[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