I thought you were in the last one.

Is there any dilemma?

This week I didn't last chance.

Yeah, no, I last week we don't even know what we're doing for a lot of things.

We don't remember this.

Madam Chair, whenever you're ready, we're ready.

Um I see we do have a quorum, and it looks like Councilmember Nickel has joined online.

Okay, well, let's go ahead and get started then.

Welcome to the Sandy City Council meeting.

Today is February seventeenth, twenty twenty-six.

Um tonight's agenda we have one information item and three council voting items.

We will be taking public comment on the voting items, and we will have a separate citizen comment period at six PM for general comments from the public.

Let's go ahead and start with prayer and pledge.

Marcy, can I lean on you for a press?

All right, thank you.

Help us to be mindful of the the residents who we serve and keep keep all decisions focused on serving and serving well.

We are grateful for our Savior, pray that thy hand will guide us and that we will recognize his guiding hand as well.

And we are grateful to those who have particularly gone beyond above and beyond in the recent weeks to to serve and to do so quietly and diligently.

We ask thee to be with us this night, guide us in all things, and we say this in the name of Jesus Christ.

Guide us in all things, and we say this in the name of Jesus Christ.

Amen.

All right, let's all stand and recite the Pledge of Allegiance.

All right, let's do introductions.

Mr.

Freto.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My name is Dustin Fretto.

I'm with the City Council Office.

There are a couple other council office staff members in the back of the room, Justin Sorensen and Liz Terriel.

Hi, my name's Tracy, and I'm counsel for the council.

Hi, Chris Edwards with the Council Office.

Marcy House.

Sorry, Chris Nichols, any city council district three.

Marcy Houseman, District Four.

Cindy Sharkey at large.

Alison Stroud, District Two.

Brooke D'Souza at large.

I'm Mayor Zeltansky.

I'm Shane Pace, City Administrator.

Lynn Pace, City Attorney.

Introducing one.

Rick Christensen with District One is joining us, just in case people online couldn't hear that.

All right, we are still potentially expecting another council member to join us who is maybe even out of the country.

So we will keep an eye on that.

But we'll go ahead and move into the agenda.

And the first item on the agenda is our council office reviewing the rules of procedure with us.

Mr.

Fratto.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Council, everybody hear me okay?

Okay, great.

Um well I hope that you've all had the opportunity to take a look at the presentation that I uh put in the packet.

Uh thanks to Liz for all of her help in putting that together.

Um a couple of years ago, the council passed, or I'm sorry, you amended your rules of procedure and you added a new section at the end that required us to provide you with uh a biennial training on the rules of procedure.

So this is our first training.

If there's anything else that you feel like you'd like to know more about that are within specifically the rules of procedure, you can ask me tonight and we'll we'll take notes so that we can make sure to include it next year.

Uh but let's go ahead and hop in.

Uh okay, so the rules of order and procedure are actually required uh under Utah Title 10-3-606.

Uh in that title, they're defined as rules that govern and describe in a in a public meeting parliamentary order and procedure, ethical behavior, and civil discourse.

Uh it also says that the legislative body shall comply with its rules of procedure and that they must be posted both on our website, which they are, and at each meeting.

And so for if anyone's wondering, you can find our rules of procedure.

They are in that holder that is on the main door as you come in.

There's multiple copies that anybody can grab and take a look at if they'd like to.

And one thing that uh you may or may not know is that any time we're gonna take a new agenda item after 11 p.m., it requires a vote of the council.

And so if we get to 1101 and the chair is about to call a new meeting, before she can do that, the council has to authorize uh hearing that item.

Um rule that I I get a lot of questions about is what we call our two meeting rule.

And I don't want you to confuse that with our legislative policy.

Uh the two meeting rule is it basically it says that any resolution or ordinance coming before the council requires uh basically two bites of the apple.

So we have to have an informational item to review uh the resolution or ordinance, followed by a voting item at a second meeting where council can take action on that resolution or ordinance.

That does not apply to anything besides items that include a resolution and ordinance.

Informational reports, even if you're gonna take action during an informational report, for example, to give staff some type of direction, that doesn't necessarily per the rules and procedures require a second meeting.

Now that that applies to all agenda items.

I don't want you to confuse that with our legislative policy.

The legislative policy is a policy that you as a council have adopted to uh control how you bring forward new legislation as as legislators, and that requires, as you all know, a first reading and a second reading of any new legislation of the council that an individual council member is going to bring forward.

And that requires, as you all know, a first reading and a second reading of any new legislation that the council that an individual council member is going to bring forward.

I know those two things sound very similar, but they are different policies.

The two-meeting rule is within the rules of procedure.

The other is within the legislative policy, which is a completely separate policy within our policy manual.

Work sessions versus business sessions.

So before I started working for the council, we had really formal, there were really formal work sessions.

Chris Nickel may have participated in these, and you know, Shane Pace definitely participated in these.

But they were formal work sessions that were held leading up to a council meeting.

We haven't done that in nearly a decade.

In fact, all of our meetings have been exclusively business sessions, other than kind of the swap that we did for a few years, right?

There can be a work session either at the beginning or at the end of your meeting.

Work sessions are meant to be more for more informal items.

So if we're going to go on a tour, if we're going to sit around a table up in the multi-purpose room, talk about a particular topic.

But during the work session, the council isn't going to be voting on resolutions, ordinances, etc.

That's all going to happen during a business session.

The one thing I'll point out again is the work session, it's got to be at the beginning or the end of the meeting.

It can't kind of bifurcate the business session in half.

Meetings can have both a work session and a business session, obviously.

Or they can just have a business session or just a work session.

The role of the chairperson in a meeting.

So we have a policy that is called the role of the chair.

I'm not going to go over that policy in this meeting.

I'm specifically going to talk about the role of the chairperson per the rules of procedures.

So the chair is primarily responsible for maintaining the order, efficiency, and professional atmosphere of the meeting.

That's what we state in our rules of procedure.

And so this includes setting the agenda, managing debate during the meeting, and this is probably one of the most important things to hit on.

Managing debate includes recognizing each speaker before they address the council.

It doesn't matter if you're a council member, a member of the public, a member of staff, the mayor, administrative staff, council staff, anybody who's speaking needs to be recognized by the chair before they speak.

And that is intended to help manage debate and make sure that everybody has equal opportunity to speak.

And that's the second part of managing debate.

The chair has a responsibility to ensure that each council member has had the opportunity to speak during each agenda item if they'd like to speak.

A third role of the chair during meetings is to make parliamentary rulings during the meeting.

Overseeing citizen comment, and so at their discretion, the chair can grant additional time to speakers during the general citizen comment period, during voting items, and during public hearing items.

So the chair can have the council stand at ease if something got particularly heated.

They can also call a short recess, which we've done on multiple occasions for a bathroom break or just hey, we've been here for four hours and we all need a few minutes to sit down and you know gather ourselves.

And then the last thing is it's also the chair's responsibility to ensure that the council is clear about which motion they're considering.

On occasion, we'll have multiple motions on the table, which I'll get into in a minute, but it's the chair's responsibility to ensure that they understand here's the motion that's on the table currently, and that might include restating the motion, you know, prior to a vote, or it might include having staff uh type a motion out and pull it up on the screen if we're working on the pro on the appropriate language.

So just a few examples.

Uh citizen comment procedures.

So general citizen comment occurs at or after 6 p.m., as you know, per our rules of procedure.

During this period, commenters can speak on any city subject, including that night's agenda items, other than public hearing items.

Public hearing items need to be commented on during the public hearing.

But if somebody shows up to comment on an informational item that's on the agenda or even a voting item that we're gonna take comment on later in the meeting, they can still comment on it per our rules at the 6 p.m.

general citizen comment period.

And then as I mentioned, at the chair's discretion, the length of time that a commenter receives is normally three minutes can be extended for voting items and for public hearing items per or public hearing policy.

If the council wishes to extend the time of somebody who is coming to uh comment on a voting or public hearing item, the council body may choose to do that at the as the speaker is up here as well.

So that's another option.

However, we haven't granted the council policy to necessarily extend, or I'm sorry, the council hasn't granted its full membership, the ability to uh extend individual citizen comment period time during the general citizen comment period, which never has happened that way.

Um standing reports and council business.

So standing reports typically occur at the end of the meeting, as you know, although the council can deviate as it deems necessary.

Occasionally we'll have people that are here to report on you know legislative matters, for example, during the legislative session, who have to do it at a particular time, and we'll move we'll move that around.

Um standing reports is no formal action can be taken during uh during the standing reports.

I'm sorry, guys, let me click out of this so we don't have something reset.

Sorry about that, I don't want the computer to turn off mid meeting.

So, an example, let's say that council member Stroud brings up a pothole complaint during her report.

Um the council couldn't appropriate funds, right, at that point in time to fill the pothole.

But an action that you could take is you could direct the chair uh to put that item on a future agenda, or you could direct staff to bring back more information or to send you more information.

Those are the types of actions that could be taken during standing reports, but no formal action like adopting resolutions, ordinances, making appropriations, things along those lines.

So this is probably the most uh complicated portion of our rules and procedure.

So bear with me, I'm just gonna run us through an example of kind of the parliamentary mechanics that we have outlined within our rules of procedure.

Now, our parliamentary mechanics are not identical to anyone else's parliamentary mechanics.

We're not using Robert's rules of order necessarily, so it's different than that.

So let me just kind of run you through an example.

But before I do that, there are uh a few motion types to remember or to keep in mind.

The main motion, which is the initial motion that's made by a council member and then seconded, uh, a friendly amendment, which is informal, one council member could suggest to the maker of a motion some amendment to their motion, and if it's agreed upon by the person who made the motion and the person who seconded it, then that amendment can be included and then we have a new main motion.

Um if a friendly amendment isn't accepted, and that council member wants to really wants to ensure that that change is made, then a council member can make a motion to amend.

And that is more formal, it doesn't matter what the person who made the motion and who seconded it think.

All it matters is what how the council votes.

So if a council member made a motion to amend the first motion and then it was approved by the council majority, the motion is amended and we have a new main motion.

Uh reconsideration, reconsideration is if later on in the meeting a council member who is on the winning side of a motion that passed decides they want to reconsider, they can make a motion to reconsider.

The council can go back and vote on that motion again.

Has to happen in the same meeting.

And then the previous question, we we uh call that calling the question, and it's a non-debatable motion to end debate essentially to force a vote on the main motion that's on the table.

Uh clarity rule, so that's just noting that a main motion should not be formally amended more than twice.

If we get to the point where we're we have a third amendment to a main motion, we probably just ought to just make a new motion at that point in time.

And then there are no substitutes.

So in the past, it's my understanding that the council would do substitute motions, and this was before my time, but they ran into issues where the substitute motions really were not germane to whatever motion main motion was on the table.

And uh so they specifically put in our policies that we were not going to allow substitute motions.

You can amend the motion, you can't change it out completely.

So let's just run through uh kind of an example really quickly.

So pretending that I'm on the council, um, I move that we paint the walls of the chambers blue.

Okay, that's that's now the main motion, right?

Um, and councilmember Sharkey has seconded me.

So we now have a main motion that's on the table.

I uh made it and it's been seconded by the chair.

Uh Councilmember Stroud asks for a friendly amendment.

She says, you know what?

I want to paint the chambers, but I actually want the walls to be purple.

And so she says, Dustin, can friendly amendment.

Can we change the word blue to purple?

And I say, Great, I love purple, that's fantastic.

My tie's purple, love it.

Cindy says, I agree, let's do purple.

They're already kind of that color anyway, so let's paint them purple.

Um so now we've made that friendly amendment, right?

It was accepted.

And so now we have a new main motion that's on the table.

And the new main motion is I move that we paint the walls purple.

Okay.

Um now let's say Councilmember Houseman says, I hate purple.

She says, I actually want it to be gray.

So, Dustin, can we change the motion to gray?

And I'm like, no, I don't want gray.

Cindy says, nope, I don't want gray.

So Marcy really wants gray, though.

So she says, Well, I don't like your guys' answer.

So, madam chair, I uh make a motion to amend the main motion, and I'd like to change out the word purple for the word gray.

The chair says, Okay, that's germane, we're still talking about wall color.

Um, and so we go into a vote, right?

The vote passes.

I vote against it, Cindy votes against it, Allison votes against it.

Doesn't matter, it still passes four to three, and so now we have another new motion, new main motion.

The new main motion is I move that we paint the walls gray, right?

We've dispensed with the secondary motion, which was the motion to amend.

We've moved on to the or we've we've then moved uh created a new main motion.

And so after that, um we're we're just everyone's done with debate at that point.

I'm like, you know what?

Clearly, everyone wants the walls to be gray.

I don't want to talk about it anymore.

So I make a motion that we call the previous question.

And uh Cindy agrees, she's like, yeah, I wanted I wanted blue or purple.

It's gray now, okay.

We're calling the question, we're gonna end debate.

It's now been we we have a first and a second on calling the question.

There's no debate about that motion.

That motion is essentially saying, hey, assuming the council supports it, we're gonna vote on whether or not the walls are gray.

And so we immediately would go into a vote on calling the question.

Um we take the vote, it passes.

Everybody besides Allison who was like, no, no, no, no, no.

I really want these walls to be purple, and so I'm voting, I'm voting no.

Everybody else votes to call the question.

She really wanted to talk about it more.

So we've now called the question, and there's no debate.

We immediately move into voting on the main motion.

And if you remember, the main motion at that point is are we painting we're painting the walls gray?

So we have to dispense with the main motion, we vote on it immediately, it passes four to three.

Myself, Cindy, and uh Alison, we all vote against it because we really want blue or purple.

The rest of you want gray, we're painting the walls gray.

The item's done.

Chair calls the next item, we move along into the meeting, we're two hours down the road, and suddenly Brooke says, Man, I've been looking at Dustin's tie all night, and I've changed my mind.

Like I want the walls to be purple.

I made a mistake.

And so she says, Madam Chair, uh I make a motion that we reconsider our decision on painting the walls gray.

And I'm like, hey, there's an opening here.

I hate gray walls, so I second it.

Only somebody who is on the side of the winning vote can make that motion.

So I couldn't have made that motion because I voted against it.

I was on the losing side.

Allison and Cindy couldn't have made that motion.

Only one of the four who voted to paint the walls gray could make a motion to reconsider.

So Brooke makes the motion, there's no discussion, we vote, and of course, that motion passes because Brooke has changed sides, right?

And so we've now uh the main motion of whether or not we're gonna paint the walls gray is now back on the table again.

And so we then vote on that motion, and of course, that motion fails.

It now fails four to three.

So now there's been no decision made.

What color are we gonna paint the walls?

So immediately Cindy says, I motion that we paint the walls purple.

I second it, we vote, and it passes four to three.

We've had a new main motion come forward, and it's now passed.

So that is the process.

If we went through this entire all the motion types in one in one agenda item.

That's never happened.

Um I don't recall ever having a motion to reconsider in the time that I've been here, but it is an option.

And so I hope that helps you guys all to understand how those might work.

I'm happy to answer any questions about that later or offline if you'd like me to.

Okay, voting and quorum.

Uh as you as you all know, most almost all items require uh a quorum vote.

Well, in order to have a meeting, we have to have a quorum present.

Okay, that let's start there.

We have to have a quorum present in order to have a meeting.

Uh voting threshold.

Most actions are gonna require a quorum vote for council members in the affirmative.

Um actions require uh more than that, some actions require a uh majority of everybody who's present, but almost all actions are going to require at least four individuals voting yay in order to pass, including resolutions and ordinances.

Um methods of calling votes, so a roll call vote is required for all ordinances and at the uh request of any uh member.

Um a voice vote can be used when a roll call vote is not required.

The one time when you can't use a voice vote per policies is um for an ordinance, and then obviously if um we have people participating virtually and it's not a consensus yes or no.

So if um we have you know tonight, Chris Nickel is joining us virtually.

If we're voting on an item this evening and it's not 6-0, then we need to do a roll call vote since there's somebody participating online.

We couldn't do a voice vote.

So you can still call a voice vote.

If somebody says, you know, four say yay and three say, or I'm sorry, two say nay, then we would just have to redo that and do a uh a roll call vote instead.

Um and then finally, I'll note we don't allow proxy voting, we don't have anything in our policies that allows somebody to you know say, hey Dustin, I want you to uh be my proxy voter and submit this vote for me.

Uh ethics and conflicts of interest.

There's not a lot about that in our rules of procedure, though we do cover it.

Um, one thing to mention is any member with an immediate or direct financial financial interest in any item that's before the council uh has to disclose it when the item is called, and then anyone who has declared that financial interest needs to get up, leave the chambers while the items being discussed and voted on.

Uh okay, so maintaining and amending the rules of procedure.

So if an amendment is on the agenda, then just a majority vote is required to modify your rules.

However, say that we're in the middle of a meeting, our rules are preventing the council from taking some action that's necessary in order to conduct business.

A two-thirds majority vote of those present can suspend the rules or modify them if they're not on the agenda.

And then finally, as I mentioned, uh the council has to review and receive training on these every other year by the end of February.

That's why I'm here tonight.

And with that, if anyone has questions, let me know.

Council members, any questions?

And Miss Nickel, just raise your hand if you want to pose any questions.

But I'm not seeing anything, Dustin.

Okay.

Well, thank you for letting me take you through that uh exercise about motions.

Let's hope that never happens.

All right.

Our next item is uh item number two.

Um we are going to at this point recess the city council meeting and go into an RDA meeting.

So I will make that motion that we recess the city council meeting and convene as the Sandy City RDA.

Do I have a second?

Second.

All in favor.

Aye.

Any opposed.

All right.

Thank you.

Casey.

Thanks, madam chair.

Good to be here tonight.

We only have one item on the RDA agenda tonight.

Um, this is a resolution RD 26-03.

Excuse me.

As you recall, this is an interlocal agreement between the city and the redevelopment agency for participation of funding on uh the Arbor building.

We discussed this last week in the RDA meeting.

So unless you have any questions or anything, I'm here to entertain any questions or I do believe that I will I will note that as asked for last week that I have included in the packet some amended language in an interlocal agreement that was included in the packet.

But it's also my understanding that a board member also may have an additional amendment.

So I'll just leave that open now.

All right, any questions for Casey at this point.

All right, Ms.

D'Souza, you have another amended ILA to propose.

Is that correct?

Well, yes, it is.

All right.

So thank you, Madam Chair.

I just want to begin really quick by explaining how we arrived at this point.

Uh because the last time that this matter was discussed publicly, the RDA board did vote unanimously to direct staff to include an amendment in the interlocal agreement, which has been done, right?

Casey, I just wanted to clarify what we see is reflects the request to include it when it came back, right?

Yes, the latest in the packet.

Okay, thank you.

And so the amendment originated from the recognition that this is this is not a typical real estate transaction, and that this is a 12 million dollar project with over five million dollars of RDA funds contributing to the purchase, or simply put 42% of the overall uh investment with an additional one million scheduled to be repaid to the RDA over the next 20 years.

Uh this investment is also supported by a revenue bond whose repayment depends in part on the economic performance and lease stability of this building.

Additionally, because the building includes private lease revenue, the bond financing is not tax exempt, which increases the borrowing costs and the financial risk associated with the building's performance.

So, in other words, this is a redevelopment investment that must perform financially for multiple reasons, and it's not simply a municipal facilities expansion.

And so that was kind of like the premise for the creation of the amendment that we considered last week that's been included this week, right?

Um just for for further uh history to put on the public record to kind of bring all of this into a chronological sequence that I make sense for anybody looking back in the future.

Um at the January 20th council meeting, um, I personally express the importance of instituting a durable mechanism for collaboration on municipal tenants while the bond was outstanding.

And in that meeting, the administration was represented by the chief administrative officer and the city attorney.

Uh no concerns were raised at that time.

Um in fact, we were told by the CAO that because the RDA is a funding partner, the board could conclude include conditions in the interlocal agreement if it deemed them appropriate, and so that's exactly what we did.

Um I did go back and re-watch and re-listen to the meeting to make sure that I characterize that um factually.

Uh at the February 10th meeting, so last week, the amendment provided that if the municipal tenants were to occupy space in the building while bonds remained outstanding, which we know is the plan, right?

That the occupants of occupancy would be formalized by resolution of the RDA board, which is really the only mechanism by which a public board can formally act and speak as one voice.

Um, after that unanimous public vote discussion occurred outside of this public forum, and concerns were raised that the administration may not be willing to proceed with the acquisition if the amendment was to remain as written.

So, in the spirit of collaboration and in good faith, the amendment has since been revised.

Um we were notified late Thursday afternoon be after business hours on a holiday weekend.

Many hours have gone into the revisions that um everybody has been presented with.

There is a copy, a paper copy at everybody's desk.

I did ask that this be included with this agenda item today because there had been a delay yesterday, was a holiday, and the mayor and administrative staff were provided over the holiday weekend and here physically, right?

So I just want to make sure that everybody knows we're all kind of looking at the same thing right now.

So the reversion or excuse me, the revised version is significantly more collaborative and deferential to the administration than the original.

It explicitly affirms the mayor's executive authority over staffing and operations, and it provides a framework for the administration to bring occupancy proposals to the board for collaborative review, and it establishes a collaborative review process to reach mutual consensus, which is then formalized by a resolution of the board.

And for my understanding of some of the issues that you know the mayor raised with the other language.

Um sorry that messed my brain up for a second.

Let me get back on track.

Um of the issues, you know, really trying to again make sure that the intent of this was extremely clear that both parties felt uh respected and represented, you know, the the differing interests of each board or excuse me, of each party was included and and summarized in in this amendment.

So at its core, the provision does not manage employees, it does not assign offices, it does not interfere with the administration, it simply ensures that when decisions directly affect the or potentially affect the financial performance of an asset funded nearly in half by the RDA, that the RDA board participants form um formally participate in those discussions.

Um to me, that's what partnership looks like, and that distinction really matters.

Uh, because this entire acquisition originated from the administration's stated need for space, and because the amendment was revisited specifically to affirm executive authority while preserving the board board's role as a funding partner.

I think it's important to ask this directly and on the record.

Mayor, are you willing to proceed with the purchase of the building under the amendment as revised?

Because if not, the implication that this transaction would not move forward unless the board relinquishes the very provision that gives effect to the collaborative process being promised.

And it's important that this board and the public understand that if that is in fact the question that we need answered so that we can adequately responsibly move on.

Um, I want to state that I want this project to uh succeed, but I am not willing to approve the use of redevelopment funds without a durable structural collaboration that protects this and investment over the life of the bonds.

Uh when collaboration is promised, I I don't understand the controversies surrounding formalizing a process that ensures collaboration.

Um anyway, it is our responsibility in my opinion to ensure that when public funds are invested, they are protected through meaningful governance, shared accountability, and lasting structure.

Um that's been that is in my the where this originated from for me is entirely in the realm of risk management and ensuring the success of the financial proposition that is that is leading us to potentially invest five million dollars of RDA funds that that may have a better return on all those economic dollars should they be invested elsewhere.

So for me, that's the standard under which I will make my decision tonight.

And I I Tracy has helped me.

Um the RDA attorney had reviewed the previous version in full transparency.

We have not yet heard from the RDA attorney because today was really the only business day since all of this happened that we could provide something for review, so we haven't heard back.

Um but Tracy also has some information.

Um I think that to help kind of frame this conversation and decision.

Should you know we think that we need more information that way, but for right now, I I don't know if anybody else has any questions or if anybody else shares the same interest in whether or not the mayor is agreeable to the new language, and if not, does that mean that we aren't going that that she's going to potentially um cancel the real estate transaction?

Okay, so I'm gonna start with the council.

Are there any questions or comments for Ms.

D'Souza?

Ms.

Houseman.

Uh more of a comment.

I I think I would need the question answered because I've I've prepared some thoughts around this, but it's unless I know I I need to know that we're moving forward with this because if we're not, then I've prepared different thoughts.

Okay.

Any other questions or comments for Ms.

D'Souza before we move on?

In terms of what you just said, I'm in full agreement with what you just indicated you'd like to know.

All right.

Madam Mayor, will you please answer the question posed by Ms.

D'Souza?

I'm happy to.

So as much as I would like to proceed with this purchase, we are all in agreement that it's a great value for the city, that it's in the city's best interest.

I cannot do so under the conditions that are unenforceable and inconsistent with the structure of our government.

The proposed addendum, this even the most recent draft violates the separation of powers that are inherent in our strong mayor form of government.

Under Utah law, the council exercises its legislative authority by adopting ordinances, setting policy, and approving the budget.

The mayor exercises executive authority by administering the city, the supervising departments and directing staff and carrying out those policies.

So assigning and deploying administrative staff is a core executive function, belongs to the mayor.

It is how the executive branch implements the budget and policies the council adopts and requiring the council approval before assigning staff resources, which is the heart of the just disagreement.

There's four words that could be changed.

We can move forward and I'll point those out when I'm done.

Requiring council approval before assigning staff resources shifts administrative control from the executive branch to the legislative branch.

That's not oversight, that's overreach.

It is the administrative function to assign staff resources where they when they're deployed.

The city attorney has confirmed that the council does not have the legislative authority to direct administrative staff.

And embedding that requirement into a purchase agreement, even one that I've I fully support, uh, does not make it lawful and it does not make it enforceable.

So agreeing to the terms would blur the lines of authority our system depends on.

This is a system that our voters approved, and the people expect to be followed.

It would weaken accountability by creating confusion over who is responsible for executive management decisions.

The strong mayor system was designed to ensure clarity.

The council sets its policy, the mayor executes that policy.

Agreeing to conditions that exceed legislative authority would not simply create a legal defect, it would weaken the functioning and the governance of our city today and into the future.

My duty as mayor is to act in the best interests of Sandy City.

That duty requires me to protect not only good investments but also the integrity of our governance.

For that reason, despite my strong support for acquiring this building, I will be unable to proceed with the purchase if it is conditioned on provisions that compromise executive authority or violate the separation of powers established under our form of government.

The people of the city have entrusted me with executive responsibility, and I take that responsibility seriously as I know you take your legislative responsibility seriously, council, RDA board.

I will not agree to terms that weaken our structure of government or diminish the clarity of accountability owed to our residents.

I remain ready to move forward immediately if the purchase stands on its merits, free of conditions that conflict with established law and the proper roles of our respective offices.

Now to the language itself.

So I think we've functioned very well to get to this point, uh, the way the administration has presented the opportunity, the evaluated the value to our residents, evaluated the cost savings, the need for space, uh, the presenting the idea to the council, to the board, receptive to the feedback that will continue.

And I am committed to that collaboration.

I am committed to consensus, but stopping short of blurring the lines between our respective functions.

So can you repeat that the four words again?

Um it's under section E.

It says add strike until such time, I'd say as long as the parties mutually agree in writing to this agreement to function under this agreement.

Just pass it over.

So we were continuing to agree, but if there were disagreement, then the authority, the mayor, whether it's this mayor or future mayor, would have the option under that executive authority to make a decision, even if it means it's over the board's objection.

I don't see that as likely to happen, but I think agreeing to it in anticipation of events that we are not foreseeing today.

I don't want to bind my office today or in the future.

So to be clear, um you are suggesting that that is the change you would want to see in the latest version of the amended ILA so that E would read the provisions of this section shall remain applicable during the period in which any bonds remain outstanding, or as long as the parties mutually agree in writing to this agreement.

Let me uh confer with my attorney here.

So if we need to change, may need to change a paragraph at paragraph C under once consensus is achieved.

Paragraph C under once consensus is achieved.

Sorry, the discussion we're having here is that the format of this document, if you look at the bottom of paragraph C, uh, it talks about the consensus uh of everyone talking, that's fine.

But it says once at the end of paragraph C, it says once consensus is achieved, it will be formalized in a resolution by the agency board.

What that in effect does is gives the board final decision, final say so over which employees get office to where.

And I think that's what the mayor is referring to is that is that that gives the ultimate decision making and the management of city employees to the RDA board in this case rather than to the administration.

So that's the problem.

We're gonna need to be really clear about this because what the mayor just said and what we were just handed is different, what then you just said, Lance.

Correct.

Well, what the mayor was suggesting was leave the language as is, but change the final paragraph to say this is binding as long as we both agree to it.

That's one way to fix it.

Okay.

The other way to fix it is to remove the provision that gives the board or the council the final say so and leave that final say so as to the management of city employees with the mayor.

Either of those, I think would would resolve this issue.

Do you agree, Mayor, that it's an either or scenario?

Do we need uh here's what I'd like to know.

Huddle here's I we can't we can have a recess if you would huddle then and we can have the attorneys confer.

I don't want to do this on the fly.

Okay, let's let's have a short recess so you guys have a chance to be very clear about what we're entertaining here.

Thank you.

Okay.

All right, I want to thank everyone in the room who's been hanging with us and everyone online who's been doing the same.

Um there has been a lot of work and a lot of discussion going on, and I appreciate everybody's patience on this.

So Ms.

D'Souza, do you want to lead us off on this portion?

Where are we on your proposal in front of the council for this amended ILA?

Where are we?

So I I do want to put it over to the attorneys, and we'll start with Mr.

Lynn Pace, because he wrote down some of the changes that were proposed, and um I get that this is still an entire body decision, but um it was something that because I brought this uh proposal forward um that I could be comfortable uh moving to or from.

And so Mr.

Pace, if any along with the mayor, of course.

I just want to say thank you to Mr.

Sousa, thank you to the council, thank you to our audience here for your patience.

This has been a very important and technical discussion.

So I think we've got some uh good resolution, Mr.

Pace.

Yes.

Let me uh let me walk you through the proposed edits to the first amendment to the interlocal cooperation agreement and these edits.

Uh I'll just recite them and then you we can explain what the what the effect has.

So in paragraph B 2B of the agreement, um it would be revised as right now.

It says proposed submission consideration any proposed temporary or permanent occupancy or use of the property, then insert, comma, other than a de minimis use, comma, and then go back to the text.

So this agreement applies to any use of the property by the city unless it's de minimis.

Okay.

And when Brooke asked me what diminished means, it's basically inconsequential.

Okay.

So that's the only change in paragraph B.

In paragraph C in the second to last sentence, it says to ensure long-term strategic alignment, the administration will engage the board in consultative dialogue, then insert in a good faith effort to reach sorry, in a good faith effort to reach a mutual consensus concerning occupancy plans.

So it just inserts.

Right now it talks about mutual consensus.

We're talking about a good faith effort because we can't promise that people will agree.

Um the last sentence in paragraph C would be broken out into a separate paragraph, and that would be numbered subparagraph D.

Just that one sentence.

Then renumber paragraph D as paragraph E and paragraph E as paragraph F.

Is everybody with me so far?

Yeah.

Okay, then in paragraph F.

We would add a provision after it says duration, it would say the provisions of section Prinz D shall expire on December 31st, 2026.

Now what that means is the obligation to obtain a formal voted resolution from the board applies this year only, meaning for the initial occupancy of the building.

Okay.

Then the remainder of this of the of that last paragraph would say all other provisions shall remain applicable during the period in which the bonds remain outstanding.

So the net effect of that is a formal voted resolution is required for a one year period or during the initial occupancy.

Following that one year period, there's still the obligation for uh collaboration and consensus building and good faith efforts to talk and dialogue to reach a consensus remain, but the requirement for a formal voted resolution no longer is required.

Did I get that right?

I would say that that is an accurate representation of our conversation.

Would you agree, Mayor?

Yes.

Yes, agreed.

Okay.

Board members.

Questions, comments, input.

Ms.

Houseman.

Please.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you for the discussions that were held.

Um I appreciate that.

I took I took notes of the changes, but I will I I believe it has strayed too far from what I was ready to support.

So I'm gonna I'm gonna go ahead and refer to what I prepared for tonight in case.

Um so and I'm gonna look at it because I want to make sure I hit all my points.

I support the Arbor building purchase only if we preserve meaningful governance over the five million dollar RDA investment.

This expiration of December 2026 does not meet that criteria for me.

From the beginning, I've evaluated this project against three non-negotiables.

One, it must provide long-term flexibility for our growing city.

Two, it must protect taxpayers by ensuring tenant revenues cover bond payments.

If we remove our governance, in what and I want to make sure we are clear, we are not meeting right now as the city council.

We are the RDA board.

So the governance that was described earlier, referencing the separate roles of city council does not apply here.

We are the board.

So I'm we have a responsibility for governance to protect taxpayers.

So that's the second non-negotiable.

Third non-negotiable, it must address current office space needs.

So the building meets those criteria, but only if we maintain enforceable oversight tied to the financial assumptions behind the bonds, which we can do as an RDA board.

And removing this language, in essence, takes that governance, in my opinion, and this is all you're asking for is our opinion.

Um I believe the revised amendment was designed to respect the mayor's executive authority while recognizing the RDA's fiduciary responsibility.

I think you leaned, I mean you bent over backwards to acknowledge that in the amended language.

The provision requiring formal action by resolution is not symbolic for me.

It is what makes the collaborative process real, and without it, the language becomes aspirational rather than binding.

So again, to change the date where essentially that the part that I believe is important, not just symbolic, it expires.

December 2026.

I'm thinking long-term investment here, well beyond December 2026.

So I can't, that's that's not okay with me.

Um if the RDA invests five million dollars without a meaningful mechanism to safeguard revenue assumptions, then we have removed one of my core non-negotiables for this for this investment, which is protection of taxpayers.

Without a defined role in decisions that material materially affect financial performance, we would have no practical recourse if occupancy decisions jeopardize bond coverage or tenant stability.

This is not about limiting executive authority.

Mayor will retain full authority over staffing operations.

This is about ensuring that when public development funds are used to acquire a revenue-dependent asset, the entity carrying fiduciary responsibility, that's us, not as the city council, as the RDA board.

That the uh sorry, I lost my spot.

Um the responsibility retains enforceable oversight tied to that investment.

So I believe a provision that has us adopt by resolution as a united voice, that is a mechanism I think is critical.

Um and I um I do see the Arbor building as a strong opportunity, but frankly, it's not the only opportunity.

There will be other ways to deploy five million dollars.

This is a five plus million dollar investment.

I think there will be other ways to deploy it that it will achieve the three criteria I've established.

Flexibility, protect taxpayers, and address the needs we have with with regards to space for our our departments and our staff.

And I believe we can do it without compromising governance and setting a precedent that I'm not comfortable with.

So if we remove the structural safeguards that make our oversight real, which I know you spent a lot of time, and I appreciate it, but again, based on what you've just shared, uh I believe it removes our oversight, and I can't support the purchase.

So my vote will reflect a commitment to institutional integrity and long-term taxpayer protection, even if that means walking away from this immediate transaction.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um that can't happen.

But most of all, this happened because the mayor left early on two meetings.

It happened to me, and now it's happening on this item.

I would respectfully ask the mayor to give your staff, if you can't be there, the ability to speak.

And it's we really try hard as a council to make the public know everything that we know, and giving us information after the fact doesn't educate the residents.

It's belittling the council, and it divides us, it can will continue to divide us if it happens again.

Um I echo Marcy's sentiment.

Thank you for that.

My comments are finished.

Thank you.

Any other comments, council members?

Questions, Miss Christianson.

No, I appreciate you guys working this out, and I'm willing to support that going forward.

Okay.

Oh, you want, Ms.

D'Souza.

Thank you.

I just, you know, in listening to the comments from my colleagues, um, I agree with you.

I I agree with um you, Councilmember Nickel, board member nickel, and board member uh houseman, and I believe that you are right that removing you know that sentence after a date certain at the end of the year does remove our guaranteed ability to collaborate and come to consensus.

So I just want to recognize that that I do agree with that.

Um I am I in working in the conversation, the very long conversation that um the mayor and I had with council, um, there was a there was a lot of conversation and discussion and trying to understand you know that the parts that were the most important, and while this is not my my perfect case scenario, um and I do still feel a level of discomfort and hesitation.

I ultimately got to a place where I felt I could still say yes because uh I do think that this gives us a really strong starting point to um get the building up and operational uh under this new city governance and um test out this process to ensure that all of the collaboration that we've talked about again still survives even if it's not um durable by resolution.

So but thank you everybody for your comments and your thoughtful discussion on this and thank you.

All right, this is a voting item, and so I do not have any blue cards in on from the room.

But if anyone would like to comment on this item, um anyone in the room would like to please come up to the podium and we will see Mr.

Fratto.

Can you let people online know if they'd like to comment how to do so?

Of course, thank you, madam chair.

Uh, if you're joining us virtually and you'd like to comment on this evening's uh RDA meeting, go ahead and click the raise hand button on your screen now, and you'll have three minutes okay, madam chairs, Steve Van Marin has his hand up.

Okay, madam chairs, Steve Van Marin has his hand up.

Steve, I'm gonna allow you to begin speaking.

Please remember to unmute yourself, and you'll have three minutes.

Thank you, Dustin.

Good evening, board.

Steve Dan Marin, resident of Draper.

Um I think you really ought to reject this.

Because of something I heard last week.

I agree with Brooke's attempt to reconfigure the wording and get control.

But I also heard last week that if there's a problem, you can sell it.

Sell the building, get your cash out, but I'm not aware of a call position on the bonds call option.

So you may end up paying from an escrow account for 20 years, and you may end up being underwater when you sell it.

So I think there's too much future risk for the city.

Thank you for your time.

No other raised hands, madam chair.

All right, we'll close public comment on this item.

Bringing it back to the council for action.

So council member, or excuse me, board member Sharkey.

I'd like to make a motion.

And I don't know if I have my language accurate.

But I figure I should probably start this off.

I motion that we approve resolution number RD 2603 as amended by land statements a moment ago.

Second, all right.

We have a motion and a second.

Is the motion stated accurately for our purposes of adoption?

Okay.

All right, we have a motion and a second, and we'll take a roll call vote, Ms.

Edwards.

And Miss Edwards.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Casey, you get to.

And Aaron DeKaiser has joined the meeting, so make sure that you call for his vote as well.

And board member Christensen, did you second that?

Yes.

Okay.

Board member D'Souza.

Yes.

Board Member Stroud.

Yes.

Madam Chair.

Yes.

Board Member Christensen.

Yes.

Board Member Houseman.

No.

Board Member Nickel.

No.

Board Member DeKaiser.

Yes.

That motion passes five to two.

That's all I have, Madam Chair.

All right.

Thank you.

I'll make a motion to adjourn the RDA meeting and reconvene the city council meeting.

Second.

All right.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

All right.

Let's move on to agenda item number three.

That is the ILA between the RDA and Sandy City.

Oh, yeah, we could do that.

We could go to public comment.

Let's go ahead.

Thank you.

Is that what you were motioning, Sandra?

Thank you.

We could definitely do that.

All right.

We'll do our public comment period right now.

I have a few cards in the room.

If anyone online would like to join, go ahead and raise your hand and we'll get to you in a second.

Sandra Hawk, come on down.

Hi, Sandra Hawk.

I'm a Sandy City resident of since 1996, however long that is.

I've thought about my suggestion for years, and I would like to bring it forward tonight.

I would like to suggest that you consider rotating the chair rather than whatever you do that's random.

So that each district has a chance for their representative to be the chair during their term at least once.

And I just think it would be more fair to the residents.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

Next speaker is Jacob.

Jacob's still with us.

Thank you for hanging in there with us.

Madam Chair, board members, council, thank you for allowing me to speak today.

Sandy City is very dear to me.

It's where I got my first job as a cliff diver for the Mayan restaurant.

It's where I bought my first home.

It's where I got my first speeding ticket.

It's Sandy Parks and Rec buildings where I met the woman who's now my wife.

This is my home.

For years, Sandy was the place where I plan to raise my family.

I say was because right now that future feels uncertain.

Decisions are being made that are taking control away from families and neighborhoods.

I'm here tonight to bring something to your attention that you may or may not even realize is happening to the very location where you've just invested roughly 20 million dollars in the Sandy City Rec Center.

The Canyon School District Board is planning to close multiple elementary schools in the neighborhoods directly surrounding the recenter.

If this happens, it will create a four-mile radius with no neighborhood elementary schools.

That kind of educational dead zone does not exist anywhere else in Salt Lake County.

The school board says this is about improving feeder patterns to junior highs and high schools, but they have failed to actually study the long-term consequences.

Their explanations are inconsistent, their data incomplete.

Their communication with families has been vague, opaque, and often patronizing.

The board is supposed to answer to the people who elected them, but when the parents, but when parents and neighbors attend meetings and ask to be heard, we are met with eye-rolling inattention and dismissal.

Our concerns rarely receive real answers.

It feels like we're pleading into a void.

Families in the Park Lane elementary area are confused and scared.

We do not know what our neighborhood will look like next year.

I'm personally preparing my home for sale.

Not because I want to leave Sandy, but because I am afraid this directionless leadership will damage my children's future.

And I am not the only one preparing to leave should this occur.

Closing Parkland Elementary is not consolidation, it is withdrawal of public education from multiple neighborhoods.

It is infrastructure damage.

It has reduced safety, it has reduced access, it has reduced stability, it will affect property values, it will make these neighborhoods less attractive to families, and it will weaken the very community you are trying to invest in.

A closure of Willow Canyon coming this late in the 90 days would make my re-election difficult.

I would really like the opportunity to serve on the board for another term.

Close quote.

It is not about families, and it is not about community.

It does not reflect empathy, it does not reflect accountability, and it does not reflect the Sandy Rising spirit.

We need oversight, we need accountability, we need leadership that puts families first.

We need you thank you.

Your time's over.

Thank you.

Thank you, Jacob.

Thank you for coming in.

Thanks for bringing your kids with you.

All right, Scott Cadell.

But I'm sure I'll cut this person off if he goes too long, too.

Hey, suddenly on their voice.

Scott Cadell, thank you for listening to me.

A lot of times when I was here, nobody listened to me.

Some of my children and my wife went to Moab here over the weekend.

And I haven't had a whole lot of stress since I left this council.

Until I read this.

And then it upset my weekend.

And the and the uh the headline says it all.

Lawsuit challenges state law that gives Cain.

Cain creep development, their own government.

Now, if we don't fight this, if Sandy City doesn't get on board with this, this could take over the legislature has chipped away at city legislators.

This uh really it's hard for me to believe.

Let me just read it a little bit here.

Senate Bill 258, which creates the purpose for developers to establish preliminary multi cities, entitles them with zoning, land use authority without elected leadership.

Now, this is a 700 72 acre parcel in Echo Canyon.

Now that might not sound like a lot.

Echo is a small city, but historic sandy is approximately 400 square acres.

This is almost half of what historic sandy would be.

Now let me read just another one, and then I'll pass this out.

I don't want to take a lot of your time, and then I'll give each one of you a sheet, and you can read this and study it better than what I can what I can tell you.

But but this part right here is uh includes the ability to exercise zoning, land use, taxation authority, private, private developers, and they and the uh our uh legislature has passed this.

They're right now in a lawsuit.

Uh uh Echo and some other people are are charging them, but right here at the end.

Now our lieutenant governor is the one who has pushed this thing.

Time that time.

Well, right here at the end, it'll it'll name five other cities that are right now in this same process.

Shall I pass these out?

Yes, please hand them over to Dustin, and he'll he'll get them to us.

Tracy, you're doing a good job.

Oh, thank you.

Thank you, thank you.

Braden, Braden Miller.

All right.

This is a lot more fun this week than last week, I'll tell you that much.

Um I've enjoyed sitting and listening.

So um you guys saw me last week.

We we had uh we had a lot of our neighborhood come over and talk about our fence and how it's you know a little bit um I guess older and needs a bit of it needs replacing.

So I I guess I failed last time to my background really is like in I've been in Sandy resident for a very long time, and currently really only a Sandy resident to help my mom over there with my dad.

Um so I mean I've grown up in the city, I went to the University of Utah, did accounting for a long time, moved to the Bay Area for a while, did um accounting for Ernst and Young and then moved back and have you know recently moved back in with my folks and work in tech now and do a bunch of sales for accounting.

So not a lot of uh exciting stuff in my world, but again, tonight's been quite the ride.

Um so I I got to look into the budget from last like I I guess I came here last week, didn't look at the budget.

Looks like you guys do have some allocations for um this particular project for Newcastle.

In your in um in your budget for 2025, which would be 2026 fiscal year for you guys.

Um it's uh let's see, that's the line.

One second, I'm gonna I'm gonna get interrupted and have my time yielded here pretty soon.

Um, but it's on a page 142 in the budget, and it's on line 13029, and it specifically states to the beautification of Sandy services and Newcastle fence replacement.

So, I mean Councilmember Sharkey did mention that she realized that there's 273,000 from last year that's been allocated for the fencing, 325k this year.

Um, potentially planned and expected to be allocated for 2026 would be 650,000.

I know you guys do have some estimates.

Um, but the main reason I'm here and the reason why I came back this week is we've had two sections of the fence fall down in the last day.

And um the fence has fallen down in spots where there's cross rocks to our schools.

Um, as you guys know, Jim, who actually has the same disease as my father, and Jim is a very, very lucky man.

Um, because he's the only one I know of, and probably in the world that I could cite that's lived with the disease.

Um, but he's up and down that street every day.

Children pass to go to Silver Mesa, crosswalk, etc.

Um, you know, I did some minor calculations to maybe prove to you that there's some worth here for for renovating the fence, but um, you know, that community based off my parents' property taxes, over 400 different homes paid about 240,000 dollars over the last 40 40 years in property taxes, so that's 96 million.

Um, you know, overall, we've maintained it over the years.

I know you guys have bigger problems, but we just really want our fence replaced.

So thank you for your time.

Thank you, Braden.

Way to prove a point by having the fence blow down right after why after you ask us for a new one.

All right, that's all the cards in the room.

Let's see if we have anyone online, Dustin.

Thank you, madam chair.

Uh, if you're joining us virtually this evening, and you'd like to comment on any city business now's the time.

Go ahead and click the raise hand button on your screen.

I'll call your name in the order in which you raised your hand.

You'll have three minutes.

No raised hands, madam chair.

All right, we're gonna close general citizen comment.

We'll come back to the agenda, and that is the interlocal agreement between the RDA and Sandy City.

Um you presenting.

I don't think I need to present anything tonight.

Um, Madam Chair, this is just a continuation um of the same agreement that was in the on the RDA board agenda.

So just looking for approval of this resolution or this, yeah.

Do we need to it references exhibit A?

So by our last action, does that automatically do the substitution and I would encourage you to make a motion uh with a similar motion to what you made in the RDA meeting?

Okay, because what's attached is an amended version, but it's not it doesn't include the amendments that were discussed uh during the RDA meeting.

All right, so we'll just start with council.

Any questions or any comments at this point in time before we go to um public comment on a voting item?

Ms.

D'Souza.

Thank you.

I just want to ask because the last motion and in this motion kind of um depends on the last motion of the language, that uh as as soon as is practicable after this meeting that the um amendment be amended further and disseminated in the language that exists before you know things get signed and whatnot, that would just be helpful um due diligence.

Agreed.

Okay, thank you.

That's it, madam chair.

May I sure uh just a suggestion for a motion?

You could make a motion to uh approve the ILA uh through resolution 26-06C, and you could say as uh adopted or as approved by the redevelopment agency, something along those lines.

Yeah, I was gonna say you can also say reference including the amendments we made in the RDA resolution, so the the two match.

Okay.

All right.

All right, this is a voting item, so we'll take public comment on that.

Um I have no blue cards on the item.

Dustin, let's give a call out to people online.

Of course, thank you, madam chair.

Uh, if you're joining us virtually and you'd like to comment on item number three on this evening's agenda, go ahead and click the raise hand button on your screen now, and you'll have three minutes.

Don't see any hands raised, madam chair.

All right, we'll close public comment on that item and bring it back to the council for action.

Do you want to do that one?

Yeah, okay.

Okay.

Um, I'd like to make a motion to approve.

It's resolution 26-06 C.

With the changes mentioned earlier.

I would say with the changes uh adopted by the RDA.

Okay, with the changes adopted by the RDA board.

Second.

And I apologize.

I was off in my head and was not prepared to give that, but apparently I caught you off guard too.

I can ask Justin Dustin to do almost anything, so it's great.

All right.

We have a motion and a second.

And we will call I'll call for a roll call vote this time from Chris Edwards.

Ms.

Christensen, yes.

Ms.

T'Souza, yes.

Ms.

Stroud, yes.

Ms.

Nickel?

No.

Ms.

Houseman?

No.

Miss Sharkey.

Yes.

Madam Chair.

That motion carried four to two.

All right.

Thank you.

Thank you, Casey.

So the fourth item on our agenda is voting for taking a final vote on the purchase of the Arbor building and the issuance of the bonds.

Council members, does anyone have any questions?

Any further input.

Thank you, Dan, for stepping up to the microphone.

Anyone have any questions for Dan?

Or Dan, are there any updates that you feel like you want to give us at this point in time?

Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair.

I don't have uh anything really to present.

Uh we've continued to talk with a few of the tenants, uh just interviewing them and letting them know about the city's intention for their space.

Uh still working with the seller to figure out a few of the repairs that we're hoping to have done before closing.

And um we did get an informal approval from Meridian uh to extend their lease, which uh was one of our big due diligence questions.

Um so yeah, those are the big updates.

I don't have anything else to present.

And I had the good fortune of sitting next to Jason Burningham today at the LPC meeting.

It is a call, it is callable, the bond, right?

Yes, yes.

Okay.

All right.

This is a voting item.

I have no blue cards.

Um Dustin, let's see if anyone online would like to weigh in.

Of course, thank you, madam chair.

Uh, again, if you're joining us virtually this evening and you'd like to comment on item number four on this evening's agenda, go ahead and click the raise hand button on your screen now.

No raised hands, madam chair.

Okay, I'll close public comment on that item as well.

Council members, would anyone like to make a motion on this?

Well, I'll make one.

I'll make a motion that we the city council provide consent for the city to proceed with the purchase and related bonding for the Arbor Plaza office building.

Second, all right, a motion and seconded Miss Edwards.

Ms.

Sharke, yes, Ms.

Christensen, yes.

Ms.

T'Souza.

Yes.

Ms.

Stroud, yes.

Ms.

Nickel.

No.

Ms.

Houseman.

No.

Madam Chair, that motion carried four to two.

All right.

Thank you.

That is our agenda for the night.

We will move on to standing reports.

Mr.

Fratter.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Uh I'll be brief.

Uh just a note.

We have a few tentative items scheduled next week.

Um is I I should have your uh the the draft of your budget priorities that you put together in the budget priorities workshop that we did a few weeks ago, ready to go.

So I'll present that to the council, and then once you're comfortable with them, uh you can adopt them at a future meeting.

Um we've got the uh Merle Marsh uh coming to do a presentation on the amphitheater season preview and then some potential changes, and then we uh tentatively have a closed session related to property on the agenda as well.

And at this point that's it for next week.

Umside of that, just a couple of notes.

You may have noticed our new conference table got delivered in the conference room.

Um we are uh talking about uh I I I'm from I've heard from the council some interest in having a living room space still, and so we are talking about uh getting rid of our smaller conference table and turning that into a small living room type sitting area so that we still are able to fill both of those needs.

If you have any thoughts about that, I'd love to have you reach out to me so that we can make sure we're you know getting it right.

Um and outside of that, I I think I'm just gonna leave it there, madam chair.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Um council member business, Ms.

Housman.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Just a couple of items.

Uh, first update with the Arts Guild at the meeting.

Um, our regular schedule meeting was canceled in lieu of a lot going on with the the show at the moment.

So I just want to say thank you to um all of us, all of all of our community who've been supporting our production of the importance of being earnest.

Um, so I'll have another update once the the guild meets again.

Um, and then a quick thank you to Representative Clint Okerland.

Last week you mentioned your opportunity to spend some time on the floor with him.

I reached out as you recommended, and he scheduled time, so I was able to spend all morning with him on the house floor.

Um, students from Canyons District actually came and got to meet um with Mr.

Okerland, uh representative Oakland, and Nancy Tingey was the one who brought them.

Uh so it was great.

She had a large group from both Jordan High School and Alta High School, and they had a quick little mini tour with him.

They got to stay stand on the floor, he chatted with them, and anyway, it was just it was a great opportunity to be on the floor, interact with um those who represent us, and I just want to thank you for the recommendation, Chair Sharkey and Representative Okerland.

He also hosted, he mentioned this.

Um I think this is just such a great celebration of our community.

He's he hosted a family night uh last week, which most representatives do.

He opened it up to people in in Sandy, especially his constituents, and he had um typically he said a representative who hosts a family night will have six, maybe eight people show.

He had 35 people show, and considering it was the night before Valentine's Day and the night before a three-day weekend.

Um, he felt like wow, that was a really great showing.

So his words were um the people of Sandy really care, and they show up.

Um, and he was just grateful for the opportunity to interact with that many Sandy residents.

And so thank you to our community for always being so engaged.

That's all I had.

Thank you.

Ms.

Christensen.

Thank you.

Um I'm gonna let Alison give the updates for historic and send a youth council.

Okay, historic.

We met last week with the historic committee.

It was really good meeting.

Um there's an RFP that has gone out to hire a firm to do the redo the guidelines for the historic area.

Um really excited about that.

After that is done, then um hopefully we'll be bringing um some legislation to you guys to vote on to make it code is the goal.

Um, and so we can have a little bit more enforcement of those things in protecting our historic district, and also um the mayor talked to her a few minutes ago, and she's agreed to um let us have a little addition to our table at the his at the June barbecue at Bicentennial Park.

So the historic committee has a table there with information, but um we're also going to be providing some additional information this year for uh historic homeowners and like some benefits that are available to them to help them see how they can really look at their homes as an investment in the preservation of our historic area.

So we're excited about that.

And not going to talk about Sandy Youth Council, but I went to it this last week um and it was really amazing.

Chris and Liz do an amazing job at that.

The youth are really unbelievable.

I was so impressed with them.

And um thank you to the fire station for giving me a tour, and I don't ever want to go down your slide again.

That was sickening, but fun.

So here you go.

All right.

Well, I saw that the um uh recenter naming um survey went out.

So thank you for getting that out.

Can't wait to see what we get in return.

I was able to attend attend the Chamber of Commerce lunch.

That was a packed house.

A lot of people there, they always do a good job.

Um, and they continue at these luncheons to just kind of justify the work that they do, and they just keep getting bigger and bigger, and I think they're very important to our business community.

I support them entirely.

Uh LPC today, I'll let Ryan pretty much take this, but um John Curtis visited us today.

We've also had the Senate President and the House Speaker there as well, showing that ULCT and LPC really have a weight a big weighted voice.

We do continue to fight issues on land use preemptions from the state and municipal property taxes.

In this we're at a point where we may have to accept some changes to the property taxes that I just think do nothing for the taxpayers.

Anyway, I feel very strongly that at least we here in Sandy, and I want to say it's probably mostly for everyone.

Somehow that's not getting across.

I don't know what more we could do, but at least the legislature still they're backing off these caps, hopefully, but wanting to place more rules on us, more rules is the way I'd state it.

Um Ryan will pick it up.

Anyway, that's it for me.

Thank you, Ms.

Stroud.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um yes, you know, youth council, and as always, you know, thank you, Liz and Chris.

Uh they had a chance to go and um learn about fire department and our new fire station.

A couple of them, Google still has the old fire station over on 90th South in the address, but uh, you know, quite a great turnout.

Um, and speaking of turnouts, kids were able to put on the turnouts, um, you know, and and uh, you know, with the oxygen with the SCBAs, go out, you know, with the hoses, you know, including Blake Brooks'son, you know, for joining on that.

Um, they had a a great time.

I mean, that's you know, your firefighters are always super engaging, um, willing to work with the kids, the youth, you know, and to give them you know a like, you know, a um I guess just a quick snapshot of what it's like to be a firefighter.

Um, you know, able to go into their little training room area uh that they have with the new kitchen up there, go down the slide.

Yes, they did, uh, and uh take a peek with the new you know um you know with uh all of the new dorms and to hear what the difference is with that.

So, you know, really uh an excellent opportunity, you know, perfect with that.

You know, it was it was great.

Um the other one little thing with the historic is to mention that you know when we have that table there that there are tax credits, and that's kind of the goal with uh with the committee and uh you know Thomas is to let those residents know that there are tax credits, you know, they just need to do it kind of through you know it um you know the state uh historic committee, the state has and set that money aside.

So you know that's the goal with uh with the barbecue is to let residents know and then how to contact and to go from there.

But thank you.

Mayor, we're ready for the mayor's report if we've got one.

Uh just a couple quick things.

Thanks for mentioning the rec center survey that's out.

I also noticed that councilmember De Kaiser mentioned that in his constituent newsletter, and I want to thank the council member for sending that out.

That was the first to get.

Well, I've had a couple others uh from him quarterly, but I really enjoy having council member updates received as a constituent for the council of the council.

So thank you for updating the residents on the recenter building progress, the naming survey, campaign disclosures, and affordable housing workshop progress.

So I thought it was really cool to get a even though we work together and see each other and talk to each other uh to get that information as a constituent.

I really appreciate it.

Other council members are doing newsletters, I'd love to receive them.

Um this Thursday at this Thursday afternoon evening at 7 p.m.

three at three o'clock.

Um there's a police swearing in for the new animal services director who has been named.

That's Trevor Leslie, and the promotion to sergeant for Ryan Bird.

So please, if you can attend, three o'clock on Thursday in the multi-purpose room.

And that's it for me.

Mr.

Pace.

Just one thing.

Um on February 23rd at 6 p.m.

here at Sandy City Hall, the Utah Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force is doing an internet safety class.

They'll cover topics like on online predators, social media safety, cyber bowling, and protecting uh your children.

So no cost of the presentation.

Thanks.

That's all I have.

Cheddar are you here for the construction report.

Or did you just want to hang out and watch the council meeting?

I really wanted to be the one that said that this naming survey has been pushed out.

But you already heard it twice.

So it is out we push it out on social media as well as um several newsletter email lists that we have and we'll continue to push it out through March 11th and then we'll compile results and be back to to tell you what what people said.

I know there's been a lot of responses so far but we're resisting the urge to look at any of them until we have more responses.

So as far as the actual construction site goes um it's more more of the same they're pouring more concrete they're still taking care of underground utilities the Masons have built out quite a bit of the walls up there which is kind of fun to see but I'll continue to work through that in a systematic approach so that's it.

Thank you.

And Ryan a legislative report would be great.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Good evening council I just want to kind of pick up where a former council member Cadell left off just a minute ago just so you know Senate Bill 258 passed two years ago the reason it's back in the news is because there's a constitutional challenge to the underlying premise of the bill is it a PID bill is it the PID is what they're fighting.

No it isn't yeah it was specifically around this this uh King Creek development that that allowed a preliminary city to be created without an election but making land use decisions without an election so that's the constitutionality that was being challenged on so just uh just FYI and then council member Sharkey uh thank you for kind of giving an overall summary I would agree with everything that you said on that I'll I'll pick up on those themes as well and and uh start with the property tax um and kind of the best way to describe this is there's there's a lot of um things that aren't very workable there's not a lot of room for compromise on on many things but there are definitely a couple things that we've been working very uh diligently on one of them is with representative peterson we've talked about this uh more than once but this is house bill 236 this is the one uh that that creates basically a bifurcation when you go through a truth and taxation hearing uh kind of the latest version right now that there was a lot of conversation this morning is that uh what what's anticipated is you would pass the higher version of the bill and that would be the one around which there is conversation and then basically you would need to create an internal service fund to be able to uh make sure and isolate any funds that would go towards that higher matter is a little complicated but uh uh once those funds were isolated then you could spend the money at the lower level then you have the truth in taxation hearing uh because you haven't actually been able to touch anything associated with that and if the truth in taxation hearing then passes then you'll be able to go to that higher budget that's the basic kind of construct behind this as opposed to having two budgets sticking with one budget but having the better way of explaining what the difference is both the before and the after to the public so it it has a lot to do with the process and a lot has a lot to do with transparency.

Another one that we've been working a great deal on is Senate Bill 97 this is the one that Senator Dan McKay has and yes it still does have the caps in there this is one in the substitute it says five percent uh but really what the senator is after is making sure that the fund balance percentage goes back to the 25 percent which is what it used to be about five years ago it was increased from 25 percent to 35 percent he wants to get that back down and the underlying policy uh pressure is the fact that there are and it's not really cities but there are other uh because this applies to school districts it applies to counties it applies to others as well that have a much higher than 35 percent um and there definitely are some cities that have 35 percent we stick around about 12 percent with ours so this is not a big deal for us but it is a big deal for holding on to too much money and not utilizing it for uh timely enough for public expenditures so that's kind of the underlying uh policy issue of it uh house bill 238 is uh cleanup bill this was there were a number of cities that went through a truth in taxation process last year and then there uh they were not able to actually put that into practice because they were held up with some technicalities and so the house bill two thirty easy work through some of the technicalities uh so that um the transparency is there and people understand if there's a reason for the the tax increase and what it is all right move on to housing and land use um uh back to uh council member shark who's talking about some one of the real challenges this uh um house bill 184 is still a a genuine challenge there's a lot of pressure on both sides on this this representative ward that basically creates state level preemption on land use it it puts uh four or five different specific things

All right, move on to housing and land use.

Um back to uh Councilmember Shark was talking about some one of the real challenges.

This uh House Bill 184 is still a uh a genuine challenge.

There's a lot of pressure on both sides on this, this representative award that basically creates state level preemption on land use.

It it puts uh four or five different specific things that uh that would preempt uh land use that we have in the city.

There is a way to deny that, but it's very convoluted way, and if we miss a deadline, then you may have it may be on the general plan, it may be in zoning, but this would override whatever zoning that the city has.

So it's a pretty fundamental kind of disagreement.

Uh in committee, they were talking about well, maybe there's just a couple of tweaks, so they tried a couple of tweaks that came out with a third version.

So right now they're they're working on uh the substitute number three, but fundamentally it still has a lot of the preemption challenges.

So we're we're um uh it's in committee and uh working against that bill right now.

Uh there's a Senate bill, this is Senator Fillmore, that deals also with local land use amendments.

Uh this one uh basically is is kind of a fact structure uh from some different cities, but it's about planning commissions not making timely decisions.

It basically says that if a planning commission doesn't make a timely recommendation, then the land use body must accept or reject um the land use regulation.

Another thing that it does is very controversial is it removes the legislative body, you as an appeal authority.

So there would be there would be nothing that could be appealed to uh the city council when it comes to land use decisions.

So that's uh uh that's recently came out within this last week, but a severe challenge.

Uh moving on to water, uh the water bill that's received the most amount of conversation has been 501.

Uh this is uh House Bill 501.

The first substitute came out and it removed many of the objectionable uh provisions.

Um it creates a scenario where if you as a city want to be able to access state funds, then you have to meet a threshold.

So it's saying that it has a medium income uh threshold where you have to meet that according to a formula that's in the bill, and uh uh those money, those monies would stay with you, and so then the question becomes well, what why does this matter?

And there's only kind of one conceivable way that it could matter, and that is that in order to access state funds, which could also be federal grants.

So, another way of thinking about this, if there was a federal grant that went to the state, and we as a city wanted to access that federal grant through the state, we would have to follow the provisions in this bill.

Um so it does not look like it's anything that is um would be extremely concerning for us.

Tom's looked at this, um, but this new substitute uh takes away a lot of the underlying concerns we had with it.

Uh next topic, this would be the tax increment financing topic.

This is Casey's favorite ever.

Um there are right now four bills uh that will have provisions from them that will be consolidated into another.

So if you're interested, House Bill 427, Senate Bill 228, House Bill 461, and House Bill 507, either all or some of those provisions will go into uh Senate Bill 206 and that has to do with two big topics.

The first one is disclosure.

So if we're creating a tax increment, which we have done, we've done a HTRZ, which uh we have uh not too far from City Hall here that has to do with transit reinvestment.

And um, and so what this does from a disclosure standpoint, we have to document the uh the project authorization meeting, uh state the public purpose of the project, the do the type and amount of tax increment, and do the but for analysis.

Now we already do this, so it's not earth-changing for us, but what they're doing is they're creating a central repository for this information.

So if people wanted to go back and understand and research why a certain HTRZ uh or other kind of entity exists and what it is trying to accomplish and what are the numbers associated with it, it would be uh put together, and that's part of this reporting uh element in there.

So this I would say has a fairly good chance of of at least consolidating some of those elements to bring together to bring some more transparency to this.

So last one on this topic, uh House Bill 507.

This is one that we uh have been working with.

This is uh representative Cal Roberts, who's just uh from Draper down the road here, and uh this has to do a lot with creating a different kind of HTRZ, so it would sunset the current version of HTRZ and it would open up kind of a broader one, and he uses the the term regionally significant development zone, and so it would preside it would it would use the same kind of logic, but it would have uh more applicability than just within transit zones.

Um so that's House Bill 507, and that's the one that just barely came out.

Uh last one I'll hit on wildland urban interface.

This has to do with uh how our urban area interfaces with wildlands.

Uh the the current version of House Bill 48.

This is one that came out very beginning first week of the session.

Uh, this version would adopt the 2024 International Wildland Urban Interface uh code, and what that means for us is that when we have an area that is designed uh that is designated a five or above, uh that we would not be able to change that.

In other words, if the state says it's five or above, our code would say it's a five and above, and uh it does provide for an appeal process, but that's uh something else that's being worked on right now.

So, as always, if you have any questions or concerns, comments uh send me a text, give me a call.

Uh but uh as always things move and change every single day up there.

So thank you.

Before we adjourn, Dustin, did you get your answer on attendance for next week?

From some.

Okay.

Do you mind, Madam Chair?

Let's do that.

We we need to make sure, council, that we've got a quorum available for the meeting next week.

Yeah, and that the quorum there will be folks here in we there will be four folks here in person.

So we may not be able to figure that out tonight because uh a couple council members had to leave early.

But my understanding is council members uh Christianson and Stroud uh will be attending part of the meeting and possibly virtually.

Is that accurate?

Virtually, and so I've heard from some other members that they may or may not be here next Tuesday.

So I'm wondering if Councilmember Houseman will you I'll be here virtually, I'll be in North Carolina visiting grand granddaughter Jane for the first time.

Councilmember Councilmember D'Souza.

I will be here.

You'll be here in person.

I'm leaving for North Carolina tomorrow morning and won't be back till Sunday, but I will be here in person on Tuesday.

Well, I won't say anything about flights getting canceled.

Thank you.

Councilmember Sharkey.

I don't think flights will get canceled.

I think uh security lines will be like super long.

TSA.

I don't know anything.

I will be here.

I'll be here.

Okay.

Well, I will follow up with the other two council members and see.

Um but I think we would need all four of the remainder here in person.

So yeah.

All right.

Um I'll make a motion to adjourn.

Would anyone like to second that?

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.