Neighbors urge action after sober‑living facility near Hidden Village Park draws safety complaints

MURRAY, Utah — Dozens of residents spoke during citizen comments on July 15 about a home at 5449 South 555 West that they say is operating as a licensed sober‑living residence but is creating public-safety and nuisance concerns because of alleged on-site illicit activity, frequent visitors and the presence of a registered sex offender at an earlier time.

Residents recounted incidents including visible drug use, early-morning loitering in the park, prostitution, public drinking and alleged stalking. Multiple speakers said they were not notified before the facility began operating and asked the city to require better oversight, to enforce licensing conditions, or to implement notice requirements for nearby residents.

Key statements from residents - "This is not a sober facility. This is a drug den," said Lena Ayotte, who lives across from Hidden Village Park. Ayotte said she observed smoking, drinking and frequent in-and-out activity at the house. - Trish Syverson, who lives immediately south of the property, said a convicted kidnapper and registered offender had lived in the home while it was occupied previously and that residents were concerned about unsupervised contact with children at the park. "We really need to reclaim this," Syverson said. - Others described needles, prostitution, people soliciting drugs near the park, and repeated calls for city intervention and notification. Several residents said children who once used the park now avoid it.

Authorities, notification and code concerns Residents said they believed the facility has a business license and receives federal or insurance funding; speakers also said other jurisdictions require notice to neighbors within a set radius (one resident said Holiday requires 500‑yard notice). Those statements were made as testimony; meeting presenters did not confirm the exact licensing regime or legal notice requirements. City staff did not announce an immediate enforcement action during the comment period.

Council response and next steps The mayor and council thanked residents for coming and said they heard the concerns; one council comment pledged further assistance for a separate code-enforcement matter raised earlier in the meeting (the pond complaint). Residents urged the city to coordinate with police, code enforcement and licensing authorities to determine whether conditions at the house violate operating rules and to require better notification for nearby residents when regulated facilities open.

Ending note Residents urged a prompt multi-agency response; the council acknowledged the testimony and indicated staff would follow up. No formal enforcement action was announced at the meeting.