[0:03] Okay.

[0:07] Welcome. It's 5:30 p.m. on Wednesday,

[0:09] April 15th, 2026. The

[0:13] redevelopment agency of Tooele City and

[0:15] the

[0:16] city council meeting in a work meeting

[0:18] that's being held at Tooele City Hall in

[0:20] the council chambers located at 90 North

[0:22] Main Street in Tooele, Utah. We're also

[0:24] streaming this electronically on the

[0:25] Tooele City YouTube channel.

[0:27] We will start with the roll call.

[0:29] Councilman Gose? Present. Councilman

[0:31] McCall? Present. I'm Councilman Brady

[0:33] and I'm present. Councilman Hansen

[0:35] should be joining us in about 10 or 15

[0:37] minutes and then Councilwoman Gochis has

[0:39] asked to be excused tonight.

[0:41] Our third item is the mayor's report.

[0:45] Hello, council. I just have a couple of

[0:47] items tonight. One, I would like to just

[0:50] remind you or let you know, if you

[0:51] didn't know already, that the Tooele

[0:53] Serves Day will be on May 16th. So, be

[0:55] sure to put that on your calendars. Um

[0:57] 9:00 to noon and we'll be working at the

[1:00] uh

[1:01] I always say it wrong. The train museum.

[1:04] Tooele Valley Historical Museum and

[1:07] Historical Park.

[1:08] >> [laughter]

[1:09] >> Otherwise known as the train museum.

[1:12] Um so, hopefully you'll be able to join

[1:13] us that day. Um and then um as you know

[1:16] each year uh we in the past we've had a

[1:18] mayor's golf tournament. We're going to

[1:19] continue that. Um the money that's

[1:21] raised from the mayor's golf tournament

[1:23] is used to do scholarships and uh some

[1:26] grants for local youth programs and that

[1:29] is coming up. So, um I didn't know if

[1:31] you'd be interested in that. We have 36

[1:33] teams. So, we're very appreciative of

[1:35] the support from our local businesses

[1:37] and that are willing to support our

[1:40] youth in the city in that endeavor.

[1:42] And then the last item is that the UDot

[1:45] Trails Charter

[1:47] is hoping has on their priority list a

[1:50] feasibility study for a trail from the

[1:54] south end of Tooele to Stansbury Park.

[1:58] If you remember, the governor funded a

[2:00] lot of money for a trails network

[2:02] throughout the state of Utah. And this

[2:05] is the one that they're one of the ones

[2:07] that they're suggesting doing a

[2:09] feasibility study for. So, um this year

[2:12] um it will go before the transportation

[2:15] commission in May and then they'll

[2:17] decide. Generally, they just accept the

[2:19] proposed fees you know, suggestions from

[2:22] UDot, but they'll decide, approve that,

[2:24] and then they'll get to work on a

[2:25] feasibility study.

[2:27] Um there was a little bit of concern

[2:29] about whether it should be on SR-36 or

[2:32] Drew Bay, but they're going with SR-36.

[2:34] So, we'll see what comes up of that.

[2:36] Keep you posted.

[2:38] Okay. That's all I have to report.

[2:40] All right, thank you.

[2:42] Item four is the council members report.

[2:44] We'll start with Councilman McCall.

[2:47] Uh the only thing I have is um

[2:50] ribbon cuttings.

[2:52] I I think I

[2:53] attended two.

[2:56] Yeah, at least two since the last

[2:57] meeting. Hard to keep [snorts] track of.

[2:59] The last meeting, yeah.

[3:01] And

[3:03] I said I got a

[3:04] COG meeting tomorrow.

[3:06] Okay.

[3:08] All right, thank you.

[3:09] Councilman Gose? You know, I don't

[3:11] really have anything to report this this

[3:13] time. So. Okay. I hate to be that guy,

[3:15] but I I don't.

[3:17] All right, thank you.

[3:19] Um I've just attended the mayor's staff

[3:22] meeting and once again, the staff does a

[3:24] lot of great work and it's always fun to

[3:26] hear the the challenges they're having

[3:28] and how they address those challenges as

[3:30] well. So,

[3:31] that concludes my report.

[3:33] We have two discussion items. Our first

[3:35] discussion item is a discussion on fees

[3:37] for repeated false residential or

[3:40] business alarms. This is presented by

[3:42] Adrian Day, the chief of police.

[3:48] Thank you, council.

[3:50] Many cities in Utah charge a

[3:53] fees for repeated false alarms. I looked

[3:56] up two of them, Sandy City and uh

[3:58] Saratoga Springs.

[4:01] A $100 service fee is charged for law

[4:04] enforcement response after our repeated

[4:06] false alarms. In Saratoga, you get one

[4:09] free one and then they start the fee.

[4:12] And uh in Sandy, it's the fourth false

[4:15] alarm is where they start their fee.

[4:17] In Tooele City schedule, there's no cost

[4:19] for a response for two false fire

[4:21] alarms, but after that, we do have a

[4:24] charge of $100 and if it gets to six or

[4:27] above, it goes to 250.

[4:29] My department

[4:31] responded to 996 false alarms in 2025.

[4:36] 373 of these false alarms were at

[4:39] residences and 623 were at businesses.

[4:43] Five different homes had four or more.

[4:47] The worst offenders was a uh 15 and 19.

[4:52] Two different homes. There were 46

[4:54] different businesses that had over four

[4:57] false alarms. Two alone had 79

[5:01] between the both of them.

[5:03] Excessive false alarms create the alarm

[5:05] fatigue.

[5:07] It really reduces the effect effectiveness and security of

[5:13] these these safety systems. There's also

[5:16] a safety issue with uh first responders

[5:19] and how we become complacent naturally

[5:21] after the 79th time at the same business.

[5:27] I bring this discussion to you to see if

[5:30] uh

[5:31] you would support law enforcement fee on

[5:33] the schedule

[5:35] for repeated false alarms in a future

[5:37] business meeting and if so uh

[5:40] if you're looking at same type of thing

[5:43] as uh fire or

[5:46] I want to be business friendly. I'd

[5:48] rather just not respond to the alarms,

[5:50] but uh

[5:52] for somebody that went over the the a

[5:55] certain amount, but that would reduce

[5:57] safe safety systems, too, you know.

[6:01] Yeah. Any thoughts?

[6:03] So, when an an alarm goes off, are you

[6:06] being notified by like a third party or

[6:09] is it the business owner calling you

[6:10] saying

[6:12] It's a It's a third party. It's uh

[6:15] Peak Alarm. It's whoever the business or

[6:18] the home pays Okay. for that and they

[6:21] call dispatch and in turn send a police

[6:24] officer there.

[6:26] I got a question for you cuz I I think

[6:28] you probably responded to

[6:30] two at mine. Was it two? Two. That's

[6:33] what I thought. Two and taking care

[6:34] >> One time was uh

[6:37] my daughter leaned up against the panic

[6:39] button. That was kind of fun cuz none of

[6:41] us know you knew that you were coming

[6:42] until you were there.

[6:44] The other time was I got notified and we

[6:47] were out of town and it said

[6:49] uh the burglar alarm had gone off on the

[6:51] front door.

[6:53] And I said, "Yeah, you mind going and

[6:55] checking it out? Um send the police or

[6:58] whatever."

[6:59] So, is this

[7:00] the false alarm thing, when does it

[7:02] reset? I mean, is it annually? It's in a

[7:05] It Whatever you want. Cuz I They're in a

[7:08] 12-month period, generally. Yeah, I was

[7:10] going to say in a year, I think.

[7:13] I totally understand why you'd want to.

[7:16] But from a business standpoint, if you

[7:17] get notified from your alarm company and

[7:19] it says

[7:21] the alarm has gone off. Correct.

[7:24] >> And you're not close enough to run down

[7:25] and check it or you can't pull it up on

[7:28] your camera, then obviously you want the

[7:30] police to go, but

[7:31] I get both sides of it. So, if uh I

[7:34] would say if a business owner called and

[7:36] said, "Don't worry about this alarm."

[7:38] That takes away the response. Yeah.

[7:41] Panic alarm

[7:42] such as you described uh that happens at

[7:44] Binks every now and then. We don't have

[7:46] too many of them. I don't consider that

[7:49] uh

[7:50] that's somebody pushing something. I

[7:52] don't consider that a repeated false

[7:54] alarm.

[7:55] That's a And it doesn't make a noise in

[7:57] the store. So, Right.

[7:59] >> when she leaned up against it, we had no

[8:01] idea. And so, And this

[8:02] >> a shocker to us, too. Second one you

[8:04] described, you may have some may have

[8:07] had somebody at the front door trying

[8:08] it.

[8:09] Yeah.

[8:10] I don't know we consider that a false

[8:12] alarm, either.

[8:14] I I think if it's in a one-year period,

[8:16] I don't have an issue with it. I mean,

[8:19] obviously, if you're getting multiple,

[8:20] like you said, what, 15, 19, or whatever

[8:23] it was.

[8:24] The Those were the two homes. The The

[8:27] two businesses, one was 32 and the other

[8:29] was 47.

[8:32] Yeah, that's a lot. I remember when I

[8:34] was on the road 15 years ago, there was

[8:37] Middle Canyon Elementary had a door that

[8:39] was really loose in the wind and every

[8:41] night you would you'd know it was

[8:43] coming. Set it off. They just didn't

[8:45] want to fix it.

[8:46] I like you said that the Sandy City was

[8:50] after your fourth.

[8:52] I think three or four times is plenty of

[8:55] leeway.

[8:57] Okay.

[8:58] Yeah, I agree. Three or I I probably

[9:00] lean more towards four, but I'd be fine

[9:03] with three as well. Like three, you get

[9:04] a warning and letting them know that the

[9:06] next or after four is a fee. When

[9:11] other cities, when they give a fee

[9:13] after the fourth, are they giving a $100

[9:15] fee every time after that occurrence? Uh

[9:18] the two I looked at, Sandy and Saratoga,

[9:21] they both stayed at 100. They didn't

[9:23] I didn't see an increase at all. But

[9:25] it's every occurrence after the fourth.

[9:28] Yes. Okay. Yes.

[9:31] I think that's fair. Yeah. Gets their

[9:33] attention to address the issue.

[9:36] Fixes their alarm, I guarantee you.

[9:37] Yeah.

[9:38] I mean, it really comes down to

[9:39] resources. We don't have enough resource

[9:42] to send someone to every alarm and still

[9:44] respond to other calls as well. So, It's

[9:46] an incentive to fix the alarm and uh

[9:50] if we have the capability to take away

[9:52] fees if they fix the alarm, that's our goal. Right. We're We're here

[9:56] for the worst offenders is what we're

[9:58] trying to fix.

[10:01] Okay.

[10:03] Any other discussion, questions?

[10:07] Ideas?

[10:09] I think I get the general idea. So, we

[10:11] can always wait. So, yeah, I think I'm

[10:12] okay.

[10:13] Thank you.

[10:14] >> Thank you for your service.

[10:17] Our next discussion item is a discussion

[10:19] of reorganization of enforcement

[10:21] provisions for violations of Tooele City

[10:23] Code titles 4, 5, 7, and 8 presented by

[10:27] Matthew Johnson, the city attorney.

[10:31] » [clears throat]

[10:33] » Thank you, Council. This is

[10:35] um potentially a big project and we're talking about starting phase one.

[10:40] Um

[10:41] it's kind of come to our attention and we had a discussion um with the

[10:45] mayor and a and uh

[10:47] various department heads about

[10:50] um how our violations are structured.

[10:53] Actually, that ties in nicely into the

[10:55] last presentation. We have um

[10:58] in particular, we have

[11:00] um

[11:03] titles 5, 7, and 8 that all have

[11:07] violations that can be enforced civilly

[11:11] um meaning that they get a fine that's

[11:14] paid through the finance department as

[11:16] well as most of most of them have can be

[11:18] charged criminally as well.

[11:21] Um right now, it's kind of far-flung on

[11:24] what those fines and consequences are.

[11:27] Um

[11:28] some of the for for example, some of the

[11:30] civil fees

[11:31] start at $50, some start at 100, some go

[11:35] up to $250, some 500, and some 1,000.

[11:38] So, we would like to look at making that

[11:40] more uniform. Um

[11:42] just as I brought this more as a visual

[11:44] aid.

[11:45] I went through and just marked

[11:47] violations. This is not including

[11:49] title 10 traffic violations or title 11

[11:52] equipment violations. This is just

[11:55] everything referencing some kind of

[11:56] violation I've marked with a sticky note

[11:59] and it's sort of all over the place.

[12:01] What we have in mind for a starting

[12:03] point at least is to look at

[12:06] sections

[12:07] 4, 5, 7, and 8. We're not going to look

[12:11] at the fire. That's kind of its own

[12:12] thing for now. Animal as well. It's sort

[12:15] of it's enforced in a specific way.

[12:18] But 4, 5, 7, and 8 we'd like to um

[12:22] at least per title

[12:25] consider a uniform

[12:28] first violation, second violation,

[12:30] third.

[12:31] Um

[12:33] We we talked about starting at a 100 and

[12:35] going up to 500 and at 500 thereafter

[12:39] like like 100, 250, 500.

[12:42] Um

[12:44] for something like Chief Day

[12:46] mentioned for each violation, we could

[12:48] um

[12:49] we would want to put into the more specific code when it

[12:55] actually is a violation. So,

[12:57] like the third or fourth for false alarm

[12:59] would be the first civil violation. That would be a civil infraction.

[13:04] And then it we'd go to the title that

[13:07] it's under to say, "Okay,

[13:09] everything for this title

[13:11] um

[13:13] fits this structure. Every violation

[13:14] fits this structure.

[13:16] Uh we'd like to keep right now

[13:18] everything

[13:19] generally says

[13:21] it also could be enforced as a class C

[13:23] misdemeanor. We'd like to keep that for

[13:24] now. Um it might be worth it in the next

[13:28] stage or another stage looking at

[13:30] whether we want to put more specific

[13:33] elements other than a violation of this

[13:36] title as a class C misdemeanor. But for

[13:38] now, that's kind of what is in there now

[13:40] and we would just move it to the

[13:42] beginning of the title.

[13:44] Um the second part of this is that we'd

[13:46] like to

[13:48] um we we've got some enforcement

[13:50] provisions like abatement where the

[13:53] city's actually going in and fixing it.

[13:55] That only applies in certain situations.

[13:58] Right now, they're um

[14:01] for nuisance abatement in title 8, that covers it. And that covers um

[14:06] offensive

[14:07] Excuse me. [clears throat]

[14:09] Uh something that constitutes a threat

[14:11] to human health and safety.

[14:12] Um

[14:14] and then we also have

[14:16] abatement of of obstructions in in the

[14:18] public right-of-way [clears throat] like

[14:19] the street or the sidewalk. Um we wouldn't

[14:24] really be changing that, but we'd like

[14:26] to clarify that for example, a violation

[14:29] of

[14:30] um title 4, which is the building regu-

[14:33] regulation could be of such a nature

[14:35] that it's a public nuisance. Even though

[14:37] it's on private property, it's creating

[14:39] a substantial risk to human health and safety and that the

[14:43] city could under certain cir-

[14:45] circumstances could go in and abate it.

[14:47] That would be the same for

[14:49] well, not so much for the

[14:51] business violations in title 5.

[14:53] Uh but it would be for a lot of the land

[14:56] use violations that could be um

[14:59] something [clears throat] that is is

[15:00] such a nature that it constitutes a

[15:02] threat to human health and safety. One

[15:04] example would be uh with the newer

[15:06] parking ordinance, if they were parking

[15:09] um

[15:10] and it was not uh on on paved a paved

[15:14] portion of the private property, it

[15:16] could affect um the the ground water.

[15:21] And under that, the

[15:24] city could consider abating it. Um I I

[15:26] think that we have a

[15:28] code enforcement officer who uses good

[15:30] discretion now and that

[15:32] I I think that the city wouldn't jump

[15:34] into

[15:35] going into lots of private property and and changing things, but it would be

[15:39] a tool that the city would be able to

[15:41] use.

[15:42] Um we're looking at some other

[15:45] general reorganization that we'll we'll

[15:47] have to work through. Um

[15:49] uh for example, it'd be nice to have all

[15:51] the parking violations in one section,

[15:53] but that's tough because some of the

[15:55] parking we have right now is definitely

[15:57] land use and having all the land use

[16:00] issues in title 5 is a kind of nice

[16:02] trigger to make sure we're following

[16:04] those

[16:05] land use notices.

[16:07] Um but we're still working through

[16:09] those.

[16:11] Um

[16:13] But yeah, we just

[16:15] would like to get the Council's input on

[16:17] that and if there's any direction,

[16:19] um any questions,

[16:25] Okay, [cough and clears throat] are

[16:26] there any questions or comments?

[16:31] Sorry, first of all, I just want to

[16:32] Could you just tell us what 4, 5, 7, and

[16:34] 8 are? What them titles are?

[16:36] >> I meant to do that right at the outset.

[16:37] Title 4 are the building regulations.

[16:40] So, that'll cover things like plumbing,

[16:42] electrical, um

[16:44] things like that. Title 5 is the

[16:46] business regulations. Um

[16:49] that will be

[16:51] the big one is doing business without a license. Um

[16:55] we've got

[16:56] a lot of issues right now where I know

[16:58] that

[16:59] um community development is looking at.

[17:02] Um

[17:04] and that would be one that we'd go in

[17:05] and abate because there's really not a

[17:07] reason to. Um number

[17:09] >> Did you Did you also say when we you was

[17:11] talking, did you say land use was in 5

[17:13] also? No, title 7 is the uniform zoning

[17:17] and so that that'll be our land use.

[17:19] Okay. Our land use provisions.

[17:22] And then title 8 is um

[17:25] health and sanitation and that's where

[17:26] nuisance falls. There are some other

[17:28] things that would fall under that.

[17:30] Uh

[17:31] but and that's where our tools for

[17:33] abatement come in for for nuisance

[17:35] abatement.

[17:42] So, when you bring it to the Council,

[17:43] are you planning to do like one section

[17:46] at a time like 4 or are they just kind

[17:49] of intertwined that we need to do them

[17:51] all at once? Um the thought that I had

[17:54] is is because some of it will have to go

[17:57] before planning commission cuz it'll be

[17:59] land use to start with those and then

[18:02] once we get that together to bring

[18:04] at least this first stage all together

[18:06] cuz like I said, the first stage will be

[18:09] um the

[18:11] >> [clears throat]

[18:12] >> making it the the consequences uniform for for

[18:17] each title. Um and that way

[18:19] you can see what we're doing. It it

[18:21] would be a big

[18:22] as far as red light goes, it's still be

[18:24] pretty big because we'd be crossing off

[18:26] things and adding adding them somewhere

[18:28] else, but

[18:29] um

[18:31] after after that, we may look

[18:33] a little bit more specifically at okay,

[18:37] this section makes more sense over in

[18:39] this title. Um

[18:41] but but for this first part,

[18:44] um

[18:45] that's what I had in mind anyways. It's

[18:47] just try to get it all at once.

[18:49] So, you wanting all four of them to be

[18:51] equal as far as how many offenses before

[18:54] the fine starts or are they individually

[18:56] going to have different starting points?

[19:00] Like between the titles?

[19:01] >> Yeah. That's that's a good question and we talked about that. It's

[19:06] um uh open to Council's direction. Our

[19:08] thought is it's simpler if they're

[19:10] uniform. Um right now, there's some that

[19:13] have

[19:15] different fines between in- individuals

[19:17] and businesses and and again, it would

[19:19] be simpler if it were just

[19:22] one point across the board.

[19:26] I know in the past we've had like

[19:28] individual ones brought to us and maybe

[19:31] they don't they're not in these titles.

[19:32] Maybe that's I'm thinking differently,

[19:34] but it seems like over the last couple

[19:36] of years we've had

[19:37] some of these brought to us and so

[19:40] really it's just about getting

[19:41] everything on the same page and

[19:44] Right. And and just just to make it more

[19:46] uniform and and less complicated. I I

[19:49] mean, it's [clears throat] it's

[19:51] for the public but also even just for

[19:53] city staff to to s- say, "Okay,

[19:56] well, this one starts at 50, but this

[19:58] one starts at 100." And

[20:00] um

[20:03] I was going to say, one of my questions

[20:04] would be

[20:06] like the chief brought up, you know,

[20:07] maybe after the fourth offense, these

[20:09] are ones that they're getting a warning

[20:11] first and then a fine. Is that typically

[20:14] how they go?

[20:15] Well, that's that's not uniform, either.

[20:17] So, it some of them, yes, you get first

[20:19] step as a warning. Other ones start out

[20:21] with a fine.

[20:23] Um

[20:24] So, so, it it, you know, that's

[20:26] something we could consider, too, is to

[20:28] have a

[20:29] to actually put right in the code that

[20:31] they get a warning first. They know

[20:32] that's typically our code enforcement

[20:34] [clears throat]

[20:35] officers' practice, anyway,

[20:37] but we certainly could just put right in

[20:38] there, you get a warning and after that

[20:41] then the fines begin. Right. Right. And

[20:44] for things that are

[20:46] um like the alarms where

[20:48] you get at least two before it's a

[20:51] violation, we could put it right there

[20:52] where

[20:53] >> [clears throat]

[20:53] >> when we

[20:54] So, it's not at the beginning of code,

[20:56] right there in the more specific section, say,

[20:59] on the third one, that's where it

[21:01] becomes a civil infraction, you know.

[21:06] I mean, it makes sense to make it easier

[21:08] for the staff and

[21:10] I'm I'm on board for it. Sounds like a a

[21:12] big project for you and your department,

[21:15] so

[21:16] I don't know that I have a lot of

[21:17] direction to give of

[21:20] how to do it, but

[21:22] Same, I don't know. I mean, I

[21:24] you guys can come back with some ideas

[21:25] and see if we can poke holes in it, I

[21:27] guess. Yeah. Yeah. Well, and that may be

[21:29] the a good good question is is what does

[21:32] it make sense to come back in in another

[21:34] work meeting before we say, "Okay, this

[21:36] portion, let's take to planning

[21:37] commission."

[21:39] Um

[21:40] I think if we had like specifics, it

[21:42] would be nice to see that in a work

[21:44] meeting and before it goes to planning

[21:45] commission, that way we can give input

[21:47] and then the planning commission can

[21:48] give input, as well. So, I would like to

[21:50] see it back with

[21:52] maybe some specific red lines and

[21:55] ideas. Sure. Mhm.

[21:57] Yeah. Everyone else agree with that? I

[22:00] think so, yeah.

[22:01] I think that's okay.

[22:02] >> Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Appreciate Thank

[22:04] you.

[22:05] This is going to be a lot of work.

[22:12] Okay, our next item is a closed meeting.

[22:13] We do have a closed meeting tonight to

[22:15] discuss discuss litigation and or

[22:18] property acquisition. So, I'll entertain

[22:20] a motion to move to a closed meeting.

[22:23] Make a motion.

[22:24] Second. All right, we have a motion from

[22:25] Councilman Gossett and a second from

[22:27] Councilman McCall. We'll take it to a

[22:29] vote. Councilman Gossett?

[22:31] Aye. Councilman Hanson? Aye. Councilman

[22:33] McCall? Aye. And Councilman Brady, and I

[22:35] vote aye. That passes 4-0.

[22:38] So, we will recess here at 5:52 p.m. and

[22:41] reconvene

Tooele City Council Work Meeting April 15, 2026

Transcript