City Council Study Meeting - ARCHIVED

SOUTH JORDAN CITY CITY COUNCIL STUDY MEETING APRIL 7, 2026 Present: Mayor Dawn R. Ramsey, Council Member Patrick Harris, Council Member Kathie Johnson, Council Member Don Shelton, Council Member Tamara Zander, Council Member Jason McGuire, City Manager Dustin Lewis, Assistance City Manager Jason Rasmussen, Assistant City Manager Don Tingey, Police Chief Jeff Carr, Fire Chief Chris Dawson, Director of Administrative Services Melinda Seager, Associate Director of Human Resources Corinne Thacker, Director of Recreation Janell Payne, Arts Program Coordinator Tiffany Parker, Associate Director of Finance Katie Olson, Director of Planning & Economic Development Brian Preece, Long-Range Planner Joe Moss, Director of Public Works Raymond Garrison, Deputy City/Transportation Engineer Jeremy Nielson, PIO/Communication Manager Rachael Van Cleave, CTO Matthew Davis, Senior System Administrator Phill Brown, City Recorder Anna Crookston Absent: Other (Electronic) Attendance: City Attorney Ryan Loose, Fred Philpot Other (In-Person) Attendance: Jordan Hintze, Sam Bishop 4:38 P.M. REGULAR MEETING A. Welcome, Roll Call, and Introduction - By Mayor Dawn Ramsey Mayor Ramsey welcomed everyone present and introduced the meeting. B. Invocation – By Council Member Patrick Harris Council Member Harris offered the invocation. C. Mayor and Council Coordination Mayor Dawn R. Ramsey discussed the city’s ongoing budget conversations and the need to secure a dedicated funding source for parks. She noted that annual resident surveys consistently identify parks as the community’s top priority and emphasized the importance of protecting and maintaining park services as the city continues to experience rapid growth. The council has been exploring the possibility of implementing a parks utility fee similar to other dedicated revenue streams already used by the city. She shared feedback from discussions with city staff, including concerns raised by Cameron Deihl regarding the potential political and legislative implications of adopting such a fee. Specifically, there was concern that implementing a new utility fee could attract attention from legislators or the Utah State Tax Commission and potentially lead to South Jordan City 2 City Council Study Meeting April 7, 2026 legislation restricting municipalities’ ability to impose similar fees in the future. She explained that the concern was not about the city’s immediate authority to implement the fee, but rather the possibility of the city becoming a focal point for broader legislative efforts limiting municipal funding tools. She reiterated that the city’s primary objective is to ensure stable, dedicated funding for parks so that park resources are protected even when other general fund costs increase. She stated that placing all funding within the general fund can create challenges when expenses rise unexpectedly in other areas. She also emphasized that maintaining park service levels will require additional funding in the coming fiscal year. Several potential funding options were mentioned, including pursuing a parks utility fee, increasing property taxes, or exploring other revenue mechanisms. She suggested the city could engage in strategic discussions with legislators and organizations such as the Utah Taxpayers Association to explain the city’s data and rationale for seeking dedicated park funding. She also acknowledged broader frustrations regarding increasing legislative limitations on municipal revenue options, noting concerns about restrictions related to fees, impact fees, and property taxes. She noted that staff needs direction from the council on how to proceed so that planning and budget preparation could continue in a timely manner. Council Member Johnson noted that state legislative actions have significantly influenced how municipalities fund core services over time. She reflected that police and fire services were once primarily funded through sales tax. She noted both community growth and legislative changes have affected municipal finance structures and affect how cities evaluate public service needs. Mayor Ramsey emphasized that the city’s objective is to remain transparent, service-oriented, and responsive to resident priorities while planning for the community’s long-term needs. She explained that discussions with stakeholders acknowledged the city’s rationale for pursuing dedicated park funding, but there remains a possibility that state leaders could prefer the funding be implemented through a tax structure rather than a fee. She stated that if the council wished to continue exploring a parks utility fee, she would begin coordinating meetings with legislators and other organizations to present supporting data and explain the city’s reasoning in advance. She also outlined alternative funding options, including a property tax increase or the creation of a park district, noting that these approaches could generate similar revenue outcomes. She expressed support for transparency in taxation and referenced the principles promoted by the Utah Taxpayers Association, stating that funding decisions should be made openly and publicly rather than through less visible processes. She emphasized that any proposal considered by the city would follow a transparent process consistent with the council’s established practices and values. She concluded by requesting direction and input from the council regarding whether to continue pursuing the utility fee concept, consider alternative funding mechanisms, or prioritize concerns about potential legislative responses and public reception. She stressed the importance of the council making the decision collectively and sharing responsibility for whichever course of action is chosen. Council Member Johnson recalled prior discussions regarding the financial impact of potential funding options and stated that, based on earlier information presented to the council, a property tax approach may result in a lower cost for the average resident compared to a utility fee. City Manager Dustin Lewis explained that the total amount of revenue needed to support parks would remain the same regardless of the funding mechanism chosen; however, the difference lies in how the costs are distributed and collected. He stated that a parks utility fee would primarily South Jordan City 3 City Council Study Meeting April 7, 2026 apply to residential properties because residents are the primary users of parks, while a property tax approach would place a larger share of the burden on commercial properties due to their higher assessed values. He noted that payment structure could also affect how residents experience the cost, as a utility fee could be incorporated into smaller monthly payments, whereas property taxes are generally paid annually. He further explained that property tax revenue would flow into the city’s general fund, where parks funding would compete with other municipal priorities such as police, fire, public works, and engineering services. In contrast, he stated that a dedicated parks fee would function similarly to an enterprise fund by directing revenue specifically toward parks and related master plan priorities previously identified by the community. He emphasized that a dedicated funding source would help ensure the city can continue maintaining and expanding park services consistent with long-term community goals. He also cautioned that without dedicated funding, increasing budget pressures could result in public safety and other essential services taking priority over parks, potentially limiting future park improvements, reducing maintenance levels, or affecting the city’s ability to preserve park assets. Council Member Shelton stated that the financial challenges being discussed have already affected the city’s parks system. He noted that the city owns land that has been designated for park development for many years but remains undeveloped due to a lack of funding. He also stated that the city has already reduced park maintenance schedules as a result of financial constraints. He emphasized that the situation described by staff is not hypothetical, explaining that the absence of dedicated funding has already limited the city’s ability to develop planned park spaces and maintain existing facilities at desired levels. He added that some park properties currently have no foreseeable development plans because funding has not been secured. City Manager Lewis stated that the city has park-designated land that officials had intended to develop into active park space, but those projects have not moved forward because funding has not been available. He noted that, without a dedicated funding source, there are currently no plans to complete development of those properties. Council Member McGuire expressed support for the concept of a park’s utility fee, stating that he values the transparency associated with a dedicated funding mechanism. He noted that the proposed fee would be supported by a formal study to determine the appropriate amount and that the revenue would be restricted specifically for parks purposes, preventing it from being redirected to unrelated expenses. He stated that a dedicated fee structure could provide residents with a clearer understanding of how their money is being used and how it supports park services and improvements. He contrasted this approach with a general property tax increase, noting that property tax revenues are not necessarily tied to a single purpose and may be allocated among various city priorities. He also acknowledged concerns about accountability and stated that dedicated funding mechanisms may help prevent misuse of funds by ensuring revenues are tied directly to identified services. At the same time, he said he personally believes property taxes are traditionally intended to support a broad range of municipal services. However, he explained that legislative limitations on municipal funding options, combined with the desire for greater transparency, have led him to view a dedicated fee as a potentially preferable option in this circumstance, particularly because it would align with the city’s parks and recreation master plan and associated funding study. South Jordan City 4 City Council Study Meeting April 7, 2026 Council Member Johnson stated that if the city chooses to pursue a park utility fee or similar funding mechanism, the city should prioritize proactive and aggressive transparency with residents throughout the process. She emphasized the importance of informing the public well in advance through ongoing communication efforts, including social media outreach and other public information channels. She expressed the view that early and consistent communication would help residents better understand the proposal and could reduce potential public backlash. She noted that public response and complaints are likely to depend on how effectively the city communicates the purpose, need, and benefits of the funding proposal before implementation. Council Member McGuire noted that potential legislative reactions to a park’s utility fee may not necessarily come from legislators directly representing the city. He stated that concerns or scrutiny could originate from a variety of sources, including legislators from other communities, organizations such as the Utah Taxpayers Association, or public feedback and complaints raised by residents or outside groups. He emphasized the uncertainty surrounding how and where opposition to the proposal could emerge. Mayor Ramsey stated that outside organizations and interest groups may also influence the legislative process by encouraging lawmakers to sponsor legislation related to municipal funding practices. She noted that the legislature contains a wide range of viewpoints and that cities often become the focus of legislative proposals affecting local government authority and revenue options. She explained that the city is attempting to navigate these broader policy considerations while determining the best path forward for funding parks and maintaining services. She reiterated that she wanted the council to make the decision collectively so that the direction chosen would reflect the unified position of the governing body. Council Member Zander sought clarification regarding how a potential parks utility fee would be applied to residents. She asked whether the fee would apply to all households, including renters, and how that would differ from a property tax structure that is directly tied to property ownership. Staff clarified that the proposed parks utility fee would not be connected to property taxes but instead would be tied to utility bills. As a result, the fee would apply to all households or utility account holders within the city who pay utility bills, including renters in situations where utilities are billed directly to them. Council Member Zander confirmed that this answered her question and acknowledged that the fee would therefore be broader in application than a traditional property tax increase. City Manager Lewis explained that the proposed parks utility fee would be structured similarly to other utility-based charges already included on monthly utility bills, such as garbage collection and storm water fees. He stated that the fee study currently being considered would determine the appropriate amount and allocation structure for different property types. He noted that apartment properties could be handled differently depending on how utilities are billed. In some cases, individual tenants pay utilities directly, while in others the property owner, homeowners association, or apartment management entity pays the utility bill. He explained that multifamily developments would likely be assessed proportionally based on the number of residential units, meaning an apartment complex with multiple units would contribute an equivalent amount to the number of households being served. He further clarified that commercial properties would not bear the same level of cost under a utility fee structure as they would under a property tax system South Jordan City 5 City Council Study Meeting April 7, 2026 because the proposed fee is tied more directly to residential use of parks rather than property value. He emphasized that the fee would appear as a separate line item on monthly utility bills, allowing residents to clearly see the amount being collected and ensuring transparency regarding how the funds are used. He stated that revenues generated by the fee would be restricted specifically for park-related purposes, including park maintenance, development, improvements, replacements, and future park construction. Council Member Zander thanked staff for clarifying how the proposed parks utility fee would function and stated that she sees an advantage in a monthly fee structure compared to a larger annual property tax payment. She noted that spreading the cost across monthly utility bills may make the expense easier for some residents to budget for, particularly when compared to the significant increases that can appear on annual property tax statements. She also observed that residents may already experience higher tax bills due to increases from multiple taxing entities, including school districts, and that a monthly utility-based fee could feel more manageable and predictable for households than a single large annual increase. City Manager Lewis explained that one benefit of a utility-based fee structure is the visibility and transparency it provides to residents through itemized monthly billing. He noted that, similar to existing charges for water, sewer, storm water, and garbage services, residents would be able to clearly see the parks fee listed on their utility bill each month. He stated that this approach allows residents to directly identify the specific cost associated with the park services being provided by the city. Council Member Zander stated that she wanted to hear additional perspectives from fellow council members because they may have a broader understanding of the long-term financial picture facing the city. She acknowledged that she has historically been cautious about the use of fees and referenced previous discussions regarding special assessment or improvement-related funding mechanisms, noting concerns about municipalities relying too heavily on fees. Despite those reservations, she said she recognizes the city’s current financial realities and agreed that the council must either reduce service levels or identify additional funding sources. She expressed openness to the park’s utility fee concept, stating that the smaller monthly payment structure may make it more manageable for residents compared to larger annual tax increases. She emphasized that if the city moves forward with the proposal, it should do so with confidence, transparency, and a strong public communication strategy. She stated that city leadership should clearly explain the reasons for the proposal, demonstrate that extensive research and due diligence were completed, and communicate that the decision was reached after months of deliberation and data analysis rather than as a reactionary measure. She added that consistent messaging from elected officials and city staff would be important to ensure residents understand the rationale behind the decision and the data supporting it. Council Member Harris stated that when a city seeks additional revenue, it can either collect funds through broad general mechanisms or through more specific and targeted funding sources. He expressed support for a dedicated parks fee because it would provide residents with a clearer understanding of exactly where the money is being allocated and the purpose it is intended to serve. He emphasized that transparency should remain a central priority if the city moves forward with the proposal. He noted that the city could implement communication and public outreach efforts South Jordan City 6 City Council Study Meeting April 7, 2026 similar to those used during the truth-in-taxation process, so residents are fully informed about the proposal and its intended use. He stated that the objective would not be to avoid public scrutiny or make the funding less noticeable, but rather to ensure the process is as open and transparent as possible. He also expressed appreciation for the specificity of a dedicated parks funding mechanism, noting that residents may find a clearly defined and purpose-driven fee more understandable and acceptable because the revenue would be directly tied to park-related services and improvements. City Manager Lewis stated that a dedicated parks fee could also improve the city’s ability to communicate the direct costs associated with parks amenities and resident requests. He explained that when residents request additional facilities, such as tennis courts, pickleball courts, baseball fields, or playground replacements, the city would be able to clearly demonstrate the financial impact of those projects on the monthly parks fee. He provided examples of how the city could explain the cost of proposed amenities in practical terms, such as identifying how much a specific project would increase the average monthly fee for residents. He noted that this type of funding structure allows for more direct and understandable conversations about the relationship between desired park improvements and the costs required to build, maintain, or replace those amenities. He contrasted this with general tax increases, which can be more difficult for residents to connect to individual projects or services. He stated that a dedicated fee structure would provide a clearer framework for showing how specific park investments are funded over time and how those costs are distributed across the community. Mayor Ramsey shared that Cameron Deihl had suggested the city could consider a bond approach similar to actions previously taken by Salt Lake City for park and roadway-related projects. She explained that Salt Lake City has used bonds to address maintenance and infrastructure needs without significant public backlash. However, she stated that South Jordan has historically not used bonding to fund ongoing maintenance and operations, and she emphasized that the city’s current discussion is focused on securing sustainable funding for long-term park maintenance and preservation rather than constructing a single large capital project. She acknowledged that even with a bond approach, the city would still need to identify a revenue source to repay the bond obligations. She reiterated that staff needed direction from the council regarding whether to continue pursuing the park’s utility fee concept or shift toward a different funding strategy because project timelines and budget planning require timely decisions. She stated that while she respects the work of the legislature and recognizes that legislators hold a range of perspectives, her primary responsibility is to serve the residents of South Jordan. She described the proposed parks funding approach as an effort to provide a transparent, clearly defined, and long-term solution aligned with resident priorities. She stressed that the city is not attempting to obscure costs or avoid public scrutiny, but rather to openly address identified community needs. She acknowledged the possibility that the proposal could attract criticism from legislators, advocacy organizations, or taxpayer groups and that South Jordan could become a prominent example in broader statewide debates regarding municipal fees. Despite those concerns, she stated that she believes the city is approaching the issue responsibly and transparently and that the city should proactively engage with stakeholders, legislators, and organizations to explain the supporting data and rationale behind the proposal. She concluded by emphasizing that although the city cannot control potential legislative reactions, elected officials have been entrusted by South Jordan residents to make decisions in the community’s best interest. She stated that she is willing to accept the political risks South Jordan City 7 City Council Study Meeting April 7, 2026 associated with the proposal if it helps the city remain accountable to residents and maintain the park services and amenities the community has consistently prioritized. Council Member Zander questioned whether some municipalities may have previously adopted similar fees through standard council actions without the level of public outreach and visibility associated with a truth-in-taxation process. She clarified that she was not attempting to criticize other cities but suggested that some communities may have implemented fees in ways that residents perceived as less noticeable or less transparent than formal tax increase proceedings. She emphasized that South Jordan could instead position itself as an example of how to implement a parks utility fee through a highly transparent and public process. She suggested that the city could demonstrate a more open approach by proactively communicating with residents, clearly explaining the purpose of the fee, and publicly outlining the supporting data and reasoning behind the proposal. She expressed support for making South Jordan a model for transparency and accountability if the city chooses to move forward with the park’s utility fee concept. City Manager Lewis stated that he was aware of at least two cities that currently have monthly parks-related fees, although he was not familiar with the specific processes those cities used to adopt them. He explained that South Jordan is attempting to model its proposed approach after the framework used for transportation utility fees, including the use of supporting studies and established methodologies to determine how the fee would be structured and justified. He emphasized that if South Jordan becomes one of the more visible cities pursuing this type of funding mechanism, staff wants to ensure the process is handled as carefully, transparently, and correctly as possible. He stated that the city’s goal is to follow a defensible and open process that clearly demonstrates how the fee is calculated and how the revenue would be used. He also noted that the primary alternative would be to pursue a traditional property tax increase through the truth- in-taxation process, which would likely generate public criticism as well. He stated that the parks utility fee concept offers an alternative funding mechanism that he believes has distinct benefits and merits, particularly in terms of transparency and dedicated funding for parks. Council Member Zander remarked that the city would likely face criticism regardless of which funding decision is made, noting that residents would also react negatively if park conditions declined due to insufficient funding for maintenance and irrigation. She emphasized that failing to adequately fund parks and preserve existing amenities could create its own significant public concerns. Council Member McGuire stated that the city may also face criticism from residents if it is unable to provide additional park amenities and recreational facilities. He referenced recent feedback from residents requesting amenities such as tennis facilities and dog parks and asking why South Jordan cannot offer the same types of services available in other communities. He suggested that resident expectations may be influenced by the city’s reputation for providing a high level of service and amenities. He indicated that many residents likely expect South Jordan to continue maintaining and expanding recreational opportunities comparable to or exceeding those offered by neighboring cities. City Manager Lewis stated that many cities struggle to adequately maintain their parks due to financial limitations. He shared a recent conversation with another city manager who described a South Jordan City 8 City Council Study Meeting April 7, 2026 situation in another state where a municipality relinquished control of park property because it could no longer afford ongoing maintenance costs. He explained that, in the example discussed, the park property had originally been leased from a railroad company. When the city determined it could no longer maintain the park, it returned the land to the railroad company rather than continue operating the facility. He noted that without consistent maintenance and funding, park spaces can quickly deteriorate and become neglected. He also emphasized the broader community benefits associated with well-maintained parks. He stated that quality parks help attract residents and visitors to the community, contribute to the city’s overall appearance and quality of life, and can positively impact surrounding property values. He stressed that maintaining parks provides long-term value to the community beyond recreation alone. Mayor Ramsey emphasized that preserving and maintaining parks remains a significant priority for residents and city leadership. She stated that requesting additional funding from residents is not taken lightly and acknowledged the rising costs facing both the city and the community. She stressed that any proposal involving additional fees or taxes is considered carefully because of its financial impact on residents. She expressed support for establishing a dedicated long-term funding mechanism for parks in order to create greater financial stability and ensure the continued preservation of parks and open space for future generations. She described parks and open space as critical community assets and stated that the proposed approach is intended to provide a sustainable funding structure that can continue beyond the terms of the current council. She stated that the council appeared prepared to continue exploring the proposed funding direction and committed to conducting extensive public outreach and communication efforts. She emphasized the importance of proactively sharing information with residents and stakeholders, explaining the amount of research and deliberation involved in the proposal, and presenting a unified approach as a council. D. Discussion/Review of City Council Meeting Presentation Items: - Proclamation in recognition of Arbor Day, April 18, 2026. - 2025 Gale Museum End of Year report. Action Item: - Resolution R2026-08, Approving an agreement for installation of sewer improvements at the intersection of Highway U-111 and 11800 South on behalf of Jordan Basin Improvement District. Public Hearing Items: - Resolution R2026-06, Approving the 2026-2027 Annual Action Plan for the use of CDBG funds and authorizing the City to enter into a grant agreement for the use of CDBG funds. - Ordinance 2026-02, Vacating a portion of Arranmore Drive right-of-way East of Bingham Rim Road. - Ordinance 2026-08, Vacating a storm drain easement located on lot 123 of the Daybreak South Multi Family Plat 9 subdivision. - Ordinance 2026-05, Amending sections 17.18.020 (Uses) and 17.54.100 (Mixed Use-Research and Development Zone) of the City of South Jordan Municipal Code to allow Personal Services and Professional Services as permitted uses. South Jordan City 9 City Council Study Meeting April 7, 2026 - Ordinance 2026-07, Amending South Jordan Municipal Code Chapter 15.08 to add a new section adopting the International Fire Code and certain of its appendices as Section 15.08.050 and renumbering the remainder of the Chapter. Mayor Ramsey provided an overview of upcoming agenda items for the regular council meeting. She stated that Museum Curator Maren Svare would present the Gale Museum end-of-year report. She referenced an action item involving an agreement related to sewer line installation, explaining that sewer infrastructure would be installed concurrently with planned water line work in the same area to avoid the need to later excavate newly completed roads. She noted that the coordinated approach is intended to reduce future road disruptions and associated impacts to the area. She then outlined several public hearing items scheduled for the meeting, including discussion of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding. She also noted two proposed right-of- way vacation items in the Daybreak area, describing them as small adjustments intended to clean up parcel and plat configurations. Additional agenda items included a proposed amendment to the business section of the city code and consideration of adopting the International Fire Code. E. Presentation Item: E.1. South Jordan Art’s Council member appointment. (By Director of Recreation, Janell Payne) Director of Recreation Janell Payne introduced applicant Jordan Hintze being considered by the Arts Council and noted that council members had previously received his application materials. She stated that the applicant has recently become involved in arts programming within the city, including participation in the recent Art Swap Gala. She then invited council members to ask questions regarding the applicant or the appointment consideration. Mayor Ramsey invited Mr. Hintze to introduce himself to the council and provide a brief overview of his background. She asked him to explain his interest in serving on the Arts Council and share why he would like to become involved. Jordan Hintze introduced himself and stated that he currently works as a legal assistant. He explained that he is interested in serving on the Arts Council because he comes from a family that values community involvement and participation. He said that his preferred area of involvement has been the arts, which motivated him to seek opportunities to contribute within the city’s arts programs. He shared that during the recent Art Swap Gala; he spoke with members of the Arts Council about ways to become involved. According to him, he was encouraged to apply to serve on the committee and to participate in the upcoming “Guys and Dolls” production. Mayor Ramsey asked if he had auditioned for the upcoming “Guys and Dolls” production, and after he confirmed that he had. She then asked Mr. Hintze to provide additional information about his educational and personal background. Mr. Hintze described his artistic background and stated that he has been taking drawing lessons for approximately four years and began studying oil painting within the past year and a half. He shared that he has taken voice lessons for about three years and guitar lessons for approximately South Jordan City 10 City Council Study Meeting April 7, 2026 five years. He explained that his primary artistic interests involve continuing to develop both his visual art and musical skills. He noted that he has lived in South Jordan for approximately two years and that prior to living in South Jordan, he lived in Lehi. Before that, he attended school at Brigham Young University in Provo. He added that he has gradually moved northward over time before settling in South Jordan. Council Member McGuire stated that he previously had the opportunity to speak briefly with Mr. Hintze at the Art Swap Gala and appreciated the chance to get to know him during that event. Mayor Ramsey explained the city’s process for board and committee appointments. She stated that applicants are invited to attend the meeting so council members can ask introductory questions and learn more about their background and interests. She explained the council would deliberate later and that Mr. Hintze would likely receive a phone call that evening regarding the council’s decision. She clarified that official appointments are not approved during the study meeting. Instead, selected applicants return at a future regular council meeting where the appointment is formally considered and approved in an official public meeting. F. Discussion Items: F.1. Parking. (By Long-Range Planner, Joe Moss) Director of Planning & Economic Development Brian Preece informed the council that staff reports and meeting materials have recently been updated in response to new ADA accessibility requirements that take effect in April 2025. He explained that the city has been working to ensure documents posted online and included in public meeting packets are compatible with screen readers and other accessibility tools for individuals with visual impairments and other disabilities. He noted that the revised formatting may make reports appear longer or different than in the past because staff must now include more detailed descriptions of images, graphics, and other visual content. He stated that these accessibility requirements apply broadly to materials placed on the city’s website, included in council packets, or otherwise made publicly available online. He acknowledged the efforts of several staff members who have been assisting departments in implementing the new standards. Transitioning to the discussion item, he explained that the council would be discussing parking regulations and related policy considerations. He stated that the city frequently receives public feedback regarding its parking ordinances, including concerns that some regulations may be outdated, require excessive parking, or contribute to large expanses of asphalt. He noted that ongoing affordable housing discussions have created an appropriate opportunity to revisit parking requirements and evaluate whether changes may be warranted. He stated that staff was seeking direction from the council regarding how extensively they would like staff to review and potentially revise the city’s parking regulations. Long-Range Planner Joe Moss explained that the parking discussion was being prompted in part by requirements associated with the city’s moderate income housing plan. He stated that recent legislative changes, including House Bill 436, temporarily paused reporting requirements for the moderate-income housing plan during the current year, which has provided the city with additional time and flexibility to evaluate potential policy changes. He reviewed prepared presentation (Attachment A). He explained that the city’s adopted moderate income housing plan includes a South Jordan City 11 City Council Study Meeting April 7, 2026 required strategy related to reducing or eliminating parking requirements for certain residential developments. He stated that the strategy specifically focuses on areas such as transit station areas or housing types, including senior housing, where residents may be less likely to own vehicles. He explained that the city has previously taken limited preliminary steps toward addressing this strategy, but additional review and policy evaluation will likely be necessary before the next required state report in 2027. He stated that the city must demonstrate progress on each selected strategy within the moderate-income housing plan and that the state will expect the city to show it has meaningfully evaluated whether existing parking standards remain appropriate, particularly in transit-oriented and residential development areas. He then reviewed the city’s current parking requirements for residential development. He explained that existing multifamily standards require one and one-half parking spaces for a one-bedroom apartment, two spaces for a two-bedroom apartment, and two and one-half spaces for a three-bedroom apartment. He also noted that, unlike some municipalities, South Jordan’s current ordinance does not include separate guest parking requirements for multifamily developments. Director Preece clarified that the purpose of the parking ordinance review is not solely to reduce parking requirements across the city. Instead, he explained that staff intends to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of existing standards to determine whether current requirements remain appropriate in different contexts. He stated that the review could ultimately lead to reductions in parking requirements in some areas while identifying locations or development types where additional parking may actually be necessary. He emphasized that the goal is to take a balanced and holistic approach to evaluating parking standards rather than assuming that all requirements should automatically be lowered. Long-Range Planner Moss explained that the city’s review of parking standards could include adjustments that redistribute parking requirements rather than simply reducing them overall. He noted that South Jordan currently does not require dedicated guest parking for multifamily developments, and staff may consider introducing guest parking requirements as part of a revised ordinance. He stated that under such an approach, the city could potentially lower certain unit- specific parking requirements, such as the current requirement for three-bedroom units, while offsetting those reductions through the addition of designated guest parking spaces. He explained that the objective would be to create a more balanced and functional parking system that better reflects actual parking demand and usage patterns. Council Member McGuire stated that, based on recent meetings with residents in the Rushton Meadow neighborhood, he believes the city should include guest parking requirements in future revisions to the parking ordinance. He indicated that concerns raised by residents in that area highlighted the need for designated guest parking accommodations within residential developments. Long-Range Planner Moss agreed that guest parking requirements should be evaluated as part of any future revisions to the city’s parking ordinance. He continued reviewing prepared presentation (Attachment A). He explained that the current ordinance requires two parking spaces per unit for single-family and two-family dwellings. He also noted that the city presently does not have separate parking standards for senior housing developments. He stated that many municipalities establish lower parking ratios for senior housing because residents in those developments are South Jordan City 12 City Council Study Meeting April 7, 2026 generally less likely to own multiple vehicles. He explained that senior households often have fewer drivers or may rely on a single vehicle, which can result in lower overall parking demand compared to other residential housing types. Mayor Ramsey asked for clarification regarding the definition of “senior housing” as it relates to potential parking standards. She specifically asked whether the category would include 55-and- older residential communities or whether staff were referring more specifically to developments such as assisted living or senior care facilities. Long-Range Planner Moss explained that the term “senior housing” is not specifically defined within the relevant legislation and remains somewhat open-ended. He stated that the city has flexibility to establish its own definition for zoning and parking purposes and could determine which types of age-restricted or senior-oriented housing developments would qualify under any revised parking standards. Mayor Ramsey stated that she believes the city should clearly define the types of developments that qualify as senior housing within the parking ordinance because there can be significant differences in parking demand among various senior-oriented communities. She noted that residents in age-restricted communities such as Garden Park may still commonly own and use vehicles, while residents in facilities such as Sagewood may have different transportation needs and lower rates of vehicle ownership. She emphasized that these distinctions should be considered when evaluating appropriate parking requirements. Long-Range Planner Moss stated that the city’s current parking ordinance does not include specific parking requirements for certain housing types, such as townhomes or other “missing middle” housing developments. He explained that parking needs for these types of developments may vary depending on location and context, including whether the project is located within a transit station area or outside those areas. He noted that location-specific standards could be one option the city considers during the ordinance review process. He also identified several areas within the current parking ordinance that staff believe may be ambiguous or in need of refinement. He explained that some existing parking requirements are based on factors such as fixed seating capacity or the number of employees within a building. He noted those standards can be difficult to administer and enforce during the site plan review process because staff may not yet know the exact number of seats or employees a business will ultimately have when plans are submitted. He noted that other municipalities have begun moving away from those types of parking calculations in favor of standards that are easier to apply consistently and verify during development review. Director Preece added that the city’s parking ordinance contains provisions that require additional clarification because staff have encountered situations where applicants attempt to interpret the language in ways that circumvent the intent of the ordinance. He explained that one area needing clarification involves the definition of “fixed seating” within parking calculations. He described a recent situation in which an applicant argued that folding chairs stored within a building could qualify as fixed seating for the purpose of reducing required parking ratios. He stated that staff does not believe this interpretation aligns with the intent of the ordinance and noted that the current wording may not clearly prevent such interpretations. He further explained that the issue is particularly concerning in areas already experiencing parking shortages, including areas near the South Jordan City 13 City Council Study Meeting April 7, 2026 high school where parking demand is already high. He stated that clarifying ordinance language would help staff apply parking standards more consistently and prevent situations where developments provide substantially less parking than intended under the code. Long-Range Planner Moss agreed that clarifying portions of the parking ordinance would be beneficial as part of the broader review process. He explained that since staff are already evaluating the ordinance in response to moderate income housing requirements, it presents an opportunity to address additional issues and modernize portions of the code that may no longer reflect current development patterns or parking needs. He stated that many of the city’s existing parking ratios appear to be approximately 25 to 30 years old and may not have been comprehensively reevaluated in recent years. He emphasized that while some standards may still be appropriate, staff have not recently conducted a full assessment to determine whether the requirements continue to align with current development practices and community needs. He noted that the temporary extension in state reporting requirements provides staff with additional time to conduct a more thorough review. He also explained that the city’s current process for handling land uses not specifically listed in the parking ordinance requires those matters to be brought before the city council for direction. He stated that many municipalities instead rely on industry standards, such as the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) parking manuals, which contain detailed parking ratios for a wide range of uses. He noted that some cities, including Cottonwood Heights, rely heavily on those industry standards rather than maintaining extensive parking ratio tables within their ordinances. He stated that incorporating references to recognized standards could help streamline the site plan review process and improve administrative efficiency. He further explained that the current ordinance allows certain uses, such as miniature golf and other entertainment-related facilities, to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, which can lead to inconsistencies. He stated that creating more standardized criteria would improve consistency, predictability, and enforceability across different projects. Additional topics staff may evaluate during the ordinance review include requirements for designated drop-off and pick-up spaces for use such as daycare facilities, as well as standards governing parking reductions and shared parking agreements. He noted that many municipalities include detailed criteria for those situations, while South Jordan’s current ordinance provides limited guidance. He stated that adding clearer standards would improve enforcement and create a more consistent review process for future development applications. Director Preece explained that the city currently has limited formal guidance when applicants request reductions to required parking amounts. He referenced a previous parking reduction request for a seminary building in which staff relied on comparisons with similar facilities in other locations to evaluate the proposal. He stated that, in many situations, comparable information is not readily available, making it more difficult to assess whether requested parking reductions are appropriate. He suggested that the city could strengthen the ordinance by requiring formal parking studies for reduction requests, similar to the traffic studies already required for certain developments. He noted those studies would provide the council and staff with more objective data and analysis to support decision-making. He also noted that the council could choose whether to continue reviewing such requests directly or delegate portions of the review process to city engineering staff. Regardless of the selected process, he stated that having formal studies and engineering review would provide clearer standards and more consistent guidance for evaluating parking reduction requests. South Jordan City 14 City Council Study Meeting April 7, 2026 Council Member Johnson expressed surprise that there is not already a universally applied industry standard for parking requirements. She commented that she would have expected a major professional organization or industry group to have comprehensively studied parking demand and established more standardized guidance for municipalities to follow. Director Preece stated that parking and traffic studies often involve a degree of professional judgment and interpretation rather than functioning as purely objective calculations. He explained that consultants hired by applicants may produce analyses that support the applicant’s desired outcome, while studies commissioned by municipalities may reflect the city’s priorities and concerns. He noted that the review process often involves evaluating differing perspectives and determining an appropriate balance between competing conclusions. Deputy City/Transportation Engineer Jeremy Nielson agreed that parking and traffic studies often involve interpretation and professional judgment. He stated that while these studies rely on extensive data, the conclusions can vary depending on where and how the data is collected and sampled. He explained that many studies use information gathered from locations across the country and that industry organizations maintain large databases containing a wide range of parking ratios and related transportation data. Long-Range Planner Moss explained that as part of the parking ordinance review, staff may reevaluate how different land uses are categorized within the city’s parking requirement tables to better align with current development patterns. He noted that mixed-use developments and shopping centers can be difficult to regulate under highly specific parking ratios tied to individual tenant types, such as office, retail, or restaurant uses, because tenants often change over time. He stated that broader classifications, such as a general “shopping center” category with a blended parking ratio, could simplify long-term administration and enforcement. He also reiterated that parking reduction requests and traffic-related analyses currently lack consistent standards and often require city council review and approval. He explained that establishing clearer ordinance criteria could help standardize the process for future applicants and reduce administrative complexity. He continued to review prepared presentation (Attachment A). He outlined several types of parking reduction and management strategies used in other municipalities that South Jordan could consider incorporating into its ordinance. These included standards related to traffic and stacking studies, reductions for developments located near transit stations, travel mode reductions for projects demonstrating increased transit usage, and shared parking agreements. He referenced examples from other cities, including Millcreek, which have detailed criteria governing shared parking arrangements and related parking reduction standards. He also noted that some municipalities regulate valet parking and off-site parking arrangements through ordinance provisions. He discussed the possibility of incorporating bicycle parking requirements into future development standards. He stated that improving bicycle infrastructure and connectivity is a goal identified in the city’s general plan and noted that providing secure and accessible bicycle parking is an important component of supporting alternative transportation options. He explained that bicycle parking is generally a low-cost improvement for developers and can be incorporated during the site plan review process with minimal difficulty. He further suggested that bicycle parking requirements could vary depending on proximity to transit stations, trails, or other transportation corridors. He noted that a growing number of Utah cities, including Lehi, Millcreek, Holladay, South Jordan City 15 City Council Study Meeting April 7, 2026 Salt Lake City, and Provo, have already adopted bicycle parking requirements as part of their development ordinances. Council Member Johnson asked whether developments that provide bicycle parking or alternative transportation accommodation would receive a corresponding reduction in the number of required automobile parking stalls under the proposed ordinance changes. Long-Range Planner Moss explained that whether bicycle parking results in a reduction to required vehicle parking depends on the specific ordinance adopted by each city. He stated that some municipalities allow parking reductions when developments can demonstrate that alternative transportation options, such as bicycling or transit use, are expected to reduce vehicle demand. He noted that if a development actively supports bicycle transportation through infrastructure and amenities, the city could consider allowing corresponding reductions in automobile parking requirements. However, he emphasized that South Jordan has flexibility in determining whether to include such provisions and how they would be structured. He stated that staff could evaluate whether incentives related to bicycle parking, bike facilities, or other transportation improvements would be appropriate as part of the ordinance review process. Council Member McGuire emphasized that any bicycle parking requirements or related parking reductions should be tailored appropriately to the type of business and surrounding area. He shared an example from a redevelopment project he worked on in Salt Lake City approximately 13 years earlier, where the project was required to install bicycle parking despite being in an industrial zone. He stated that, to his knowledge, the bicycle parking facility had never been used during that time and that he did not anticipate future demand in that particular setting. He noted that industrial areas generally do not experience significant bicycle traffic and stressed the importance of ensuring that any future bicycle parking requirements are applied in locations where they are likely to be practical and utilized. Mayor Ramsey noted that the need for bicycle parking can vary significantly depending on the location and type of activity occurring in an area. She referenced recent events in the Daybreak community, stating that following the first concert and the first baseball game held there the previous year, residents overwhelmingly expressed that additional bicycle parking was needed. She stated that, in those types of settings, increased bicycle parking was appropriate and reflected strong community demand. Council Member McGuire agreed that bicycle parking requirements can be appropriate in areas where cycling is more likely to occur. He stated that destinations such as the Daybreak entertainment and activity areas are locations where residents are more inclined to ride bicycles. He also noted that if industrial areas were ever redeveloped into more mixed-use or activity- oriented districts, bicycle usage in those areas could similarly increase. Long-Range Planner Moss stated that staff is seeking direction from the council regarding the scope of the city’s parking ordinance review and how extensively the council would like staff to evaluate potential changes. He explained that the review could be approached at varying levels. At the most limited level, staff could focus only on the requirements directly tied to the city’s moderate income housing plan, specifically evaluating residential parking standards in transit- South Jordan City 16 City Council Study Meeting April 7, 2026 oriented areas. At a moderate level, staff could also address known issues and clarifications within the ordinance, including items such as fixed seating definitions and other ambiguities previously discussed. He stated that a more comprehensive review could involve a broader evaluation of the city’s parking ratios and whether existing standards continue to function effectively for current development patterns and community needs. He noted that bicycle parking requirements could likely be considered independently and incorporated regardless of the overall scope selected by the council. From a staff perspective, he stated that there appears to be value in pursuing at least a moderate-level review to address identified ordinance issues and improve clarity and consistency. He indicated that staff believed there could also be benefits to conducting a more extensive evaluation if the council was comfortable proceeding at that level. Mayor Ramsey stated that she supports reviewing and updating the city’s parking ordinance but expressed strong reservations about adopting parking models associated with “new urbanism” approaches that significantly reduce parking requirements. She explained that, while she has attended many presentations promoting reduced parking standards and transit-oriented planning, she does not believe South Jordan currently has the transit infrastructure necessary to support those approaches. She stated that residents in South Jordan remain highly dependent on personal vehicles because public transportation options and regional transit connections are still limited. Although the city continues working to improve transit access, she emphasized that the existing system is not yet sufficient to replace the need for automobile travel for most residents and businesses. She cautioned against relying too heavily on generalized national parking standards, noting that South Jordan’s transportation realities differ from communities with more robust transit systems. She referenced several local examples where parking shortages have already created challenges near the TRAX line, where patrons still primarily arrive by car despite the nearby transit access. She stated that the city frequently receives resident complaints regarding insufficient parking availability, including concerns about overcrowded streets and inadequate parking near businesses and residential areas. She emphasized that she does not want ordinance revisions to significantly reduce parking requirements in a way that would worsen those existing concerns. At the same time, she expressed support for incorporating bicycle parking improvements into future planning efforts and stated that she viewed bicycle parking as a positive addition to the city’s transportation and development infrastructure. Director Preece responded that eliminating parking or significantly reducing parking requirements had not been staff’s intention in conducting the ordinance review. He stated that staff’s objective is to ensure the city’s parking regulations function effectively and appropriately for South Jordan’s needs. He explained that staff anticipate that some areas may require additional parking while others may warrant adjustments or refinements, but not broad reductions in parking availability. He expressed appreciation for the council’s direction and clarification regarding expectations for the ordinance review process. Long-Range Planner Moss clarified that staff was not proposing broad reductions to parking requirements throughout the city. He stated that the intent of the ordinance review is to ensure the city’s parking standards continue to align with current development patterns and community needs. He explained that state legislation tied to the city’s moderate income housing plan specifically requires the city to evaluate opportunities for reducing residential parking requirements within transit station areas. He noted that any potential parking reductions would likely be focused South Jordan City 17 City Council Study Meeting April 7, 2026 primarily on station-area residential developments to ensure the city is appropriately calibrating parking requirements while remaining compliant with state requirements. He also noted that some parking issues in the Daybreak area are largely outside the city’s direct control because those developments are governed through the community’s Master Development Agreement (MDA) rather than the city’s standard parking ordinance provisions. Council Member Johnson stated that the city should seek a balanced approach to parking requirements that does not create unnecessary burdens for businesses while also preventing negative impacts on surrounding neighborhoods. She emphasized the importance of ensuring that parking standards adequately support commercial activity without causing overflow parking or related issues in nearby residential areas. Director Preece stated that the city should avoid adopting parking standards that place local businesses at an economic disadvantage. He noted that, despite ongoing discussions about alternative transportation and evolving planning models, South Jordan residents and customers still largely rely on automobiles, making adequate parking an important consideration for supporting business activity and accessibility. Mayor Ramsey clarified that she did not believe staff were advocating for the elimination of parking requirements, but she wanted to clearly communicate her expectations regarding the ordinance review process. She stated that South Jordan is not yet in a position to significantly reduce parking availability or undertake a major overhaul of parking standards based on reduced automobile dependence. She emphasized that residents still rely heavily on personal vehicles and that it will likely take many years before the city has sufficient transit infrastructure and alternative transportation options to support substantial reductions in parking requirements. She reiterated that any future recommendations should reflect the city’s current transportation realities and continued reliance on automobile access. Council Member Harris asked whether the city’s parking analysis would account for the anticipated growth of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) as available land for development decreases and housing costs continue to rise. He noted that increased ADU development could create additional parking demand within residential neighborhoods and stated that those impacts should be considered as part of the city’s long-term parking planning. He suggested that staff evaluate projected ADU growth and determine how those additional housing units may affect neighborhood parking needs, emphasizing that the issue should be incorporated into the ordinance review and future parking projections. Director Preece agreed that changing development patterns and increasing land values will likely continue to influence parking needs over time. He noted that as land becomes more expensive and developable space becomes more limited, existing developments such as River Park may eventually seek to add additional buildings or increase density. He stated that, in those situations, structured parking may become necessary to accommodate future parking demand efficiently. He explained that rising land values and continued urban development trends will likely create a greater need for more intensive parking solutions in certain areas of the city. South Jordan City 18 City Council Study Meeting April 7, 2026 Mayor Ramsey clarified that she is not advocating for urban or suburban sprawl or for excessive parking lots throughout the city. She stated that her concern is ensuring that parking standards remain practical for South Jordan’s current transportation realities. She explained that she has attended numerous presentations from national and state planning experts promoting reduced parking requirements and more urban-style development models, but she does not believe South Jordan has yet reached the point where those approaches can be fully implemented. She acknowledged that the city is actively working to improve transportation options, create activity centers, and encourage new forms of development, but emphasized that many residents still rely heavily on personal vehicles because alternatives remain limited. She stated that while the city continues progressing toward more connected and multimodal development patterns, the current transportation needs of residents must continue to be a central consideration in parking policy decisions. F.2. Garbage and Recycle rates. (By Director of Public Works, Raymond Garrison) Director of Public Works Raymond Garrison explained that the city recently completed an updated recycling and waste rate analysis. He provided background on why the update was necessary, stating the city’s current hauling services contract for recycling and waste collection is scheduled to expire in June, requiring the city to rebid those services. He explained that the city’s existing hauler was ultimately awarded the new contract; however, the updated bid reflected increased service costs. As a result, the city needed to update its rate model to evaluate the financial impact of the new contract pricing and determine what adjustments to garbage and recycling rates may be necessary moving forward. He then introduced Fred Philpott with Lewis, Robertson, & Burningham (LRB) to review the details of the updated rate analysis. Fred Philpot reviewed prepared presentation (Attachment B). He explained that the city previously completed a rate analysis in summer 2025 and recently updated that analysis to reflect the costs associated with the newly awarded waste and recycling collection contract. He reviewed the city’s current rate structure, noting that the existing sanitation fee is $16.05 for the first garbage can and $10.74 for each additional can. He stated that the recycling fee is currently $2 per can and that dumpster rental fees were previously increased to $50 for weekdays and $100 for weekends. He explained that the updated analysis focused on maintaining adequate fund balances, minimizing the need for bonding, and ensuring an equitable rate structure. He noted that the revised model incorporated the increased contract costs associated with weekly recycling collection service, updated demand data, and continued inclusion of estimated Public Works facility costs associated with sanitation operations. Based on the updated analysis, he stated that staff are proposing a 17% increase to the garbage collection fee, followed by future annual inflationary adjustments rather than the previously modeled equalized annual increases. He noted that the proposed adjustment is intended to account for the increased contractual costs while maintaining long-term revenue sufficiency. He also outlined proposed changes to recycling rates, including increasing the recycling fee from $2 to $4 per can. He stated the increase is intended to recover a greater portion of recycling collection costs, although the proposed rate would still not fully offset the total cost of recycling services. In addition, staff proposed establishing an additional recycling can fee equal to the additional garbage can fee to discourage misuse of recycling containers for standard garbage disposal. He noted that no increase was proposed for dumpster rental fees. He stated that the South Jordan City 19 City Council Study Meeting April 7, 2026 revised rate structure would help the sanitation fund maintain the city’s target fund balance level of approximately 35% of annual revenues while continuing to support operational and contractual obligations. He concluded by outlining the next steps, which include reviewing and refining assumptions if necessary, evaluating any alternative scenarios requested by the council, preparing final recommendations, updating the formal report, and ultimately proceeding toward adoption of the revised rates. Council Member Harris asked for clarification regarding the city’s newly awarded waste and recycling collection contract. He first requested confirmation of the contract’s duration and then asked whether the pricing structure would remain fixed throughout the seven-year term or whether rates would vary during the life of the contract. Director Garrison explained that the city’s newly awarded waste and recycling collection agreement is a seven-year contract. He noted that haulers typically require longer contract terms because they must purchase and maintain specialized equipment to provide the service. He further explained that the contract pricing is not fixed for the entire seven-year period. Instead, the contract includes annual adjustments tied to the Consumer Price Index (CPI), resulting in expected yearly cost increases of approximately 3-4% for hauling services. Council Member Harris asked whether the inflationary increases included in the proposed rate model generally correspond with the annual CPI adjustments built into the city’s hauling contract. He also requested clarification regarding the sanitation fund balance, asking whether revenues collected beyond the city’s annual hauling expenses are retained within the fund balance reserve. Director Garrison explained that the proposed rate model accounts not only for the annual CPI increases in the hauling contract, but also for operational cost changes such as fluctuations in landfill tonnage fees and other sanitation-related expenses. He further explained that revenues collected beyond the city’s operational expenses are retained within the sanitation fund balance reserve. He noted that the fund balance can also be used to help stabilize rates and maintain the city’s targeted reserve level over time. Mr. Philpot clarified that the financial model already incorporates projected annual inflationary increases associated with the city’s hauling contracts. He explained that the analysis assumes an approximate 4% annual increase in contract costs based on anticipated CPI adjustments. He noted that the city may need to reevaluate the model in the future if inflation rises significantly above current projections but stated that the current analysis accounts for expected annual contractual cost increases within the proposed rate structure. Council Member Shelton asked whether state restrictions related to fund balance limits apply to the city’s sanitation fund or whether the sanitation fund is treated separately from those requirements. He also asked whether the targeted fund balance level discussed in the analysis is mandated by state regulation or is a policy choice made by the City. Assistant City Manager Jason Rasmussen explained that the city has established target reserve levels for its enterprise funds, including the water, stormwater, and sanitation funds, to maintain emergency reserves and financial stability. He stated that these reserve targets are city policy South Jordan City 20 City Council Study Meeting April 7, 2026 decisions rather than state-imposed requirements. He also referenced the proposed 35% fund balance target discussed during the presentation and noted that consultant Fred Philpot could provide additional detail regarding the rationale for that recommendation, particularly as it relates to financial planning and potential bonding considerations. Mr. Philpot explained that the state-imposed fund balance limitations applicable to general funds do not apply to enterprise funds such as the city’s sanitation fund. He stated that enterprise funds generally have greater flexibility in maintaining higher reserve balances. He noted that some municipalities intentionally maintain larger enterprise fund balances to support future capital investments or improve bond ratings. He explained that, as a matter of policy, enterprise funds are typically afforded more leniency in reserve levels than general governmental funds. Council Member Shelton asked whether the proposed 35% fund balance target for the sanitation enterprise fund is typical among municipalities. Mr. Philpot explained that a 35% fund balance target is generally consistent with common practices for enterprise funds. He stated that the target equates to approximately 124 days of working capital and noted that maintaining reserves equivalent to roughly 90 to 150 days of operating expenses is fairly standard for enterprise fund operations. He further explained that some municipalities maintain even higher reserve levels when preparing for future bonding or seeking to strengthen bond ratings, as larger reserves can improve financial metrics used by rating agencies. However, he stated that, for South Jordan’s sanitation fund, staff and consultants believed that maintaining a 35% reserve level was both reasonable and fiscally prudent. Assistant City Manager Rasmussen added that collaborative meetings were held among city staff during the rate analysis process. He explained that the discussions involved Fred Philpot, Public Works Director Raymond Garrison, CFO Sunil Naidu, and himself, and they focused on evaluating rates, operational costs, and related financial considerations. He noted that the group worked together as a collaborative internal team throughout the analysis process. Council Member Shelton asked whether the sanitation fund’s current balance already exceeds the proposed 35% reserve target, referencing the financial graph (Attachment B, slide 7) presented during the rate analysis discussion. Mr. Philpot confirmed that the sanitation fund currently exceeds the proposed 35% reserve target and stated that the city presently has some financial cushion within the fund balance. He explained that the existing reserve level provides flexibility and reduces immediate pressure for larger rate increases to address operational deficits. He noted, however, that increasing contract costs and future operational expenses will place additional pressure on the fund over time. As those expenses rise, the city will contribute less to reserves and may eventually begin utilizing portions of the existing fund balance later in the financial projection period. He explained that this type of financial planning is typical for enterprise funds, where cities commonly project rate policies over a five-year period and periodically reevaluate them. He stated that the city can continue monitoring the fund annually and, if necessary, conduct updated rate studies near the end of the projection window to determine whether additional adjustments are needed. South Jordan City 21 City Council Study Meeting April 7, 2026 Council Member Johnson asked whether the financial data and projections presented on screen during the presentation could be distributed to council members for further review. Assistant City Manager Rasmussen confirmed that the financial data presented during the meeting could be distributed to council members for review. He explained that, unless staff receive additional direction from the council, the proposed garbage and recycling rate adjustments will be forwarded to CFO Naidu for inclusion in the city’s fee schedule as part of the upcoming budget process, including the tentative budget discussions in May and the final budget adoption process in June. Council Member Zander sought clarification regarding the proposed recycling fee structure. She confirmed that the recycling fee would increase from $2 to $4 per month and referenced the per- can fee amounts displayed in the presentation (Attachment B). She clarified that residents pay a monthly fee for each recycling can assigned to their property. She also asked for confirmation that all South Jordan residents currently receive recycling cans as part of the city’s standard sanitation service and that residents are not automatically excluded from the recycling program. Additionally, she confirmed that the city intends to continue weekly recycling collection service rather than transitioning to an every-other-week schedule. Assistant City Manager Rasmussen confirmed the city will continue to have weekly garbage and recycle collection. He summarized the proposed rate changes, stating that the primary garbage can fee would increase by approximately $2.73 per month, the fee for an additional garbage can would increase by slightly more than $1 per month, and the recycling fee would increase by $2 per month. He clarified that the recycling fee is currently $2 per month and would increase to $4 per month under the proposal. He also noted that all residents currently receive a recycling can as part of the city’s sanitation services. However, he explained that residents who wish to discontinue recycling service may follow an opt-out process through the Public Works Department. Council Member McGuire stated that garbage collection services are similar to essential utility services such as sewer operations, in that residents expect them to function reliably and become frustrated when service problems occur. He noted that garbage collection is a basic municipal service that residents depend upon. He stated that the city is experiencing the same inflationary pressures affecting many other services and industries. He explained that when the city’s service contracts increase in cost, those additional expenses ultimately must be passed through to residents because the city does not have the financial ability to absorb those increases within existing budgets. Council Member Zander motioned to recess the City Council Study Meeting and move to Executive Closed Session to discuss the purchase, exchange, or lease of real property and the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of an individual. Council Member Johnson seconded the motion. Vote was 5-0, unanimous in favor. RECESS CITY COUNCIL STUDY MEETING AND MOVE TO EXECUTIVE CLOSED SESSION G. Executive Closed Sessions: South Jordan City 22 City Council Study Meeting April 7, 2026 G.1. Discussion of the purchase, exchange, or lease of real property. G.2. Discuss the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of an individual. ADJOURN EXECUTIVE CLOSED SESSION AND RETURN TO CITY COUNCIL STUDY MEETING Council Member Johnson motioned to adjourn the Executive Closed Session and move back to the City Council Study Meeting. Council Member Zander seconded the motion. Vote was 5-0, unanimous in favor. ADJOURNMENT Council Member Johnson motioned to adjourn the April 7, 2026 City Council Study Meeting. Council Member Zander seconded the motion. Vote was 5-0, unanimous in favor. ADJOURNMENT The April 7, 2026 City Council Study Meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m. This is a true and correct copy of the April 7, 2026 City Council Study Meeting Minutes, which were approved on May 19, 2026. South Jordan City Recorder  ATTACHMENT A City Council Study Session 4.7.26 Parking Ordinance  Strategy 3 (Option H): Amend land use regulations to eliminate or reduce parking requirements for residential development where a resident is less likely to rely on the resident's own vehicle, such as residential development near major Moderate Income Housing Plan transit investment corridors or senior living facilities. Actions to Date: 2020-2023  When a development, housing or otherwise, is proposed in an area near transit, the developer and City staff review the parking requirements and identify opportunities for reduced parking. During the approval process, parking can be reduced by approval of the City Council or through creating shared parking agreements (see City Code §16.26 and §17.70).  City staff researched parking statutes in other cities with similar characteristics and discussed adjusting parking ratios and adding flexibility to ensure residential projects are not over parked on a case-by-case basis. Actions to implement: 2025  City staff will evaluate how to further strengthen the existing parking reduction ordinance and clarify shared parking requirements.  City staff will identify areas where parking reductions may be allowed administratively.  City staff will discuss the “Parking and Access” chapter of the City Code and its research of parking standards with the Planning Commission and City Council and follow up that discussion with a proposed text amendment. 2026-2030, Annually  City staff will evaluate the effectiveness of changes made to the parking ordinance and determine if further improvements are needed to address additional barriers. Current Residential Ordinance Townhomes and Single Family Two-Family Dwelling Multi Family Senior Housing missing middle Dwelling typologies • 1.5 per 1 bed • 2 per dwelling • 4 per dwelling • Not included • Not included • 2 per 2 bed • 2.5 for 3+ beds • Guest parking not required  Enforcement difficulties for fixed seating and number of employees Ratios haven’t been re-evaluated in decades and could be modified as development needs have changed Areas for Improvement Process for unlisted uses requires City Council when other industry standards could apply Potential for inconsistency for “case by case” uses. Doesn't address drop off or pickup spaces Lacks standards for when parking reductions are appropriate  If the Required Parking… Then… …is met by proposed site plan… …the site plan may be approved by staff for PC Zone site plans, or Planning Commission for other site plans. …requires a conditional use permit for off premise …it is approved by Planning Commission with the parking in some zones… conditional use permit. …is not a use listed in the parking table … … it goes to City Council for consideration of the use. …is not met but it is an “unusual circumstance”… …. the City Council may approve alternative parking arrangements like a parking reduction or shared parking Procedure agreement.  Traffic / Stacking Study Alternative Reduction Standards Transit Proximity Travel Mode Reduction Shared Parking Valet Parking Offsite Parking Credits Bike Parking  Rework all uses in Comprehensive Potential Actions Limit revisions to station areas and evaluation and residential uses in MIH residential uses in MIH modification ofcity specified areas specified areas, limited wide parking technical fixes to requirements Low Action High Action Thank You  ATTACHMENT B SOUTH JORDAN, UTAH SANITATION & RECYCLING RATE ANALYSIS APRIL 2026 BACKGROUND  The City commissioned LRB Public Finance Advisors, Inc. (LRB) to update the financial sustainability analysis of the existing sanitation and recycling funds completed in 2025.  Current Fee Structure (FY2026):  The City assesses a sanitation rate of $16.05 for the first can and $10.74 per can for additional cans.  The recycling fee is $2.00 per can.  The dumpster fee per weekday was increased to $50.00 and per weekend to $100.00 for FY 2026. 2 GENERAL OBJECTIVES The following objectives were identified by the City, which served as the foundation of this financial analysis and scenario development. 1. Ensure sufficient revenues to cover all operation and maintenance expenses and maintain a fund balance target of at least thirty-five (35) percent of revenues. 2. Fund the CIP in the five-year window using fee revenues, while minimizing future bonding needs and allowing for a positive fund balance. 3. Finally, the proposed rate recommendations should be implementable and equitably distribute cost relative to demand. 3 NEW CONSIDERATIONS The 2025 analysis was updated to address the following new consideration: 1. Garbage collection expenses were increased to account for contract changes. 2. Recycling collection expenses were increase to account for contract changes and weekly collection schedule. 3. Minor adjustments based on updated demand statistics. 4. Current analysis considers allocation of new public works facility. 4 OUTCOME  Analysis proposes an upfront rate increase to garbage can fees of 17 percent beginning in FY 2027 o Subsequent annual rate increases of three percent including a per can fee for additional recycling cans.  An upfront increase of 100 percent in FY 2027 is recommended for recycling fees. o Institute a per can fee for additional recycling cans, equal to the additional can fee for garbage cans.  No Change to Dumpster Fees 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 ADOPTED Garbage Rate Increase 11.0% 17.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 1st Can Fee $16.05 $18.78 $19.34 $19.92 $20.52 Additional Can Fee $10.74 $12.57 $12.95 $13.34 $13.74 Senior Option (70 gallon can) $11.89 $13.91 $14.33 $14.76 $15.20 Recycling Rate Increase 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Per Can Fee $2.00 $4.00 $4.00 $4.00 $4.00 Additional Can Fee (See Garbage Rate Increase) NA $12.57 $12.95 $13.34 $13.74 Dumpster Rate Increase 25% 0% 0% 0% 0% Per Weekday $50.00 $50.00 $50.00 $50.00 $50.00 5Per Weekend $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 OUTCOME  Illustration of $ Change to Fees 2027 2028 2029 2030 Garbage Rate Increase 1st Can Fee $2.73 $0.56 $0.58 $0.60 Additional Can Fee $1.83 $0.38 $0.39 $0.40 Senior Option (70 gallon can) $2.02 $0.42 $0.43 $0.44 Recycling Rate Increase Per Can Fee $2.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Additional Can Fee (See Garbage Rate Increase) $10.57 $0.38 $0.39 $0.40 Dumpster Rate Increase Per Weekday - - - - Per Weekend - - - - 6 OUTCOME  Illustration of Fund Balance Fund Balance $5,000,000 $4,500,000 $4,000,000 $3,500,000 $3,000,000 $2,500,000 $2,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 $0 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Ending Fund Balance Desired Reserve Fund 7 NEXT STEPS ❑ Review and Revise Assumptions (If Needed) ❑ Update Scenario Analysis (If Needed) ❑ Prepare Final Rate Study ❑ Adopt Proposed Changes to Rates 8 QUESTIONS Fred Philpot | Vice President/COO LRB Public Finance Advisors O 801.596.0700 | C801.243.0293 lrbfinance.com Lewis Young Robertson & Burningham is now LRB Public Finance Advisors