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

Well, once we have a quorum.

So they added a scary person.

I know.

Would you go random then?

Oh, is it really some information?

No, she's not going to be able to do that.

She just y'all didn't know.

Okay.

All right, welcome everyone.

This is the Sandy City Council meeting of Tuesday, June 2nd, 2026.

We have on our agenda tonight one information item.

One, two, three, four.

Council four council voting items, several public hearing items, and a consent calendar to approve.

We will be taking public comment on the council voting items and the public hearing items.

So we will welcome your comments on those agenda items.

If anyone would like to speak, there are blue cards in the back of the room.

We sure would appreciate it if you'd fill those out in advance and give those to Dustin over here.

Please bless us so we'd be able to make good choices and decisions for Sandy's residents and its employees.

Please help us to listen and understand those discussions that we are having so that we can have clear minds when we are discussing them.

We are so grateful for all of our blessings, and we love thee with all of our hearts.

And we'll do the pledge now, so if everyone will write.

I'll maybe I might move a little bit slower.

I'll be looking to you guys to make sure you're ready to move on.

I think in some cases, don't hesitate to stop me if you just need a little more time to put a finishing touch on something before we move on.

Okay.

The first item on our agenda is a possible redevelopment plan and information for Scott Cadell Park in Sandy.

So Mike and also Casey, the both of you, or who's going to present this to us tonight?

We'll be doing most of the presentate uh presentation tonight.

Casey will kind of fill in as needed here too.

Thank you, Council.

It's a pleasure to be with you tonight.

So staff, uh, we were asked in the planning department to come up with a uh proposed conceptual plan for the redevelopment of this park.

And prior to presenting that portion of it, I wanted to walk you through kind of the background and what led to our our design and layout.

And that starts with our general plan update that we did.

Um part of that general plan update um was the station area plan for each of our track stations.

The Scott Cadell Park is immediately located to this uh south and west of the historic Sandy track station and platform.

And so, as part of that, we were required uh by the state to adopt a stationary plan for each of those stations.

So we'll I'll walk through some of the guiding principles that were established with that and the intent behind those.

So the overall development build out goals uh were to increase the availability and affordability of housing, uh promote sustainable environmental conditions, and enhance access to opportunities and increase transportation choices.

So those are the overriding goals that we're trying to accomplish.

And then this image gives some examples of that type of infill development that could be uh created within that district that's in character with the surroundings.

So uh with that, you can see the radii around uh the half mile radius around the track stop, the little train logo there in the middle icon.

Um it shows where the platform is located in the district relative to where we're looking at.

There were several big move areas or areas of change or opportunities that were identified in that.

One of those is highlighted that we're gonna discuss tonight, which is the Scott Cadell Park.

Um with that park, um, it's located a little pocket park within the neighborhood.

It's kind of sitting down below at the same grade as the homes that are to the west.

The tracks platform sits up a bit higher in in grade and elevation.

There's also a canal that runs nearby there.

Um so those pictures kind of give um some context to what we're dealing with and what we're looking at.

Because of that configuration and the visibility or lack thereof in that park, there's been some problems that have uh been created with the proximity to the tracks, it's attracted some um some nuisances due to lack of visibility and eyes being on that property.

So this was identified as an opportunity to assemble that and reconfigure that property with some other uh land that the city has acquired over time, whether that was from UDOT with uh remnant parcels that were from the 90s South expansion several years ago, uh, as well as some other properties that the RDA has purchased with the intent to build new affordable housing in the district.

So with that uh park development plan, uh this uh shows kind of how the master plan showed reconfiguring that parcel um and reshaping the the open space into a more linear fashion that puts it up higher near the tracks, gets better visibility, and then surround that area with development.

And these are some of the objectives that we wanted to achieve with this plan and unlock the development potential and economic value as well as creating an affordable housing that would be um and increase the density directly adjacent to the station and maximize the um investment that's already been made in this public transportation system.

So this gives kind of a rundown of what the ownership of this property is and its current condition.

So the areas in green are city park land or open space uh properties.

The areas in that are grayed out with the red lettering, those are all ride-of-way areas.

So that's public right-of-way that could be vacated as part of this um process because they're not necessarily needed or utilized roads that um in several instances those roads don't connect back out to 90 south or don't go east and west anymore because of the tracks line.

But historically, that's where the platted original plat town plat of historic sanity place those roads, and we've got the labels of the street names on there as well.

The uh properties in red were donated to the city by UDOT.

They were remnant lands that they didn't have any real marketable value.

It's mostly kind of hillside.

As I mentioned, 90 South sits up about 10 to 12 feet above 8960 South to give you some context to that.

The tracks platform as well sits up higher than the rest of that area, just to put it into perspective.

The RDA and the areas in that lighter orange are uh properties that the city has acquired over time.

Um some of those homes have been demolished, I believe the last one.

They've all been demolished.

So this is an aerial from last year, but since that time, those homes have been demolished as well.

And then this also identifies a potential purchase for that property that's just off the side that's that darker orange that could be added to this total configuration.

So, all in all, um, this kind of shows a zoomed in version of of what the master plan showed, and some of the inspiration that our consultants uh identified as how that could be re-enlivened, reinvigorated, and reconfigured, and and reutilize that park in a different shape.

So it takes that um clicker's not working.

Is it working?

Oh, there it is at the top.

So it takes the original square of it's kind of dying on me, so sorry.

It takes that original square, um, splits that and in a more linear fashion.

The um the parcels also bisected by the canal.

That's where you see all that vegetation and growth is along that canal corridor.

And they envisioned wrapping that around with additional housing.

So we followed true to suit in that and um in our proposed redesign.

So let's focus first on the redesign of that park.

Um we took some of the inspiration images from the master plan and and showed how that could be put to put to use in this.

So along this uh path, there's also the Port of Rockwell Trail that runs parallel to the tracks all the way up and down the tracks line in Sandy and goes all the way into Draper.

Um so along we propose to keep that Port of Rockwell Trail there, flank it on either side on that lower portion with some active use of a community garden, and then as it comes up and bridges across the canal, there's a connection to the tracks platform itself further down because that uh Port of Rockwell Trail is used by a lot of active recreation users, joggers.

Sorry, we're getting an echo.

Um other active transportation or active uh users, joggers, exercisers.

We thought to put in some exercise equipment so that people can utilize that for that purpose, kind of turn it into a circuit run and activate that space, and then relocate the um the playground and other things up higher so that the amenity is still there, but in a more visible spot that wouldn't attract the nuisances that it's attracting further down.

And then creating kind of that gateway feature that's shown in that image there, not creating a permanent shade structure, but giving some shade, giving some uh visibility and and focal point and covering the trail with that type of a trellis structure.

Um those are some of the ideas that staff has had as how that could be reutilized and reconfigured.

So moving on to the housing portion and the development.

So some of the guiding principles that we had with with this were starting first with the missing middle housing toolkit.

That's something that we've been discussing with the council staff over the last year or so, and looking at how how we can find missing middle housing opportunities, and you the state of Utah has provided this missing middle housing toolkit for municipalities across the state to implement that missing housing.

Um it's typically typologies of homes that aren't currently being built in the market, either because of the market's not providing it, or zoning doesn't provide it and doesn't allow for it.

So one of the uh typologies that we identified as we looked at this was this cottage development that's shown kind of on that right-hand side.

It shows the both plan view as well as a three-dimensional uh depiction with small cottage-style homes in the front, and then a town home duplex or or fourplex that would be placed behind it.

All of those homes would front onto a courtyard with parking back behind.

And so in that site plan view that you see there, the areas in gray, you can see the depiction of the cars.

So that parking could be either in garage or in a carport or just surface parking, depending on the layout and configuration and how much space you have.

But the idea is to kind of tuck the parking in a unified space, have it be fed through an alley, and you kind of detach the cars from the houses.

And this provides parking at a much more efficient cost because providing garage parking does increase the total cost of a home.

Certainly a desirable amenity in a lot of homes, but it definitely drives up that cost.

So if we can deliver something in a different configuration that still adequately addresses the off-street parking requirements, especially with proximity to tracks and reduces the total number of parking cells needed, this is a good fit for that property.

So the images to the left of those diagrams show some examples in Utah that utilize this cottage style courtyard housing.

So they're fronted onto this unified walkway or parkway, depending on how much space you've got, and they kind of have a shared front yard.

It shows some examples there on the bottom left of some of the style of homes that you could have.

So they wouldn't all have to be cookie cutter the same look and feel.

They could have variation, and just like the rest of the neighborhood, that is not cookie cutter.

It is very eclectic.

It has a mix of different designs and styles.

So we're proposing that that configuration also contain housing that has unique and different shapes and architectural styles that blend in with the neighborhood.

Like I said, we wanted to take advantage of the transit, reduce that parking total on site.

One other big concern was stepping down the scale and massing as it approaches the neighborhood.

So up against 90 south, I think that's where it's appropriate to put more density, more massing up against that heavy corridor.

Plus, it would provide some screening and audible noise issues from 90th.

It is a busy roadway.

And then fronting some of those taller units as it steps up the hill, those units could also step up.

So you could step up to a town home or twin home configuration that shows those images in the middle to a three-story product up along 90 south.

And it gives some architectural examples of what those homes could potentially look like.

But the overall thing that this does that we wanted to ensure is improves connectivity, access, and eyes on the open space.

Because that's one of the number one reasons why Scott Cadell Park doesn't function well is there's not enough eyes and natural observation to keep the negative behaviors away from that area.

So this would reverse that by putting a lot of eyes and observation onto that site.

And this is a graphic kind of illustrating how that would be laid out.

So the cottage homes, the small scale single story, maybe a bonus room up above would be those units that wrap around the existing neighborhood street.

So the context and the scale of massing of the homes would be much smaller there.

And then those units back behind that courtyard would be twin home units, so two-story twin homes with the parking tucked up underneath.

So that could be in a garage or open carport style configuration, depending on the cost targets that we're trying to hit there.

But all of the parking for those six units would be provided shared back behind on an alley.

So that's those dark gray or black colorations.

That's the alley that would service those units.

And then the units that face onto 90 south or face onto the canal, the canals shown in blue here, they would face onto this city right-of-way or the Utah right-of-90 south and create a pedestrian street along on a walkway parallel to the canal that would exit out to that bridge, and then you could cross the bridge and get into the tracks platform directly there.

There would also be a bisecting path from 8960 south that would provide a direct connection up to that tracks corridor.

So even the neighborhood would benefit from this from getting greater connectivity.

And then as it steps down closer to the neighborhoods, we'd step down with twin-story townhomes, and then again three-story townhomes that would be on the periphery of the project.

The total site area of this proposal, including the park, is 4.15 acres.

The development site would be three acres.

The total revised park area remains about the same.

It's 1.15 acres.

So we just changed the shape and the and configuration, but the total square footage of that park didn't uh adjust much.

This proposal uh contains 61 units, 21 cottage homes, 16 twin homes, and 24 townhome units.

And the um the drive to get this project at an affordable price means that you build small.

There's a lot of town homes that are get built out there, but they're all 3800 square feet, two-car garages.

That drives that price very high.

In Sandy, we can't get town homes that are under 500,000 because they're built with an undetached, excuse me, an attached garage and quite large.

By building homes that are smaller that would accommodate a range of different family sizes.

Um gives uh young couples a step into the housing market, um, young families or uh people that don't have kids or maybe starting out their families at an opportunity to enter the market at whatever price point and and home size that meets their needs.

So the average uh size would be about a thousand square feet, including any basement bonus room area.

Some of those cottage homes that are shown there are anywhere from six to nine hundred square foot footprint.

Again, that's footprint.

So you can have basement, you could have bonus on top.

But or you could just have a single level, main level living.

So maybe even for someone that's downsizing that wants to live and stay in the neighborhood and live close to tracks and doesn't want to have to maintain a yard.

This would be an ideal situation for them.

Uh like I mentioned, all of the parking is concealed, tucked back behind.

So underneath these units, that's where the parking would be stored.

Um in either single car type garages or car ports or uh surface.

So it's showing a mix of those those types.

Um and this gives it without all the labels on it, so you can kind of see the details of of what that looks like.

Um the white paths are the front door or leading up to those front door entries.

So again, in each of those little cottage courts, starting from the the west side, there's six units that would front onto that cottage court, and then as it wraps around, uh that we lose a little bit of depth, and so we go back to just single family homes that would face onto that and and face the other homes that are across the street.

And then back behind them are twin homes, and then stepping up to the three-story town homes.

Now that's involving all of that in total five 4.15.

Now, that's including one piece of property that the current the city doesn't currently own.

If we did not buy that home, that's what is affected.

Essentially, those same six units that we were showing.

I'll flip back, those six units there on that uh west side.

Oops, wrongly wouldn't be there, but everything else could get built.

So even if we didn't acquire that, you could still get 55 units on that remaining property.

The total square footage is now 3.85 acres.

Sorry, not square footage, but acres, um, and that's what we're showing there.

Um again, you'd lose eight parking, but generally speaking, you have about the same configuration one way or the other.

Um let's see.

I think that concludes our presentation there.

I guess if there are questions or um implementation strategies that we want to discuss, we're happy to discuss that as well.

Miss Nickel?

Would this be uh in a PUD HOA type situation?

Yes.

Um so this would be common area, so pad lots, um, similar to town home developments, or even we've done single family homes on a pad.

So they didn't own a lot, but they own the the ground underneath their home.

So they're able to build within that pad that's designated, and then everything else around them is owned in common.

So you'd have a shared uh maintenance HOA type of situation.

That would be to take care of the landscaping maintenance, that type of thing.

Okay.

So that would handle uh the sharing of the parking, the maintenance of the uh alleys as well as the walkways in the within the development.

And we're thinking about this as a for-sale product, right?

Correct.

Okay.

Thanks.

Okay.

Okay.

Show me where the Puerto Rqua trail goes along 90th.

So that is along 90th.

Yeah.

Um north and south.

It runs parallel to the tracks.

It doesn't go down a little bit further.

Okay.

Well, you see the crossing there.

It used to you used to have to cross all the way down at uh 300 east.

But that we've improved that so that you can now directly cross north and south.

I should thought I even noticed that you guys.

Okay.

So yeah, you can see where the the crossbars are there for the crosswalk.

So here's Brooke's thoughts, okay?

Sure.

Um I don't think garden boxes are a good idea at all.

You're just asking for them to be demandalized and destroyed, as well as the pergola type thing.

Um it's cool, it's beautiful.

We have a community garden a couple streets up, and the residents love it, and it looks really bad all the time.

It does.

It's it's like a hodgepodge of craziness.

And it's amazing, but like we do not want that there, um, in my opinion.

Um if it's a park, is there a bathroom?

Um I don't know.

I don't know if there are bathrooms there now.

Are there?

There are, yeah.

Yeah, I don't know.

That that would be a question for parks as far as how we implement that.

Like if it's a like a little pocket park that's a little couple streets down further, like tracks, I don't think you need one.

But I would minimal things.

We didn't say the contemplate that in this plan.

Okay, good.

Like I it just is um it's a problem area.

Okay, I wasn't sure if you were wanting that as an additional amenity or not.

Okay.

No.

Um I love the cottage style ones and having different like uh looks to them.

I think that's amazing.

Um is there an option where they can not be an HOA where they can own their own ground and put up a fence for their kids, because otherwise I think we're eliminating families from the area.

You can still put up fences in between and HOA.

Yeah, it just it's how the C C and Rs are written.

It depends on the yeah, it depends on how you're configuring that.

The I the idea is generally is to keep things open, right?

And you're having shared space.

If if depending on how you want to configure that, there are options to have a small area that's uh fenced area that is for the dog or something like that to let them out.

I would say I lived in a town home that didn't have fences.

Um grew up with kids there, and we had a shared backyard.

We had dividers that separated our patios, but it wasn't fully fenced.

No, I would just highly recommend people being able to put up fences here.

This isn't it's my neighborhood, but it's not the neighborhood you want to not have a fence for your kids or your dog, or there's too many, there's too much traffic and there's too many people going back and forth.

Like you'll want it, people will want a fence.

So council member, uh there are HOAs that I'm aware of.

I mean my in-laws live in an HOA um in uh daybreak that they do have individual fences around their lot lines and the property, so that is that is a possibility, yeah.

Cool.

And show me the parking.

So I get the parking underneath the two and three-story ones, like the cars, right?

Underneath the yellow.

I'm assuming each unit will have like two parking spots.

They would have at least one assigned to each unit.

And they're underneath, they're tucked underneath those those uh duplex and fourplex.

And so would that make the heights of them roughly the same height as those just um east on 90th, you know, the newer ones?

Right past third east, the really the nice ones.

The ones at Garbette belt in front of the church.

Yes.

Yeah, those are two-story units.

So, but with the elevation being lower would be a little bit more than a few.

From 90th south, they would be viewed as a two-story unit.

But in fact, it's a three-story because of the tuck under parking.

Yeah.

The ones that would be just across the alley, so the ones that face onto those courtyards would be two-story.

So the parking would be one level, and then above it would be the living space above.

Okay.

And then where's the parking for everyone else?

That's a shared amongst those units.

So this the entire 61 units, there's 61 parking spots.

There's a hundred stalls.

But who how do you like how are they?

Just every unit gets one and then it's first come, first serve after that.

Probably, or or depending on how the HOA wants to manage it.

But overall, um, that that's you know, with the proximity to tracks, the smaller size units, you're not getting large families with multiple cars.

You're getting one, maybe two cars and a family in this type of unit configuration and unit size.

I think we should try and put two parking spots.

I don't know anyone, two people who live in a house that don't both have cars usually.

And I street parking's already a problem in this area.

So just a consideration.

Um would we want to do like their deed restrictions to for ownership?

That really just depends.

I mean, uh there's a few ways you can do that.

You can do a development agreement, and it it depends on the incentive.

I mean, to incentivize the affordable housing.

That's why the RDA owns a lot of property.

The property that you dot gifted the city could be used as an incentive as well.

But that's where you, as a city council and an RDA board, can control that.

Depends on the incentive, the write down, the gift of the property, you can control the deed restrictions on those.

Now there are tools out there on scenario like this.

Uh it's called a hops, a home ownership promotion zone.

If you create one of those, it has to be 60% at affordable housing, has to be deed restricted for a minimum of I think 15 years.

Um there's some restrictions.

So it really depends on how you're incentivizing the mix in um housing here or the affordable housing.

So that will be up to you as a council and an RDA board, um, depending on the proposals that you get on the property, the mixed income you want, the affordability, all those things, you have control over that through Dra uh through you and the deed restriction.

Okay.

Thanks.

Yeah.

Ms.

DeSouza.

Thank you.

So overall, I I really like the concept that you guys have.

Um I like the mix of housing.

I like the staggering of heights.

I think that the um layout was was very thoughtful.

Um I have to agree with council member Christensen on the garden boxes.

I'm a gardener.

I think everybody should have a garden.

Um conceptually, it's amazing, but in like the practical application of that and in these situations make it really difficult to maintain.

At least that's been my experience as I've driven around.

I think that um I I watched I think a neighbor of Shane's when that uh Jenny Lynn Court and they have some garden boxes there.

When those houses were first built, I was I was very excited, they've never been used and they just hold weeds now.

And so I worry from like a city standpoint.

I guess one of the questions is is this park city park for everybody, or does this park belong to that neighborhood in the HOA?

What what's the intent behind this park?

Yeah, the intent is to have this be a city park and then work with a nonprofit group that would help manage the uh neighbor or uh the uh community garden portion of that.

So the rest of the land around it would also be maintained by the city.

Okay.

And and you know, again, area-wise, I don't know.

I just I I don't like I said, I love I love the idea, I like the concept.

I'm just not sure that the practical application is is going to translate and maybe maybe here even makes it a worse translation just in terms of maintaining those or the community garden you mean?

Yeah, okay.

Yeah.

I mean you uh you don't want to fence it off, but at the same time, you don't want it vandalized, and you need the produce to mature, right?

And anyway, so I have concerns about the garden boxes specifically.

Um I guess my other question is what comes after this.

So this is an information item just to say, hey, we're kind of like what is the purpose of this, when when does it come back?

At what what what stage does the council slash or RDA board weigh in on what?

So you beat me to what I was gonna just say.

So you were thinking what I was thinking.

Um I was gonna say, keep in mind this is a conceptual, you know, it's just a concept.

But I think it's a good roadmap that you can put out to the development community saying, look, this is something that we're looking at based on our planning department, based on our general plan, our housing workshop.

We've taken all the that input, my CAS and put it into this plan.

We put it out there, that doesn't mean the development community is gonna come in and say we're gonna build exactly this, but I think it gives them something that you as a council RDA board, if you do, it gives them something to a guide, a guideline, a roadmap of look, this is something we can we can support here.

That's why the garden boxes who knows if somebody's gonna support that out of that's some thoughts and ideas that were put into it that you know from input from staff that thought would would go well here.

Bottom line, this is a concept, but we wanted to show something that would to the development community that look this is something you can do here, and to you specifically as a council that can be built here that would match the general plan in that.

It's up to you as a council on if you're comfortable with this and putting that out to my suggestion would be um I think the next steps we would look at is it maybe good to go through a request for proposal process.

This is a roadmap.

This is something that you can support, this thought, not exactly this, and then let the development community come in and based on kind of this roadmap of what they would build there and develop.

Okay.

I'm assuming that the city is going to be responsible for developing that from a cost standpoint, right?

Or are we trying to get developers to help us develop that park?

That's exactly both.

Okay.

But I would say that that could be part of the proposal.

Is they are going to, as a developer, again, that's where the incentives and the land comes in.

If you're going to partner, this is where you control the land as a city council and RDA board and the mayor administration of you to you get to control what goes there.

So you can partner with a developer saying, look, we want, you know, based on the proposal, we want you to make improvements to this park based on the proposal, or they may have another proposal saying, you know, we don't see a park necessarily fits there.

You as a council can go, look, we have a park in Main Street that we would like to see improved.

You know, something to that effect is as far as the trade-off, look, you can maybe build more homes here, more density as a trade-off to a park.

So it's really up to you.

Again, this is conceptual.

Okay.

So you can control whatever you want to control.

Well, that's that's really helpful.

Thank you for explaining that.

And then the last question I think that I have is regarding that holdout property over on the corner.

Um has without divulging, you know, any specific information right now pertaining to that, like has there is there a number, or is that that person is not willing to sell at all?

Like, what is the likelihood of that property being able as being developed as part of this?

There's a potential possibility there.

No numbers have been discussed, no offer, no anything.

We just know that there may be a possibility that that we're pursuing.

Okay.

And so this is just kind of feedback for on the concept plan to use to um create an RFP that would come next.

Is that what this item really is?

Okay.

Um, outside of the garden boxes, I like it.

Thanks.

Ms.

Stroud.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um love the idea of that step up, you know, that housing using that gradual, starting with some of the smaller homes and then working up to that density.

Um same concerns and with the garden boxes.

I the being a city park, where's my missing?

Do we have parking for it?

For the park?

Yes.

Uh it would just be along the street, just like it is now.

That's where the parking is for that park now.

So it would just be in front of the cottage homes along the side.

They'd walk to it along the Puerto Rico trail.

It's intended for a neighborhood park.

So most of the time people frequent the frequenting the park of this size for this purpose is not to drive your car to it, but to walk to it.

And that's and I think I mean, typically when I've been by this park, there's probably two or three cars that are there.

I mean, it's it's not a significant amount, but and that's where I guess with the garden boxes, and if we don't go that route, then there'll probably be fewer people, but you know, still I guess looking, and some of it, you know, as well as it the reduced parking.

Um, I mean, a hundred stalls, and you know, I I do agree.

That's even when you have you know smaller unit sizes when you have two adults, there's often two vehicles, you know, and to have you know that cut down pretty significant if there's 61 units, you know, that's 1.2.

And and I I think we have, I mean, it you know, for incentives right now.

Did we do away with up to the 1.8 of the reduction on that because it was just problematic?

Um, you know, I I think that there's we've seen problems in the past with not having enough parking.

You know, so I if there's a way to try to get in a few more stalls, I think that that would be very helpful.

Um, you know, in trying to reduce the amount of cars that are parked on the street overnight if we ever get snow again when the snow comes out and and we get the plows out, you know, because that seems to be a pretty common uh concern and complaint, you know, especially down in historic.

Um, but you know, in a lot of areas, so increasing that, but also some of those concerns with the the garden boxes.

A beautiful idea.

Love it, love the concept plan.

Just not sure if right here is you know the the most ideal spot for it.

You know, loving this idea of of uh partnering and moving forward, love the for sale, um, you know, that that component and uh you know the variety of of housing options, see what it does for us.

Thank you.

Ms.

Houseman.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um I appreciate the clarification that you're just looking for feedback on the concept in general, many more steps ahead.

So I will just share that feedback that it's I think it's a phenomenal concept.

I think it is a great repurpose of the space.

I think it addresses a lot of needs.

Um so I thank you for being kind of creative and thinking out of the box.

The one question I have that hasn't kind of already been asked or addressed is how did we engage with the Cadell family?

Um this is a reconfiguration of the park, you know, named in Scott Cadell's honor, and obviously the park's still existing, it's just a reconfiguration.

I just would love to hear how they were folded into this.

I think Councilmember Christensen can answer that.

I can also answer that too.

I've had some discussions with Tracy, and I know he's had some discussions with his his dad.

Uh, you know, that is something that we want to make sure and keep in consideration of that park.

I've had some specific discussions with Tracy on making sure we keep whatever goes there as name, or again, going back to that there's a trade-off, and there's another park as a trade-off put into Main Street Park or something like that.

That park's maybe named after Tracy or after Scott.

But yeah, that's that's heavily in consideration, and we've kept that in mind.

I don't know if you have any questions.

Yeah, I talked to Scott as well, and he is completely and totally fine with the redevelopment because this park is such a problem in our neighborhood.

And so there are a few things he would really like in return, like the big rock and the tree that he planted for his grandson.

And so if the park goes away.

It you were building right over that part of it.

Yeah, if the park goes away.

And so he's totally fine.

We've even talked about maybe naming the pavilion at Main Street Park after him because his like family built it.

And so he's he's good.

Okay.

Can I ask for Mr.

Cadell as well?

That that would be good, yeah.

I I think uh council member Christensen uh did talk to my father about it.

And um, you know, it's an it's uh it's an emotional thing, you know, because you know, my my father worked with Shane on this a long time ago, and they were able to get that property donated for the park.

And um my my father talked about the like the greatest blessing is in his life other than his family, was when uh when the mayor announced that that park would be named after him.

I mean it meant a lot to him.

And so um, you know, I've I I've talked to a couple of you about some ideas on how I think it could work.

I I actually think, and and of course I've I've talked to Casey about this.

I I actually think that we should go bigger than what what he's suggesting, and he knows I think that um and as a person that lives there, and I think there's a way to deal with sort of the family politics, and it isn't just a family issue, too.

There's people there that really love my dad and really appreciate that that's named after him.

And um it is true.

It's I remember uh last year at the Heritage Festival, uh I was Martin and I happened to be talking and Shane and I I talked a little bit about the ideas that I had for it, and Martin said how the timing's really good because today we just plunged a bunch of uh needles out of the out of the bathroom because there's a lot of drugs there.

And it's interesting because you know, I used to live right over there, and the the track stop there's created a real problem for that area right there.

And uh I think it'd be really great to find a way to fix that.

And perhaps I could share with some ideas offline I have.

But I I like I love this personally.

I know that there's some let's just say that I'll I'll have to I'll be busy.

You know, I mean bringing people along.

Yeah, bringing people along.

And I will say this too.

Um I'll be busy bringing along some community members on this too.

I mean, brook Brooke's gonna I think I think this could be a little bit of a challenge for Brooke.

So I think it's I personally think it's fabulous, and maybe you and I can talk about my dad offline.

Thank you.

That's that's really um I feel like the other questions I prepared were sort of asked and answered, and um especially the clarity around this is a concept of how in general council RDA board, how do you feel about the reconfiguration, the the and and if I'm understanding you correctly, this would be a bit like a public-private partnership.

We own we own the land, we partner with a builder through the through the RFP process, we agree, okay.

So there'd be all kinds of continued collaboration and and uh oversight.

Um so for now, I think Green Light keep keep exploring.

I would love to hear more of what bigger means, um, but that certainly can be the next presentation.

So if all you need from us is keep moving in this direction, then that's what I'd say.

Keep moving in this direction.

Thank you.

Mr.

Takesu.

Thank you.

Um this is an awesome plan.

And I like the garden boxes.

I think it'd be a great amenity for the community.

There are plenty of nonprofits, as you mentioned, that manage gardens all around the valley, and they do really well.

I would imagine the one that's in disrepair is not managed by a nonprofit.

Um so I think that's really cool.

Um and if it becomes a problem, we'll uh change it.

But I think that's neat.

The trellis, the open no fence concept, I think is really cool.

And also minimal parking, we really on something like this near transit need to reduce those parking requirements I've mentioned before.

The literature might even advocate for zero.

So for me, it's a little bit on the high end, but I appreciate that we're making an effort to reduce those parking requirements.

My only remaining question is just to clarify the acreage of the park.

There's a slide that says that it's 1.45.

So looking at the assessor parcel map, it looks to be about one and a quarter.

I just wanted to know if if it was one or the other.

And the Cowdell family should be happy because it's going to increase.

Yeah.

Oh my God.

I mean, you calm down and uh I mean Mayor, your mic is on.

But yeah, and you can get back to me on that too.

Where are you seeing the other acreage?

It's on the map on uh with the exercise equipment, it says 1.45 acres.

Oh.

Yeah, that that was an acreage that um was shown by the in the general plan, it's not actually accurate.

So it may have either been uh a typo, but I measured it's 1.15.

Awesome.

Thank you so much.

So I think that leaves me um I really love this plan.

I really like a lot.

Um I really like the mix of housing styles.

If we were to include all of them, trying to shoehorn as much as we could into this small area, four acres, um, and they were all identical, I think that would be a problem.

I think we're adding high elements of charm by having different kinds of um housing styles here.

I think it's I when I first read it, I had to sleep on it on this idea of 600 square feet.

And I realize it says minimum.

I feel like it's a little bit of an experiment.

I might feel a little more comfortable if we could eke out a little more square footage.

It really we are in the ballpark of tiny homes, right?

And um that may or may not be a good thing.

I like the idea.

Uh to me, this is a wonderful and a beautiful test case.

I um I think it's a great location for this too.

Um I have heard so many stories about community gardens gone wrong that I think I'll add my vote into let's do something else there, okay.

But um I on the parking issue.

Um at 100 stalls for 61 units.

Um I can't imagine a scenario where we aren't forcing some on-street parking onto 8960 south and 120 east.

Um I don't know what the perfect ratio is.

Um I would also be supportive of any kind of plan that rolls forward, if there is any possibility.

And it's it sounds like it's all shared parking, right?

Because even when you talked about the parking under the units, we're not talking about enclosed garage spaces.

There's yeah, there could be a mix.

Uh it depends on how it's implemented.

It could be anywhere from just a carport style where it's open air suspended, you know, with living space up above.

It depends on price point, right?

Because if you add more parking, it drives up the cost.

Um if you add more garages, that drives up the cost.

Um so it depends on what price point we're trying to hit and what level of attainability we're trying to hit.

And also getting back to your uh square footage and footprint size, that's the other idea behind that.

Is if you can if all you need is 600 square feet with an unfinished basement that gives you some room to grow, that allows you to get into a house that is at an attainable level that otherwise you'd be forced to buy something much bigger at uh twice the the cost or three times the cost.

You know, here's the thing.

We are leaving a very important discussion for another time, right?

And that is what do we want the prices of these units to be?

And so, you know, if we want them to be $300,000, maybe we say, yeah, we don't care so much about parking.

We're willing to really give on that.

But if because of the market they're going to be $600,000, then that's a whole nother thing, right?

So the part of the discussion that we're leaving out about what is our projected price point and what is the city going to do to get us there.

Are we going to sell land at below market rates?

Are we going to donate land?

Are we going to retain the land and make this a community land trust?

What what tools are we going to open the door to for developers to also do their part to get tax incentives or whatever it is, homeowners to get benefits.

There is a huge discussion about the financial side of how we get where we get to.

But I do tend to be worried about the parking.

Um, but I'd worry about it less and I'd be more willing to compromise if I knew what our projected or what our target price point was.

Um if we can't answer that question now, it's just something I'll continue to look for.

Um I realize enclosed garages, and we we hear this at LPC all the time.

An enclosed garage costs $30,000.

But what we're talking about for the most part is carports, ones that are pretty scared skillfully, I think.

They're not just sounds like not standalone car ports, but maybe this is tighter than some of those concepts.

These would be tuck under but maybe not fully enclosed.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Depending on how we want to configure that.

Mike, do you know what the density is as proposed?

It's uh uh so three acres of of development, 61 uh units, so roughly 20 units an acre.

So the interesting thing is that's a typical what you get for a walk-up uh apartment complex.

But notice the design is different.

Notice how the design is being complementary to the neighborhood rather than detracting from it.

And that's what we've been trying to achieve with this missing metal housing type of ideal is getting a different product at the same potential density as an apartment complex.

Not only that, as owner-occupied.

And that's the other key there.

We're not getting condos built, unfortunately, in the market right now.

So even if they were stacked apartments uh or condo flats, that's not a product that can be financed and mortgaged.

But this type of a product can.

And we can get home ownership in an area that needs home ownership, and we need more investment in an area like this, um, and more opportunities for uh first-time home buyers, downsizers, etc.

Yeah.

It's a bold plan.

It's something so different than anything Sandy has, right?

I that's why it's missing.

I um I find it very, very, very interesting.

I mean, if we were talking about building it ten times this size, I would have maybe some fear and trepidation about the demand, the application, all that kind of stuff.

But I think it's a wonderful test case.

And 21 units that might be somewhere, you know, between 600 and 1,000 square feet, 21 units.

So it'll be very interesting to see how much demand there is for that type of housing.

And then also on a look back basis, how long people stay there.

Is it a true starter home?

Is it senior housing?

What you know, what what how does it fill what kind of need?

I think it'll be very good information for us going on future plan on long-range planning.

Where is Jake Warner when you need him?

Madam Chair, if I may.

Um that's the beauty, I think, when you say test case, that's a beauty of this this area and the ownership being in the RDA and the city and the donated properties.

Because I think this is unique in the fact that we have a lot of tools at our disposal to actually get what you or what we're all talking about in this scenario.

So it, you know, it's it's a test case, but I think it's a it's a great test case where we can hit like um Councilmember Housman said.

I th I see this being a true public-private partnership and something that I think can be looked upon throughout other communities in the state on something if we do it right here.

Um again, there's some beauty to the situation.

So Ms.

Christensen has one more question.

Okay, I was just pulling up the aerial shot of Scott Cadill Park, and there is parking there.

I've parked in it.

That's why along the street?

No.

There is a little slot park.

Is that what in your presentation there was something called a parklet?

Is that like what this is?

It's like a slot parking right in front of the park.

Don't do that.

It's right off the street, though, right?

On the north, on the north end of it.

There's actually, I mean, it cuts in from the street.

Yeah.

That's what I mean.

It's on street parking that's formalized on street parking.

Like there's just it's just missing the lines, but you it's not like it doesn't stop the snow plows from coming through and like designated parking.

It's deep enough to like fit a minivan right in there.

Yeah.

The in the intent behind this plan, and it's not showing bulbouts and things like that, but you can do that because these streets are also quite wide.

Most cities uh city streets are 52 feet, the streets in historic sanity are 60 feet wide.

Yeah.

So that can accommodate park strips and it can you still accommodate on-street parking within that space to allow for the snowpiles to get through without clogging up the street.

So it is designed to accommodate on-street parking.

I'm talking about the off-street that would be provided as a hundred stalls.

I haven't tallied up how many on-street parking stalls that could be there.

But the nice thing about this is the only driveways are the two inlets and outlet um of that alley.

Everything else is front doors and and walkways.

So you're not blocking somebody's driveway by parking on the street either.

Except the people that live across the street.

There's enough room that they could still back out and not cause a complex.

No, but it's illegal to park behind someone's driveway.

So if it's in a designated spot that still allows for 24 feet of of street, there shouldn't be a conflict there.

So what I'm saying is like I like how it is at Scott Cadell Park that there's a place where you can pull in and there's still like a little tiny park strip and not park strip all the way down.

If there was a lot of that, then I would feel much more comfortable with the parking situation.

Yeah.

Yeah, you're talking about protected parking or or um islanded off designated uh stripes.

Yeah, not just like parking on the side of the road.

Right.

No, I I agree.

That would be we'd want it controlled.

We'd want it designed and and purposeful.

So that we're not creating conflicts with the neighbors and and creating problems.

And that's and I think so on that north side, because there's some multi-housing there that they're often using that those four to five stalls, but actually I think there are some on the west side as well.

You know, that's more of for people that are coming to the park, but that north side, because once again, there's just and that multi-housing, you know, they're looking for more stalls than what their housing unit provides, so they are using that park parking.

Yeah, even though there is parking behind that unit, multiple those multiple units, like they still park there.

So we I just be aware of the parking place.

Sure.

We appreciate the feedback.

I just don't get caught up again, hung up on those details, because I think Mike's done an excellent job, and he spent a lot of time done an excellent job on this of just showing kind of what can happen.

And I think it's a great plan.

Um, but again, I wouldn't get caught up in some you know, all the details because I think some of this is naturally going to change because that's the market we're in with housing affordability.

Again, the public private partnership of you're gonna have to have some trade-offs with the density if you want the affordable housing because they're gonna have to have more units in here to make a pencil.

So there is gonna be some give and take and there's gonna be some things that change.

So I wouldn't get caught up too much into the the de all the details here.

Talking about that target for affordable, that makes me wonder how we could acquire this additional lot and not it's it's counterproductive possibly to the goal, right?

Because you'd be buying something at today's market rates and adding it to this mix and maybe driving up the cost.

But true, but that's a beauty of the RDA.

I mean, we look at the benefit, not only in economic benefit, but we look at um quality of life benefit.

So if you're creating more housing affordability, more housing options, getting rid of blight, getting rid of the issue in the area.

I think that there's a value to that.

And and I'll I'll agree with that.

We're talking about you know the conditions that exist today in this area, and hopefully this is a plan to completely change all of that, right?

Which I'm hoping I'm hoping too.

We leave the park in there because it's on the Porter Rockwell Trail, provides a feature for people using that, maybe a starting point for people using it.

It would be a nice addition right there, and the houses adjacent would use it too.

So I'm hoping we leave that pocket park there for the use of the people.

I'm hoping that uh that winds up being the case.

Anyone else with any more comments before we move on?

Looks like not.

Great feedback.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, guys.

All right, it is after 6 p.m.

So we will do general citizen comment.

I have a couple of cards here.

And so Darren Butler, let's have you come on up.

Great.

Thank you.

Uh Darren Butler, I'm the manager of the Sanity Library.

Just wanted to let you know about a couple of things coming up at the library.

Um this coming Saturday, we have read to a dog.

So if you're feeling insecure about reading, you can come and read to a dog who's not gonna judge you.

So that's really great.

Um we also have from Salt Lake County Health Department.

We have uh they're giving away some free hand gun safes.

So they're they're um I can't remember her name.

Alyssa, who's the suicide prevention coordinator, uh, is coordinating this event, and so it's kind of a first come first serve.

Uh they've done it at some of the other branches and they've gone really fast.

So come early.

It's a one o'clock on Saturday.

And then uh we discovered a few weeks ago that we have a leak.

And so uh the library is going to be closed June 8th through the 10th uh for some repairs.

So um we can't be in the building, so we have to close for those repairs, and um I think that's mostly it that I wanted to share.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mark Mason Taylor, come on down.

Okay, so I'm actually resident right next to the Scott Caldo Park.

Um I'm just a couple blocks away.

Um, and so I don't know what they told you, Brooke.

Well, last summer with that house that was up, they told me that, and I remember it the city will have to drag us out dead to buy that house, so I don't know what's going on.

Okay, but um so there may there may not.

Um the second thing, and I was just coming to listen to see what happened to it, but um, this is actually um in my sphere of influence.

Um I'm heavily involved in community garden, believe it or not.

I run a co-op.

And um what uh Wasach Community Gardens is typically the one that's the community garden that we're referring to.

The issue is there are more than enough community gardens in the valley.

The problem that they have is actually the next step up, and that is farming, urban farming.

So there are two organizations, meals on wills, believe it or not, and also um the International Rescue Committee, which works with refugees, but they need medium-sized plots, so instead of community garden boxes thinking of like two to four farming plots where people who run a Thai restaurant or something actually and have a Thai import license to import seeds into the United States need to grow.

Um the great thing about these arrangements is not only would they run it for us, but they would also give us grant money.

Um, and we have someone who used to run their work is something called Seniors Lunch Box, which um basically you grow food for seniors and then provide it to them.

She used to run the whole program for Salt Lake City, and um that was absorbed into Las Hatch Community Gardens, so we have the expertise here to do something like that, and it also works with the historic nature of the area, which we don't really talk about the farming there.

You just have to learn about the sugar beets or something like that.

But that is something that would be much more effective in a fill gap in a needy in the community garden.

So just food for thought.

And then I have one more thing, but it's not important.

Oh Cindy, my um Councilwoman Shark, excuse me.

My house is actually about 1700 square feet.

Um basement and floor, and it's one of the largest in the area.

So the 600 square foot actually fits it really well with the area.

It's apparently the 1920s.

So I had 100 years.

So thank you.

Thank you.

All right, that's all the blue cards I have.

Dustin, let's invite our online audience.

Of course, thank you, Madam Chair.

Uh, if you're joining us virtually this evening on Zoom and you'd like to comment on any city business this evening, just 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, and you'll have three minutes.

Madam Chair, I'm not seeing any hands raised.

All right.

We'll I'll close general citizen comment and then we'll go back to the agenda.

Uh we're on item number two, which is our vote on the Utah retirement system tier two, public safety rate pickup.

Do we have any questions for Katrina?

Katrina, do you want to introduce this in any way?

Any new information you'd like to share or anything.

I don't have new information, but I'm happy to just quickly um introduce it if if that's okay.

So what you're voting on tonight is uh the resolution to pick up the employee portion of the contribution for our tier two police and fire employees.

Currently the city pays 4.73 percent.

That would be the employees' responsibility if we had not picked that up.

Um the Utah retirement system has increased that rate to 5.98%.

So we are requesting that we pick up that 5.98% on their behalf.

As a reminder, we are already paying 5% for fire and 5.58 for police, so it's really just an additional one percent for fire and an additional point four percent for police.

Any questions?

All right, this is a voting.

Oh, go ahead.

Oh, comment, go ahead.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I I appreciate you sharing that that last little bit of what we're currently doing.

I think that's really really helpful.

Um I guess I I don't know if the right term is stacking, but but just helping the public understand when we talk about compensation, there are so many pieces of it.

So I appreciate you noting that if we did not do this, this is something employees you know would have to pay.

Um so as we think about COLA, we think about our sworn employees, like we think about all of the things we've been talking about.

This is another layer of um trying to take care of our employees and and seeing the full breadth of what we're doing.

So thank you for just saying this is you know, in addition to I appreciate it.

Anything else if we're ready, I'll make a motion to adopt.

We do need to take public comment on the yeah.

So I have no blue cards.

Um if anyone would like to provide comment on this item, just make your way up to the podium.

And Dustin, if you'll let the online participants know that they can raise their hand to do the same thing.

Of course, thank you, madam chair.

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

I don't see anyone.

Do you close public comment on this item?

And very coincidentally, I've had two council members who have signaled that they're ready to make a motion on this.

Mr.

De Kaiser, why don't you go ahead?

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Motion to adopt resolution 2660C.

Second.

Okay, I have a motion and a second.

Any discussion on that motion?

I see nothing.

Ready for a roll call vote.

Mr.

DeKaiser?

Yes.

Ms.

Christensen.

Yes.

Ms.

D'Souza.

Yes.

Ms.

Stroud?

Yes.

Ms.

Nichol?

Yes.

Ms.

Houseman?

Yes.

Ms.

Sharkey.

Yes.

Madam Chair, that motion carried seven to zero.

All right.

Moving on to the next agenda item.

That's item number three.

This is Council Member Stroud making her second reading.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

So we talked about this last week.

You know, there was, you know, a couple of questions that were brought up.

You know, one of them if we looked at either the uh the CPI, so the consumer price index or the municipal cost index, you know, or the municipal price index, depending on the name of what it is.

Uh I I don't have a strong preference on which one to look at.

Um if the council does, if that's gonna make somebody or you know, make somebody feel more comfortable about you know voting up for a yes on there, we can look at that.

Uh Mr.

Kelly, you know, as indicated.

I mean, both of them, you know, he would be fine with.

I think you know, to keep in mind, you know, that this would be something that you would just want to maintain and continue using one or the other of them.

Um, you know, and this is uh, you know, primarily to add in just as an informational item.

Uh another question that was brought up, you know, that uh, you know, how would this be helpful in the budget?

And you know, we hear department heads that stand up and they'll say due to inflationary rates, you know, this is why um you know this line item we are increasing it from last year to this year, and this would give us you know something to be able to look at, you know, and to have as a part of the budget uh also for residents to be able to look at and see that you know that the city is doing each year in the last 35 years there's been three property tax increases.

Uh and each year the city does an excellent job looking at where we can find more efficiencies, um if there's any redundancies, if there are any areas that we can try to save money, uh even though you know inflationary rate may be going up.

But we're looking at this, we're providing it, it's being provided to the council, it's being provided for a longevity, you know, historical document and for residents to look at.

So any other questions that's or concerns Ms.

Nichol.

What is the main difference between the two?

So uh between so we have the the CPI and one so one benefit of the CPI is to be able to look at it and say, you know, this is something that uh residents are more familiar with.

Um the municipal cost or the price index, you know, that's that is usually taking out so the CPI could be used for like groceries and more of household items versus the municipal cost uh index is often more looking at um oil and gas and tires and vehicles.

So you know that's that's kind of the difference between the two.

The primary target for the CPI is the individual household uh versus you know local cities and county governments.

So it is more applicable to Sandy.

We we could use both of them, have them both in there, you know, of looking at that.

It's once again the CPI is just something I think is more familiar to people.

But the category, um the municipal versus the other one, I can't remember the name of it, you just said it.

The residential just CPI, consumer price index.

Yeah versus that we're looking at, which one we're trying to calculate from?

So either just using CPI, you know, which is familiarity kind of comfort and understanding versus the municipal cost index or municipal price index.

Okay.

Isn't one higher?

So often the municipal price index or the municipal cost index is a little bit higher.

So using the other one could be a little more beneficial or realistic too, yes, the way that we're using it.

Yes.

Okay.

And if somebody was to Google it, you know, they may find kind of a discrepancy in that.

Okay.

Um, you know, and if we use if we use the other one, then just you know, an explanation of what it is, why it was used.

Uh I maybe we could have both of them in there if that is more comfortable.

It's I'm comfortable with the one you proposed.

I mean, it's explained to me like that.

So thank you for looking into the municipal index.

I I still prefer that one simply because if we're looking at the cost of our ability to do business, it makes sense to look at the inflation of of the very things that we are paying for.

But I'm not gonna have heartburn over it.

I just I appreciate you looking into it.

It feels like that's more apples to apples, but I'm it's not something I'm gonna, you know, lose sleep over.

Um but the one thing I have been thinking about since since we were last together and discussed this, um, if regardless of the index we use, is is there any time where you would see if this analysis were conducted, it would not kick back a recommendation to increase taxes.

Like it would not say um no additional revenue is warranted.

Or would or do you or do you predict that by definition of the index and what it is supposed to analyze, it will always kick back and say you need some more revenue because you've seen by this index you were looking at things are costing more.

And my hope with this is it's not to come with a recommendation, it's just included with the budget to say, hey, this is what inflationary cost was over the previous 12 months.

Um and so it wouldn't come up with a recommendation that would come from either you know a mayor's tentative budget or a council deciding to then pursue some sort of tax increase.

But this would not be uh bringing any sort of recommendation forward.

It's just additional information to be included with the budget.

Okay.

I I think for me I I would almost need some type of a if-then statement, uh some type of a qualifier, and I took a stab at it, so I'm just gonna kind of read what I've got here.

I um I wonder if if we could say um thinking at thinking, I'm sorry, I'm looking for my notes here.

Um it feels it feels a bit like one directional.

So I I I'm taking a stab at what what it could look like just to address what I'm feeling like.

It feels like we're sort of, even though you're saying it's information, it anyway.

I've I I don't want to repeat myself.

So what if what if the ordinance were to ask the analysis to present the gap of net new growth and state that maintaining current service levels is only one policy option, not the recommendation, or something to that effect.

Like we are we are providing the information, but there could there could obviously be many more decisions that are made, many more options that it's it's the analysis is just one piece of what is being factored in.

In terms of if the index were to show we do not have as much purchasing power, which I predict it always will.

It will always show we don't have as much purchasing power.

I just don't want it to feel like well then the default is we have to raise taxes.

I just I know you're saying it's information, but what could it look like to say to residents, and though though because of this analysis we are seeing less purchasing power, what you've you sort of have said it could be there, but I haven't seen in the ordinance an example of what that would be.

You've said, oh, we could certainly include, and here's all the places we've cut, you know, and here's here's here's where we are finding efficiencies so that we're not having to do a property tax increase.

I sort of need to be part of what we're adopting here is the analysis will likely reveal we have less purchasing power.

And side by side with that analysis are all of the many steps that we will take before a property tax increase is considered.

For example, something language around that it would help me feel like we're not adopting something that language is thrown into the budget and it starts to just even though that's not your intent, it starts to feel like we are we are simply saying property tax increases is inevitable.

That's sort of what this still feels like to me.

And and I think I I mean this is it really there's no intent of saying this is what it is, and this is why a property tax increase is inevitable or is going to happen.

Um I'm not in this.

What I was looking for, I I'm not looking for a recommendation to do a property tax increase.

And so I I think having some of that language of saying, oh, and to even bring that up is almost, you know, it it's like it's trying to take this down that road and trying to and I don't want to say force the issue, but it's um maybe to encourage that.

Um, you know, this is it, it really it's it is primarily to say residents, we are doing more with your tax dollars.

We are aware of of inflationary issues, here it is for you to look at as well, and to not be trying to lead um an administration or a council down a path to look at increasing property taxes.

It's it really, I mean, there we've got you know, it's this thick, you know, a couple hundred pages of of information, and this is just adding a piece in there of saying this is what it is at this snapshot at this at this time period, and not trying to push a council or anybody thinking that this is the direction that you should be headed.

Um, and I I get a little um and I understand what you're saying, but I I would prefer in the document that we receive, unless there's a property tax suggestion coming from the mayor that would be presenting it, is that we're not reading about that anywhere in the budget book.

Um, that it is just here is a piece of information, that's purely what it is.

What a council opts to do with that at that point is up to them.

But but to say, you know, it's not to do this, it's not to do that, that almost puts that idea out there that that is what the purpose of this is, and I'm trying to stay away from that as a purpose.

This is just informational item.

May I come to chair?

Yes.

I I I'm just sharing my perspective on this, that it even if it isn't your intent, it is it is causing me a little bit of I'm a bit of a quandary.

I'm not feeling like it will be interpreted uh in the way that you are saying.

And we can disagree.

Um I'm just giving feedback as to why I've I appreciate you looking in into the municipal.

I just don't know that this will actually do what you're hoping to accomplish.

I'm I'm concerned that it it sends a signal that you're you've you're vocalizing that is not your intent, and I agree.

And I just have this worry that it it is it could potentially spark something that we're we're not actually hoping.

We don't want it to spark, but it could.

So I'm still uncomfortable with it.

And that's what I mean.

There's seven.

I'm one of seven.

Ms.

Christensen.

Um I'm still fine with the CPI.

I think it's great.

Um I kind of think of it like the salary survey.

Just because we get a salary survey that says we're six percent behind in all of our non-sworn people like we did this year.

Doesn't mean we have to like do a tax increase.

It's just information to know where else.

So I don't know.

That's kind of how I look at it.

Mr.

Souza.

Thank you.

Um I don't know that my questions and my thoughts have changed too much from the last time this was presented.

You know, I I was trying to understand like kind of maybe like others, like how this information is helpful, like how do you anticipate it being used, like even by yourself, you know.

Um I do feel like information without context isn't necessarily helpful.

And I I think that there probably should be some context as to why it's included or what it was intended, like what it's intended to show.

Um I had asked for like trying to understand what we were voting for, you know, one of the things that that I have become aware of as a council member is we write all of this legalese and ordinance, and then the application of it is maybe a little bit different than we had thought when we were looking at all of the legal language in the ordinance.

Um, because this is an ordinance, uh, more than just like a simple request.

I guess I'm I maybe personally scrutinizing it a little more heavily.

Um but I was hoping that I could get some like past, you know, like I don't even know what this budget year is.

Um it would be helpful for me if we had taken or we had received some information even as it pertains to this budget, like this is what I'm presenting.

If we were to have applied it in this current budget, this is what it would look like.

You know, that would be really helpful for me to understand the intent behind the ordinance and the legal language that was that was given.

So like I agree, transparency is um super important.

I I love information and um lifelong learner here.

Uh but at the same time, like I said, I just I don't feel like information without any context or application is useful.

I think it actually could potentially be more harmful because it creates confusion potentially.

So I don't because it's not already in this budget.

I feel like this ordinance came back really rushed, and I had asked for some things, and I hadn't gotten it, and we hadn't talked since then.

And so I don't feel any different than I did last time.

I I want to understand and I want to support, but I don't feel like I have the information now to be able to do that.

And and I could say I've been working on this for a while, and there were some people that were out of town, and it was just I because the goal was to try to get it into this, get it hopefully heard and approved before this budget came out.

Um and it just didn't, I think, you know, Mr.

Fraddo can can attest to that that we tried and just didn't things just didn't line up.

Um, you know, but you know, it to answer how would it be helpful, you know.

I I think you kind of you know asked your own question there is well, you know, I'm not sure what even this year is, you know, with the inflationary rate.

Well, if it was in the budget, we could look at it.

That's not what I was asking, but oh well, I thought you said I I didn't even know what this year was, you know, and that's you know, but if it was in the budget, you know, then we could say, oh, the inflationary rate was this.

And we've had department heads stand up here and say, well, this this is going up due to inflation.

And that's okay, well, what was the inflation?

You know, what um, you know, it went up by $10,000 or whatever that item was.

Do those do those um match up?

You know, that's well, inflation was 2.8%.

Oh, inflation was 2.1, it was 3.6 or whatever it was, is to be able to look at that and say, okay, but you're you're now asking for $9,000 more, and you're saying that this is due to inflation, can you explain that?

Or okay, you're only asking for a thousand dollars more, you know, you've made some you know, some cuts in some other areas.

But to have that in there of saying this is what it is, and when a department head then says due to inflation, that's why this line item increased, you know, is is to have that.

So I think you know, one of the things that um again as a council member in looking at budgets over the last four or five years now that I think makes this even more difficult is the the idea that you want to show something as a percentage, right?

This the CPI, um, but we don't have percentages represented in our budget like we do, like we would the CPI, right?

And so great that it's like $9,000 more, but in terms of a percentage, you know, what does that equate to, and how does that bump up against you know this the CPI.

I also I guess have um the same thoughts of like what like I just I know I get into the weeds a little bit, and that's just me and the way that my brain works.

But in thinking about again, like how is this going to be useful?

If we're looking at CPI in terms of like groceries, like kind of the council member houseman's um point, like I don't know that that's useful.

It's not apples to apples, it doesn't translate in the same way, and so it's you know it's information, but it's not information that I think you know is as good as maybe like other information.

And so like I I would like to look at providing information and making the budget more useful for um both the the public and for us.

I just don't know that I feel like it does with the information that I have.

And so because this budget's already passed and like enacting this can't go until next budget.

It it would be really nice to maybe get an example like I had asked for last time of like maybe how it can be how it would be applied because like I said, I do want to support it.

I just feel like I'm really blind with this, and I I know it's like a simple thing, but I take the responsibility of of you know ordinances and providing information to the public really seriously.

And that's and the example would just it's math.

I mean, I you know, and I know in my budget book I can look and I will actually take from last year to this year and I'll do a percentage.

I mean, that's and I have to do the math to it because it's not provided in that aspect of the internet.

You should also do a Google search and do a CPI, but we want to provide it.

And so I guess that's I feel like I'm my my concerns are being dismissed, and I don't know that that's your intent, but it feels it feels a little dismissive.

And that's and I think the way that the budget is laid out.

It's not laid out from you know, last year we have the actual, you know, we have what was budgeted, we have the actual, and then we have this year of what the request is.

They don't have a percentage on every line item of what it's going up or what it's going down.

It would be great to include that and make that a requirement personally.

And that I mean we could do that, that's separate from this, you know, but that could be a request of you, and and that's and so the items when when I hear this and I hear a department head say due to inflationary costs, you know, that's I mean, oh well, let me do the math then real quick.

Let me do a little bit of division and figure it out.

Um but that way it is it is provided.

That's the number that we're looking at for the previous 12 months.

It's in the document, it's there for historical context.

Um, you know, and and that's you know, so it wouldn't be for every single item because a department head doesn't stand up here and say, well, every single one of my budget, my line items have gone up due to inflation.

You know, we haven't had that.

There are some that they say due, and some that's that go up for other reasons that you know, if it's software that just the licensing has gone up, or or sometimes they decrease in certain areas.

So it it primarily, and that's where it was hard to look at because I'm going, well, you know, it's when a department head stands up and says this item, you know, due to inflationary costs.

So well, let me go back, let me look at it, and then I can compare.

And yes, it would be doing math, and that would probably be something else what you were asking for is something that they would need to add another column in, you know, into the budget book, you know, or certain items.

But that's I mean, for me, once again, I'm running the math on it fairly often, you know, trying to see well, how much more, what's the percentage this year that they're asking for more in this area or the decrease of one of the two.

So, and and you know, I I I get that, and so I'll go ahead and move on.

I just I I I wish that I could get some more information to help me really understand what that would look like so that I could be in a place of support.

Thank you.

So I'm in exactly the same place I was last time we brought this up.

Uh we do get a presentation on CPI.

We do know that it comes every budget.

If what you're wanting is math that says because of inflation, we lost a million dollars in purchasing power this year.

I it just um I don't know how it could be for the purpose of anything else than justifying a tax increase, but it won't for me.

So I I but I do I do worry about that that is the appearance that it gives.

Um I don't know.

It just like I have a hard time caring too much about this.

It's just uh I'll I'll support it, but I do worry about the appearance it gives.

I don't know what value it has, it has very little to me.

Apparently it has a lot to you.

I think we could ask this question without making it an ordinance.

I'm a little worried that making it an ordinance gives it a heightened level of seriousness that maybe is not important or it doesn't deserve.

I don't know why we couldn't just ask for it and get it, but anyway, you've chosen this route.

Uh those are all my comments.

That's it.

Any other comments on this?

Any other?

This is a voting item, so our policy says we take public comment on it.

I don't have any blue cards on this item.

If anyone would like to, feel free to make your way up to the podium, and what we'll ask is that you fill out a blue card afterwards.

Would you do that for us?

We'll need that for the minutes.

Happy to you have three minutes to make your comments.

My name is Lori Wilson.

I'm a retired professor of communications from BYU.

My specialty is public relations.

I understand entirely what you're trying to do.

You're trying to make things transparent.

And I understand that when they come and say we need 9,000 more because of inflation, then your question is, how much is that actually inflation?

And how much is it that you're just asking for more?

I think the transparency is critically important.

It's important to you as a council, it's important to me as a citizen.

But I think there's some confusion here because there's a difference between the ordinance that is requiring in the budget to show, and and I I agree, it should be the municipal, because you're not transparent if you're using the CPI.

And you can explain to people what the difference is between the municipal and CPI.

But there's a difference between the ordinance and how you present the analysis.

You're trying to communicate the analysis.

And if you communicate the analysis in such a way that you that you say, this is how much inflation is, and you allow people to draw their own conclusion that you're going to raise taxes because of that, then that's what they're going to think.

But if you if you present the analysis and say these are our options, and one of them is to raise taxes, then everybody's going to jump to that one.

So in the analysis is where the problem is.

And these are the things we propose we will do to counteract that.

And that doesn't have to be a tax increase.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Lori, don't forget to fill out one of those cards for us, please.

Thank you.

Pat Jones.

I'm so grateful I have an opportunity to come in the comment.

I thought I won.

I really did, I thought, because I did not see um public hearing described there.

Anyway, I was telling my friend.

This should not be in the ordinance.

And I'm surprised that for the third time, I mean, you council member beat me to it.

It should not be in the ordinance.

This analysis can be produced every year.

When the council asks for it.

It can be requested.

When it's, you know, in a criminal situation, crime.

Um we up we are uh innocent until we are proven guilty for an ordinance and regulation.

It's the opposite.

It's a crime if we speak up against it or do anything against it.

Well, it's not crime, but you know what I'm saying.

It it's it's it's more difficult for the residents to voice their opinion because it's in the it is a justification right there.

Inflation goes up almost every year, we know that.

Almost every year.

And cost of items of products and everything, it goes up after it went up, it doesn't go down, rarely does it go down again.

The manufacturers will stay right there most of the time.

That's the reality that we we live in.

And so why would it why should it be in the ordinance?

That's all I have to say.

You you you uh council members can get this analysis every year.

You can ask for it every year.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I have no more speakers on this item.

Dustin, can you invite our online participants?

Of course, thank you, Madam Chair.

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

Call your name in the order in which you raised your hand, and you'll have three minutes to comment.

Not seeing any raised hands, madam chair.

All right, we'll close public comment on this voting item and bring it back to the council.

Madam Chair, I have a question.

Sure.

So thank you to the two commenters on this.

What seems like a really relatively you know, easy thing.

It's obvious in the in our constituents' mind, it's it's something different.

So we have to ask the question why did you choose to put this in ordinance rather than just ask for the report?

So uh last year we asked for it and got it.

Um, you know, Mr.

Kelly was great to present it.

Uh a lot of this, I think you look back historically.

So that's so to have it with in a comprehensive budget document to be able to see what did it, what was inflation five years ago, what was it 10 years ago, what was it 50 years ago?

And it would be included so you don't have to look for another, you know, going online trying to find another agendized item that talks about it or another presentation.

It's just included with the budget document itself.

Um and and putting it in ordinance.

So, you know, I I've spoken with administration and administration, you know, didn't have concerns with this and was amicable and said no, you know.

I mean, this actually it does show residents, you know, that that we are making cuts in other areas, um, thought of you know, spoke of it favorably, but that doesn't mean that the next administration would do the same.

So, you know, to have this in ordinance where it's saying, you know, this needs to be presented in a comprehensive document that is given to a council, the council each year, and then it's there historically as well.

So to make sure that it does happen each year and and to be tied with the document so that it is there and it's all together.

So my thoughts are possibly, and I'm not making this motion to table the item to see what one of the reports would look like to give residents a better idea of what the report will look like and the information it contains and maybe slow this down a little bit and and explore how this is affecting us and the residents so we can actually see the report, because I've never seen a report like this either.

So that's just I an idea.

So I I think we go ahead and take a and then we request it.

I and and that's a good idea is to request what it looks like, but then we can also I mean, if we are unhappy with it, it does give us time to say, let's go back to the ordinance, and then we can adjust the ordinance if necessary.

You know, but that way it is making that request to administration.

Let's produce this, let's figure it out, let's look at it, and it gives us time between now and next year to look at it as well.

And it's kind of to your point, having it in ordinance is really the only way that we we know we're going to get it right.

We can request things multiple times, we request things and we don't get it from administration.

So I see your point in wanting to also put it in ordinance form.

So you know, I see it both ways.

So I think we have a few council members who have voiced a request, and are you saying no to um first show coming back with um another second reading to show what a report would look like and gain the support that you're looking for that way?

Um what do you think about that?

I'm I'm thinking that we take a vote on it and then we request it, and if we don't like what it looks like, then we can add to it and change from then I mean that way it may, I mean, to see what they're coming up with, you know, and then modify the ordinance from there.

But that's but they have to go by then they're looking at this, this is the the outline to it of saying here, let's do this, and then we can change it.

Change it if necessary after we see it, but let's get it in so that they have a clear request of what the expectation is at this point, and then make those changes later if we're not liking it.

Does that work?

Or do you want to do it?

Is that well I'm I'm asking Ms.

Nickel, I mean, if that's just with them with my thought of tabling it, um it continues it to a point to get um other people's more comfortable with it, um, to see what it would look like, the way it integrates with the budget, the way um we would all interpret using that information before we pass tonight.

I think that would um uh change my mind on what I initially thought I was gonna you know come and vote yes for it because of the the public's input, I would have to change my vote to a no on it simply because I think it it it garners more thought and more explanation.

And I think that would probably be a request.

I'm not sure if the mayor is still online if she's willing to to work with this because this would just be a request and it doesn't have to, you know, versus in an ordinance, then it does require them to do it.

And I'm not sure if she's still available online.

I what I'm hearing is I am here if you'd like to hear.

Hold on just a second.

What I'm hearing from council members is a request of you to put to get this a sample report together now and attach it to a second reading so they get a better understanding.

It sounds to me like yeah.

And that's and but I'm not the money man, you know, Mr.

Kelly, so I would I would be looking because he's the one that puts together the budget, and so I would be looking for for something that he would be putting together to make sure, you know, if he's gonna be doing this in the future, you know, so I'd be requesting that of him.

So that's where I think you know that that the mayor would need to allow me to make that request of him.

So if mayor, if she's willing to let us do that.

Another way to look at that is um have staff propose a document as well, and and then go to administration and see if that is something that um they they can work with the framework they can work with.

So I mean, I don't know that I I understand your your concern and thought about Brian's time and I appreciate that.

But we could put together our framework of what it would look like and then work with administration as well or any other way.

Just you know, I think that sample is critical.

I'm thinking my vote is along those lines too.

If we have council members who are not unreasonably asking for just a little bit more information to get a comfort level here, I'm I'm feeling supportive of that point of view too.

And it also taking into consideration the public comments that I think were you know germane to this conversation as well.

And that works, and I think you know, once again, it's just asking I mean it to make sure, you know, Madam Mayor, if that's okay if I work with Mr.

Kelly uh with council staff.

They're busy right now as well, you know, of coming up with stuff.

So I um, you know, Madam Mayor is that okay if I can work with Mr.

Kelly to try to bring something back.

Uh sure.

We're here to survey.

We've discussed this, and I think it does promote transparency, it's data, it's not policy.

So how the council chooses the data points like interest rates, inflation rates, CPI, construction costs, all of that goes, you know, it changes every year with every budget.

So we are happy to provide that to the council for you to use as you see fit.

Thank you, Mayor.

Yes.

I thought I heard somebody else catch them there.

Yep.

No, that's fine.

We can work on getting that you know, hopefully in the next week or so.

Okay.

So we'll bring it back for another second reading.

Do you need a motion on that?

Or is it a table or continuation?

What do you need?

Or just not vote on the you can make a motion to table it, or you can just not take action.

Not taking action is fine.

And it to continue it would be we've already closed the public comment on it, though, right?

It'll come back for another second reading on the calendar, so we will take another public comment.

Okay, yeah.

All right, cool.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

Giving these guys a second to catch up there.

All right.

Moving on to agenda item number four.

This is council member Housman with her second reading.

It's the night of second readings.

Um thank you, madam chair.

Uh colleagues, before um kind of open discussion on this, I just want to anchor us in what the ordinance is, why it matters.

We've spent a lot of time talking about it, both here and in chambers, but also um outside of this.

So I really appreciate all the conversation.

Kind of want to just provide a summary of where this ordinance stands.

So, as we know, chapter 4-8 is at its core about institutional parity.

In the council mayor system, just like ours, both branches conduct official governmental communications, such as you know, ordinances, public hearings, budget matters, constituent engagement, et cetera, are all legislative functions as much as executive functions.

This ordinance ensures that the council has communications capacity comparable to what the mayor's office already has.

That's the principle, and everything we're building within this ordinance is sort of the structure that supports that principle.

So since introducing this, the ordinance has absolutely become stronger and better.

And I appreciate everyone's input on that.

Um, it's better because of the conversation and the the back and forth and the feedback and and even the pushback, like all of it, I feel like has made it better.

Um, in the packet, you noticed uh two color two versions of lines um edits.

That was intentional, and I think I shared that with with all of you earlier.

But essentially, one color reflects the adjustments that have been made in response to feedback that you, as my colleagues have shared.

The other color represents um the feedback received from administration and legal analysis, etc.

So hopefully you saw the evidence of of a product that came out of true collaboration, feedback, even sharp and and um sharp questions and an effective pushback.

So hopefully that that helps um even those who are following this conversation at home understand that.

Um I want to just acknowledge that in particular the administration definitely pressed on where advice and consent um appropriately belongs.

Um taking that question seriously is kind of what actually brings us to two possible pathways tonight.

I'll get to that in a moment.

Um, but these questions that have been brought have received multiple rounds of legal review.

I just want to hopefully you all had a chance to read the memo that Mr.

Cadell provided um earlier today.

Thank you, Mr.

Cadell, for that.

So we've had a lot of legal analysis.

Tell me if I got something wrong.

But essentially, what he concludes is the ordinance provides institutional accountability, it provides transparency, and provides some coordination over official municipal communications while also preserving executive authority.

That is really important to everyone.

I understand that.

So working hard to balance that.

Mr.

Cadell also indicated that on both legal and sound policy grounds, the ordinance as it stands is appropriate.

So that's sort of my quick summary of what he shared.

And so with that in mind, I'd like to ask that tonight in our conversation, we treat the legal questions as having already been examined.

So that's what I want to talk about tonight.

Is establishing appropriate advice and advice and consent over this function, this the function of this.

Currently, it's described as a division.

I'm gonna bring up Mr.

Cadell's other path in a moment.

But that's that's what I'm trying to establish.

I think it's I think it's important that there is appropriate advice and consent because this director position, whether it ends up division, department, whatever, is affecting departments across the city.

Large widespread impact, so I think it's appropriate to have advice and consent.

So the path, um, Mr.

Cadell in his memo did introduce another path.

It's not in the current version of the of the ordinance, but I felt like it was appropriate to sort of bring that forward.

Um the path was, you know, of course, the ordinance currently is focused on division level, but as I mentioned to all of you, when we were first uh debating over this, um Mr.

Fradto and I we really wrestled.

It was um is this division, is this department?

And and where I landed was department, um sorry, I landed was division because that provides far greater flexibility to administration.

So I just again want to reiterate that that I carefully weighed and I thought let's go with division because it allows for that flexibility.

Um in some additional analysis since there's obviously department is an option, and that was a pathway Mr.

Cadell presented.

With that option comes some additional um complexity and and and increased costs, but it's a path.

It's a path.

And with it with department being a path, advice and consent comes with it automatically.

So I really excuse me, I really don't have, I mean, obviously initially I had a preference.

My preference was division to try to allow administration to have as much flexibility as possible.

But we have I have heard from several that advice and consent is seems to be the thing that is is is raising questions, and so you know, departments on the table too.

I'm willing, I don't have a stake which path.

I just wanted to at least say tonight in our conversation.

Um that is also a possible path, and and please give me feedback on if that's if that's what you would prefer.

So I don't, I wouldn't say if our conversation tonight takes us in the direction of the right path being the department.

I'm not I'm not sure that it is appropriate to just adopt the department tonight.

That might warrant further conversation.

Um but I am looking for direction as to I I want to propose the ordinance the way it stands.

I think it is sound, I think it is well researched, I think it provides the flexibility that so administration can do what you know the division could go wherever administration wants, and and it doesn't increase cost the way department level would, but I do believe that it is appropriate to have advice and consent.

So we have a couple of pathways.

I really want to hear from the group what what your thoughts are.

Um I'm I'm you know, I do intend to consider the ordinance as is, um, and I'm open to discussing a path that takes us to the department instead of the division approach as well.

So that's kind of where I am.

I could land either way.

I however I do think advice and consent is is critical.

So that is where I am.

Ms.

Nickel.

So I'll share my input first on the division or department.

I I believe division is the correct way to go on this one, uh, simply because of the unknown costs and um, well, not simply because of that, but but because of the unknown cost and one.

But I think that you know, advice and consent is something very important.

And this this particular communication person has uh or and communications have been the cause of angst.

I'm not gonna lie, between in between administration and some council members.

And I think it's critical from day one when we started doing the budget workshops, we all identify trust was the number one issue that is holding this council back, and this is a way I think we build consensus.

We have a say in people that gives us ownership, right?

We take an ownership in that we we inherently trust them.

Otherwise, there's trust to be built, and that could be more detrimental more detrimental, and particularly with this with this division department on this particular item.

I I really want to have a true trust going forward.

Okay, I will add my comments.

Um I would prefer division as well because of the flexibility that you spoke about.

I think that is giving deference to the role and keeping it under a department that is you know unchanged, basically.

Um I think advice and consent is an important aspect of this.

Um I find the legal discussion that we've been having about advice and consent to really be a very interesting, but more but a very very important one.

Um I am I only remember I this is my seventh year on the council.

Um my tenth year with the city.

I only remember one case where advice and consent has been denied.

And by the way, the council, the the the council told that person beforehand that they and the person recommending them that they weren't going to get approved and gave them the opportunity to withdraw the nomination, right?

So I only know of one case in all of these years where it's been denied.

So the issue of any kind of exposure or risk of someone being denied.

I I don't I don't see that as the issue.

I see the issue as one of being able to build consensus and build agreement of working together, of collaboration, of cooperation.

Um we get a chance as council members to interview candidates that are up for advice and consent, gives us the opportunity to get to the same position that the mayor and the administration have in the interview process of coming to a conclusion that this person is a good candidate.

It is helpful to the goal of a city that is collaborating, seeing things the same way, coming to understanding.

Um consent, I believe it's helpful all the way around, even especially to the candidates who are inter being interviewed.

They get to understand who the legislative and budgetary body are.

We have both Tracy and Lynn who have indicated that it is compliant with law.

Is that correct?

Excuse me, that is my opinion.

Lynn, we have something in writing from you, I believe, that indicates the same.

Yeah, my legal opinion says that the statute is not explicit on either authorizing or prohibiting.

All right.

So what it appears to me that what happened was because we had two legal opinions of trusted sources within the city that said yes, this can be done.

That for some reason a decision was made to go outside at taxpayer expense to get another opinion.

I wonder how many times we would have done that before we got the contrary opinion that we got.

But anyway, I'm I am comfortable following the guidance of the attorneys that we have.

And so I would if I would support setting up a division, and I do also believe that advice and consent is a an important, a beneficial, a natural consequence of filling this position.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Similar to last time, my my comments and opinion on this hasn't changed.

You know, it's a significant sum of money just for that one cost center.

And so, you know, to me, it it's not anyway, it it's not budget dust, as has been mentioned in the past, right?

And so to me, that that signifies the level of importance that we uh as a city are giving, given this particular department.

I do think or division, I do think it's a very important component to what we do.

Um I overall support the policy, and um I don't have a problem with what's been proposed under it being a division.

You know, I I asked you the question um after the first time, uh why why did you propose it as a division instead of a department if the the pushback is because of advice and consent um being a division and not a department.

And so um I respect the deference that you attempted to show and I support that overall, but at the same time, I personally could go either way.

You know, if if there if that does seem to be the biggest concern for council members, and some would feel better if it were more distinct in department versus division, um, I am flexible that way.

But overall, I feel like this is good policy.

Um I appreciate the work that you've done, not only with the council, but you know, with the administration and those are my comments.

Thank you.

Mr.

De Keyser.

Thank you.

Well, I really appreciate all the time you've put into this.

For me, just like I texted you however many weeks ago, um, the issue is is what problem are we trying to solve?

And I haven't really seen like a communications failure that I think uh rises to the occasion to warrant this level of oversight and uh reporting requirements, things like that.

Um, uh I don't know if it got resolved in that meeting, and maybe you have you have an answer to this, but we're already working on communications capacity at the council office.

So to me, um I just don't see a need.

And I am I am really um cautious about um like treading more and more onto the executive side.

Um I think one thing that was interesting in the legal memos is they all kind of identified as the baseline where city council uh or mayor council form of government and the separation of powers is super essential.

And so to me, this is just kind of a creep in that direction with more oversight, more reporting requirements, um uh requirements for press releases, things like that.

And I think fundamentally um the I thought the analysis from all attorneys was great, but I most aligned with um the outside one in terms of the intent of the legislature, and for me that's because there it there's a limiting principle.

Um, and that is that statute says these are the positions that have advice and consent.

I just don't know or would stop.

Today it's the communications director, tomorrow it's another division director.

And so I I just I just don't know where we would where that would end up going, and that would just be at our discretion.

And so to me, uh I align most mostly with that outside legal opinion, interestingly.

Um not that the others are bad, it just as I look at it and what they the legislature probably intended.

So that's where I'm at.

Thank you.

Either way, okay.

Sorry, I've served out.

Um that's a you know, I appreciate the amount of work that you've done with us as well and kind of gone back and forth.

You know, there's been a lot of changes.

Um, you know, I I got back, you know, with Mr.

DeKaiser, you know, that last little part of where you know it's that sticking point for me, you know, we've got 30-ish other kind of number two or division level employees, uh, and that's an I I view all of them as equally important.

You know, not all of them are as public facing, but their jobs are equally as important.

Um and I I just look going, okay, if we're going to do, and I think I brought this up before, if we're going to do it for one, then why wouldn't we be doing it for all of them?

You know, if instead of isolating saying, well, you know, this division level and this division, but that's it.

You know, so it's I am not seeing you know the need to make sure that that we start including all division level employees in there.

Um, I I it's you know, I think we're good with that department head level and trust you know, department heads to be able to select the people, you know, beneath them.

That's you know, like you look at you know, Chief McConaughey or Chief Nyber, I I would definitely not feel comfortable, you know, interviewing and saying, oh well, you know, I'm going to give you advice and consent or I'm going to decline advice and consent because I don't know about the fire service, you know, or or police department, you know, the I have to trust them to be able to make those decisions.

Um, you know, so and at this level, you know, it it's it does fall under whether that falls under you know the CAO, you know, or the mayor, but we have to have that level of trust that that person is able to find them at a division level, you know, instead of that that department head.

So, you know, I I like everything else in here of what you've done and you know, and think that it is something that that needed to be brought forward and needed to be clarified and added in there, but I'm not at that point where we need to be isolating which division level employees that we need to be providing advice and consent for.

I'm a similar opinion, like I really like this.

The third part that gives me heartburn is advice and consent.

And so I don't want to it is a really important position, and I understand the reasoning.

I just don't want to add more than we need to unless we have some sort of process in place to streamline or adjust our advice and consent process that would make a really clear way we do things to eliminate some of maybe the trepidation or nervousness that employees might feel having to go through this process.

So I that's where I'm at.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um that's everyone, right?

We heard from okay.

So what I'm hearing, I heard three that are like prefer division.

The three of you sounds like you prefer department.

Um you prefer division?

Okay, well, that's that's not on the table for me.

Um advice and consent that I feel strongly about.

So you are you are you're fine with division, but you don't want advice and consent.

That's not gonna I'm not changing that.

Um councilman Stroud, Councilman De Kaiser, your preference is department, because that comes with advice and consent.

Councilman Stroud, you said you don't like the picking and choosing which division people are divide our advice and consent or winter on.

So would you support then the path of department?

Because then it's we're not debating it's automatic.

I would like to see what that would look like.

Um I don't think creating a department where there's two people that are in it, you know.

So that's and I think I think I sent this to you in a message, is that you know, to look and say, you know, if we're going to create a new department, what all does that look like?

But you have a if you have a department head, um, you know, we have a couple of smaller departments within the city, um, you know, city council office being one of them, um, and then RDA and RDA is an animal all by itself.

Um, and then RDA and RDA is an animal all by itself.

Um, but you know, what if we're going to create a new department, what does that look like?

Um, you know, how many people, you know, because that's obviously we're dealing with budgetary items and looking at salary.

So what does it look like?

But I mean that's yeah, I so I would be willing to explore what that looks like.

Um, you know, if we are creating a brand new department, you know, I I am comfortable with it staying at division, and I would not like to pursue because I just don't think I don't like opening that door.

But you know, I mean that's I it's always it's information.

You know, I mean I I have never shunned a council member for trying to find more information, you know, and to look into explore and option on you know in that direction.

So the reason I went with division was because of the very complexity that you just described.

I wanted to defer to administration, they can decide where this division goes.

But it's I thought you were indicating that your hang up is advice and consent at the division level.

And it is.

And it is.

So I think that's so you're a no regardless.

Department won't get you to a yes and defeat.

No, I'm not saying no on it on a department.

I'm saying that's you know, I I would be if if you want to do some research and and bring that back of what the department itself would look like if there's something to be able to combine it to make it more of a substantial.

To be honest, if I could interrupt, sorry.

Um I think that actually steps into executive lane, which is what Mr.

DeKaiser is just saying we need to avoid.

I feel like what is in the ordinance, aside from yes, the salary would be different because a department head is paid more than a division director, but um so yes, there's financial, but I responsibilities, all the reporting, everything that's in here, I would apply to the department.

So everything you're asking for, I feel like is the up to the executive side to determine.

I am very comfortable with what I've put in terms of whether it's a division who's d providing this or a department that's divide providing it.

I think there's real clarity around what it would look like.

The clarity you're asking for would have to, in my opinion, would have to come from administration because they're the ones that would need to establish um what are we gonna put in there?

So uh that's why I am saying it's it's far more complex, and I would prefer division because of the flexibility provides with administration.

But I I I wanted to make sure we had time to explore that pathway because Mr.

Cadell did bring it up.

Um Mr.

DeKaiser, so department was does that alleviate your concerns with advice and consent.

No.

Um and as a council member, I'd be really I think we should be really careful about to make it a department, I'd want to ask like budgetary questions, work for workforce questions, uh whether the department has risen to the size that it would need to be a department or the division be a department.

Um but to me, like to create a mechanism for advice and consent, making it a division, I don't think that uh follows like the organizational needs of this of the city, and that's what should determine whether or not it's uh department instead of like the level of oversight that we want in terms of advice and consent.

So it and I respect that.

It it uh the problem I'm trying to solve is the the angst seems to be around advice and consent.

So I was trying to solve that problem.

The two of you I've it sounds like well, Mr.

McKaiser, it sounds like you're saying no, that actually doesn't solve the problem for me, which is fine, that's honest.

I think I'm ready to make a motion.

I I feel like department feels not actually like it's potentially solving the problem that is giving people heartburn.

So oh, sorry, never mind.

Ms.

D'Souza, go ahead.

Thank you.

I I just wanted to ask a question, and I I think I might already know, but I don't want to assume, I want to ask.

You know, there's a lot of conversation.

I'm hearing it too, you know.

Initially I kind of read it the same way.

I'm I'm hearing these additional comments.

Is there is there a possibility that you might remove the advice and consent for division and continue to look at what a department looks like?

I so in in passing what you have minus the advice and consent portion.

But then like continue to look at whether or not the department makes sense.

I just wanted to ask.

I I think it's a great question.

I think it's appropriate question.

Um my answer is is no.

I feel like uh this ordinance in its current state reflects a whole lot of uh collaboration back and forth.

Um but i removing the advice and consent is is changing the policy entirely, and that is something I feel very strongly about.

What could end up happening is to Mr.

DeKaiser's point, um we operate as a division, and then there is some perhaps groundwork laid for oh, it actually makes sense for this to be a department.

So it could move in that direction, but I'm not comfortable removing advice and consent.

But I think it's a great thank you for asking.

Madam Chair, may I make a comment, please?

Okay.

Thank you.

Um this has been a this has been a um big deal on both sides.

And there's been a lot of um a lot of discussion back and forth.

I appreciate greatly council member Housman taking our comments, uh following up on them and uh talking with um with Martin and then working with Dustin to make a number you've made a number of changes.

Those changes are are all uh positive.

You added some of the language that we suggest that uh we I we appreciate that.

Um the issue on the advice and consent.

Uh our mayor feels strongly about this issue.

That's why she uh went out and got a second opinion.

Uh uh.

Well, however, a second opinion is the same as the type of opinion you get every week by Mr.

Cadell, who is on contract.

That's a second opinion.

So it's no different than that.

Now I don't know what the uh where the mayor will go after you've taken the vote that you're gonna uh that you're gonna uh take.

Um it is an important issue for her.

She does feel like that it does uh erode her executive authority.

Um yeah, there are there are fears about well, what does when does it stop?

Uh does it go to another division head every time we have a division head leave the city?

Is this is the council going to add that to um the ordinance.

So um I think it's fair to say that uh I you know I read all three opinions.

I read Tracy's opinion um after uh uh the third opinion.

Frankly, I love them all.

Okay.

I really do.

I think uh I think this is this is an issue that you know it's obviously a gray area.

There is no case law associated with this.

I would hate I would hate this for this to go as far as that we end up creating case law for this.

Um I appreciate Tracy's uh uh idea that we that you make it a department.

Um the communications division or office currently has four individuals, four FTEs in it.

It's already larger than the economic development department.

So I don't have concerns about uh uh it becoming a department because uh it wouldn't be much different than what our economic development department is that has three FPEs in it.

Uh it does uh it does solve this conflict between the mayor and the council and allows us to move on.

Uh I don't know how the how uh Mayor Zoltanski would feel about that.

She's online.

Um if you'd uh allow her to comment on that, she could provide you some feedback on that.

Um I actually really support the council's idea about creating upgrading your position and creating a communications director.

That is very needed for the city council.

And I think when you've done that, I think you'll see it'll be easier uh to use the communications office, division, or department, whatever it is.

I think it will make it easier for you to do that.

Um I think it's good that uh the mayor's office has a PIO, the city council has a uh PIO or communications uh director.

Um our police and fire have PIOs.

Uh that's all very helpful for our city because what do we want?

We want to provide transparency uh to our citizens.

And I think all that accomplishes it.

Um I think if if we can get past this, I think then we uh we keep moving forward, and I think our uh the communications coming uh from the mayor's office, the council, all the departments will be enhanced because of this.

So I would encourage you to uh either consider the possibility of a department um or reconsider making it advice and consent.

Thank you for the time.

Thank you.

All right.

So you had asked whether you could make a motion.

I'm gonna remind you before you do that.

You're entitled to do that.

This is a voting item and will go to public comment.

So would you like to make your motion before we take public comment or do you want to wait until after?

Um I can I can wait after and um Mr.

Pace asked if if it would be possible for the mayor to respond.

I would just ask that it it be kept within the conversation that I don't want to relitigate.

Um I don't want to debate the legality of this.

What I'm looking for is the same feedback I asked for for my colleagues, which is um there's two possible pathways, division, department.

I was curious to know interest in the department pathway.

That's that's what I'm interested in hearing from the mayor.

And and Mr.

Pace said she'd be willing to give her perspective on on that specific thing.

I'm happy to have the mayor's input if she'd like to give it.

She is online.

So thank you, council.

Thank you, Councilmember Housman, for your work on this.

Uh the I I think it's really important.

The purpose behind this is stated as uh communications parity, and I fully support that.

I think it is um it's kind of untenable for one branch of government to be responsible for the communications of the other, and then we've got core city functions that should um not fall under politicized appointment process and advice and consent.

So the way we've run the communications division is just that.

So if uh now with the council having their own communications staff, uh mayors always had a PIO, I think creating a department separate for with advice and consent, that's a good solution.

And kind of takes the constitutional test out of it, and we can resolve it and move forward.

So like Mr.

Pace said, that's uh Mr.

Cardell cited that's a that's a solution, but it does have a budget impact that the council have to address.

If you want it for this budget cycle, um that's something that the council would have to uh grapple with.

If you want to put something in motion for next year or reopen the budget, that's another way to address it.

But I think that that solves the separation of powers to uh conflict, which is really kind of at an impasse.

And I think I think uh more communication is important.

Our presidents uh are always hungry for more communication, swift communication, and it gives uh kind of clear chain of command how staff matters are handled, and we're not um I'm really concerned about bleeding um advice and consent and expanding advice and consent to the division level in the city.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Um if that is the preference of the administration, then I'm getting for department head.

Department head.

So yeah, and then if I can just want to clarify that the council maintains their communication staff, the mayor's office has the PIO communications staff, and then this creates a new department that's um directed by a department director that receives advice and consent.

That's workable.

So you're saying okay.

If if the administration is okay with it, then a department head solution is okay with it, just so you know.

Madam Chair, if I could hear just does that I'd love to hear reactions from everyone before uh we take public comment.

Oh, I'll go.

Um I am still leaning towards division because we are right in the middle of a budget.

It's also there's debate whether it's a good time to do it or a bad time to do it.

But um there's some other budget considerations that are being talked about within council members and anything that division keeping it division at this point is still the best way to go on this.

I um I don't see it as the impasse that the mayor has characterized it as.

I do believe we have a solid legal opinion on the question about advice and consent for a division.

Um just giving you my point of view.

If what it takes to bring council members around to support is making it a department, then I would support that as well.

I said I was fine either way, so that's still the case.

I'd love to hear Councilman Stroud, Mr.

Councilman DeKaiser.

Well, again, I I have pause like I want to understand more about why we would make the communications department department.

I understand the FTE, you know, they have four of them, so that would be justified.

But um I don't know anything about the increased cost of that or what that would look like.

Um so again, if if the reason to do it is advice and consent, I just don't think that's a good reason to make a division a department.

And yeah, I would want to know like there's a fiscal impact, what other impacts there are.

I I just I don't know what what that would entail.

So same as what I said before, you know, I that's I I'm more than happy to look at what that looks like, you know, and and always encouraged to have more information.

You know, I that's yeah, same comment as before.

You know, looking at it in that direction.

I don't like the division level advice and consent.

Um but you know, more than happy to see you know what that looks like, you know, as a department head.

So um you know I'll just wait for public comment.

Okay.

All right.

I don't have any blue cards on this issue.

If any commenters in the room would like to um if anyone in the room would like to comment on this that can make their way up to the podium and Dustin, will you invite the online participants?

Of course, thank you, Madam Chair.

Uh again, if you're joining us remotely via Zoom 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.

I'll call your name in the order in which you raised your hand, and you'll have three minutes, not seeing any hands raised, Madam Chair.

All right.

We'll close public comment on that item and bring it back to the council.

Ms.

Housman.

Thank you.

This has been a really good conversation.

Um my question is for Mr.

Codell and Mr.

Fredto.

So in looking at the current language, it says an ordinance amending chapter 4-4 and adding chapter 4-8 of the Sandy City municipal municipal code codifying the division of communications.

Um with this tonight's conversation and and the path of department emerging, would the language just simply change and it would say codifying the department of communications and defining the functions and duties of the department and and again those just those edits would flow through the document.

Do you see?

It do you see this needing obviously there's the budget question, I understand that.

But in order to pass the ordinance, do we have to have all of the other questions answered?

Or is it is the goal accomplished of creating the department?

That's which this policy is about.

Is that accomplished by just some tweaking here?

I'm happy to provide my opinion, Madam Chair, may I have the floor?

Yes.

Uh so we departments are not defined within their own uh sections within Title Four.

There's a section where each department is listed out and its functions and duties are outlined.

And so it would be out of the norm to add this new chapter that's defining the functions and duties of a department.

It would be out of alignment with the code.

And so if the council decides to go the department route, my recommendation is that you you table it so that we can re readjust that.

That would be my recommendation.

I've if Mr.

Cadell has a different opinion, I'd love to hear it.

Um in terms of the financial part of it, I I don't view that part as overly difficult.

I think that the only if if we were an apples to apples trade over of the current communications team into being a department, there'd be some increased uh salary costs for the director assistant director.

Um I can't think of any other uh additional costs, and that's unless there's new programs or something like that that you want to add in.

But if it's a you know across the aisle change, then those would be the the financial costs that changes.

Thank you, uh Councilmember Houseman for asking my input on it.

I'm it's been a really interesting project.

I this is what I I agree with Dustin.

I think that you've done the work on the policy.

But I think in terms of the presentation of the same, I think we could present the same material, but it would have to be we'd have to go back and look at it, make sure it's in alignment with the way that departments are created within the city.

So I your question's a good one, and is can we can we resolve this this evening?

My my answer to that, if you want us to explore or even bring back the policy in a department form, I I would I would recommend that you don't do that without us going back and I don't think that any of the content would be that much different, but the way that it's presented in the code is significantly different.

And uh we'd want to go back and and renumber it and put it in the right section and give you our give you our best work, which I think we could do rather quickly.

Um as you know, I normally don't weigh in on policy considerations because that's your decision.

It certainly isn't ours.

We're just here to try to staff and help you accomplish your goals.

But it's really interesting in a conversation I had with Shane about this when we were starting to work on it.

He told me about how things were uh when he was here the first time.

That there was a person who had communications responsibilities in the mayor's office, and that's how it was when he was here the first time.

And the world is way different now.

And for me personally, I I see the communications um staff as just as important, if not more important, than the other departments personally.

Um I I think that there's there's the uh the inner city communication, the intra communication, the inner communication outside of the city.

I think there's so many moving parts.

I love the idea of having a policy concerning communications.

I personally also think a department is sends a stronger message about how important this is.

Now that's just me.

Um I obviously you're the policymakers and you'll decide.

Um and we're happy to do whatever you think is best.

My opinion is is that as is it holds up.

Now, we don't know, uh maybe the mayor doesn't think so, and she can exercise her discretion and veto this uh this ordinance.

And then where would that leave us?

Let's just have this conversation.

Where would that leave us?

Um then um it comes back to you at the next meeting, you'd have to consider it.

And you essentially have to have a supermajority to override that veto.

Uh if you're working towards a consensus a department, um sounds like it brings you closer there.

So anyway, that's my sense of it.

Um it does resolve one other thing to mention.

Uh I have a tremendous amount of respect for Lynn and his opinion on this issue on all legal issues.

Uh and he and I do agree.

Mr.

Hall does raise a legitimate argument.

I'm not saying he's wrong, and I have a lot of respect for him.

Um, but I have a different opinion.

Moving it to a department removes that from the equation completely.

Um, I think you can do it without with the division.

I do.

I really believe that.

I wouldn't tell you that, and I really don't have any qualms about it.

But if you want to remove that issue, the department matter settles it.

And we we've heard the mayor on the record say that essentially say that that she wouldn't veto that as well.

So that's something that you should probably consider.

May I make one additional comment?

So, you know, I I've just gone so the the section where we've defined departments is within 4-4.

Uh and you know, obviously we've noticed 4-4 on our agenda is the section being amended.

So I I mean I had an idea, but if you in terms of how we might incorporate it tonight, but if you would like me to do to have that discussion, I would ask that we take like a five-minute recess so that I could powwow with um Tracy and Lynn and just see if it's a possibility or not.

Um because I just want to give you the kind of do the due diligence do that due diligence before I say no, it needs to be tabled.

Um so that would be my request if you're I'm agreeable to a recess to do that if you'd like to.

If I could um say one more thing so that it comes into play when they recess.

Um thank you, Madam Chair.

I uh uh before you pow wow, wait, I have more, I want to drop in.

I like that we're already thinking.

Thank you.

Thank you for the brainstorming.

I love I love thinking outside the box.

Another thought I had as Mr.

Cadell was talking is, and it it was triggered by something councilwoman Nichol said, which is timing.

You know, I am I am trying to be sensitive because I did want this to happen within this budget cycle.

Um but a thought I had is the language of the ordinance, advice and consent doesn't even come into play until we're talking about a new person.

So we're already talking down the road as is.

This is this is not applying.

Advice and consent will not apply to anyone in a current position.

So we're already talking down the road.

Um any kind of there's a future, whether it's a division director that we land on or department head.

So again, just to qualify, make sure everyone understands.

We're already talking about down the road advice and consent.

So that's why I'm wondering Can I can I interrupt?

So if you make it a department, statutorily department heads receive advice and consent.

So then it's so the position is gonna be a good thing.

It is retroactive then.

Well it's whoever is in per because we're putting we're moving someone from their current position in there is not currently a department.

So that person department heads.

Right, because you're creating a department.

Because it'll be an it'll be a new position.

You don't have a department.

Part of why I stayed at the division level, guys, was to I I wanted to allow flexibility and I wanted to, I wanted it to not affect people in current positions.

I didn't want to cause anxiety and have someone have to go through advice and consent.

I was forecasting down the road for a new person.

Oh, this complicates things.

Madam Chair, can I ask Mr.

Pace a question?

Does it?

Can I ask Mr.

Pace a question?

Is there currently a communications division director?

Currently there's not.

Currently what we had proposed in the budget was taking half of the current PIO position and putting it over into communications and trying to combine those two positions.

Um we don't believe that's in the best interest of uh anybody now because of of uh the full-time position you're trying to create.

Um that that should that that should that position should stay a full-time uh PIO position in the mayor's office and that it that a new person be hired for the communications director.

So it's gonna happen whether it's division or sorry.

I should be on the microphone.

So what you're saying is whether it's division or department, that will be a quote new new position, new person, advice and consent.

Correct.

Okay.

Thank you for that.

I am I like the idea of a intermission.

I mean intermission, fine, but like is next week too late.

I mean, there's five people that are willing to do this is next week, waiting till next week.

Uh bad idea, because then we'll also have more like budget, not that it's gonna change anything, but like we'll have more information and budgetary information.

If I need to wait for it, I'm just checking.

I just want to hear like I want to yeah, I want to break and let them deliberate.

Can I can I but I do think it needs to happen this budget?

Can I give us perspective on that question as well, madam chair?

Is that okay?

We are running up against a wall in terms of amending the budget.

And if we're going to make this change, it would be much the sooner the better.

So if we can make it happen tonight, uh that would be my preference just for that reason.

I see it that way too.

Hey, by the way, I don't know, like we have we have had current employees that have been subject to advice and consent when they were promoted into another role.

So I don't know that this is anything to cause anxiety or concerns.

It is anyway.

I just wanted to add that.

Um we it's almost eight o'clock.

It seems like a good time for a short recess anyway.

Let's try to keep it as short as possible if we can.

Thank you.

Recording stopped.

Recording in progress.

All right.

Welcome back, everyone.

We're ready to resume the city council meeting.

Ms.

Hausman, we're still on your item.

What would you like to do?

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to make a motion.

All right.

I move to amend chapter 4-4 of the city code to create a new Department of Communications as substantially set forth in the text.

Included in the City Council packet with minor wording and formatting revisions as needed to implement this motion.

Second.

Okay, are we going to specify those changes or this is adequate?

I'm happy to.

So essentially, it as we as I wondered, it really is just very minor changes to the language that is already in it set in here for divisions.

We're basically just changing it to be under 4-4 now instead of 4-8.

Now department, and this will all be sent out before a signature is gathered.

But so we're just changing division to department.

Everything else is the same except striking at the very end.

The director of communications is no longer that whole advice and consent thing is no longer needed because it's now a department.

Is that correct?

Yeah, yeah, Madam Chair.

I'm sorry, Councilmember Houseman.

You got it correct.

So we'll strike the advice and consent section at the bottom.

We'll change the title so that it fits within chapter 4-4-5 of our municipal code, which is where we've defined the functions and duties of our existing departments.

The language will not change.

There may be some changes in the numbering because the numbering within that chapter is a little bit different.

But but that's really it.

The only substantive change is just that striking of the advice and consent at the end because it's no longer needed within the chapter.

So we're not modifying or amending the ordinance that was in the packet 26-48 at all.

We're substituting with what we just read.

Okay.

Yeah, the only thing we would change on the title of the ordinance is just the that we're not we're not adding a new chapter 4-8 any longer.

It's all just amending chapter 4-4 as permission.

Which was publicly noticed.

So we are able to do this tonight.

Okay.

All right.

We have a motion and a second.

I guess I started the discussion on the motion.

Is there any more discussion on the motion?

No.

No, I have just got oh do okay.

Go ahead.

Um so I will be a no on this because my request was to bring it back for me to be able to look at, which included the budgetary uh impact.

So that's I mean, that's if I could see the budget at where you're gonna pull the money from because it is ongoing money.

I mean, that's I I just I wanted to see that, you know, knowing that this is it's going to be an impact.

You know, out of 180 million dollars, not super significant, but even as we go through items and amendments, you know, trying to find $50,000 is still trying to find $50,000.

Um so that's I I mean if this if we'd had time to look at it, but that's I don't have time to look at it.

I don't I mean, seeing all this, you know, it it could have looked different, but that's that's why I wanted I mean love the fact that you're looking through and trying to find this.

I just until I actually see it and can weigh it out and to ask questions to it.

I've got to wait.

Uh understand.

Uh I just for the record my preference was division to to allow greater flexibility and to avoid the costs that will come with us moving to department.

I am choosing this path because I'm trying working to build consensus across what I've heard, including from administration.

Administration has indicated that their preference is absolutely department level.

So they are making that recommendation knowing it will cost more.

And because that is the recommendation coming from administration, that's that's why I'm going this direction.

So I I I acknowledge there will be a cost increase.

Um I know there will be a plan for that.

I'm sensitive to it, but I'm also trying to build consensus across what I'm hearing from my colleagues and from administration.

Okay.

We have a motion and a second, and we're ready for a roll call vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Ms.

Housman.

Hmm.

Yes.

Ms.

Nickel.

Yes.

Ms.

Sharkey?

Yes.

Ms.

Christensen.

Yes.

Ms.

D'Souza.

Yes.

Mr.

DeKaiser?

No.

Ms.

Straut.

No.

Madam Chair.

That motion carried five to two.

All right.

Okay.

We're moving on to agenda item number five.

This is Councilmember D'Souza with a proposed budget amendment.

For clarity, this is we're hearing this guys to decide and the vote will be on whether we like this proposal enough to add it to the short list of proposal amendments that will be included that will be will take up at a later date, the 16th.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Council colleagues.

As the council liaison for the senior center for the last few years, I had a chance this last in our most recent meeting this last month to go over the mayor's budget proposal for the center.

During that conversation, they mentioned that they had a concern with an item that they felt needed to be in there for I was going to say longevity, that's not the right word, but solvency really isn't the right word, but I think you get where I'm going with it.

I'll continue.

I've concluded that here in the budget amendment proposal that I've uh shared with you guys this evening.

Uh this amendment is simple, uh, in my opinion, anyway.

It would create a dedicated $5,000 annual equipment contingency line item for the senior center, uh funded by reducing the community engagement line in the non-departmental cost center by that same amount.

This does not increase the overall general fund budget.

It is only a reallocation of existing dollars.

The reason I'm bringing this forward is because the senior center isn't just a recreational facility, right?

It provides uh daily services, meals, transportation support, health and wellness programming, and social connection for many of our older population.

In 2025, the center served 6,731 meals, which was a five and a half percent increase over the previous year, and had uh approximately well, I guess they have it not even approximately, it's pretty accurate here, 1,413 uh annual individual participants in two in 2025.

They also provided 42 classes or activities per week and supported nearly 9,500 volunteer hours.

Uh those services rely on functioning equipment that includes commercial kitchen appliances, fitness equipment, audio visual systems, and other facility related items that help keep programming running.

What stood out to me in the tentative budget is that the senior center had 14,000 in actual equipment spending in 2025, but received zero dollars in the equipment line in 2026 and um and proposed to receive zero in the tentative 2027 budget.

So this amendment is intended to create a small, predictable, transparent amount that can be used when equipment needs arise.

Um one of the things that came up in the conversation was the equipment needs that they have are typically larger ticket items like a commercial stove, um, the ice maker, even um a treadmill that had to be replaced was like six thousand dollars, right?

And so when I reviewed the community engagement spending that I'm proposing as the funding source, I noticed that um it seemed to be an appropriate place to move money from.

The line item had supported a number of of various things, such as uh receptions, meals, recognition items, flowers, gifts, swag, stickers, awards, um, and some materials.

And so when we're making budget decisions, especially in a tight year, um, I'm looking to decide which dollars I think might be flexible versus which ones might have operational need.

And so, in my view, the $5,000 senior center equipment contingency is a higher priority than preserving the full amount of the of that particular discretionary spending line.

Um I just want to be clear too that this is structured to not be a use it or lose it line item.

So if the full $5,000 is not needed in a given year, the remaining amount should be carried forward carried forward into an equipment or capital need for the senior center.

Um that could help build towards larger future needs, such as larger equipment replacement or other capital improvements.

Um the city is responsible for the building and maintaining the building, and the county is responsible for the programming.

One of the other uh needs that they said they will have in the nearer future, and they're trying to figure out how to make this work, and there's some things up in the air that may help reduce costs, but they they're gonna need a new um transportation vehicle for the seniors.

The current vehicle um has 90 something thousand miles, um, and they have specific needs that'll need to be wheelchair accessible and whatnot, and so um anyway, just to kind of give an idea of some of the overall needs that they have.

Again, this is meant to be a modest amendment, and I view it reasonable and responsible, and I would like to have your support in this.

So I am available to answer any questions that any of you may have.

Okay.

The fund you want to put it into.

If we put it into equipment and equipment fund, can we pull it back out if we need it for anything?

Is it like more like general fund?

If we put it into capital projects, we can't pull it out for general fund items if needed.

But if we put it in equipment, can we do that?

Oh so it would be in the in this, let me just hurry and pull up my area.

Council member D'Souza, I'm happy to address that if you'd like to do that.

Okay, go ahead.

Well, so the proposal uh it says to put the uh the funding initially into the equipment and operating equipment fund.

Okay, and so in this fiscal year, yes, you could move it somewhere else if you needed to.

Right.

Um however, let's say at the end of the fiscal year, the uh senior center doesn't use the money or they only use a portion of it, and you decide to carry it over into you know a capital project or into equipment management.

Um at that point, you can't necessarily you know pull it out the next fiscal year and put it back into an operating expense, but you could move it into a different equipment need or a different different capital need I think their preference would be so I'm I'm trying to um deliver on their area of expertise and what they had asked for, and so initially it was within that cost center, which falls under parks and rec, right?

Um, into they were asking for a an equipment contingency line item that would feed into equipment at the end of the year.

I don't know that that's necessarily necessary, you know.

If they I I think it would be okay to put it in the equipment, and so even after I um have written the proposal, I think maybe it makes sense to put it directly into equipment, but with the idea that they're they're trying to build that up.

I asked what amount um would be appropriate for um equipment, and he said um this was also a conservative number, but 15 or 20,000.

And so I'm asking for five this year, yeah, and to build up.

And I'm not opposed to this.

I just am trying to figure out um like best the best way to do it so that it's not stuck in a capital fund that we can't get it back out for for equipment or something else that we need.

And I don't see in in the I might be missing them, but in capital projects, like specific projects they're saving towards.

So I'm wondering if Brian, isn't that the way we normally do it?

Don't we have like a specific like project?

Like we need I don't know.

Something like under like facilities, like do you know what I'm saying?

And so, but once we put it in the capital projects, we can't we can put it to a different capital project, but we can't pull it out of capital projects for something else.

Yeah, we don't recommend doing that.

Yeah if it's for equipment, I would just put it in the how it's listed here as equipment and it can roll over every year.

It would be carried over into equipment management.

It's just like any other department.

It's an operating line item for equipment.

If they don't spend it at the end of the year, their total balance can come back as carryover, whether for equipment or capital.

And it can stay there until the next year we put another 5,000 in the old 5,000.

And then if like let's say they decide they really need I don't know, something that's not equipment, can they move it to something else they would need?

Or does it have to be a piece of the other?

You have the legal authority to move money out of there, but it's difficult.

Well, not approved.

It's just misleading to investors that are looking at our financial statements if we're putting transfer money from the general fund to equipment management, and then we're moving it to capital, and then we're moving it back and so it's we don't recommend it.

You could do it, but once it goes to equipment management, would like it to stay there and unless you can build on extenuating circumstances in some extreme situation.

Right.

Okay.

So I'm I I'm fine with that.

It doesn't bother me.

I just want to be able to once we hit a spot like where they've purchased the things they need, then we maybe don't need to fund it.

And if we knew what they like, if they had a list of what they needed to purchase it's more of a later question, but I'm fine with it overall.

Sure, yes, and and part of it isn't that there is like that was kind of why I kind of I initially called it um equipment like contingency.

Yeah, just because it's something breaks and it needs to be replaced.

It's not like they know that it's going to be um they're they're not gonna replace stuff before it's broken.

No, honestly, right?

Like they're gonna wear it, wear the whole thing out, it's gonna break, and they're gonna be without some service.

And so you know that's kind of the situation.

We're trying to create a more um efficient process for them to have their service needs met, um equipment needs met.

Um Dustin, did you have a comment?

Um Madam Chairman?

Yes.

All I was gonna say is um you know council member uh Christianson, you had you had asked, well, what if they have you know an expense?

Can they take money out of the you know equipment management, etc.?

And my answer is if they had some if the benefit to putting it as an operating amount initially is any you do that every year, then that's operating money, right?

And if there is another need that's not an equipment, then maybe they could spend it that year up to that amount.

Um and if they do have an equipment need, that's what it they can for it.

Well, and they can use equipment management at that point as well if that's where that money is carried into.

Thank you.

And then my other question is where in special programs in non-departmental do you which of the lines do you want to pull it from?

It was community and uh community engagement.

I think it's like the 13,000.

Yes.

So it's so it would reduce it to 8,000.

Okay.

And our ambassadors get paid out of are you paid?

Their money comes out of that line as well.

So it would reduce our ambassador money.

Does it?

No.

I don't it does not come out of the side.

The ambassadors have its own line do they?

Yeah.

Yeah.

That's what uh when I was looking through it trying to understand what gets used, it is very um miscellaneous.

Sorry.

Okay.

Yeah.

Okay, then I'm fine with that.

I'm fine with it too.

Any other questions?

Go ahead, Mr.

Upp.

What if so I know a couple of years ago they were able to get, you know, I I I mean it was like there was carpet issues.

Um, I got when I was on there, I got some money for tables and chairs.

Do we have to use equipment contingency?

I mean, if that's kind of the I mean, maybe it's something else where it's just more of a contingency.

So if they needed, unless we consider tables and chairs equipment, but if they needed something um blinds, you know, it whatever they felt.

Do we are we restricting it to being equipment?

If it sounds like that's kind of like a lot of things.

I I think that it makes sense to be open with that.

Um I I guess it depends.

Like I'm not approving the um the items that come through, right?

And what gets deemed equipment versus what doesn't.

I know that they have to be fairly specific with what they purchase because the city is responsible for specific things, right?

And that's and I'm totally fine with them being specific.

I just didn't know if if we were restricting that to be specifically equipment, if we if we are calling it equipment contingency, if it was just something else where it was, hey, we need a new couch in here because this other one, I don't, you know, whatever it is, if that's are we limiting them to equipment if they really need something else?

Uh maybe.

Can I can I phone Brian?

Yes.

On a friend.

I mean does it make sense what I'm asking?

It does, yes, and I appreciate the question.

So it's not restrict if the way it's listed on the memo here, it's just equipment.

It's not a even though the language talks about it as contingency, if it goes into an equipment line item, it's just equipment.

And they that could be used for and they're they're accountable for the bottom line of their budget.

So if they don't need equipment that year, but they they need other stuff, they could overspend the other line item and draw from that.

Okay.

Um if whatever's not used at the end of the year will draw up to fund balance and come to you as carry-over proposals.

Okay.

That's why I just wanted to make sure that if they were thinking they needed something that's not necessarily equipment that they could still use that money towards it.

Yeah.

And furniture we usually do categorize as equipment.

We spend out of the equipment line item, but a lot of their building needs we cover out of our municipal building capital account, like the carpet and other improvements for their building that we've done.

So no, that works.

Okay.

Any other comments?

All right.

It is listed as a council voting item, so we will call for public comment if there is any.

I don't have any blue cards.

Um Dustin, do you want to invite our online participants?

Of course, Madam Chair.

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

I'll call your name in the order in which you raise your hand, and you'll have three minutes.

Oh, well.

Graham.

I don't see his hand raised anymore.

Okay.

No.

Let's try again.

Again.

Okay, Graham, just unmute yourself and you should be able to talk.

Graham, it does not look like your microphones working.

I'm not getting any audio coming through.

Yeah.

Um, you're welcome to send an email in if you'd like to to citizen comment at Sandy.utah.gov.

And this is also the equivalent of a first reading, so he'll have another chance if he wants to.

Okay.

All right.

I will.

Oh, no more.

I'm not seeing any more hands.

Okay.

I will close public comment on this item and I'll bring it back to the council.

Once again, council, we're not deciding to enact this, we're deciding whether it goes on the short list.

So do we need to make a motion?

Yes.

Okay.

Can it be as simple as I move to put this amendment on the short list?

Yes, it can.

Yes.

Good job.

Good job.

All right, we have a motion and a second.

It was Brooke and Marcy.

Ms.

DeSusa.

Yes.

Ms.

Houseman?

Yes.

Ms.

Sharkey?

Yes.

Ms.

Christensen?

Yes.

Mr.

DeKaiser?

Yes.

Ms.

Stroud.

Yes.

Ms.

Nickel.

Yes.

Madam Chair.

That motion carried seven to zero.

All right.

Thank you.

Okay, we're moving on to our three public hearing items.

Um the first one is the new one that we added, which is a public hearing for compensation for our elected officials.

Katrina, can you do you want to maybe introduce this one?

Yes, thank you.

Um so uh as you indicated last week, um we held the public hearing for um executive municipal officers compensation as required by state code.

Thank you.

Um the council requested additional information on the specific positions as well as information regarding elected officials, which is the first item here.

Um so again, just requesting information on pay and allowances for elected officials.

As I review this information, I just want to go over the assumptions.

So I'm using 2080 hours as I'm um determining annual salary, not the 2888 hours, which is in the budget year.

That number does change each year, whereas an annual salary is typically considered 2080 hours.

The second assumption um is that as you are aware, um council members rotate being the council chair throughout the year, and they receive three additional hours paid each week while they are chair in order to have more of an apples to apples comparison between fiscal year 26 compensation and what is proposed with fiscal year 27.

I did pull those um council chair hours out of 26.

And then the fiscal year 27 salary information reflects a two and a half percent cola, which is two and a half percent above what is shown for fiscal year 26.

So I want to just go over benefits.

I did not provide specific benefits for each position, um, but this is what is included in the budget.

So we have two types of benefits.

We have variable benefits, which are budgeted as a percentage of pay.

Variable benefits may increase if pay is increasing, or they may increase because the actual variable benefit rate itself is increasing.

Uh the items listed here are what we budget as variable benefits.

Medicare is not changing between 26 and 27.

The retirement rate is going to either stay the same, decrease or increase, depending on the position.

And then workers' compensation for all positions is going up slightly by 0.1% in fiscal year 27.

And there is no change to the last two.

So no change to unemployment and no change to disability.

Our fixed benefits are budgeted as a flat dollar amount.

These are typically tied to insurance, and of course, it's going to vary based on what elections somebody makes for their insurance.

These are the fixed benefits that are budgeted.

Our health insurance, as you know, is going up 7.9% in fiscal year 27.

So to give you a dollar amount for that.

So in fiscal year 26, the health insurance could cost anywhere between about 7300 and 20,000.

In fiscal year 27, after that 7.9 increase, it's going up to about 7900 to 22,000.

Again, depending on somebody's election.

For our dental insurance, the amount that's going up is just the administrative fee that we pay our vendor to process the claims.

So it's literally $3 employee.

There's no change to the waiver credits.

There's no change to the benefits consultant fee.

There's no change to the health equity account fee.

Health equity is the company that manages our HSAs and FSAs.

And the EAP is proposed to decrease a little over $12.

So again, as I said, the benefits are not shown in the subsequent slides.

So this is a list of our elected officials.

The first column, of course, is the position.

The second column is the type of compensation.

You can see included here might be pay, vehicle allowance or phone allowance.

The next column is the compensation for fiscal year 26.

And then the last column is compensation for fiscal year 27.

As I said, we applied the 2.5% COLA to the fiscal year 26 rate.

Council policy is that the 2.5% cola is what council members or the mayor would be eligible for in fiscal year 27.

The Justice Court judges compensation increases governed by the state, and that will be the average of employee increases, which we will not know till later in the month.

But for example, here I just applied the two and a half percent COLA.

So any questions on this.

Thank you for putting that together in such a short period of time.

Our legal analysis is that we need to hold the public hearings separately.

So we will go ahead and act on this one and then we'll go to the next one.

Although, of course, you guys on this one and the next, we are not taking any vote or any action.

The requirement is just for a public hearing.

So I will open the public hearing on the information that we just presented on compensation for elected officials.

I have no blue cards on this item.

If anyone would like to comment, they're free to make their way up to the podium.

And Dustin, if you'd like to invite our online participants to participate.

Of course, thank you, Madam Chair.

Yet again, if you're joining us virtually this evening on Zoom and you'd like to comment on tonight's public hearing item number six on the agenda, go ahead and click the raise hand button on your screen.

I'll call your name in the order in which you raised your hands, and you'll have three minutes to comment.

Or do we you want to close them all together at the end?

Should we close the public hearing on this one?

Okay.

Yes.

I'll do that then.

All right, we'll move on to the next public hearing, which is for executive municipal officers.

Katrina, okay.

This is very similar to what you just saw, except it's a different group of employees.

This is the executive municipal officers, which are defined by state code as being the CAO, the deputy CAO, department heads, assistant or deputy department heads, and then division heads or deputy or assistant division heads.

Similar assumptions here.

So I'm using 20, 80 hours to determine annual salary, not the 2088 hours that's um included in fiscal year 27 budget year.

Compensation has been increased by two and a half percent to represent the cola for fiscal year 27.

And then these employees would be eligible for merit pay.

Um, however, as that merit pay has not been determined yet, nothing is included in these slides to reflect that.

Um these employees are eligible for the same benefits that we just saw for elected officials, so I won't go through the list again.

But these are variable benefits, and then these are fixed benefits.

So I've broken these out by departments.

Um same columns here.

So the first column is the position, the second column is the compensation type, which would include pay, possibly vehicle allowance and possibly phone allowance, depending on the position.

And then we have fiscal year 26 compensation or pay and fiscal year 27.

Now, as you were talking about the communications division, I did realize I left off the assistant communications director.

Um so I can email you that information.

Um I also have it here.

Um that position's current compensation is 95,950.

After the two and a half percent COLA, that would go up to 98,349.

There is no vehicle or phone allowance for that position.

Um then I just want to comment the reason I have the public affairs and public information officer position here is because that person is filling in as the acting communications director.

So that would not normally be a division manager, but because they are acting as the communications director, I have included that here.

All right, so this was administration.

Um there are two departments listed here, so city council and economic development, so both have an executive director, and then um assistant directors.

This is the city attorney's office.

This is administrative services.

This is community development.

And I I apologize, I should have asked this earlier.

Do you want me to point out what is a department head versus division?

Okay.

Um this is the police department.

This is the fire department.

This is our public works department, and and obviously you'll you'll see by the slides.

I did keep public works and public utilities separate.

I did not try to do anything related to the proposed merger.

So here's public utilities.

Oh, and that's that's our last one.

Oh no, excuse me, Parks and Rack.

I think that's our last one.

Is that the last one?

Okay.

All right.

I really appreciate all the work you and your staff did to put this additional detail together in in a very short time frame.

Thank you for being so responsive to the council request.

Council, are there any questions for Katrina?

Ms.

D'Souza.

Thank you.

I don't have a question.

I just wanted to say thank you.

This I feel like what was presented really captured what the intent was behind the motion and definitely provided me with a level of clarity and information that I think ultimately is really helpful.

So thank you.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

Oh, Mr.

De Kaiser.

We can talk about this more later, but one thing that stood out to me looking at those numbers in that format was the significant variation between the director and the assistant across departments.

It's ebbs and flows pretty much.

So I just kind of wanted to understand the philosophy behind that, you know, whether it's a matter of tenure or the the pay ban ranges that they fit within.

Um again, it was just an observation, so we can follow up on that later.

Thank you.

Okay.

All right.

Once again, this is a public hearing.

So I will open the public hearing on this item, and that means we will be taking public comment for anyone who would like to make it.

I have no blue cards on this item.

Um Dustin.

Oh, Pat, you gonna come down?

Are you on your way to do that?

You're just stretching your legs.

Okay.

All right.

You have three minutes.

Please don't be tired of me.

Um I just want to say that now with all the transparency of the compensations.

I want to thank you so much.

You put in a lot of work.

I know it's part time.

But you put in more than part time hours.

I know that.

So I just want to come up here and thank you very, very much, each one of you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

For our online participants, Dustin, go ahead.

Of course, thank you, Madam Chair.

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

I'll call your name in the order in which you raised your hands, and you'll have three minutes.

Uh Madam Chair, up first is Steve Van Marion.

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, Council.

Steve Van Merron.

An unfortunate resident of Draper.

I thought it was interesting.

Um that a event coordinator, event planner would be on the list.

But uh it's not really a department head or anything, but she is highly ranked in the org chart.

So I understand.

Thank you for your time.

Okay, madam chair, up next is Craig Ullrich.

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

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

Thank you.

And Madam Chair, I would just like to echo what Matt Jones said about the work of the council, and it's a tremendous responsibility, but each one of you have uh taken uh tremendous efforts to get everything right that you're working on, and I applaud and thank you for your exemplary work.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, I don't see any other raised hands.

All right.

I'll close the public hearing on that particular item and we'll move on to the next public hearing item, which is the 2627 budget.

Brian, is there anything you wanna say about this one?

Uh no, I don't have anything to add tonight.

Do we have any questions for Brian?

Looks like we have none.

Um and I have no blue cards on this.

Is there anyone that would like to make comment on this particular item?

It is still open.

And Dustin, go ahead and invite our onliners.

Uh for the the final time.

Uh if you would like to comment on public hearing item number eight on this evening's agenda, go ahead and click the raise hand button on your screen.

I'll call your name in the order in which you raise your hand, and you'll have three minutes.

And madam chair, while we're waiting, just a reminder if you're going to continue the hearing, just note that so we can make sure to get it on the record.

I'm not seeing any hands raised.

All right.

Um I'm gonna continue this public hearing.

Um I'm assuming no council member has a motion for adoption.

Thank you.

Was crossing my fingers on that one.

Okay, we'll continue that public hearing.

Um anyone like to make a motion on adoption of the two sets of minutes on the consent calendar.

So moved.

Second.

All in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed.

All right.

That is the end of our agenda.

All right.

Um director's report.

Thank you, madam chair.

Thank you, councilmember.

I was gonna beat myself.

Uh just one thing I want to go over.

Uh our hiring process for the our council communications director.

I I think it's going well.

Thank you to those of you who took a look at the applications and sent over your um you know, suggestions, uh, really appreciate that.

That's gonna be helpful.

Um Chris and Martin and myself are meeting tomorrow to kind of go through the list and uh figure out who we want to invite in for a first interview.

Um Justin also uh took a look at all the applicants before he left and had a conversation with me and told me what his uh thoughts were on it as well, so we'll include those.

Um maybe I'm maybe I'm being uh too gung ho in my hopes here, but I'm hoping that we can do some first round interviews next week.

That's the goal.

Um with an intent of doing second interviews soon thereafter, and then hopefully being able to hire somebody relatively soon after that.

Um I think I'm gonna leave it there for this evening.

Thank you, madam chair.

All right, please, Nickel.

Yes, okay.

I just wanted to note that uh the land development code work group is going awesome.

I find the different perspectives so incredibly interesting.

And I just love the direction I wanted to tell James and and uh uh that everybody's working great together and I love that.

I also went to the Sandy Club uh Board of Directors meeting.

Donations are down.

Um and their land lease has gone up.

Donations are down because of the pretty much the economy.

Um they're losing.

Well, a grant is expiring, a rather large one that uh the director got when she came into the position, and it it's it was just a five-year grant or something like that.

That's the only reason why it's ending, and there's not a reapplication process for that.

She's working on another one, but I think that this year is gonna be quite tight for them.

So just wanted to update everybody on that.

Ms.

Talsman.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um, just one item for tonight, uh, a big thank you.

Yesterday I had the opportunity to meet with two residents who live near Alta High School.

Um, they brought forward some concerns that we've heard over and over through the years parking in our neighborhoods around Alta.

Um but but what was unique about this couple was they they sure they shared concerns on behalf of of their neighbors, but they also brought forward potential solutions.

So very solution forward.

Um hey, we know it's a problem, here's some things we thought about.

So anyway, had a fantastic meeting with them yesterday.

Um they shared their concerns and what's been shared with them by neighbors.

Um and I want to just send Brittany is here.

Whoop.

Um three members of our staff that were just exceptional yesterday.

They they listened, they asked questions to understand.

Um it was it was exceptional.

So we had um police captain Corey Hess, um Transportation Engineer Ivan Hooper, and then I mentioned City Engineer Brittany Ward, who joined us.

Um they were so engaged, so attentive, um, really listened, and then after ensuring that our residents felt heard, they were able to articulate what was within our sphere of control and what was with what was not, um, and walked the residents through some of the the efforts we've made to study this issue as well as the intersection study that's also happening outside of the parking issue.

Um they really I feel like they really heard some of the suggestions that were offered.

And Mr.

Frato organized the whole thing, brought us all together, and came up um with some really good spontaneous thinking that also sparked some some potential problem solving.

But what was interesting is the residents came to their own conclusion.

Umce provided with really good information, good data, good um, you know, here's what we could do, but here's the potential barriers and costs.

Anyway, it was it was so so good.

Um and I just want to share something.

Uh this is me paraphrasing, but at the end of the meeting, one of them said she said she's been involved in Sandy for a long time, um, and that the city has really made a difference.

She appreciates the attitude, the motivation, and the reality of how we are all working.

And that came truly because of our staff and and including Mr.

Frato and and um helping these residents feel heard but also armed with really good information that they can now go back to neighbors and and share and almost advocate on the city's behalf and say they are hearing us and hear things they've been doing to address it.

There's only so much that is within their domain.

So I just thank you.

And you're getting all the thank yous because you're the one here tonight, but all three of them.

Um it was great.

And that's how we continue to foster kind of uh that trust within our community.

They're willing to come talk to us because they feel heard and they feel a part of some problem-solving sessions.

So I just want to say thank you.

Go ahead, Miss Christiansen.

Um South Valley Chamber of Commerce met last week, and just two things to let everyone know about.

One is the let's do lunch coming up on June 10th.

Um, it's there's no limit on this one.

It's a really cool one sponsored by um SWAT Swire Coca-Cola in Draper at their uh facility there, and it's uh um honoring the America 250 and the active duty service members, and there will be um people talking about that service members and also um writing letters to them and then talking about how we can support them and then different um service projects that are coming up to support them as like and their families in the next little bit.

So that's um a pretty cool one if you are available to come to that, and then also um the U.S.

biathlon um Olympic team has a really cool sponsorship opportunity for businesses.

Um if anyone's interested, let me know.

Um it's pretty neat to be able to be involved in that.

And then lastly, um thank you so much to the fire department and the fire union for um scaring the crap out of me and making me really sore.

Uh the fire ops on Saturday.

It really was an amazing experience, and I'm so glad that I got to do that and see just the tiniest bit of what um our firefighters go through.

So thank you.

You went to that.

You should have talked to me first.

When I went, I my my report was I think the fire department tried to kill me last weekend.

Anyway, you're so brave.

All right.

Um LPC had our first meeting after a little bit of a break.

Um here are the legislative issues that we are expecting to see this year.

It's a little bit early yet.

Um, but we know we're gonna see more housing and land use bills.

We know we're gonna see infrastructure funding and development bills.

Um we know we're gonna see water conservation.

We're gonna see homelessness bills, and relative to cities, and a little bit concerning all over again.

We know we're gonna see more questions, more bills, possibly about property tax, sales tax, maybe, fees including impact fees.

Um, those are on the top on uh legislators' minds.

And in the realm of economic development, um we think we're gonna be seeing tax increment funding or financing bills and probably PIDs as well.

I just want to give a shout out to um the Sandy Hiking Club through the Sandy Parks and Rec department.

This is the second year I've joined it.

It's super fun.

It's an adult hiking group.

Um the first time I took it, it was a little bit easier hikes, like donut falls and stuff like this.

This time when they when they got said we're gonna make it harder, and we're gonna make it longer and high greater elevation gains.

And I'm just going on Thursday nights after work.

Okay, so their first hike was, and I did not, I was not able to go to this one, but it was the upper falls at Bells Canyon.

On a Thursday night, they were hiking down with headlamps and flashlights.

So these guys are last week we went to uh Hughes Canyon Falls.

I had never even heard of this hike or this place.

It was wonderful.

It was a pretty grueling hike, it was fairly difficult, but luckily everybody made it.

So it's a fun group.

I think it's only it's four hikes over four weeks, it's thirty dollars, and you get a t-shirt.

And so it's like the deal of a lifetime.

And it they're guided hikes, by the way.

There are three guides that are walking with you, so it's I I really appreciate it, and thanks to the park and rec to parks and rec departments for such a fun activity.

That's it from me.

Miss Stroud.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

So attended the police swearing in.

So two more laterals, one from Corrections, one from West Valley.

Always enjoy seeing who's coming in and uh, you know, making sure that you guys are fully staffed, you know, and that's so far.

I mean, you know, other than one or two here and there, but we seem to get them.

So, you know, quite a few.

I think there were 18 in the last six months.

So uh, you know, quite a few getting in there.

Um the uh fire ops, you know.

So that was a you know, always enjoy seeing what you guys do and and uh hearing from from the employees, you know, what what the uh what the challenges are, you know, and and what they enjoy.

One thing that I uh really captured on that.

Um so one is first of all that fire ops 101 is actually coined, you know, from the fire union, you know, it's throughout the state.

But uh something that we should be very proud of is uh and they were talking about so CPR, so part of the the process, you know, when you go through this fire ops is you're learning about some of the medical components to it.

And um CPR, so there's an 18% success rate nationally.

Um, you know, with uh reviving somebody with CPR.

Our fire department has a 30 percent success rate.

So that is that's due I know to the training um and what they're doing, and one of the things that they're doing differently is they are not rushing to get a patient to the hospital.

They are sticking with them to make sure and it could be up to an hour of working on them, um providing that that high level of care and that immediate need um, you know, to to ensure that the best outcome for a patient, you know, that uh that is in that situation.

So, you know, that was something new that I learned and uh and appreciate it.

And that's you know, I I I want residents to know that that's you know, we're almost double the national average rate.

Um that's uh spending the morning with you guys.

I appreciate it.

The uh the other part, and I guess you know, probably coming from you, Chief McConaughey, is just make sure you stay at a way, stay out of the way of uh Chief Niver if he's got a fire hose because he's uh all over the place with that thing.

But um, you know, always always fun and and enjoyed it.

So, you know, especially the little takeaways that we got from there, you know, the the volunteer badges, that was pretty cool.

Um then uh food truck night.

So you know, up there and uh we had you know canine cash from the police department.

We also had animal um services up there, chipping and providing licenses.

Um several dogs that were chipped.

Actually, one of our Sandy ambassadors brought her dog up there and was microchipped, so you know, love seeing the community up there, lots of dogs.

I mean, just food truck night, lots of dogs that were up there, but uh you know, seeing that engagement.

I know the mayor brought her horses, um, you know, but uh lots of people and it was a beautiful night.

So and that's all.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr.

DeKeiser, do you have anything tonight?

Well, just some rehash, thanks, Chief.

Fire Ops 101 training was incredible.

I did burn my ear a little bit.

There was a joke made about that that I won't repeat.

But uh the conditions we were in were 400 degrees, and normal house fires can be like 800 to 1500 or something, which is totally crazy.

So much, much respect for the fire department and appreciation for uh educating me on so many things.

And then like Council Member Nichols said, the meeting with SOMUS was great.

I wanted to thank the community development department, especially Melissa for caring to have uh council feedback as we work through that rewrite.

Um Councilmember Nickel, this is uh and I had a great conversation.

So thank you.

CAO report.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Uh first of all, I'm grateful that none of you died in the fire operations.

I would have been okay with one of you.

So would we, by the way.

Um this Saturday um is the farmers market the first one at the amphitheater from nine to one.

So put that on your calendar.

Um thank you tonight for the compromise on the communications uh ordinance.

I think that uh that will move us all forward in uh uh more productive way uh in communications.

I want to take the opportunity oh uh you're talking about uh saving lives and um uh our police officers yesterday saved a baby.

Um they were able to um they were able to get there early uh soon enough to be able to clear the the baby's um throat and channel, throat uh breathing channel.

Oh you're talking about the uh saving lives and um uh our police officers yesterday saved a baby um they were able to um they were able to get there early and uh soon enough to be able to clear the the baby's um throat and channel throat uh breathing channel uh promptly turned it over to fire and fire got the baby uh to where to the hospital and so uh it's Shane was it a delivery or a choking baby just a choking okay uh child I don't know there was some other things that they learned after the fact I don't know the details of that but um yeah it's just great when we get to hear uh you know that our those officers will probably be nine nominated for a life saving award and uh the they showed up uh did their job and and uh went the extra mile so um I want to take the a moment tonight to publicly um uh wholeheartedly endorse Martin Jensen to replace me um I I believe Martin is an excellent uh employee for the city I believe that he has the skill uh to do this job you will probably like him better than me um I like him better than me so uh and so um as he comes to you next week uh for interview I hope you will give him um the attention that he deserves and and that um you seriously consider uh him as uh my replacement um I have loved working with him for the last two years I uh I'm so glad uh that I selected him uh to uh be my deputy uh for these two years because he has he has done some tremendous things for this city already and I think you'll see that he will uh be able to help you do more tremendous things in the future um I just want to say it's 23 days 16 work days and three council meetings left thank you all right that's it for our agenda do I have a motion to adjourn motion to adjourn second all in favor aye have a good evening everyone thank you manager