City Council Special Study Meeting

MINUTES OF COUNCIL STUDY MEETING – JANUARY 14, 2025 -1- THE WEST VALLEY CITY COUNCIL MET IN SPECIAL ELECTRONIC STUDY SESSION ON TUESDAY, MARCH 18, 2025 AT 4:30 P.M. AT WEST VALLEY CITY HALL, MULTIPURPOSE ROOM, 3600 CONSTITUTION BOULEVARD, WEST VALLEY CITY, UTAH. THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AND CONDUCTED BY MAYOR LANG. THE FOLLOWING MEMBERS WERE PRESENT: Karen Lang, Mayor Lars Nordfelt, Councilmember At-Large Don Christensen, Councilmember At-Large Tom Huynh, Councilmember District 1 (arrived at 4:35 PM) Scott Harmon, Councilmember District 2 William Whetstone, Councilmember District 3 (electronically) Cindy Wood, Councilmember District 4 STAFF PRESENT: Ifo Pili, City Manager Nichole Camac, City Recorder John Flores, Assistant City Manager Eric Bunderson, City Attorney Colleen Jacobs, Police Chief John Evans, Fire Chief Jim Welch, Finance Director Steve Pastorik, CED Director Dan Johnson, Public Works Director Jamie Young, Parks and Recreation Director Jonathan Springmeyer, RDA Director Sam Johnson, Strategic Communications Director Craig Thomas, Community and Culture Director Paula Melgar, HR Director Tumi Young, Chief Code Enforcement Officer Lauren McPeak, Administrative Analyst Harold Moleni, Administrative Analyst Travis Crosby, IT COMMUNICATIONS A. BUDGET UPDATE MINUTES OF COUNCIL STUDY MEETING – JANUARY 14, 2025 -2- Jim Welch, Finance Director, provided a PowerPoint presentation summarized as follows: - Required Additions o Replace Parking Lot- City Hall- $900,000 o 6 New Firefighters- $595,000 o Sidewalk repair project- $250,000 o Annual VECC Increase- $220,000 o Double Check Valves for Parks- $120,000 o Varonis Data Risk Management Support- $109,000 o ManageEngine Endpoint Central- $42,400 o Service Changes for Netradyne Dah Cameras- $27,500 o Utah State Surcharge Fee (1%)- $2,500 Total: $2,666,400 - Recommended Additions o 4 Additional Sworn Officers- $748,000 o Light Fleet Rolling Stock Budget increase- $500,000 o Mowing subcontract for Park Maintenance- $478,000 o Equipment Improvement- $346,000 o City’s General Plan Update- $300,000 o Administrative Chief- $180,000 o Fire Department LCSW- $157,000 o Replace City Hall HVAC Controls- $157,391 o New Fleet Management Software- $150,000 o Captain Paramedic Specialty Pay- $147,060 Total: $3,163,451 - Personnel Additions o 4 Police Officers- $748,000 o 6 Firefighters (Hired FY25)- $595,000 o 1 Administrative Chief (Fire)- $180,000 o 1 Licensed Social Worker (Fire)- $157,391 o 1 Social Media Manager- $100,000 o 1 Neighborhood Services FTE (CEC)- $85,000 o 1 Interpreter/Coordinator (Justice Court)- $67,500 o 1 Additional Maintenance (Admin)- $65,000 o 1 Entry Level Analyst (HR)- $46,027 MINUTES OF COUNCIL STUDY MEETING – JANUARY 14, 2025 -3- Total: $2,043,918 - Strategic Plan of City o Mowing Subcontract for Park Maintenance- $478,000 o City’s General Plan Update- $300,000 o Special Projects- $85,000 o Community Festival Budget Increase - $60,000 o My HomeTown Budget Increase- $35,300 o Veterans Affair Committee Community Activities- $15,000 Total: $973,300 Ifo Pili stated that they were hoping to receive as many questions and feedback as possible, particularly after sending out the program modifications for review. It was mentioned that several program modifications had been worked on and categorized, although not all were presented during the meeting. The General Plan Update, which Steve Pastorik is working on a grant for, was briefly discussed, with the understanding that it was still in progress and had different funding mechanisms. The Fire Department had requested 9 new firefighters and a new fire station, but it was noted that the Chief planned to apply for the SAFER grant to cover firefighter salaries for the next two years, which was not included in the current proposal. Personnel needs for the police department were addressed, focusing on the addition of 4 new officers over 3 years. Ifo stated that over the next month, the budget team planned to refine the proposal, incorporating feedback from the Council. Councilmember Huynh suggested hiring full time employees instead of subcontracting for park maintenance. Councilmember Harmon replied that 4 employees couldn’t handle all the maintenance. Mayor Lang agreed and stated that she believes this will be a huge benefit and will increase appearance throughout the community. Councilmember Huynh expressed support for the hiring of new Police Officers but emphasized the need to see a clear, long-term plan. He requested a detailed projection for the next 2, 4, 6, and even 10 years, particularly regarding the hiring and use of 12 police officers. He wanted to understand what the department would do over the next several years and how they would achieve these goals. Councilmember Huynh referenced past issues where police officers were hired, trained, and then left after a short period, often for better-paying positions elsewhere. He noted that this resulted in wasted resources spent on training. He expressed a desire to see a clear goal and plan in place to avoid this situation moving forward.  MINUTES OF COUNCIL STUDY MEETING – JANUARY 14, 2025 -4- Ifo mentioned that there is a significant amount of data that can he provided in a quarterly report. When reviewing requests for additional officers, he pointed out that there are many variables to consider. Although call volumes have been increasing, they are relatively flat overall. However, when comparing the cost of service across cities of similar size, the data suggests that the department needs more officers, even after removing Salt Lake City as an outlier. The analysis indicated a need for 50 additional officers, excluding Salt Lake City and Provo, which have unique situations. He emphasized the importance of considering the department's specialties, such as SWAT and K9, when evaluating staffing needs. Ifo mentioned that Harold Moleni had been assigned to conduct an analysis on cost for service, which further supports the need for additional officers. He also discussed the large overtime budget, which often exceeds expectations. He acknowledged that while call volume may remain flat, the nature of police work has evolved significantly, with officers now taking on more responsibilities, such as those typically handled by social workers, and dealing with more paperwork. Additionally, maintaining CALEA certification is a challenging and resource- intensive process. Ifo Pili concluded by stating that the department could provide a report outlining their goals and achievements for further clarification. The Mayor and Council had no further questions or concerns. B. CODE ENFORCEMENT Steve Pastorik, CD Director, presented a PowerPoint Presentation summarized as follows: o Inoperable Vehicles ▪ Policy: Enforce against vehicles in front yards that are readily observable as mechanically inoperable unless covered by a vehicle specific cover. License and registration status are irrelevant. ▪ Code: Inoperable vehicles, which include unregistered, unlicensed, unsightly, or deleterious vehicles, are prohibited anywhere on the property unless covered by a vehicle specific cover. (Sections 24-2-101 and 24-2-111A) o Residential Landscaping ▪ Policy: In front yards, enforce against grass and weeds that exceed 6 inches in height. ▪ Code: In front yards, at least one tree and a minimum of 30% live plant material is required. Artificial turf can substitute for live plant material. Weeds are not allowed as an acceptable MINUTES OF COUNCIL STUDY MEETING – JANUARY 14, 2025 -5- groundcover. Grass or weeds exceeding 6 inches in height are prohibited anywhere on the property. (Sections 7-11-205 and 24-8-106) o Outside Storage, Surfacing, and Fencing ▪ On these violations, the only discrepancy between policy and code is the policy limits enforcement to the front yard while the code does not. ▪ Outside storage: Outside storage of materials, equipment, household items, etc. is prohibited. (Section 24-2-112) ▪ Surfacing: Vehicles must be parked on an approved surface. (Section 7-9-114) ▪ Fencing: Standards exist on materials, height, and maintenance. (Section 7-2-114) o Administrative Citations ▪ Policy: Administrative citations are only used for residential parking violations (i.e. not parking on an approved surface) ▪ Code: “Any person violating any minor provision of the City Code or applicable state codes may be issued an administrative citation by an enforcement official as provided in this Part.” (Section 10-2-402) o Enforcement in Backyards ▪ Code enforcement officers do not need a warrant when they can observe an otherwise-protected area from a location they may lawfully occupy. ▪ Examples: • Code enforcement officer observes an ordinance violation in an unfenced backyard while driving on a public road. • Code enforcement officer inspects a backyard from the vantage point of a neighbor’s property if the officer is given permission to be there. • Building inspector uses Google Earth imagery to enforce against unpermitted structures in a backyard. Councilmember Nordfelt stated that he did not see an issue with having a discrepancy between policy and code. He acknowledged that the department's practices might be more lenient than the code,but emphasized that the code provided necessary tools when enforcement was required. He clarified that he did not believe in proactively searching people's backyards for inoperable vehicles, but if such a situation became a nuisance and complaints were made, the code could be used to address the issue. Ifo replied that the department was seeking more MINUTES OF COUNCIL STUDY MEETING – JANUARY 14, 2025 -6- flexibility in handling situations like inoperable vehicles. He explained that the current direction given to officers was that they could not act, even if there were complaints and the issue was visible from a neighbor’s yard. As a result, officers could only inform residents that they were unable to do anything because of the policy in place. Ifo pointed out that the policy restricts their ability to exercise judgment in these cases, even though the code allows for enforcement. He suggested that if the policy could be adjusted to provide officers with the discretion to act when it made sense, it would align better with the code. He emphasized that the policy currently contradicts the code, as it prevents enforcement of what the code considers a violation. Councilmember Huynh raised a concern regarding the enforcement of issues in backyards. He highlighted a past issue where complaints between neighbors led to an enforcement officer issuing a ticket for an issue visible from another yard. This situation escalated into a dispute, even involving the church, which became embroiled in the argument. Councilmember Huynh expressed that this kind of conflict is not ideal, as it creates unnecessary tension between neighbors and involves external parties, like the church, in what should be a straightforward enforcement issue. He stressed that the city should avoid becoming a mediator in personal disputes and should not allow such issues to escalate to that level. He emphasized that enforcement should not create such conflicts. Councilmember Harmon shared his concerns about the potential misuse of the code enforcement process, particularly when neighbors use it as a means of retaliation. He explained that some residents may report their neighbors for issues like vehicles in disrepair out of spite, leveraging the code as a tool to get back at others. Councilmember Harmon acknowledged the difficulty of entering backyards and said he didn’t like the idea of using backyard inspections as a way for neighbors to seek revenge. He suggested that enforcement should only happen when issues are visible from public spaces, like the street or a patio. He also pointed out that if a neighbor has a privacy fence that makes it hard to see over, the city shouldn’t get involved. However, if a problem is clearly visible, such as unsightly vehicles without coverings or poorly maintained yards, he believed the city should step in. Councilmember Harmon emphasized the balance between respecting privacy and addressing real concerns, suggesting that enforcement should focus on visible nuisances rather than entering private yards unnecessarily. Cindy Wood agreed with Councilmember Harmon’s perspective, sharing that she personally experiences issues with her property. She mentioned that her house is situated higher on a slope, and from her yard, she can see her neighbors' yards where problems like rodents and other unsightly conditions are present. While she isn’t MINUTES OF COUNCIL STUDY MEETING – JANUARY 14, 2025 -7- intentionally looking over the fence, she believes the city should have the authority to address such issues, especially when they pose safety hazards, like fire risks from overgrown weeds or other unsanitary conditions. Mayor Lang agreed that enforcement in backyards should be allowable as long as its clearly visible and a Code Enforcement Officer doesn’t have to tip toe to peer over a fence looking for violations. Tumi Young, Chief Code Enforcement Officer, stated that by law, officers currently can’t do this. Steve summarized the discussion by restating the key points. He mentioned that if a violation is visible from the street or if it can be seen from the backyard of a neighbor without having to peer over a fence, it would be enforceable. Additionally, he highlighted that even if a violation is only visible over a fence, it would still be enforceable if there is a safety concern, such as a fire hazard or rodents. Mayor and Council agreed. Steve pointed out the main difference regarding landscaping enforcement. Currently, the policy only enforces grass or weeds that are over 6 inches in height. However, the code is more specific and sets a minimum standard for landscaping, requiring things like trees and a certain amount of live plant material. This creates a discrepancy between the enforcement policy and the code. Councilmember Harmon discussed the issue of enforcing landscaping codes, particularly around weeds. He mentioned that while he quickly removes weeds in his own lawn, some people’s lawns are primarily weeds instead of grass. The question arose about how to enforce the code in these cases—whether it would require them to remove all the weeds and plant grass. He highlighted that this is why the policy shifted to focusing on maintaining the lawn, regardless of whether it’s grass or weeds, as long as it's kept under 6 inches and green. Steve brought up the issue of "decorative dirt," noting that under current policy, it’s technically permissible for a yard to consist entirely of dirt and still be considered in compliance with the code. This raised concerns about enforcement, as it could be difficult to distinguish between acceptable decorative dirt and an unkempt yard. He added that while the policy allows for decorative dirt, the lack of clear guidelines on how it should be used may lead to issues. He also mentioned that some people have used this to avoid having to plant grass, which could potentially lead to inconsistencies in how yard maintenance is enforced across the city. Councilmember Harmon stated that he is okay with just about anything as long as it is maintained. Mayor Lang agreed and noted that there are some really nice yards MINUTES OF COUNCIL STUDY MEETING – JANUARY 14, 2025 -8- that are completely xeriscaped with no live plant material. Councilmember Wood noted that she doesn’t think a tree needs to be required for a front a yard either. However, Councilmember Wood raised a concern about the potential consequences of eliminating the minimum requirement of 30% live plant material. She questioned if this could lead to situations where someone could simply pave over their yard entirely, which could result in undesirable aesthetic or environmental consequences. Steve clarified that there is still a cap on hard surfaces for most lots, which is typically 40%. This means that up to 40% of a yard can be a hard surface, but the remaining 60% must be landscaping, either live plants or other acceptable materials like rock mulch or wood mulch. After conversation, Ifo noted that staff would revisit this section of code to try and find a good solution that would allow xeriscaping but wouldn’t allow for an entire yard of single colored rock without variation or other undesirable possibilities. Councilmember Harmon asked for Tumi’s thoughts regarding administrative citations. Tumi discussed the process of issuing citations for property violations, particularly with issues like tall weeds. He explained the multi-step process: 1. Initial Warning: When a violation is observed, a warning is issued, giving the property owner two weeks to resolve the issue. 2. Notice of Violation: If the issue isn’t resolved, a formal notice of violation is given, allowing an additional two weeks to fix the problem. 3. Court Action: If the violation persists, it escalates to court, which can take about 1 to 1.5 months. After that, the property owner can appeal, further delaying resolution. 4. Fines: During this process, fines can accumulate daily for ongoing violations, which can lead to higher costs for the property owner over time. Tumi noted that using citations (tickets) tends to yield faster results, with people being more willing to comply quickly compared to waiting for the violation process to play out over a long period. He acknowledged that while warnings are always the first step, citations are an important tool in ensuring compliance, particularly in situations where timely action is necessary (like for safety concerns such as weeds before a holiday like the 4th of July). Mayor and Council agreed to allow administrative citations. Councilmember Huynh asked if it is legal for a neighbor to have a camera pointing into another neighbors backyard. Eric replied that legally, there is nothing the City can do about that. Mayor Lang added that the neighbor could put up a tree or bushes to block the camera from sight.  MINUTES OF COUNCIL STUDY MEETING – JANUARY 14, 2025 -9- The Mayor and Council had no further questions or concerns. MOTION TO ADJOURN Upon motion by Councilmember Huynh all voted in favor to adjourn. THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS OF THE WEST VALLEY COUNCIL THE STUDY MEETING ON TUESDAY MARCH 18, 2025 WAS ADJOURNED AT 5:35 PM BY MAYOR LANG. I hereby certify the foregoing to be a true, accurate and complete record of the proceedings of the Study Meeting of the West Valley City Council held Tuesday, March 18, 2025. _______________________________ Nichole Camac, MMC City Recorder