my, with my likes and dislikes, I think it needs to be the parking on an internal external, you're creating the same amount, right?
[3:18:24] However, we are prohibited by the state from acquiring additional parking on an internal aid deal.
[3:18:30] So we can require four Austrian parking, so for example, in Historic Sandi,
[3:18:38] we have a lot
[3:18:38] of homes that are not compliant with our parking requirements for a two-car
[3:18:42] task garage and two-car Austrian parking. In order to have an ADU in those situations,
[3:18:47] they have to bring it up to the standard two-car attached or detached and then two-car
[3:19:00] any parcel to one ADU and one ELA period. There's no more than one, okay.
[3:19:11] I don't know. I think that this is kind of on the extreme and I would like to talk about
[3:19:19] letting ADUs in within the existing structure everywhere in the city. You're not, so you're not in
[3:19:27] there's within the footprint, right?
[3:19:31] I think that reaches a whole bunch.
[3:19:34] Are you talking D-tastic, you use or...
[3:19:36] I don't know.
[3:19:37] Okay, okay, never.
[3:19:38] Okay, yeah.
[3:19:38] Well, I think I want to go down to R18, maybe not quickly.
[3:19:42] But I think we're missing the mark when we put it only at 11,000 square feet.
[3:19:49] It's not helping the people that this kind of was targeted around from the legislature.
[3:19:55] I know I'm kind of off on that, but I'm not.
[3:19:57] to explore that one day, but I think 10.
[3:20:00] 1,000 is reasonable.
[3:20:10] So that's all for right now.
[3:20:13] Okay. Good. Mr. Susan.
[3:20:15] Thank you. Okay. So my list of questions and comments. My first question is, and I think I know the answer
[3:20:21] what I just want to confirm. Do we require a traditional rental of an entire like a home?
[3:20:28] Do we require a business license? The obtained. We don't even have a business license for a regular rental, right?
[3:20:33] for the whole house.
[3:20:36] Not for the whole house.
[3:20:38] OK.
[3:20:40] We require commercial business license
[3:20:41] if they have four units or more.
[3:20:45] OK.
[3:20:46] So just, there's no surprises.
[3:20:47] That's something that I will be working on this year.
[3:20:49] And I kind of mentioned it.
[3:20:50] But I do want to look at creating a rental business license
[3:20:54] for all rental homes in the city.
[3:20:58] Because I mean, we're covering it here with the,
[3:21:00] you know, the short-term rental and even the accessory structure, which acts as a, like, regular, extended, more than 30-day rental, it doesn't make sense that there's disparity there.
[3:21:14] Okay, so on the breezeway, if this is considered internal or excuse me, attached, I'm going to start using that terminology attached, how does that affect, like, the setbacks, I guess.
[3:21:29] what setbacks would this attach structure be working in?
[3:21:33] Because it's for all the tents and purposes
[3:21:35] in my opinion, it's a detached structure that's, you know,
[3:21:39] yeah.
[3:21:40] So what kind of setbacks would the breezeway allow for?
[3:21:44] Would it be different than the detail?
[3:21:46] Oh, if you had an addition, but it was only attached
[3:21:50] by the breezeway, then it would be considered part
[3:21:54] of the main house.
[3:21:55] If that was the way it was structured in the code,
[3:21:58] and thus, what have to meet the main house, setbacks?
[3:22:01] Are they, are they similar to the detached then or now?
[3:22:05] Are they more restrictive?
[3:22:06] Or are they are they, are they, are they, are they, are they, that's that's greater in that circumstance?
[3:22:10] Or?
[3:22:11] Okay.
[3:22:11] So you have to be further away.
[3:22:13] So like on this example, the dashed red line on the, on those houses shows where the primary
[3:22:20] structure, setbacks are set.
[3:22:23] for a detached, they can go as close as 10 feet to any habitable living area.
[3:22:32] But in most cases, they're 20 to 30 feet away from a rear property line, and it could be
[3:22:39] no closer than 10 feet, well, if it's attached, they could go as close as 8 to 12 or 15
[3:22:46] depending on the zone that you're in.
[3:22:48] Okay, and this is maybe more philosophical in this question slash comment, bedrooms, so these are accessory structures that have an intended purpose, you know, and they are supposed to be accessory to with a smaller footprint serving, you know, a smaller situation, but we don't limit the number of bedrooms, so I mean, there could be six bedrooms in one and they could all potentially be filled up by different people.
[3:23:18] or multiple people, right, and so the intent behind this and the use of these, like, are we
[3:23:28] intending to potentially have like a full-letter extended large family occupying these accessory
[3:23:36] structures?
[3:23:38] Is that, because that's, I don't know, like I said, it's kind of a philosophical question, but I haven't
[3:23:44] any conversation or thought given to maybe limiting the number of bedrooms that could be allowed?
[3:23:54] You could, it's not currently within the proposal, but that is something that could be instituted
[3:24:02] to either limit the total square footage, meaning, basement, main level.
[3:24:09] Yeah, it's some sort of some sort of maximum or some sort of maximum number of bedrooms.
[3:24:16] The state allows us to regulate size, I'm not sure, I want to check with our attorney
[3:24:22] if we could regulate the number of bedrooms. I like the idea, but I just want to check that
[3:24:27] legality, but there are ways in which, you know, just in the total habitable square footage,
[3:24:33] you know that could be limited to. So, but I'm sure we could accommodate
[3:24:40] the intent of what you're acquiring about it.
[3:24:42] And I don't, I'm not necessarily saying that bedrooms is the answer, but I do think that
[3:24:47] we need to be intentional with with how we intend for these structures to be used.
[3:24:54] I think that they're completely appropriate and they do serve a legitimate need, but I also think that
[3:25:00] We need to be intentional with the, with, with, with, with, capping the potential impact to the surrounding
[3:25:08] neighbors in either square footage or bedrooms, because, you know, council, go ahead.
[3:25:16] Did you have something you wanted to say? Well, I was just going through the list of Valshaltnauts by the state.
[3:25:22] And one of those is number or type of rooms that we can't regulate.
[3:25:27] But we can institutes a maximum of course put it so if there is some some maximum size that you don't want to see these go beyond
[3:25:37] There are numerous communities that I've instituted that for a range of, you know, very small to quite quite
[3:25:45] Flexible
[3:25:46] Okay
[3:25:48] Because you know council member DeKaiser. I I generally
[3:25:51] agree with his idea of parking in bedrooms being correlated. I understand that the state
[3:25:58] has a very specific, you know, calculation for at least, you know, well, in some way for
[3:26:05] the state's 150 square feet and under, but bedrooms do tend to lead to more vehicles,
[3:26:14] right? And so I think that we need to be considerate of that and the types of impacts that
[3:26:21] potential decisions have on our neighborhoods right in parking, and all of that, especially
[3:26:25] if we can only require X amount of off-street parking, anyway. I mean, gosh, my neighborhood
[3:26:32] is full of teenagers right now, and everywhere, you know, is kind of taken out by multiple
[3:26:38] cars. And so you compound that with, you know, a four, five-bedroom accessory dwelling unit,
[3:26:46] and you don't have to mandate, or you can't mandate, you know, specific parking, that could
[3:26:49] problematic. So you can only mandate up to two. Yeah, additional. I really do think that we need to
[3:26:56] capture square footage, not just coverage, because again, if you have a basement, that's a problem.
[3:27:03] And again, it does not meet my thought process on this being accessory with a specific, you know,
[3:27:13] Anyway, okay. So those, that's my thought there, occupancy restrictions on in your exhibit
[3:27:21] A number eight. This is just like a really weird little definition. 80U shall be used and
[3:27:27] rented by an additional single family. I don't know that that's like the right way to define
[3:27:34] That is existing language, but there may be another way that we can...
[3:27:40] OK, I can present.
[3:27:41] And then you have the occupants.
[3:27:43] It's either occupants, right?
[3:27:45] We're not necessarily mandating that it'd be more than one.
[3:27:49] Anyway, I would just read...
[3:27:50] So the phrasing of the language in occupancy is what it's under.
[3:27:56] Yeah, 8B is kind of weird.
[3:27:59] OK, so then I see another potential problem in occupants...
[3:28:03] or not, excuse me, duration of available, excuse me, duration of approval and transfer ability.
[3:28:11] So the accessory dwelling unit, the special use permit, does not transfer if the house is sold.
[3:28:17] I could see that being problematic.
[3:28:21] When you sell a house, if you have a lease in place and you're two separate households, how do you move?
[3:28:28] I mean, like Lisa's have to be honored, generally, for legal reasons, right?
[3:28:36] So you have a lease in place with somebody renting your accessory dwelling, but you have to
[3:28:41] move for whatever reason, your separate household with separate needs.
[3:28:45] And if that doesn't transfer, then they're living in a place that you can't necessarily kick
[3:28:50] them out of without taking legal liability because you've broken a lease agreement.
[3:28:54] So, I think that if you are selling and you had it, I don't understand why who buys the place
[3:29:02] like matters, I think it should transfer.
[3:29:06] Oh, no.
[3:29:06] Oh, no.
[3:29:06] Oh, no.
[3:29:06] Oh, no.
[3:29:06] Oh, no.
[3:29:06] Oh, no.
[3:29:07] Oh, no.
[3:29:07] Oh, no.
[3:29:07] Oh, no.
[3:29:07] Oh, no.
[3:29:07] Oh,
[3:29:11] no.
[3:29:11] Oh, no.
[3:29:12] Oh, no.
[3:29:14] Oh,
[3:29:25] no.
[3:29:26] So transferable provided that the new owner is owner occupied.
[3:29:32] So the new owner would have to get their own permit is the way it's currently done.
[3:29:37] And that's what we're doing for internal ADUs right now.
[3:29:40] Our existing accessory permit permits are set up this exact same way.
[3:29:45] We have not run into this as a issue.
[3:29:49] Okay.
[3:29:50] Since we started sharing the permits.
[3:29:52] Okay, so there shouldn't be any issue because it's been permitted.
[3:29:56] and it's really about the occupancy, the other occupancy, and then the...
[3:30:02] And I think the sellers are setting up their sales agreements and their lease agreements to not create those issues or conflicts.
[3:30:17] Well, at least we haven't been a prize of any issues of this coming up or sellers coming to us or buyers coming to us with issues.
[3:30:25] Well, when I have a bunch of owner occupants doing rentals that aren't really familiar with all of the laws and regulations and rules,
[3:30:32] you know, you're bound to have uneducated people out there doing things that they should or shouldn't do.
[3:30:36] No, you might have that issue with people that are selling their house in Sandy that don't have a legal accessory department
[3:30:41] because they are a prize of those regulations when they come in for that permit.
[3:30:48] So they know exactly what they're getting permission for and what they're not getting permission for.
[3:30:53] So long as, you know, when a house is sold and the future buyer is intending to and will use it as a primary residence that they are not going to have an issue, you know, taking on that lease and the tenant that's in the place, you know, when they buy it. So you're saying that that's not going to be a problem. So long as they're owner occupied. Correct. And there's ways for that new owner to get a permit.
[3:31:19] How long does the process take?
[3:31:21] No long.
[3:31:24] It's OK.
[3:31:26] And then, let's see, what was my note here?
[3:31:31] Conversion.
[3:31:33] I really do.
[3:31:34] I think the ELA is a problem in our language.
[3:31:37] I know that it's old.
[3:31:38] And I know that it's another, maybe, in other places.
[3:31:40] And it needs to be cleaned up.
[3:31:42] That would be a recommendation that I have for the work group for the code.
[3:31:46] ELA is a, you know, I think of it as English language arts, you know, that's what my sense is, my ELA class.
[3:31:56] Anyway, but I didn't know what it meant for a moment, it kind of stunned my brain.
[3:32:01] But it's an older term, the terminology has changed with the prevalence and use of these accessory dwelling units or structures.
[3:32:08] And so I can, if it's meant to be habitated, that's a word, right?
[3:32:18] Okay, if it's, okay.
[3:32:21] If it's meant to be a habitable inhabited in heaven, there you go.
[3:32:27] Separate from the rest of it, then it's an accessory dwelling unit.
[3:32:31] And then you've got the rental aspect.
[3:32:34] I still think that using ADU for a purpose is the wrong terminology.
[3:32:42] So I think ALA is confusing, but with that, conversion.
[3:32:47] So existing legal accessory structures constructed prior to blah, blah, blah, maybe converted to a detached ADU or ALA.
[3:32:56] Right? So ALA is missing from that.
[3:32:59] I just want to make sure that we are being consistent in the permits and building of these structures because, again, it's all about the use.
[3:33:14] I'm building this, but maybe one day I change the use and they should conform to whatever we're doing.
[3:33:22] Otherwise, you have people that are doing it under an ELA that aren't using it that way and
[3:33:28] then it converts to nobody knows, right?
[3:33:30] And then we have a bunch of non-conforming.
[3:33:34] That was a good catch, thank you.
[3:33:37] And then one of the other things that came up when we first started talking about this, I don't
[3:33:43] know how I feel about it, but I'm going to bring it up because we talked about it.
[3:33:47] like limiting windows in areas that a join or a but.
[3:33:54] I know what kind of says that they'll be they'll maintain the appearance of the primary
[3:33:58] dwelling, you know, yada, but what was we initially talked about maybe like not having windows
[3:34:05] like look into somebody else's backyard or the bedroom's or stuff.
[3:34:09] The way the code is right now, but it's up to any amendments that you think are appropriate.
[3:34:17] is that the setbacks, as they are, would address that with the 10, if it's just
[3:34:23] just one story, it's 15 feet tall, that it would have a 10 foot setback minimum.
[3:34:30] And then any taller than that, yeah, you can have windows, but you have to meet the
[3:34:34] setbacks of the main, just like the main house would have to meet setbacks.
[3:34:39] So that was the intent when we can regulate or windows through setbacks, basically with a certain setback, then they're allowed to do it.
[3:34:57] is less fat.
[3:35:00] And the original footprint of the House set back, like an attached portion of the House.
[3:35:07] And so I don't know that I feel like it's completely taken care of because the home could have,
[3:35:13] because we're reducing the setbacks in the detached situation. Is that accurate? Yes.
[3:35:19] By how much do you know, I guess it depends.
[3:35:20] Depends on the lot in the zoning, but anywhere from 20 to 30 feet is your rear setback for the primary structure.
[3:35:29] And then on the side, it can range from 8 to 15 feet on the side as a minimum.
[3:35:36] For a detachity, what we're saying is 10 and 10.
[3:35:39] Can I ask?
[3:35:40] Can I ask a single story?
[3:35:42] Can I ask a silly question and anybody can answer?
[3:35:45] I have a really difficult time determining distance.
[3:35:49] So, from the front of the dius, right here, what's the approximately 10 feet?
[3:36:03] Okay, so this is like, again, where I wrestle with, like I understand the point of it, and
[3:36:07] I understand that the building still has to conform to fire code and there has to be
[3:36:12] egress from certain areas and you do that through Windows, but I do, again, my initial
[3:36:20] concerns were maintaining the privacy of the surrounding neighbors as much as possible, and
[3:36:29] we initially talked about maybe doing that through requiring or restricting Windows in certain
[3:36:37] areas, and so, yes.
[3:36:40] We did, we did look at that for correct it.
[3:36:42] But as we got further guidance on the state mandates,
[3:36:47] one of the now-shalt knots is now-shalt not dictate
[3:36:51] location, design, placement, or architectural styling
[3:36:53] of a window or door for a detached ADU.
[3:36:57] Well, maybe size, I don't know, height.
[3:37:01] So again, design, placement.
[3:37:03] So what, what we can do, yeah, design and placement.
[3:37:06] How can we dictate that it matches the windows of the main home is not designed?
[3:37:12] We're talking attached adios.
[3:37:15] I'm talking, this is talking about detached adios.
[3:37:19] So there's a different set of regulations that we can dictate.
[3:37:24] So for an attached adio internal, if they're doing it in addition,
[3:37:28] it still has to maintain character of the existing single family dwelling.
[3:37:32] For a detached, it does not.
[3:37:35] Okay, let me ask this, and again, let's see, I suck at distances and like how big
[3:37:41] is 15 feet and is it possible to inhabit an attic space in that situation or a loft
[3:37:49] like if you're going to the peak, so, now, under this provision, it's limited to a single story.
[3:37:58] I think there's a possibility of clarifying, just like in the conversion saying, you know,
[3:38:05] one story, no upper living, no loft space that, you know, 15 feet with the assumption
[3:38:12] that you're not using that upper level.
[3:38:14] Yeah, I mean, like it makes sense.
[3:38:16] It makes sense for, you know, design or vaulted ceilings or whatnot, and that is space, but
[3:38:20] I just, again, if we're trying to think through this and be intentional, then I don't know
[3:38:25] that we intend for people to inhabit
[3:38:28] the upper areas of the home.
[3:38:31] Anyway, okay, so those are my thoughts.
[3:38:34] I know that it's late, and I'm sorry.
[3:38:37] I'm trying to be quick.
[3:38:38] The planning commission.
[3:38:41] I'm fine with number one.
[3:38:45] I'm fine with number two.
[3:38:51] I'm not sure about the breezeway.
[3:38:57] Maybe.
[3:38:59] Lighting fine.
[3:39:01] I'm fine, going to 10,000 square feet even
[3:39:08] seems to make sense because you're not retrofitting.
[3:39:28] I'm not sure about you there.
[3:39:31] I think I get it.
[3:39:33] So if there is a garage and they can't inhabit space, maybe it's a two-story garage.
[3:39:40] I don't know, is, what's our building height? 35 feet or something like that?
[3:39:45] Typical is 15 to 20 feet per person and accessory building, but they could get a conditionally
[3:39:50] use permits.
[3:39:51] They'll be on that.
[3:39:52] Okay, so I'm thinking of a specific situation, and it's pretty gosh darn tall, and they
[3:39:56] have a loft in there that they use for storage and whatnot, you know, that's-
[3:40:00] That's different because, like Council Member Nichol said, the frequency of the occupancy is considerably less, given that they're using it as storage space, you know, as an extended for garage, but if it were a retrofit into a garage, that's going to be in habit.
[3:40:17] Anyway, habitable and habitated, whatever the word is, then I think that we need to, I get a little bit worried about retrofitting some of those structures.
[3:40:31] Anyway, so I'm not sure about nine, and nine would not allow that scenario that you described.
[3:40:39] Okay,
[3:40:43] so, so, but okay, so say they're two feet from, whatever, they're two feet from the property line, and so they have to have a dead space of eight feet from the back of the building to where the, the habitable space is, but then you can't put windows necessarily.
[3:40:59] I mean, I guess you can, but if you're kind of covered dark area, it just seems weird.
[3:41:05] I'm not sure that I agree with 9 from a practical standpoint.
[3:41:12] Okay, I think that's, I think I've covered it right.
[3:41:16] Those were, okay.
[3:41:17] Thank you.
[3:41:17] Those are my questions in the comments.
[3:41:20] Is Christianson?
[3:41:20] Really quick.
[3:41:21] I love your suggestion about limiting square footage.
[3:41:25] I think that actually solves, at least my most of my concern, I don't know, if other people,
[3:41:32] it kind of feels like other people in the counselor are filling that way as well.
[3:41:36] The average size of an apartment is between like 6,200 and 1200 square feet.
[3:41:41] So why would we allow an ADU that's like 4,000 square feet?
[3:41:45] Like, that's way bigger than my house.
[3:41:47] So, I think that if we want to, if we could consider that, that would be really helpful and solve a lot of the issues.
[3:41:57] I like that. Does that include above grade and below grade, like basement?
[3:42:02] Okay, that would have total square finished square photos.
[3:42:05] Yeah, yeah.
[3:42:09] Yeah.
[3:42:10] Okay, I found it on the rest of my comments.
[3:42:14] Is that okay, Marcie?
[3:42:15] I'm looking at the red light right now and section,
[3:42:30] transport eat or feed title owner.
[3:42:35] I don't know if those are the correct terms.
[3:42:39] Would it be trust eat?
[3:42:47] At least, or not, I don't think it's feed title.
[3:42:49] Is it free to say that?
[3:42:52] It says the ownership type is free title owner.
[3:42:57] Yeah, it wouldn't be fee-simple, and then I'm just, those are two single questions, I don't know if you guys know that.
[3:43:04] It's fee-tidal.
[3:43:05] Really?
[3:43:06] Yeah.
[3:43:06] I mean, a dictionary, it wasn't there.
[3:43:10] Okay.
[3:43:11] No worries.
[3:43:13] And on the next section B, there's no date in the utility statement, like the others all have dates,
[3:43:27] would you put dated within the calendar year on that one?
[3:43:32] OK, good.
[3:43:34] Let's date it with it.
[3:43:38] And the utility hookups,
[3:43:43] so you can't have,
[3:43:45] you're saying you can't have secondary,
[3:43:47] or the sporting unit can't have its own electricity, right?
[3:43:51] So yeah, separate meters.
[3:43:53] That's what we have right now.
[3:43:54] I don't, you can sell the unit if it wasn't separately,
[3:43:58] meters.
[3:43:58] So I don't think the section about selling in here.
[3:44:01] You won't be able to sell it.
[3:44:04] She'll not be sold separately or subdivided.
[3:44:06] It's a really necessary foot.
[3:44:09] I think it's important to include.
[3:44:11] You get people that will go and take a deed down to the county,
[3:44:16] without city approval, and record it,
[3:44:19] to create an illegal subdivision.
[3:44:20] We wanted to be implicitly clear that that is not a,
[3:44:25] That's not the intent.
[3:44:26] Got you.
[3:44:27] All right.
[3:44:27] at least not right now, okay, modular homes are okay.
[3:44:33] If they're on a permanent foundation, so if it's a pre-fab that's another way to reduce
[3:44:37] costs that are much cheaper than building brand new pre-fab units is the great way to
[3:44:44] get these into a property without exorbitant costs.
[3:44:49] Yeah, and I don't, I think I already said this, but I just want 15 feet tall period, no two
[3:44:56] for eight structures like this on any property.
[3:44:59] Okay.
[3:45:01] We're also seems to like that idea.
[3:45:05] And Allison also seems to like that idea.
[3:45:09] About it last time, we talked about one or one and a half, but not two, when we talked about it back in April.
[3:45:18] Where we came to this was if it was allowed as an attached, with meaning that if they attach the adieu within that footprint of the home,
[3:45:29] Wouldn't we allow it as a detached as long as it met those same setbacks?
[3:45:34] That's that's where we came to as our
[3:45:36] conclusion, but you can disagree and you can motion something different, but I'm just explaining
[3:45:41] I'm sorry. I'm sorry. You said within the footprint. Sorry within within the allowable area of the primary dwelling where it can go
[3:45:48] So if it's attached to the house or detached as long as it's within that footprint
[3:45:53] We thought if you would allow it for an attached
[3:45:56] addition to the home, why wouldn't you allow it as a detached?
[3:46:00] Not on a detached.
[3:46:02] Let me specify.
[3:46:04] And you can specify that.
[3:46:07] I'm just explaining.
[3:46:08] Oh, yeah.
[3:46:09] The staff's recommendation.
[3:46:13] Anything else?
[3:46:20] So I don't have a question, but the process.
[3:46:23] What is the expectation here?
[3:46:25] So it has to be done by the first.
[3:46:27] And we don't have a meeting next week.
[3:46:29] So we're scheduled on your agenda for the 15th to come back.
[3:46:34] And that's when you could.
[3:46:36] You could make a decision then.
[3:46:38] It's 10.
[3:46:39] We are on the 20th.
[3:46:40] Okay.
[3:46:41] That's perfect.
[3:46:42] It's just what's on the record.
[3:46:43] The 22nd is the other day that's 10.
[3:46:45] It's definitely scheduled if you need a next week.
[3:46:49] That's good.
[3:46:50] Thank you.
[3:46:53] I think we're done.
[3:46:56] Thank you both very much for being so thorough with all those.
[3:47:01] answering all those questions.
[3:47:03] Okay, do we need a break or
[3:47:07] any of this always?
[3:47:09] Yes, yes.
[3:47:13] So yeah, let's take a break.
[3:47:15] We'll be back in.
[3:47:20] Okay, it has to be 10 though.
[3:47:23] Don't stretch 10.
[3:47:26] Okay, so we're going to take a 10 minute recess.
[3:47:29] Is that accurate?
[3:47:30] Okay, great.
[3:47:35] Recording stopped.
[3:47:47] We are moving on, oh no we're not, because we're not recording yet.
[3:47:53] Recording in progress.
[3:47:55] All right, we are continuing, thank you everyone, as we took our break.
[3:48:00] I see movement over here, so as we move on to our consent calendar, motion to approve the consent calendar.
[3:48:09] All right, we have a motion on the second, and we can just do a voice vote on this,
[3:48:13] all in favor say aye.
[3:48:14] Aye.
[3:48:15] Aye.
[3:48:15] Any opposed?
[3:48:17] And just checking if Mr. DeKaiser is back with us.
[3:48:21] Not yet?
[3:48:23] Okay, but that pass.
[3:48:25] Oh, yes.
[3:48:26] Mr. Seventh.
[3:48:28] Madam Chair, who was the second on that since we had multiple?
[3:48:32] We'll call Mr. Stroud.
[3:48:36] Thank you for clarifying.
[3:48:37] Okay, so we're going to move on to our next item.
[3:48:41] Mr. Meekham, I believe, is presenting our argument and favor of the general obligation bond.
[3:48:47] thank you very much that is correct all right so we have some items in the packet and
[3:48:54] the objective tonight is to talk about the items I put a memo in and I have an update so
[3:48:59] we wrote the memo on Friday morning and since the memo was written we've received two notices
[3:49:09] two put an argument in so one came from a resident for an argument four and another came
[3:49:15] for an argument against.
[3:49:17] So then what will happen is those were just notices.
[3:49:22] We haven't received the actual arguments yet.
[3:49:23] So the one thing you'd have in your packet is an argument
[3:49:26] for it's incumbent upon the city to create an argument
[3:49:29] for the sumi that no one else does.
[3:49:33] So if there's an argument for this draft,
[3:49:36] that's the one in your packet, then by September 4th,
[3:49:40] which is Friday, we should have another argument for it.
[3:49:44] Since there are two argument fours, then it's up by state statute to sub to the city elections official, which is money bounds to select between the two arguments.
[3:49:56] Then also by September 4th on Friday the argument against should be received.
[3:50:00] Then the recorder has one day to turn those around. So once we have an argument for an argument against, been there, swapped, and given to the authors of the arguments, and then there's a period of time where they have to write a rebuttal 250 words.
[3:50:21] So then that all goes into the pamphlet that you're looking at.
[3:50:25] So the pamphlet, the page pamphlet, is what will contain the arguments.
[3:50:31] But 1,500 words have to fit into that pamphlet that's going out.
[3:50:37] So that's the update to the memo of posse, if there's any questions about that before we move on.
[3:50:46] There's questions, so two, four arguments who being submitted.
[3:50:52] We will, we have to adopt one tonight, but Wendy Downs would compare the one that's being submitted to the one that we adopt and then decide.
[3:51:02] And then she would solely decide, not the county.
[3:51:08] No.
[3:51:08] Okay.
[3:51:09] Yeah.
[3:51:09] Yeah.
[3:51:09] It was the city election official who would decide between the two argument forms.
[3:51:15] Can they only take two or can they combine them?
[3:51:18] Well, now they don't know, no, no, no, no, I don't mean this just you, this one, or this one, that's all she's doing.
[3:51:27] Okay, thank you.
[3:51:28] Oh, no, go ahead and start.
[3:51:40] The state's that we have to, that the city has to come up with an argument for correct?
[3:51:48] The law states that.
[3:51:49] So despite the fact that we've received one from a resident, we still have to, we still have to produce one.
[3:51:58] What if we can't agree? What if tonight on this argument, we cannot agree and we cannot
[3:52:04] pass the resolution adopting an argument in favor. Is there any world in which that could
[3:52:10] happen and predict in your future, I would say that the Wendy would select the residences
[3:52:15] of the argument before? Well, so the chair just made the comment, we have to adopt, do we have
[3:52:23] What if we're unable to, is that okay?
[3:52:26] Well, I think the, I think the, you have a proposal in front of you.
[3:52:33] I assume I haven't seen it.
[3:52:35] But if there's no effort to amend that, no consensus on amending it,
[3:52:41] then the statement you have before you will be presented to the
[3:52:43] election official as the statement from the city.
[3:52:48] So the resolution, the vote on a resolution is not necessary.
[3:52:53] Well, if the, I think the reason we're here to not, the reason Ryan is here tonight is to get the council feedback on what you want.
[3:53:05] If there's no consensus on what you want, the city will still draft the statement. And they have.
[3:53:10] And what a 100-print Brian is here.
[3:53:14] Yeah.
[3:53:15] So I'm just reading from State Statue 591604, which was referenced by our bond council.
[3:53:22] It says, in the governing body of a taxing entity,
[3:53:24] shall submit to the election officer and argument in favor of our proposition.
[3:53:30] So that, to me, says we must do it.
[3:53:34] And if two or more eligible voters wish to submit an argument for or an argument against about proposition,
[3:53:39] the election officer shall designate one of the eligible voters to submit the argument.
[3:53:46] Madam Chair, can I come in on this?
[3:53:49] I had a conversation with Randy Larson or Bond Council about this exact question last week,
[3:53:56] you know, on Friday, actually, and I asked that same question, what happens if the council
[3:54:02] can't come to a conclusion on the resolution, and he said essentially what Brian said,
[3:54:06] said, the city shall submit an argument.
[3:54:10] And so the resolution isn't necessary.
[3:54:15] I included a resolution, because the last time
[3:54:18] we did a general obligation bond.
[3:54:21] You adopted it by resolution.
[3:54:23] And there's an argument for continuity, right?
[3:54:25] Let's do it the same way, we've done it.
[3:54:27] And the next time, let's do it the same way again.
[3:54:30] But you may notice that in the staff report,
[3:54:33] And this was also what I discussed with Bond Council.
[3:54:37] They said, hey, if there's been an argument created,
[3:54:42] and if the council doesn't adopt a resolution
[3:54:44] to select one or to amend it, then the one
[3:54:47] that was provided should be submitted.
[3:54:50] Because again, the state statute doesn't necessarily
[3:54:54] describe that a resolution is required.
[3:54:58] So it's a little...
[3:55:00] It's a little foggy because it does say the governing body shall do it. And I wish I had a better news for you on that.
[3:55:11] But I think that one will have to get submitted whether you make changes to the one presented tonight, whether you adopt it, whether you don't adopt it.
[3:55:20] I think it's incumbent on us to do so. And that's the same exactly what on council told me on Friday as well.
[3:55:27] I don't want to speak for them, but that's what I was told.
[3:55:30] So I'm wondering why the pessimism.
[3:55:33] Now, is it the council just going to agree on language?
[3:55:37] And we're going to pass it in about 15 minutes and move to the next item?
[3:55:41] Yes. Are you a committee and all of a sudden to that rhetorical question?
[3:55:46] What's wrong, Council did they advise you on who chose the one like Wendy, because I didn't
[3:55:56] see that in anything that the Bond Council said?
[3:55:59] Yes, and it states that the city election official.
[3:56:02] He did that here, but we did talk, we did talk to Randy about it, and he said that almost
[3:56:09] without exception that the one that's selected is the one that the city's drafted.
[3:56:15] I'm not asking that. I'm asking, if there's more than one who does the choosing, if you
[3:56:22] could dust them, would you verify that with you? Yeah, I just, we have verified that with
[3:56:27] Bonkown. We have verified that. I'm sorry. Yeah, that's part of what I just read. It says the
[3:56:32] election officer shall designate one of the eligible voters to send that. Okay.
[3:56:41] So, that's the,
[3:56:42] the first time. So, the one that, what dust and get in the resolution was referred to the
[3:56:48] argument and so we pulled that argument out so it's a one-pager so you can see that separate from everything else
[3:56:54] Then the next thing that's in your packet then is the Gilmore Bell
[3:57:00] Memal that they gave to us with the dates and so what that says is that is that is that
[3:57:05] Then the resident who said that they will put an argument for it hasn't until September 4th and the resident said that they have an argument against
[3:57:12] They haven't till September 4 so assuming that that takes place
[3:57:15] You know, let's call it the end of the day on September 4th, they arrive when you would turn that around the Monday and send them to, you know, make a decision send them and then they have until September 18 to do the rebuttals and so that then holds up the whole voter information pamphlets of the voter information pamphlet that this goes inside can't go out to the voters until all that's received and closed out.
[3:57:40] So September 18, all that has to be received and what that equals then is basically 1,500
[3:57:45] words.
[3:57:46] 750 words, 4, 750 words against and all of that gets put into the voter information
[3:57:53] pamphlet, which is the other copy that you have in here and a lot of what's in the voter
[3:57:58] information pamphlet is also driven by statute.
[3:58:02] We've run this by a bond council, so the public meeting, the dates, the election dates, the
[3:58:09] the John those things have been run by Council, then there's a blank spot in here for the argument
[3:58:14] for and against now there will be an argument for argument against a rebuttal to the
[3:58:19] four and rebuttal to the against. So this will morph. What I'm saying is that the voter information
[3:58:25] can't fall for morph because only once we get those in, it'll have to be adjusted to make
[3:58:35] And then we're starting the arguments and the lower information path.
[3:58:43] Questions?
[3:58:47] I don't have a question.
[3:58:48] I think it's pretty straightforward, but I do have some thoughts to share with my colleagues.
[3:58:54] So I think we're good.
[3:58:58] So earlier we did receive some recommendations from staff as well, which I think is part of tonight's conversation.
[3:59:09] So I'm going to just kind of kick off the conversation about what's been shared, because there was a lot in what staff drafted that I really really liked.
[3:59:18] So I'm going to kick off those conversations.
[3:59:21] I did share some little, you know, the teacher and me shared a few things.
[3:59:25] So there were a few type of type of things that I've already shared.
[3:59:29] But I want to just say that I support the adjustments that Justin and Justin have recommended.
[3:59:35] And I think it's important that I share a little bit why and then would love to hear from from council colleagues
[3:59:43] So at first some of the changes that they shared might be interpreted as weakening the argument
[3:59:49] I think they actually do the opposite. I think they strengthened it. So as as we all know because it was just shared exactly this process what what this argument
[4:00:00] It's not just a stand alone. The argument that gets published is printed in the voter pamphlet. Directly beside the argument that will be, because we are anticipating argument against.
[4:00:11] And so every claim we make is beyond what is just in the argument itself. And so I think there's a few things that I really like about the new version. I'll just call it the new, the recommend, whatever we want to call it.
[4:00:27] I think the original draft, it's Sates, canyons, you know, canyons will sell it to developers.
[4:00:34] And though I understand that there's offers and that could be likely, I feel like we cannot prove intent.
[4:00:42] The eventual buyer might be somebody else.
[4:00:44] I think it's important that everything that we put in the argument is just very, very fact-based
[4:00:51] and not necessarily causing alarm unnecessarily,
[4:00:56] et cetera.
[4:00:57] So that's one a change that I really liked.
[4:01:04] Let's see.
[4:01:05] And I believe the language was something
[4:01:06] like a private buyer will decide how the land is used
[4:01:10] for something like that.
[4:01:13] I also want to strike.
[4:01:15] And I think the new version is closer to what I think reflects
[4:01:19] just fact-based language.
[4:01:22] I had some concerns around language like dictated by outside interest, gone for good,
[4:01:29] some more children can touch grass.
[4:01:30] I understand why that might have been put in there, but I feel like it was perhaps unnecessarily
[4:01:36] emotional language.
[4:01:38] And so I kind of like the staff version.
[4:01:40] I feel like it's really the same argument, but done in kind of a fact-based way.
[4:01:47] So I think it's important that we stick to facts, not emotion.
[4:01:53] I also really like that we are saying plainly that this is a $30 million ceiling.
[4:02:00] We're very clear about issuing only a portion.
[4:02:05] I think, again, disclosing that that's the ceiling and that we're asking voters to decide.
[4:02:11] I like that.
[4:02:12] So, for those reasons, there's other pieces, but those are the things I wanted to pull out.
[4:02:19] I would like to support the staff language that has been shared with us.
[4:02:23] I'd like to see that be what we end up adopting tonight.
[4:02:30] I recognize we've been told that Wendy will have the final say because there will be another argument for to be considered.
[4:02:40] But in terms of the action that we would take tonight,
[4:02:44] I kind of would like to adopt the language
[4:02:47] that was presented to us with, from staff.
[4:02:52] So those are my thoughts?
[4:02:56] The speech.
[4:02:56] Pull that up.
[4:02:59] So everyone can see it.
[4:03:01] And I agree, or no?
[4:03:04] Yeah?
[4:03:04] Okay.
[4:03:05] Just so everyone knows what we're talking about.
[4:03:08] I agree with Misshausman,
[4:03:09] Like, I think that I prefer the second option for many of the same reasons.
[4:03:13] I don't want to vilify our partners in any way, and I don't want it to just be done.
[4:03:20] Oh, yes, please.
[4:03:22] I'm so sorry.
[4:03:22] Can I pull up this?
[4:03:23] Absolutely, yes.
[4:03:24] Would you like me to pull up a red line version or a clean version and red line?
[4:03:28] Red line sounds like, because then we're seeing contrast.
[4:03:31] Sure.
[4:03:37] When I whispered, I didn't realize my mic was hot eye-polleging.
[4:03:41] But yeah, I didn't realize I had signal DS, I had not signal DS, so thank you.
[4:03:47] But yeah, I agree with those things and also, I don't want the four argument to be locking
[4:03:56] us into an option in the future that we may not be doing.
[4:04:00] And so we don't know if we'll keep the whole thing or if we'll have to sell parts, but we
[4:04:06] don't know what the future holds.
[4:04:07] And so I want to I don't want to like lock us into something and then for voters to come back and be like, oh, you didn't say that. So do you want to talk about there.
[4:04:20] Other thoughts? Questions about the okay let me wait get get the council to weigh in on this. Miss Michirky.
[4:04:29] I really appreciate those comments and I agree with them and it sounds like as council members reviewed the packet there was some level of discomfort.
[4:04:38] about the tons and suggestions and I totally and wholeheartedly agree with even though this
[4:04:48] is an argument in favor so it is biased let's just make it very very very factual let's
[4:04:57] stick to the facts, let's...
[4:05:00] Have no insinuations, no fear-mongering, nothing like that if we can strip away stuff like that.
[4:05:07] I do really like these changes. I have even a couple more to suggest to run by you guys and see how you feel about it.
[4:05:19] I really like this new first sentence, introductory sentence. I think it's really good. I was a little bit uncomfortable with the original had my own set of changes.
[4:05:30] like this one best.
[4:05:34] The paragraph that talks about the community has used this for generations.
[4:05:45] Open space, our community has used for generations. It's 40 years. Generations to me, triggers
[4:05:54] It's 75, 100 year, a generation is generally seen to be 25 years, although it's not well defined.
[4:06:05] But I just think it's only been 40 years.
[4:06:09] So my thought would either be to use that, you know,
[4:06:13] something that the community has used for 40 years.
[4:06:18] Or maybe decades, generations to me evokes a much longer period of time than the period of time
[4:06:24] that's actually lapsed.
[4:06:26] Yeah, just
[4:06:31] changing this as we go.
[4:06:33] What would you like from how can we best help you trackable?
[4:06:37] I mean, we're happy to edit it as you go.
[4:06:41] What I would suggest is I don't want to make edits
[4:06:43] that just one person is suggesting
[4:06:45] without a agreement right from the group.
[4:06:49] And so I don't know that it needs to be a motion
[4:06:50] or anything like that, but if somebody suggests an edit,
[4:06:53] You know, if we could get a, you know, yes or no, you know, a hand-up if you agree that would go.
[4:07:00] Can we go maybe like paragraph by paragraph and just sort of, are we good?
[4:07:05] Okay, that sounds great.
[4:07:08] So, and we're talking about the red line version reflecting the changes.
[4:07:12] So paragraph, paragraph the first one starts with a yes vote.
[4:07:17] Are we good with that?
[4:07:18] I would like to strike the opportunity to just go in and then, and no vote, I would like to strike all that language.
[4:07:26] Wait, where are you?
[4:07:27] We're on the first one.
[4:07:29] Yes.
[4:07:30] On the crescent view bondage, your sandy city directly controls the future of this property.
[4:07:36] If the city does not purchase it, then it will be sold to a private buyer.
[4:07:42] And that buyer will decide how the land is used.
[4:07:46] So thumbs up while are we good with that?
[4:07:51] Okay.
[4:07:53] I like that.
[4:07:53] I'll just read for everybody.
[4:07:54] Is that okay?
[4:07:57] That is the choice before voter stays.
[4:08:00] So looking at the next one.
[4:08:01] A yes vote gives Sandy the ability to secure this property before the opportunity is gone.
[4:08:08] A no vote means the city misses out and the fields, gyms and open space our community
[4:08:14] has used for decades.
[4:08:15] will have their futures directed by outside interests.
[4:08:22] I would like to strike that a no vote means that entire language.
[4:08:27] I think there's too much emotion and could be her.
[4:08:32] Have their futures directed by outside interests?
[4:08:35] I think that's a little.
[4:08:38] I guess we still have a say in what goes on.
[4:08:41] No matter what goes on, it's going to come to the council.
[4:08:44] So I don't necessarily see that being outside interest.
[4:08:49] I still think we need to put in the no portion of it, though, just because, like, yes or no, okay?
[4:08:58] The truth is that we, the city will miss out on the fields and so I think that...
[4:09:04] But it'll also miss out on everything else that the residency has been told about what could possibly go there.
[4:09:12] and we didn't want to put too much in there about what could go there because we don't know
[4:09:16] what's going there. So, if we can take out the fields and gyms, a no vote means the city
[4:09:25] misses out on the opportunity.
[4:09:30] Is the, is the, is the, their futures part, the part that is troubling you, like,
[4:09:37] Well, their futures, that's fine, that I can go with that one and then end it right there by outside interests, I think needs to be strict.
[4:09:50] In Ovo, it means the city misses out, and the fields, gyms, and open space, our community has used for decades.
[4:09:59] We have to fill.
[4:10:02] What about a no vote means a city will not have control over the fields, gyms and open space? Is that, instead of miss is out, is that?
[4:10:17] Because we wouldn't have control over it.
[4:10:20] Then miss is out. I'm wondering if that's part of that.
[4:10:23] I see we say, do you want to change it? Or leave it first to see if there's enough people that want to change it?
[4:10:37] Yeah, I mean, it could be as simple as that, bro, if you're right. I mean, it could just be a no vote means the city will not move forward with the purchase and the property will be purchased by
[4:10:47] Or will not move forward with the purchase period
[4:10:51] Because we did
[4:10:57] What did you say, Brooke?
[4:10:59] I would just say that instead of missing out, just go back to what was originally there and say does not purchase
[4:11:06] Yes.
[4:11:06] It, period.
[4:11:08] And the small purchase, it, and the fields, gyms, and the open space, our community has used
[4:11:12] for decades, period.
[4:11:15] Or what?
[4:11:16] We have to finish the sentence.
[4:11:18] No vote means the city does not purchase.
[4:11:21] Oh, take out the end.
[4:11:23] Does not purchase.
[4:11:24] It does not purchase the fields, gyms, and open space, our community has used for decades.
[4:11:30] Yeah.
[4:11:31] I'll find that.
[4:11:31] I can go with that.
[4:11:32] Okay.
[4:11:32] I think we have, so it would be a yes vote, give Sandy the ability to secure, whoop, I know
[4:11:44] you're ranking that is.
[4:11:47] Secure this property before the opportunity is gone.
[4:11:50] A no vote means the city does not purchase, it does not purchase the fields, gyms, and
[4:11:58] open space.
[4:11:59] Our community has used for decades.
[4:12:02] Yeah.
[4:12:05] Yeah, building. Correct.
[4:12:07] Madam Chairman.
[4:12:08] Can I maybe make a suggestion on the language?
[4:12:10] Can I read an idea?
[4:12:16] A no vote means the city loses this opportunity.
[4:12:20] And the future of the fields, gyms, and open space,
[4:12:24] our community, as used for generations,
[4:12:26] may ultimately be determined by private interests
[4:12:29] rather than the community itself.
[4:12:32] I think we're...
[4:12:33] Isn't that the truth though?
[4:12:35] Yes.
[4:12:37] I think all of it is the truth.
[4:12:39] It's just how much you want to be neutral, right?
[4:12:42] Yes, and to provide an emotional response to it.
[4:12:45] We have to be neutral, but we also have to sell this.
[4:12:49] One comment, Madam Chair as well.
[4:12:52] This is an neutral argument.
[4:12:53] It's an argument in favor.
[4:12:55] Right?
[4:12:56] There's an argument opposed.
[4:12:57] It's going to be submitted.
[4:12:58] This is an argument in favor.
[4:12:59] It's not meant to be a neutral statement.
[4:13:02] Well, factual.
[4:13:02] Right.
[4:13:03] It's in a conjecture.
[4:13:05] The information packet that's been,
[4:13:07] the information pamphlet that's been provided is going to produce the factual non-biased information.
[4:13:14] This is the 500 word argument in favor of the bond. If you take away too much, it's no longer an argument in favor.
[4:13:24] It's just additional factual information within the voter information pamphlet.
[4:13:29] Yeah, that's fair.
[4:13:32] It's okay. You're supposed to be active.
[4:13:38] I like the first version. I like Tracy's version. I think they're both fair. That's my opinion.
[4:13:45] I'm fine with the first version with the swap of gender decades for generations.
[4:13:50] Well, and I think it does not purchase it. I think we need to say it does not purchase the building, the fields, gyms, and open space.
[4:13:56] Because purchase it.
[4:13:58] It will be a loss.
[4:14:00] Period. And do we have to go to development? Because we're going to develop it too.
[4:14:06] I guess.
[4:14:10] Second paragraph.
[4:14:11] What
[4:14:14] I say, the original, I mean like the original amendment at it.
[4:14:17] Yeah, but if we go back, start without death.
[4:14:20] How about if we, yeah, how about if we just, it's, it's, it's, we take what, what
[4:14:26] staff brought to us, but we take out generations and we add decades and add building and building and building.
[4:14:39] So would you like to add the word building or facility prior to fields?
[4:14:47] Yes, the building, so a no vote means the city misses out and the building feels Jim's an open space our community has used for decades will have.
[4:15:00] They're futures directed by outside interests.
[4:15:05] Okay? I'm trying to find out more for that.
[4:15:10] Okay. Next paragraph, open space is more precious than ever. The opportunity to purchase 17 acres of open land,
[4:15:17] next to an existing city park is extraordinarily rare.
[4:15:20] Purchasing crescent view would allow the city to combine it with the adjacent eight-acre
[4:15:24] across the park, creating approximately 25 acres of public park and community space, something
[4:15:30] this area of the city lacks. Are we good?
[4:15:35] I don't like that last phrase, something this area of the city lacks. There is an eight-acre park
[4:15:42] aboveing this. So I just think you eliminate, you strike that last, that last section.
[4:15:52] You've put a period at it.
[4:15:54] I think that for me, what that sentence or that phrase is saying is, this area of the city does not have 25 acres of public park and community space.
[4:16:06] Yeah, yeah.
[4:16:08] I'm just saying that's how I interpret this.
[4:16:10] And I'm okay with it, but I can be in the minority.
[4:16:17] This should be strike that last phrase.
[4:16:19] Okay, who else needs it straight?
[4:16:20] I think striking it would be appropriate too.
[4:16:26] So just after instead of a comedy with period,
[4:16:29] without what you're saying, Cindy.
[4:16:31] Yes.
[4:16:31] A period after space.
[4:16:32] And strike the end of the sentence.
[4:16:34] You could do that?
[4:16:36] Okay.
[4:16:36] Let's do that.
[4:16:37] To be with Sarah.
[4:16:38] I think we did.
[4:16:40] I don't see him.
[4:16:43] See if you have a picture in the
[4:16:46] case.
[4:16:47] Okay.
[4:16:49] So period, yeah.
[4:16:50] Period after continuous space.
[4:16:51] the next paragraph. No changes. We're good with the next paragraph.
[4:16:55] No. Okay.
[4:17:05] I did have a question about the 60 years of use.
[4:17:08] Yeah, that's was I we haven't been supplied with an inspection.
[4:17:13] But is it is it going to be in the voter information packet?
[4:17:17] The evidence that there's been an inspection indicating this is accurate statement?
[4:17:24] Mr. Frado, do you know?
[4:17:25] I do not know, there's nothing in the information packet at this time.
[4:17:29] There is a link within the information pamphlet to the
[4:17:34] Crescent website.
[4:17:37] I don't know if that's listed there.
[4:17:38] I have not looked.
[4:17:40] Mr. Johnson, do you have an answer for that question?
[4:17:42] I may have to get Dan to come up, but we did have the building inspected and looked at
[4:17:47] and it received a good bill of help for the age of the building.
[4:17:52] the 60 years I would need to check with Dan Nelson or that came from.
[4:17:58] Can I have a thought does that mean just like the building, the roof, obviously not the
[4:18:02] like the mechanical.
[4:18:02] Yeah, the mechanical as well.
[4:18:05] For 60 more years, we shouldn't have to replace the mechanical or the roof.
[4:18:12] Those things won't, usually a roof won't last 60 years.
[4:18:16] So that doesn't seem accurate.
[4:18:18] But just because your house's roof needs a new roof doesn't mean it's not.
[4:18:23] You know, there's this range of use and more extensive crisis talk.
[4:18:28] Sorry, I was multitasking, but I think the question is, is the 60-year representation?
[4:18:35] Yeah, that came from the architect, but you know, that assumes just the bones of the structure.
[4:18:40] You know, you will have to replace the roof, the mechanical, everything else.
[4:18:46] But 60 years, you know, with updates and renovations, the building's good for another 60 years.
[4:18:52] So that maybe that's the language that is needed.
[4:18:54] But from it wasn't a building inspection, it was the architect.
[4:19:00] I just think that it could be confusing and misleading,
[4:19:06] because it's getting late and I can't think of words,
[4:19:09] but it leads you to believe that the building to the laymen, you know, the entire thing is good for 60 years, and that's not what we're trying to say.
[4:19:17] I'm a layman, I would never take that from this.
[4:19:20] like, Madam Chair, so, you know, usually, and I'm no architect, I'm not, I'm not, I don't do
[4:19:29] dance job, but the term that I've usually used is the life of the facility. And so, I,
[4:19:36] I wonder if we could change it to say it has 60 years of useful life, or 60 year life
[4:19:43] Just being a web, something along those lines, I don't know that's 60 years.
[4:19:48] That would be the language in a praise.
[4:19:51] It would probably say 60 years of useful life.
[4:19:55] You could add their, you know, with regular updates or with, you know, renovation.
[4:20:03] What if we set up to another 60 years of useful life? I think that's more general.
[4:20:12] And would follow what you would expect to hear, is Dan just said from an appraisal.
[4:20:19] I understand the concern with putting 60 years. Is it guaranteed to be 60 years and expected or up to, I think,
[4:20:28] You can soften it with a word like, you know,
[4:20:33] expensive estimated, right, estimated softens it, right?
[4:20:36] So, estimated 60 years of useful life.
[4:20:39] My concern with it, I guess, just to be clear,
[4:20:41] is I don't want people to read that,
[4:20:43] and assume that there's not going to be any additional money
[4:20:46] spent on the building, like the mechanical or the roof,
[4:20:50] because they've taken from it that it's good for 60 years.
[4:20:53] And so, you know, I can't remember
[4:20:55] We're sure how to have a suggestion with diligent maintenance or with regular maintenance.
[4:21:01] Okay.
[4:21:02] Do you do?
[4:21:08] And I do what I would like to specify where that 60 years came from, which was not an inspection.
[4:21:14] It was an architect.
[4:21:18] What is it technically called?
[4:21:20] What is it in your world?
[4:21:22] Well, I mean maintenance.
[4:21:24] I think that's a little more light.
[4:21:25] know the inspection or like was it in like what do you call it and it
[4:21:30] consultation I'd say yeah we hired think as a consultant to advise on
[4:21:35] potential uses of the building yeah we had we had our facilities people go
[4:21:41] through it and they looked at some of the systems and then the architect came
[4:21:46] through and just looked at the structure but you know we didn't actually do a you know
[4:21:50] structural analysis on it.
[4:21:54] And then after life, what did we say with regular,
[4:21:57] with routine maintenance?
[4:21:59] I mean, to me, maintenance sounds a little bit more like
[4:22:03] janitorial, I would say it's, you know,
[4:22:06] for 60 years, you are talking on the roof, on the HVC,
[4:22:11] you know, new doors, new windows.
[4:22:13] I mean, those are the kind of things that you would budget
[4:22:15] for 60 year buildings.
[4:22:17] So, I, you know, you could say updates with regular, um,
[4:22:23] yeah, I'm trying to think I don't have my facade, but, uh,
[4:22:30] yeah, I like it.
[4:22:34] Great job, Dustin.
[4:22:37] Everyone good.
[4:22:40] Okay.
[4:22:41] Thank you for that, Tim.
[4:22:43] Okay.
[4:22:45] I'll just read the next one.
[4:22:46] Yes, vote authorizes Sandy City to issue up to 30 million in general obligation bonds to purchase and improve the property.
[4:22:53] The city may ultimately issue only a portion of that amount.
[4:22:56] If the full amount is issued, the estimated property tax impact on an average home value of $739,100.
[4:23:03] Is approximately $5 per month if your home is valued less than you would pay less?
[4:23:09] Anyone opposed to that language?
[4:23:11] Well,
[4:23:13] that's what I think you need to put in there.
[4:23:15] Yeah, if your home is valued at more than you pay more.
[4:23:19] Okay.
[4:23:22] I don't care.
[4:23:23] I don't care.
[4:23:23] I think you have the average home as this.
[4:23:26] If I live in a $500,000 home, then I can deduct that I'm going to pay less.
[4:23:30] If I live in a million-dollar home, I can deduct that much.
[4:23:33] Mr. Fraud?
[4:23:34] Yeah, I wouldn't add that.
[4:23:36] I would leave it as is or take out the sentence about then you would pay less.
[4:23:42] Again, remember, this is the argument for the bond.
[4:23:46] Not a...
[4:23:46] You're going to pay more down the middle right here's information for everyone
[4:23:53] on both sides of the story.
[4:23:55] I'm comfortable with it as written.
[4:24:04] I think we have support to leave it as it is.
[4:24:06] I don't know not everyone agrees but the majority does.
[4:24:09] All right, next.
[4:24:10] A yes vote does not approve a final plan.
[4:24:13] Instead, it empowers the city to thoughtfully shape the site's future
[4:24:17] alongside residents, whether through the preservation of athletic fields,
[4:24:21] utilizing the indoor facility for recreation and cultural events or exploring strategic partnerships
[4:24:27] and city led development that directly benefits our community. Any opposed? I'm in favor.
[4:24:40] I think it gives clear vision of what it could be.
[4:24:47] Okay, I'm not seeing any opposition. Okay, we're
[4:24:50] good. We're going to move on. Yes, vote does not. Oh, I just read that. The bond reserves are ability
[4:24:58] to make those choices.
[4:25:00] Relinquishing the land to a third party takes that choice away, period. I think that's very straightforward. Okay, I think we're good. Some opportunities once lost do not come back.
[4:25:12] Previous generations chose to give Sandy the Park's Trails and Public Spaces residents enjoy today, like the Sandy amphitheater. This is our opportunity to make our mark on the future.
[4:25:25] Does that imply that the Sandy amp of the year was paid for with a bond?
[4:25:29] Because it was not a diamond tax fair when it was used to pay for that.
[4:25:33] It was in keeper tax.
[4:25:40] To me, it does not know just wondering why that?
[4:25:42] It's just saying, because I think that's something that a lot of residents are very aware of.
[4:25:49] Oh, okay.
[4:25:51] The charge to give does not mean there's the choice was the same pathway for every choice.
[4:25:58] They just, through whatever path was chosen,
[4:26:02] they made this idea at theater possible.
[4:26:04] So I'm comfortable with chose to give, but...
[4:26:09] I would like us to look at the word hour.
[4:26:13] This is our opportunity.
[4:26:15] It suggests that it's the only, it's the only one.
[4:26:18] It's one of those again,
[4:26:19] how about an opportunity or another opportunity.
[4:26:23] We've talked about others that we've used in the past,
[4:26:27] other opportunities that we've had in use, do we say this is another opportunity or this
[4:26:33] is an opportunity or an opportunity and I guess depending on how strong you want to make it,
[4:26:38] this is your opportunity to make our mark on the future, depending if you want it strong.
[4:26:43] This is the in favor, this is for trying to speak to those that may consider
[4:26:54] it.
[4:26:54] And better than your, because once again that suggests that it's singular, right?
[4:27:00] the only one this is your only opportunity.
[4:27:02] I'm good with Anne.
[4:27:04] That's fine.
[4:27:04] I get optimistic.
[4:27:06] May I?
[4:27:07] Please.
[4:27:08] I think you could do bold.
[4:27:09] I almost wonder if it shouldn't be.
[4:27:10] This is an opportunity to make your mark on the future.
[4:27:15] Well, because that's true.
[4:27:17] Because the individual voters is an opportunity to make your mark.
[4:27:20] It's not an opportunity to make our mark necessarily or an opportunity to make the mark.
[4:27:25] because they are the ones making this choice and it's not every resident will have an
[4:27:33] opportunity to vote on something like this in the future. So yeah, this is an
[4:27:38] opportunity to make your mark on the future. Are we good with that?
[4:27:43] Is this a public hearing of it? Are we taking public common in it?
[4:27:47] Yes. Okay.
[4:27:47] Those four, we vote.
[4:27:48] Oh, hello.
[4:27:49] The voting item, not a public hearing item.
[4:27:51] I mean, a voting item.
[4:27:52] Yeah, you need a comma after trails, parks, trails, comma, and public spaces.
[4:27:58] That's one of those people to pay money if you're older not.
[4:28:00] So yes, I'm an Oxford comma person because there's also a paragraph above that I would put it there too.
[4:28:06] But, okay. Put the comma.
[4:28:08] You teachers.
[4:28:09] I know.
[4:28:11] Marcia already sent me her teacher as well.
[4:28:14] There's one more paragraph I'd put it there too, but I'd bit my tongue.
[4:28:18] for me to include your work.
[4:28:21] Yep, perfect.
[4:28:23] All right, then we struck the next one.
[4:28:26] Are we good with that strike?
[4:28:28] Yeah.
[4:28:29] The ones these 17 acres are gone.
[4:28:31] We're striking that.
[4:28:32] Okay.
[4:28:33] And then the last one, vote yes on the Crescent View General obligation
[4:28:36] bond to keep Sandy's future in Sandy's hands.
[4:28:40] Ensuring an invaluable impact on your fellow residents today
[4:28:44] day, and for generations to come. I'm good with that.
[4:28:55] I think we have walked our
[4:28:56] way through.
[4:29:00] Yeah, you'll do a quick work count, maybe. I can. I know you've been
[4:29:05] in space for it. I think we're fine. And you're also missing another like an A or
[4:29:10] somewhere, so you'll probably want to look down. So I'd make a motion to approve
[4:29:15] resolution 26-90C with the changes we've made tonight.
[4:29:20] Does that include the photoreinformation packet data tube?
[4:29:25] No, the language in there.
[4:29:26] This is only the, right?
[4:29:28] Uh, it's not the resolution was changed.
[4:29:32] Yeah, I would suggest.
[4:29:33] So we sent a couple very minor suggested edits to the VIP as well.
[4:29:38] Yes.
[4:29:39] Just based on this, I would suggest those as well.
[4:29:43] what you could do is you could just direct me to provide those to the administration and
[4:29:49] to you to provide those. With the chain, we caught the misalignment of number of acres.
[4:29:56] Yes, I did speak with Martin about that.
[4:30:00] That's what I meant.
[4:30:02] Yes, that's what I meant.
[4:30:03] Okay, hold on, hold on.
[4:30:05] Mr. Jensen.
[4:30:07] Just wanted to address the voter information pamphlet and then come back.
[4:30:11] Just as a reminder, we've run the pamphlet through Gilmore Bell as well to make sure that they have reviewed the information that that is educational information and has been scrubbed from trying to be influential.
[4:30:27] at the same time, we are trying to make sure that it's consumable and that the reader, whether
[4:30:33] you're four against or you know nothing about it and you're learning about it for the first
[4:30:37] time, receives the information and can process that.
[4:30:42] Are you before I take a second? Because we have a motion.
[4:30:55] Let's hold, I don't know. You made a motion. I feel like we need to wait and see if there's a second.
[4:31:00] We can still have discussion.
[4:31:02] Madam Chair.
[4:31:02] We just, yes.
[4:31:04] Why don't we disperse with the argument first,
[4:31:08] and then you can give us direction on the voter information
[4:31:10] of the pamphlet, that's what I would suggest.
[4:31:12] I like that.
[4:31:13] Is the resolution only for the...
[4:31:16] Correct.
[4:31:17] It's only for the argument.
[4:31:18] That's correct.
[4:31:19] If there is any more, are we vote on it?
[4:31:21] Yeah, I was planning to vote on the motion.
[4:31:24] Okay, second.
[4:31:25] So there's repeat, repeat the motion,
[4:31:28] because now we have clarity.
[4:31:29] We're all talking about motion two approve resolution 26-90C with the edits that we made tonight and any other like minor of those we need to add in because I think there's only one more and then that's it and then you direct the general if you did that you can give us that direction in a moment.
[4:31:52] let's say certificate the resolution.
[4:31:54] Okay, second.
[4:31:56] We have a motion and a second.
[4:31:58] So we're not going to, we will take public comment on this
[4:32:01] because it's a voting item, but we had,
[4:32:03] could you hold off on the voter information packet
[4:32:06] because we're going to do that next?
[4:32:08] Maybe, I don't know, so we don't get to vote
[4:32:11] on voter information packet.
[4:32:12] Yes, we do.
[4:32:13] It's coming back for a vote, yes.
[4:32:14] Well, no, no, no, no.
[4:32:16] I won't be coming back for a vote.
[4:32:18] Well, we are going to discuss it and give him feedback.
[4:32:21] I do not want to. I personally don't want to vote on this until we have the discussion
[4:32:25] on the voter information packet because if I can't, like there's something that's really
[4:32:28] important to me and right around I'm tying my vote to, you know, discussing it in potential
[4:32:37] agreement on the edition. I see it here. I would, I would like to wait to discuss it.
[4:32:42] Okay. Claire's key should be for understanding is that this resolution doesn't have anything
[4:32:47] to do with the voter package. It does not, but I understand that you're saying you're
[4:32:51] maybe contingent on that. Correct. The one thing I'll say is any edits, the reason we didn't include
[4:32:58] the VIP, the voter information pamphlet, and this resolution, is for the reason that it does need
[4:33:04] to get go through bond council. And so you can provide suggested edits and such, but we will
[4:33:09] need to have bond council review those of that would be my suggestion. I understand, and I feel
[4:33:15] comfortable that it should be appropriate, but I understand.
[4:33:20] Okay, so I know you don't want to vote until, but I would like to take public comment
[4:33:24] just because it's already really late.
[4:33:26] And for those who've been waiting to make public comment on this,
[4:33:29] I want to give them that opportunity that we can bring it back
[4:33:32] and part of our discussion before we vote can be that.
[4:33:35] It's fair.
[4:33:36] Okay, so go ahead and move to public comment.
[4:33:38] I do not have any blue cards for this item, but it is a voting item,
[4:33:43] So we do like to give the opportunity for public comment.
[4:33:47] So if there's anyone in the chambers who would like to do that.
[4:33:50] And Madam Chair?
[4:33:52] Yes.
[4:33:52] So I did receive a written comment that I was asked to read into the record as well.
[4:33:58] We'll do that after we do virtual.
[4:34:02] I'm not seeing anything in the room.
[4:34:04] So let's go ahead and move to those online participants, Mr. Freddo.
[4:34:07] OK.
[4:34:08] If you're joining us virtually and you'd like to comment
[4:34:12] on. I'm sorry guys, what item are we on?
[4:34:17] Item number 9. Item number 9 on this evening's agenda. Go ahead and click the
[4:34:21] raise hand button on your screen now and you'll have three minutes.
[4:34:38] Not singing
[4:34:38] any hands raised madam chair. Can I go ahead and read the comment I have into the
[4:34:42] record? Give me just one moment to pull it up.
[4:34:55] Okay, so this comment was sent in
[4:34:57] by Jason Nichol.
[4:35:01] Council members, thank you for taking time to consider my comments. I encourage you to reconsider the bond initiative for the
[4:35:07] present view property while this might seem like a good opportunity. I'm greatly concerned with the rapid escalation and process.
[4:35:13] There are too many unanswered questions to commit public funding of this grant amount.
[4:35:18] Number one, why are we paying almost twice the appraised value for the property?
[4:35:23] Number two, why are we not able to get more accurate on going maintenance and operations?
[4:35:28] dollars figures from the school district.
[4:35:30] Number three, why are we relying on information gathered in a public poll and only 46% of the
[4:35:35] responses were actual residents of the city with the responsibility to pay for the proposed
[4:35:40] property.
[4:35:42] Number four, why are we moving forward with this project without any firm understanding of what
[4:35:46] will happen?
[4:35:47] Number five, why are we defaulting to scare tactics and half truths when educating the
[4:35:52] public on this potential purchase?
[4:35:54] Number six, why do we need more?
[4:35:56] We're currently rebuilding out the canyon.
[4:35:58] we have a higher percentage of open space, parks and trails per population than any other municipality
[4:36:02] in the county and the need for more has not been demonstrated or articulated clearly to the
[4:36:08] public. At the very least ensure that the false statements and apply it results for purchasing
[4:36:14] the property or based in fact in not conjecture.
[4:36:25] Thank you, Mr. Frado. So see no additional public comment.
[4:36:29] We'll go ahead and close public comment. Bring it back to the council for deliberation.
[4:36:34] Let's disuse it when you lead us off with what you'd like to see in better information.
[4:36:40] So it goes back to the one thing that I felt really strongly about being included,
[4:36:44] which was the future operations and maintenance expenses.
[4:36:48] And in this section, it does kind of elute to it, but in a very vague kind of way.
[4:36:53] And I'd like to have a sentence added to be a little bit more clear.
[4:36:59] So it's the same.
[4:37:00] chair if I could raise a point of order I don't mean to be rude council member
[4:37:04] this is it but is this germane to the motion that we're about to vote on?
[4:37:09] Yes Mr. DeKaiser it the request was made that we do not vote until we have this
[4:37:14] conversation because it will inform it could potentially inform her vote.
[4:37:20] You might have not been there for it.
[4:37:21] Probably just yield and no vote not a discussion in my opinion has nothing to do with
[4:37:26] the motion.
[4:37:29] Okay, so it's the section that says, what is the estimated cost to tax payers?
[4:37:35] And at the very last sentence, it says, state law prohibits geobon proceeds from being used
[4:37:41] for ongoing operation and maintenance expenses.
[4:37:45] I'd like to, so it leads to it, but I'd like to add, if the bond is approved, the city
[4:37:50] will still need to determine how those fund, how those future operating and maintenance costs
[4:37:54] will be funded.
[4:37:56] That was a point on it, and I like the language in the video that we use doing the council
[4:38:04] video.
[4:38:05] It could result in a second, another property taxic.
[4:38:09] Well, I want to make sure that we are neutral enough that it could, it passes, you know,
[4:38:18] legal, but I do feel really strongly, and I made that clear throughout this entire discussion
[4:38:23] that we be specific about that in the voter pamphlet, and I, you know, was assured that it
[4:38:29] would be included, but it's not, in my opinion.
[4:38:32] I think unless it's stated, we aren't being fully, we aren't fully disclosing what the magnitude
[4:38:39] of that is.
[4:38:41] So that's my request to the council and to administration is to include that sentence in
[4:38:48] that place.
[4:38:48] And I would like to move it to what is the estimate and costs of the taxpayer, because that instead of tucked in the back.
[4:39:00] I think she wants to attach to where we're already saying something about it.
[4:39:05] It's in the last paragraph right here.
[4:39:08] Don't you want it to follow the sentence that already says something about operations?
[4:39:13] Yeah, I'm not trying to change the whole thing and recreate the will and understand that it's already been reviewed through
[4:39:19] bond council and so I'm trying to be conservative with my changes in a way that still reflects
[4:39:28] the overall just in the importance.
[4:39:32] Can you clarify where you were requesting it go?
[4:39:35] So in this section of what is the estimated cost of a taxpayer?
[4:39:39] It's on the geobon covers right there.
[4:39:43] So it's after that last sentence.
[4:39:47] So the state law prohibits geo-bond proceeds from being used for ongoing operations and maintenance expenses.
[4:39:55] I'd like to add, if the bond is approved, the city will still need to determine.
[4:40:00] And how do you use future or excuse me? How those future operating and maintenance costs will be funded?
[4:40:08] And then leave the full paragraph in there as well.
[4:40:15] Could you read a different page about how do you operating expenses?
[4:40:20] Mr. Rattum.
[4:40:23] Council Member Disco, so would you mind just reading your sentence one more time? I got about two thirds of the way through it.
[4:40:28] If the bond is approved, comma, the city will still need to determine how those future operating and maintenance costs will be funded.
[4:40:38] So it's an additional sentence, not changing anything in the paragraph.
[4:40:43] No, and I would read everything else.
[4:40:45] I would just be an addition to tie that together in that area.
[4:40:50] I don't understand why you wouldn't add the language about a possible tax increase together.
[4:40:55] Because devil advocate did we do it for fire station 31?
[4:40:58] If we didn't have it in there for that one.
[4:41:01] I mean, this one I think, it's a rarely, I think this was well worth it.
[4:41:06] Well, I think it's more neutral than that and still includes the possibility that that exists.
[4:41:13] That's the option.
[4:41:16] But it could be a lot of your say decisions will need to be made as to how it will be funded.
[4:41:20] And I think that's honest.
[4:41:28] It's simple.
[4:41:29] I think it's an appropriate addition.
[4:41:34] I think personally, I think it's kind of...
[4:41:38] It's too far to the other side.
[4:41:40] I think we've gone from like the middle to one side or the other.
[4:41:42] I think that just pushes it a little too far.
[4:41:46] But we all said Mike.
[4:41:48] Council members, could we remind you to make sure hearing you in the system?
[4:41:51] Okay, I included on 31.
[4:41:54] I mean, I know that we're coming from, but I think this is probably a pretty...
[4:41:59] I just need to know if you're in favor of adding that sentence in the way that she shared it.
[4:42:06] I'm fine.
[4:42:06] I'm fine. Yes, yes. No. And Mr. Jensen, thoughts on adding that sentence?
[4:42:15] We would take it and run a pass our bond council for their input.
[4:42:19] We understand that. That's appropriate. Okay, so we're saying we're willing to add that in and he will
[4:42:26] run it by a bound council. Is that the only, okay, do we have anything else before we?
[4:42:33] I'm sure.
[4:42:34] Would you like me to pull up the suggested that it's the we had a staff to the voter information
[4:42:39] pamphlet?
[4:42:39] Sure.
[4:42:42] You said you had a few, right?
[4:42:45] Yeah.
[4:42:45] They're fairly minor.
[4:42:47] Let's do it.
[4:42:53] It's along the lines of what you suggested on the argument in favor.
[4:42:56] If the bond is not approved, it says Canyon School District has indicated it will sell the property
[4:43:02] for development.
[4:43:04] Would we replace the word will with me?
[4:43:09] Sure.
[4:43:09] Let's see what Dustin's bringing up because maybe we sent these suggested red lines to the
[4:43:17] council earlier today on page 4 of the VIP so we're suggesting adding a sentence at the
[4:43:25] end of the what could present view become. We suggest adding to strategic public private
[4:43:31] partnerships or city directed development to that as well since the council discussed it.
[4:43:36] Also, on page 4 under the if the bond is not approved section, we've suggested taking out
[4:43:44] Cainian Civil District, noting the current owner, and then replacing for development with
[4:43:50] two a private buyer. So, the current owner has indicated it will sell the property to a private
[4:43:55] buyer. I've just added in the section that was just requested by the council. I haven't added it
[4:44:04] as a red line, because I just haven't had an opportunity to yet, but we will page 5, again,
[4:44:12] we're suggesting you use the language of the current owner and to a private buyer instead
[4:44:17] of Canyon School District and for development, and then page 7, the question that we had
[4:44:24] as whether you wanted to include the concept plan into the IP or remove it.
[4:44:30] You have the image of the concept plan.
[4:44:33] For the reason that the concept plan, I think it gives the perception that that is what's going to happen.
[4:44:40] I don't know that that's accurate or not, but that's your guess is decision obviously.
[4:44:45] And the image is it still, I should remember, but I'm not.
[4:44:50] It's still showing the single family housing.
[4:44:56] Sorry, I'm a little...
[4:45:00] So those are our suggestions. My recommendation would be take action on the resolution and the argument in favor, and then give us direction. If you're okay with those to provide this sheet to the administration so that they can show it to bond council.
[4:45:18] And make those edits assuming bond council is okay with them.
[4:45:21] I think on where it says concept plan 1 is if we put sample or optional example, I mean, something.
[4:45:31] What do you do with the five scenarios?
[4:45:34] The five scenarios in that little spot?
[4:45:36] That's a lot.
[4:45:39] If you did the five.
[4:45:41] I think the language explains all of the possible things that could be done.
[4:45:47] Right?
[4:45:48] I don't want to cause confusion with multiple because it's not like the poster session where people can get their questions answered.
[4:45:56] And it's said earlier that it was the way we had not decided what we were doing.
[4:46:00] But we still have right at the beginning.
[4:46:03] I don't care if we leave it in.
[4:46:06] I would concur with that.
[4:46:07] We don't want to confuse the voters by giving them five options when the four asking them to vote for or against.
[4:46:14] And so, if we add five options, even though it's been discussed, Council and Nichol is in the past,
[4:46:22] that's not what we're asking them to do in this.
[4:46:24] And it says here in the last paragraph to you,
[4:46:26] concept one was developed to illustrate what could be possible at that funding level.
[4:46:31] It is not a final development plan and the specific improvements have not been finalized.
[4:46:38] I don't know, I think it calls it out pretty well.
[4:46:40] Yeah, I think so take out the image.
[4:46:43] No, I don't think we need to.
[4:46:45] I think if anything, if we wanted to change it,
[4:46:47] we could just put example or something across the top.
[4:46:50] Where it says concept plan one, but I mean,
[4:46:54] it's concept is just a possible concept.
[4:46:58] And if I may, if you read the headings,
[4:47:01] we've tried to explain what has happened so far
[4:47:04] and then explaining the public engagement process, once again,
[4:47:07] We're just trying to inform, get people up to speed that may not have tuned into our council
[4:47:13] meetings, attended the two public meetings that we had at the property.
[4:47:19] We're just trying to explain the process.
[4:47:23] Okay, so what I'd like to do is go ahead.
[4:47:25] We have a motion a second.
[4:47:26] I'd like to take a vote on the motion, which is to adopt the resolution that is exclusively
[4:47:32] the four argument for the general obligation bond.
[4:47:36] And then let's determine, like, provide direction around the voter information packet.
[4:47:43] So, we have a motion of second cup.
[4:47:45] I said, Council member Edwards.
[4:47:48] Ms. Edwards.
[4:47:50] Thank you, Madam Chair.
[4:47:51] Ms. Christensen?
[4:47:52] Yes.
[4:47:53] Ms. Stroud?
[4:47:54] Yes.
[4:47:55] Ms. Nicole?
[4:47:55] Yes.
[4:47:57] Ms. Houseman?
[4:47:58] Yes.
[4:47:59] Ms. Sharkey?
[4:48:02] Ms. Tassusa?
[4:48:04] Yes.
[4:48:05] Mr. DeKaiser. Yes. Madam Chair, that motion carries six to one. Thank you. Okay, so we, Mr.
[4:48:14] Prado walked us through. I, I like all of the recommendations that, that you've captured.
[4:48:20] I, my understanding is the process and, and I want to hear from everyone. I'm just sharing my feedback.
[4:48:26] The process would be, you will share those with the administration, administration will fold those in.
[4:48:31] Put it in front of Bond Council.
[4:48:33] Bond Council will ultimately weigh in on what if those can be added.
[4:48:39] Are you supportive of that if that's the direction the council gives?
[4:48:42] Yes, can I provide some feedback about this evening?
[4:48:45] Just really quick about this process, since you've just asked about the process.
[4:48:49] With all due respect, I recognize the council's need and authority
[4:48:54] together and to discuss this.
[4:48:57] We as an administration were card every week to try and provide information to the council as early as possible
[4:49:03] We recognize there's deadlines and recognize that the time frame of of this bond
[4:49:08] We have some deadlines. We have to meet there is frustration for me personally and I would assume from
[4:49:15] Others in the administration about not receiving any of these red lines or proposed changes to the argument for a head of time
[4:49:23] Even just a courtesy. Hey, we're working on those
[4:49:26] So, it is frustrating.
[4:49:29] I appreciate the dialogue and the fact that we've gone through and we're trying to make something that is informational and educational to our residents, but it would have been nice to have even had acknowledgement this afternoon that here are some proposed changes.
[4:49:44] Thank you.
[4:49:45] Thank you for that feedback.
[4:49:47] Okay, so I shared my thoughts on what Dustin walks through. Other thoughts please.
[4:49:57] You're good with what we walk through, the re-
[4:50:00] For the voter information packet.
[4:50:02] I like it, just when I get the picture. That was the only one I did.
[4:50:07] Okay. I like the picture in there.
[4:50:09] The single picture. I don't want to take that out.
[4:50:12] With a little bit of patience.
[4:50:14] You can wordsmith and whatever.
[4:50:18] Well, I'll just, I'll just remove the section where I've talked about removing that image.
[4:50:24] Right.
[4:50:25] but there was a conversation about tidal in it,
[4:50:28] sampler, something,
[4:50:32] it's called concept.
[4:50:37] I think the idea that concept is just a concept.
[4:50:41] I just didn't know there was more resistance.
[4:50:44] So the title is the concept behind the 30 million.
[4:50:47] And then right below the image, it says concept plan 1 already.
[4:50:55] So, we, we, we, we're good motion to have staff share this, do we need a motion?
[4:51:05] We do right.
[4:51:06] Do you have clarity on the direction we're trying to provide?
[4:51:09] Yeah, I, I, I don't need a motion.
[4:51:11] I'm happy to pass this along to the administration.
[4:51:14] Okay.
[4:51:16] All right.
[4:51:17] So, I think we are good with item number nine.
[4:51:22] All right.
[4:51:22] Mr. Jensen.
[4:51:24] Okay.
[4:51:24] Thank you. Let's move on to item number 10. City Civic engagement award. This is a city council award
[4:51:34] I forgot to make a note of who's leading us through this. Am I just leading us through this? Okay
[4:51:40] And I think we had a motion five emotion. You have a motion. Let's do. I would like to make a motion to approve. Oh
[4:51:50] Resolution 26-85C, naming Rebecca Kidel, our 2026 award recipient for the SanDee City Council
[4:51:59] at Civic Engagement Award.
[4:52:02] All right, we have a motion and the second, any discussion on the motion?
[4:52:10] We should, technically, we should take public comments to ask the voting item.
[4:52:14] We're about to vote.
[4:52:16] Let's do that really quickly, looking to the chambers, if there's anyone who would like to comment
[4:52:21] on this item, it is a voting item.
[4:52:26] I do not see anyone, Mr. Prado,
[4:52:28] feel check online, please.
[4:52:30] If you're joining us virtually, you'd like to comment
[4:52:34] on the, this is the awardee.
[4:52:38] Go ahead and click the raise hand button on your screen now
[4:52:40] and I'll call your name and I apologize, guys.
[4:52:43] I think I feel like I'm fading and can't speak
[4:52:45] correctly right now.
[4:52:46] That's what I'm feeling to, we're in that same vote.
[4:52:56] I'm not saying any hands raised, Madam Chair.
[4:52:58] Thank you.
[4:52:59] I'll close public comment on this item, bring it back to the council, any further deliberation.
[4:53:06] We have a motion and a second, Ms. Edward, if we'll do a roll call vote, please.
[4:53:13] Thank you, Madam Chair.
[4:53:15] Ms. Christianson?
[4:53:18] Ms. Nichol.
[4:53:19] Yes.
[4:53:20] Ms. Houseman?
[4:53:21] Yes.
[4:53:22] Ms. Sharky?
[4:53:25] Ms. Tassouza?
[4:53:28] Ms. Trav.
[4:53:29] Yes.
[4:53:31] My understanding is, Mr. DeKaiser has locked off.
[4:53:36] So that motion carries six to zero.
[4:53:39] Thank you, Ms. Edwards.
[4:53:41] Madam Chair.
[4:53:41] Please.
[4:53:42] May I just say thank you to the council.
[4:53:45] That's very kind.
[4:53:45] Thank you.
[4:53:47] Council member Christianson for the nomination.
[4:53:50] You all know Rebecca, she'll be mortified.
[4:53:52] She has to be.
[4:53:55] Yes, she'll be mortified.
[4:53:56] But as super kind of you to recognize the kind of people
[4:54:00] that aren't really blow hearts like I am when we do certain things.
[4:54:04] And so it's a kind of you to recognize her.
[4:54:06] We appreciate her.
[4:54:08] OK, which brings us to item number 11.
[4:54:12] Before we do that item, because we
[4:54:14] will want to adjourn from the close session,
[4:54:17] I'll just do a quick opportunity for what
[4:54:22] do we call them standing reports?
[4:54:25] I'm going to be extremely fast.
[4:54:27] We're canceled next Tuesday.
[4:54:29] And then if you have a Mac, IT has to touch your device in order to install the new
[4:54:36] dual-authentication software.
[4:54:39] And so if you have your Mac with you today and you want to just leave it with me tonight,
[4:54:43] we'll get it taken care of tomorrow.
[4:54:44] If that's not possible, reach out to IT instead of a time to meet with them to have them
[4:54:51] and install it on your device.
[4:54:52] It's pretty quick and pretty much.
[4:54:54] Yeah, iPads don't have to be updated so you're good.
[4:54:58] Okay.
[4:55:00] Thank you. Council members?
[4:55:04] Yes, may.
[4:55:05] Next week.
[4:55:06] Thank you.
[4:55:07] I'll go really fast, because a couple of these I've been holding anyway. Convention facilities advisory board
[4:55:12] met, and you guys, there is some good news that there's some seriousness about expanding
[4:55:18] the Expo Center by 25,000 square feet.
[4:55:22] So, yeah, that would be a great thing. We just need to figure out how to pay for it.
[4:55:26] So, anyway, LPC meeting, that was a lot of prediction about what's coming and the new
[4:55:31] the next legislative session. I'll just run down the list. The one thing we do know is based on
[4:55:37] election results in the primaries. We know we will have at least 20% new legislators in our state
[4:55:45] legislature this coming year. So that's a big change. We know legislators are considering bringing
[4:55:54] bills on property taxes.
[4:55:59] Once again, the starter homes, the governor has admitted that
[4:56:05] our efforts so far in building homes have not moved the needle on housing prices, but
[4:56:11] he still committed to it, and he still wants to build 35,000 starter homes, which are single
[4:56:17] family detached small homes and small lots wants to build 35,000 of them by 2028.
[4:56:25] There will be bills about AI use, there will be bills about data center, there will be bills
[4:56:30] about HOA's, impact fees, flock cameras, all kinds of land use issues around data centers
[4:56:39] And maybe even a proposal to allow small lots in all residential zones, which would kind of make zoning in material.
[4:56:51] Anyway, so we're early before any Bill files are even open. There's a long way to go, but those are the discussions so far. Thank you.
[4:57:00] Okay, just one thing, and I'm going to read it, just I just am.
[4:57:07] We had a tragic incident in Sandy this weekend, a five-year-old child who's killed, and
[4:57:12] the impact has been deeply felt throughout the neighborhood, the school, and our city,
[4:57:19] and it's especially close to home for me, not only did it happen in Sandy and District 1,
[4:57:23] but it involved us to students from where I work.
[4:57:26] My deepest condolences go out to the child's family and everyone who has been affected by this heartbreaking loss.
[4:57:34] My own heart is broken, especially as I watch our youngest students trying to make sense of what's happened in school this week.
[4:57:42] I'm also very grateful for the teacher's staff and parents in the community who helped our young students process this tragedy.
[4:57:48] And I'm also very grateful to both our fire and police departments who responded to this emergency and have cared for our community during such an incredibly difficult situation.
[4:57:59] Tragedies like this are not easy and they leave a lasting imprint in our collective community and you all are very appreciated.
[4:58:10] Very tender. Thank you. I don't have anything for tonight.
[4:58:15] Mr. Susan?
[4:58:16] Just really quick, I had a request of the administration.
[4:58:21] I had asked for an update on the Arbor Building a couple of weeks ago, and I don't think
[4:58:26] that we've heard back.
[4:58:27] So I just, this is kind of like a friendly reminder to get back.
[4:58:31] Is that something that you guys will be able to report on?
[4:58:34] And specifically what I'm looking for is the occupancy and vacancy, which departments
[4:58:41] have been approved for moving over there and their status and expected data to move.
[4:58:46] I think it's important that we have information on that more quickly, more quickly as it's
[4:58:53] been a lot of time since we've had that conversation.
[4:58:55] And I am so sorry that I can't construct a coherent sentence right now.
[4:58:59] But my other thought was, you know, specifically with economic development or the RDA because
[4:59:05] I was under the impression that then moving over there was somewhat required as a requirement
[4:59:11] of their contribution to the purchase, so is that something that Edmund will be able to present
[4:59:17] on soon?
[4:59:18] Yeah, and I can provide some updates to you offline or in tonight, we will start some
[4:59:24] of those discussions as well.
[4:59:26] Okay, I really would like it to be in a meeting where we can all receive the information
[4:59:31] and ask questions.
[4:59:32] Sure.
[4:59:33] Thank you.
[4:59:34] Thank you.
[4:59:38] Madam Chair, the mayor has asked me in her absence if I would read a statement on her behalf,
[4:59:42] May I? Thank you. I want to briefly report on my decision regarding
[4:59:48] Calaway, Gulf, and the city's River Oaks Gulf course. After concerns were brought to my
[4:59:55] attention by residents, city employees, and members of our Gulf course staff.
[5:00:00] I spent several days reviewing Calloway's advertising campaign and the company's response to the controversy.
[5:00:07] After that review, and after notifying the city council, I directed River Oaks to pull Calloway inventory.
[5:00:15] The reason comes back to our first obligation as a city, public safety.
[5:00:20] Calloway approved and ran an advertisement that used an active violence against a woman, as the hook to sell a golf club.
[5:00:28] It demonstrated that a serious, it demonstrated a serious lack of judgment, compounding that was
[5:00:35] the company's initial failure to recognize its role and take meaningful accountability.
[5:00:41] That matters in Sandy.
[5:00:43] Domestic violence is a serious and persistent public safety issue.
[5:00:48] We invest public resources in police officers, detectives, prosecutors, and victim advocates
[5:00:55] who respond to violence.
[5:00:56] prosecute offenders and support victims. River Oaks is also a public facility owned by Sandy
[5:01:04] City. I could not reconcile that public safety mission with spending public dollars to sell
[5:01:12] and promote the products of a company using violence against women as entertaining in its
[5:01:18] advertising. We have removed the inventory and as Calaway to refund the city's cost. We have
[5:01:25] from the company and I'm optimistic they will cooperate with that request.
[5:01:30] Going forward, I'm not looking for a period of outcome.
[5:01:34] I'm looking for accountability, a recognition of the harm caused,
[5:01:38] meaningful corporate changes to ensure this kind of judgment failure
[5:01:42] does not happen again.
[5:01:45] And proactive steps to rebuild trust with customers and partners like Sandy City.
[5:01:50] There should be a path forward when a company takes responsibility and demonstrates meaningful
[5:01:56] change.
[5:01:57] I hope Calaway chooses that path.
[5:02:00] Our first obligation is public safety, and that extends to the culture we create in our
[5:02:05] public spaces.
[5:02:07] River Oaks should be a safe, welcoming place for everyone, every gender, every age, and every
[5:02:14] level of play.
[5:02:15] That is the standard I applied, and I stand behind that decision.
[5:02:18] Thank you.
[5:02:23] And I just have a few items.
[5:02:25] I want to recognize your email, chairhouseman, requesting some information about the merchandise
[5:02:33] at the golf course.
[5:02:34] I have that information.
[5:02:35] I just got it late this afternoon.
[5:02:38] We have about $18,000 worth of Calaway branded merchandise that the city is purchased.
[5:02:44] There's 1,000 and 11 items.
[5:02:47] The majority of those are golf balls.
[5:02:49] But there are a few clubs and clothing items and golf clubs, but we have a full inventory.
[5:02:56] We are working with Caloay to determine what the next steps are on that.
[5:03:02] So we'll keep you apprised on that.
[5:03:04] But I can also send you this via email.
[5:03:07] Yeah.
[5:03:08] And then just two other things, I wanted to thank the council members for joining us in chief
[5:03:14] and I were swearing again.
[5:03:16] It was a great event, really well-attended.
[5:03:19] It was great for his family and the Chief Colby
[5:03:22] and personally said, thank you, even though I really
[5:03:25] had nothing to do with the planning of it,
[5:03:28] but it meant a lot to him and his family.
[5:03:30] And so it meant a lot to us that the council
[5:03:32] was well represented there too as well.
[5:03:34] Thank you.
[5:03:35] And then the last thing, I just, even though they're not here,
[5:03:38] hopefully they're at home in bed.
[5:03:40] But thank you to our park staff, our public work staff,
[5:03:44] to use some fire in dealing with the monsoon flooding that has come, that may not be over.
[5:03:50] There's been a lot of work behind the scenes trying to do our best to keep our residents,
[5:03:55] our neighborhoods, our businesses, safe, dry. And I just wanted to recognize them for all
[5:04:00] their effort. That's it. Thank you. Thank you. Just reminder, we do have a close session,
[5:04:08] and so we need a motion to go into closed session, then we will adjourn from,
[5:04:12] Oh, sorry, parts of micro-no-cum, come, I'm just trying to move this moment.
[5:04:18] We want to give you some energy, you go into your close session, so we'll give you some fun
[5:04:22] here about the construction update at the Sandy Recreation Center.
[5:04:25] So this is as of last Friday.
[5:04:29] This is the west side of the building.
[5:04:32] You can see it's coming together, nice to the brick, it's there, there's framing it for
[5:04:37] windows being put in, as well as the middle panel installation. That's the white part that
[5:04:43] you see there. That installation goes up the middle paneling. We'll go on top of that.
[5:04:48] Right where that space is, we'll be the big Sandy name. And then in that brick open space,
[5:04:54] there will be the Sandy Recreation Center logo. We'll just zoom in a little bit here.
[5:05:00] This is some of that framing on the windows, so on that bigger picture, and then also, curb and gutters have been poured around the building.
[5:05:07] We're starting to see a lot of that come together.
[5:05:12] We're walking around the buildings, so this is on the south side.
[5:05:16] Again, they're doing some of that insulation. You can see the brick is done.
[5:05:20] And this is where we've got the side of the pool, so this is where the locker rooms and the
[5:05:27] legguard Thursday room will be.
[5:05:30] We've walked down a little bit further still on that same side, you can see how the glass
[5:05:34] is coming together nicely on the south side there, only one little glass is missing according
[5:05:40] to this picture I'm sure it's in by now, but then some more of that insulation is being
[5:05:45] So this is on the east side, so you see all the framing for the windows, a lot of those windows are actually in their hard to tell.
[5:05:52] You got to be careful if you're going to put your hand through a window or through a space.
[5:05:58] But this is, and then more of the installation, if we can zoom in on this side as we walk around the corner.
[5:06:03] This is the maintenance yard, you can see all the equipment it takes to operate this building.
[5:06:07] But then above that, you can see all those windows are in.
[5:06:12] And then if we look on the north side,
[5:06:16] then we can see that the brick and the insulation is all there.
[5:06:19] Plus the windows are in.
[5:06:21] Will be exciting as I continue to give these updates
[5:06:24] as we'll start showing more indoor pictures
[5:06:26] because we're getting really close on the outdoor.
[5:06:30] So as we move indoors, this is the upstairs.
[5:06:32] This is a bathroom. You can see they've already put tile
[5:06:36] throughout the walls and on the floor they've also now moved into the tile
[5:06:41] downstairs in the locker rooms. I don't know the picture of that just yet. This is
[5:06:45] this picture of the sound panels on the second floor. You can see those
[5:06:49] vault been placed in and the paint continues throughout the entire building. I think
[5:06:55] that's it. But also I've reached out to it and I know you've reached out to each of
[5:06:59] you. We're ready to have you come back and see the inside. They'll be really
[5:07:03] on the walk-in through and give you a tour.
[5:07:05] So we'll get that all set up.
[5:07:08] Thank you for that update.
[5:07:11] All right, we'll take a motion.
[5:07:14] Motion to go to close session for whatever is listed
[5:07:19] and then close the meeting at the end.
[5:07:21] discussion of purchase exchange or lease of real property.
[5:07:27] We have a motion and a second.
[5:07:31] Alice, the stroud, seconded.
[5:07:35] And this is a roll call vote, correct?
[5:07:39] Ms. Edwards.
[5:07:40] Ms. Christian Sen.
[5:07:42] Yes.
[5:07:43] Ms. Strapp.
[5:07:45] Yes.
[5:07:47] Ms. Nicole?
[5:07:49] Ms. Houseman?
[5:07:51] Ms. Sharkey?
[5:07:52] Yes.
[5:07:53] Ms. Disuse set?
[5:07:54] Yes.
[5:07:55] Madam Chair, that motion carried six to zero.
[5:07:57] Thank you.
[5:07:59] And who will be joining us?
[5:08:01] Location is here at City Hall
[5:08:02] And from our office, we'll have Mr. Kail join in myself.
[5:08:06] Mark myself, Ryan Meekham, Kyla Brower, and Dan Nelson, and Brian Kelly.
[5:08:15] And Lynn Larson.
[5:08:16] Bring in a party.
[5:08:17] Okay.
[5:08:18] Did you bring the food?
[5:08:20] No, I did not.
[5:08:23] All right. Thank you, everyone.
[5:08:25] Have a good evening.