Hey, everybody, I'm gonna go ahead and get the meeting recording started, and then we've got another minute or so.

Recording in progress.

That was me.

I heard you say Madam Chair, and it took me a minute.

Oh, wait, yeah.

Thank you for that.

We are ready.

Good evening, everyone.

Thank you for joining us for tonight's city council meeting.

We are um happy to have so several of our council colleagues uh in the chamber tonight.

Before we get started, we always like to begin with a prayer and a pledge.

Do we have anyone who would volunteer to say the prayer for us this mor this evening?

Yes, please, thank you.

Our dearest Heavenly Father, we are so grateful to be gathered together as servants in Sandy City, please help us to make good decisions to listen to the presentations and understand the information that we are given and to do the best things that we can for Sandy residents.

Please watch over and protect our employees that we they would be safe as they are doing their jobs.

We are so grateful for all of our blessings.

We love thee, and we say these things in the name of thy son, Jesus Christ.

One nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you for that.

And we will now move to introductions, starting with our council staff, please.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My name is Dustin Fratto.

I'm with the City Council Office.

There's one other council staff member in the back of the room, Justin Sorensen.

I'm Tracy, I'm counsel for the council.

Chris Edwards with the Council Office.

Chris Nickel, District Three.

Cindy Sharkey at large.

Christensen, District 1.

Marcy Houseman, District 4.

Alison Stroud, District 2.

Brooke D'Souza at large.

Martin Jensen, CAO.

I'd like to excuse Mayor Zlatanski.

She's out with some family, taking some personal time this week.

Lynn Paice, City Attorney.

And Mr.

DeKaiser is also not with us this evening.

So with that, we will jump right into our first Iowa business.

Welcome to our county council members, Suzanne Harrison and Dee Theodore who have a presentation for us.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair, for having us, council members, mayor, and your staff, we're very grateful to be here.

My name is Suzanne Harrison.

I'm one of the at-large members of the Salt Lake County Council.

I'm Dee Theodore, and I represent Sanity as one of my areas.

So District Six.

Thank you.

And so while they're pulling up the presentation, just a little bit of background on this.

We met with legislators about a year and a half ago, and there were several questions about what the county does, what the role is.

And so we thought in, you know, if our legislators had such questions, and sometimes residents do, we thought it would be helpful to go to various cities and just interface with our municipal city partners about what the county does and how we can best serve you and just start a further conversation with you.

And so thank you so much for having us today.

So history of Salt Lake County, there have been incorporations since uh 1850 with Salt Lake City, and Sandy is probably the second city to incorporate in Salt Lake County.

It's been around since 1893.

There were several incorporations in you know late 1800s up through the 1970s, and then another round of incorporations in the 90s, and then several with the Community Preservation Act.

We've had several of those entities become towns in the last couple years.

And with HB 330, uh that requires that all uh islands either incorporate or become annexed into surrounding cities, and you guys have been heavily involved with that.

Uh walled while cities sometimes uh folks ask the question well, what what is the role of a county?

And counties are uh political subdivisions, just like cities are, we're created by the state, and state law differentiates the roles and obligations of cities and counties.

And as we've incorporated over the years, we've really focused on that regional government role rather than the municipal city roles, which you guys fulfill for our shared constituents.

Our number one priority as a county is criminal justice and public safety.

Three-quarters of our general fund goes to public safety and criminal justice, and that's things like running our county jail, operating our county jail, the sheriff's division, um, and her role in that uh jail and also in law enforcement in our unincorporated areas.

We uh fund the district attorney's office that prosecutes crime.

We also um there's a constitutional duty for indigent defense for folks who can't afford their own attorney.

The county funds that through our general fund.

We also are responsible by statute for general elections.

Every city in the county contracts with our county clerk, Lenny Chapman, to conduct um municipal elections as well.

That's a choice that cities have, and they've chosen to contract with her, but we have a statutory duty for the general elections.

We also have a statutory duty for health department, things like vaccinations, making sure that restaurants are inspected and safe, addressing various public health issues, whether they're you know outbreaks or also sometimes with um homeless uh encampments.

We have dual federal and state statutory rules for adult and aging services.

By federal statute, we provide nutrition services for our seniors in the county through our meals on wheels program.

And I this is something near and dear to my heart, is very important.

We are actually the highest uh in terms of number of folks that die from malnutrition that are seniors.

Our Utah's ranks first in the nation in terms of deaths by malnutrition for seniors, and it's something that we have to continue to work at.

No one should die from malnutrition in in our country.

And uh so we are committed to continuing that federal duty of meals on wheels.

We also provide senior centers where additional nutrition services happen in person.

People come, congregate, socialize, address those isolation issues that we see all too often in our community.

So several states, the behavioral health authority is at the state level.

In Utah, it's actually at the county level.

So the county serves as the behavioral health authority.

And what that means is providing mental health services, substance use and other behavioral health services for those who are lower income on Medicaid or other disability needs.

And we take that very seriously.

A significant portion of those funds come from federal Medicaid reimbursement and also grants.

Culture and the arts is something that we're heavily involved with.

Sometimes it's very confusing because people don't realize that our culture and arts is funded through tourism dollars through tourism sales tax dollars and things like our Bravenaw Hall, Capitol Theater, and then we co-own and operate Eccles with Salt Lake City.

We are also working on some with the generosity of the Miller family's new arts center out in South Jordan, which we're really excited about.

Convention and tourism is something we're also involved with, our Mountain America Expo Center, which you're very well aware of, and then the downtown Salt Palace again.

Those things are funded through tourism dollars, TRT funds, and it is something that helps offset the household property tax burden for each household in the county.

Our convention and tourism business in this county lowers that household tax burden by about $1,700 per household per year, offsetting that tax obligation.

Because folks come as tourists or come as convention goers, they spend their money, go to the restaurants, go do their stuff, and then leave, and we don't have to spend money on educating kids or whatever other needs that they may have as residents.

Regional parks and recreation, you know, you know, Dimpledell.

Um we take that role very seriously.

We have several regional parks, rec recreation centers throughout the county.

Again, that is primarily funded through tourism dollars as well.

Our My County Rec Pass, which is free for any kiddo 18 or under to have access to recreation centers, um, county recreation centers, county pools, climbing walls, ice rinks, it's all free for any kid under 18.

We're committed to continuing that because we know that putting those phones down, engaging in person, getting that mental health benefits of connecting in person and the physical benefits of having fun are really important to our community.

Library services, we have an award-winning library system in the county.

It's nationally recognized, it is paid for by its own line item on your property taxes, completely separate from our general fund.

And then finally, we're responsible for property tax administration throughout the county for any entity like yourselves or school districts or any other entity, those taxes are collected by the county and then passed to the entities that um have issued those taxes, and there's a separate line item for that collection.

So it wouldn't make sense for the each city to have their own jail, their own health department.

We really focus on our regional role and we value that partnership with municipalities and hope that this back and forth is the beginning of more uh conversations about how we can best serve our shared constituents.

Okay, so moving on to our form of government.

It's mayor council form of government like yours.

We have nine council members, and um three of those are at large, like Suzanne, so they represent the whole county, and then others are district, and so um not sure if you've got to meet everybody yet, but um Lori Stringham, she's an at-large, Susanne is an at-large, Natalie Pinkney's an at-large, Gito Johnson, he's for district one, which is kind of the downtown Salt Lake area.

Carlos is on the west side, Moreno.

Um, Amy Winder Newton, who is retiring at the end of the year, is um like Taylorsville, Murray, that area, and then Russ Romero is Mill Creek, District 4.

Sheldon Stewart's Harriman, Wofdell, that area, and then I'm Sandy, Draper, Comwood Heights, Canyons, and Midfill, and some other little areas.

So we also have our independent electeds, which have really big jobs at the county.

We have Chris Davros, which is our assessor.

Um, Sengill, who is our district attorney, Bradley Park, who is our surveyor, and then Chris Harding is our auditor.

We have our recorders for Shell Hobbes, Treasurer of Sheila Shabastaba, sorry, and then clerk is Lanny Chapman, and sheriff is Rosie Rivera, and then we do have our Justice Court, which is um gonna dissolve it in 2027, so that will no longer be around, but it's Shauna Grave Robertson at this time, so that's those people, those folks.

So one thing we wanted to talk about is sometimes there's misconception about the county budget.

A few years back, our state auditor required that any pass-through taxes that the county collected be considered as part of our budget.

And so it looked like suddenly our budget ballooned by 500 million dollars, but it was actually passed through money that the state auditor required us to put on our books.

The vast majority of that was fifth-fifth and taxes for UTA, which the county council has zero jurisdiction over.

We literally are responsible for collecting it and passing it onto those entities.

So the county budget remained very fiscally responsible.

It was just an auditor requirement for reporting.

So a couple things about the different pockets of money, pools of money that we do have jurisdiction over.

The general fund in the middle is the one that we have the most control and jurisdiction over.

It is made up of property taxes and some sales taxes.

We use it for our core government services, community public safety, criminal justice, those types of obligations that we have by statute.

It's the most flexible and we have the most control over.

On the left, there's special revenue portions, specifically tourism taxes, TRT, TRCC, behavioral health funds.

Those have very restricted uses, and we don't have control over exactly we can't just use it for every anything or everything.

And then enterprise funds.

We have several funds like our golf courses, our landfill, and our public works, which function much like business accounts that they completely fund and themselves.

Those funds are separate, they're separate enterprise funds for each of those entities.

We have limited discretion over that, and they they work much like a business through fees.

No, that is uh Justin, would you mind just advancing the next slide?

I think we need a battery.

We just replaced them last week because we had that issue.

Oh, sorry, it's me, it's operator error.

Okay, so just to review to reminder 75% nearly of our general fund goes to public safety.

It costs 120 million dollars a year just to operate our jail, and I think that's just a sobering number, and um it wouldn't make sense for us to have multiple jails throughout the county.

So one thing that I'm preaching to the choir here, but I think there's a lot of confusion out there, is um the impact of inflation and the impact of increasing home values on revenue that cities or counties get, as you know, just because someone's home value goes up doesn't mean that the city or the county gets any new revenue.

Truth in taxation mandates that a city or a county gets the exact same amount of revenue except for new growth, um, unless you go through a truth in taxation process.

So even though populations increase or home values increase, that doesn't mean that our revenue increases or that your revenue increases, and yet we still have those inflationary pressures that everyone sees in terms of like cost of everything going up, and so a dollar doesn't go as far as it used to.

This just shows that our certified tax rate goes down every year unless we actively go through truth and taxation process like you.

And this is showing some of the line items on your property taxes while we collect these property taxes as a county.

There's only three line items at the county that go to the county.

It's the the general fund, the um levy to collect and and uh return and distribute taxes, and then the library fund, which is in the middle there.

So again, just so the public understands like the truth in taxation law is is um is part of Utah's law, and we have to go through a truth and taxation process to to be able to increase pay for our law enforcement or to address any other increasing costs like cost of food at our jail or for our seniors.

So we take our fiscal obligations very seriously at the county.

We um in a bipartisan way uh are very proud of our fiscal responsibility.

We are one of only 42 counties in the country to have a triple A bond rating, and we're very proud of that, and we intend to keep that each year.

We go through stress testing in our budget process to make sure that we can adjust to any potential issues in the economy, and we take that bond rating very seriously.

Okay, public safety.

So we have not expanded our jail in 20-something years, and so we know we need to do it.

It's definitely on our radar by all means.

And if you are familiar with that, we did try to pass a gel revenue bond a couple years back that narrowly failed.

Um, so we are at the brink of where we know we need to do something.

And so some of those will focus on the mental health aspect of our you know our inmates.

And so looking for other ways to handle those difficult cases.

So we're not becoming a revolving door, which we somewhat are sometimes with the jail as well as hospitals.

And so we are working to um expand.

We did expand uh our Oxpo jail a little bit and open some beds, even though it's aging um a lot, and um making some upgrades to it.

So we did add some beds there, but it's not the jail we really want to invest in.

I don't know if you guys know that we do have two jails, and the Oxbo is just down the street from the ADC, which is adult detention facility, and so that's the one that we actually do want to expand.

And um, so we're looking into doing that again.

We've had our um our staff look into um options whether we take it out to the voters again to put it on a ballot, is it is it gonna pass?

Um, because each year we go by that we don't do something, it increases the cost, as you are probably aware of how that works, right?

And so that's what we're facing, but we are looking at other alternatives um to funding, maybe at least revenue bond, perhaps, but we're not totally fully there yet.

So, but um, so those are discussions that are happening and how we proceed with this because we know uh we had a legislative audit that indicated told us kind of what we already know.

Hey, you need to expand your jail, and so um there's people wanting us to do this, and so we know it's a priority, it's necessary, and so it's definitely on our radar and something that we are working on.

And so um, but yeah, for now we do have the Oxpo, we do have the main jail, and we are working again to address that mental health component as well, and so um so we'll see where that goes.

We'll have more updates on that as as we go throughout the year.

Hopefully, we'll have some more information for you.

But um, you know, we want to definitely public safety is crucial.

I mean, that's our biggest expense in the county, and so we want to make sure we get it right, and we want to make sure we're spending it on the right things that will make a difference, and so jail is the biggest one.

So if there's any more that putting into it.

With that, we wanted to thank you.

We appreciate your time, we appreciate your service, and uh just if there's any questions for us, or also we're gonna make sure that you have our um contact information too.

If there's ever anything that comes up that you'd like to have more direct communication, we really care about that and value that.

So thank you, madam chair.

Oh, thank you.

Please contact us anytime.

There's questions I'm gonna hear from some of you here and there, and I appreciate that.

So if there's ever any questions that you're just not sure or whatever, please feel free to reach out anytime I'm here.

So appreciate your partners.

You'll hold right there just in case council members, we have any questions.

Oh, all right, Ms.

Sharky.

Curious about the decision to close the county justice court next summer.

Where did that decision come from?

What was that based on?

Well, I can tell you it's been a long time in the making before our time on the council.

Um, so this has been as the unincorporated has been shrinking.

It's been in conversation.

There might have even been a resolution from long ago to to do it as well.

Um, but it's yeah, it's something that we are moving to do.

Um, right now we're picking up some of South Jordan's cases because they are closing, and so they came over to the county, so we're taking over those.

But next year um we will be phasing out the justice court and this is a shrinking unincorporated population.

So yeah, by the end of uh I think mid-2027, there will be less than twelve hundred folks that actually live in unincorporated Salt Lake County, and that's why we're focusing more on our regional role and those types of municipal services like a justice court we're leaving to the cities.

So the decision, the agreement to take on the South Jordan cases is literally just temporary, and it's just a year basically.

Right.

Yeah, it's just kind of closing off.

What will happen at that point?

Do you know?

Yeah, to those cases.

You'd have to ask South Jordan.

One option is they go to another city or district court.

Okay.

Thank you.

Kind of along the lines of um the House Bill passing in with um residents being in Salt Lake County.

So how do you see the fire service?

Or is that UPD going to fade away and those people are going to be serviced by the municipalities?

How is that gonna work?

Like are you talking about the folks that are in unincorporated?

Yeah, unincorporated areas that have to um either incorporate or go into a so I we have an obligation to provide those public safety services for folks that are in unincorporated Salt Lake County.

That won't change, and we continue to be committed to public safety.

There's 1200 people, is that what you said?

Roughly by the end of by the mid-2027, it'll be around twelve hundred.

Are they kind of in the same geographical area?

Kinda.

It's spread throughout.

There's some in the canyon, some in out near my own.

I'm more I'm concerned about the MSD and how the county does, you know, um have a lot of those municipal services that aren't gonna necessarily be um utilized to the best capacity or efficiently.

So I I'm just trying to get a heads up on that because granite we'll be coming in and we need to look at our numbers and our staffing personnel to be able to I think it's still being more than service to those residents.

I don't know if we have a definitive answer for you right now.

We can definitely see where things are out and what things are looking like.

Um but I don't think we have a definitive answer on that.

I would just say over the last you know, 20 years there's been significant incorporation, and we try to focus on that regional role as those folks through their own self-governance, self-determination want to incorporate, we respect that, and our commitment is to public safety and transparency, and but we also recognize that people have a right to vote to incorporate.

So does UPD have its own tax line, or does that come out of the um public safety?

Did you say UPD?

So it's part of Slavisa, which is the Salt Lake Valley Law Enforcement Service Area, okay, which I'm actually uh member of that, and we have two uh the members that and uh UPDA and the sheriff, which has been really challenging.

Yeah, um so we're um talking about that as well.

So that's a whole nother conversation.

Um happy to have it.

But um, so we're working there, but they do have Felisa does have its own line, and I will tell you that budget's been very strapped for a long time.

It does it there's no way to it's only you know taxes from that certain area, and so it's it's it's hard.

And so that one is gonna be a little tricky as we move forward.

Um I don't know.

So we're the same.

Well, anything you can do to help you with that, it's good.

Yeah, we appreciate that.

I know that you guys have Sandy has been really great, and I know that even in areas that are UPD, I know Sandy's always helping out, so we totally appreciate that.

And even UFA too.

I mean, uh it's great how our uh first responders will work together, even if it's outside their jurisdiction a little bit.

We totally appreciate that, and so we're we're lucky to have that partnership.

So thank you for that.

Thank you for all that you guys do too, yeah.

Thank you.

We appreciate you as well.

Thank you.

Oh, we have another question.

Thank you, Ms.

Nickel, for kind of jogging my memory of what my question was.

There was something I was thinking about.

And um a lot of it does um or my question really pertains to you know the services that residents that are in the county now that will be coming in to Sandy, not granite.

I'm not talking about granite right now, but those other areas in Sandy Um that don't have sidewalks and some of those improvements and they've been paying taxes for decades to the county.

Um many of those areas, not granite, um, have been asking for sidewalks.

Is there um is there consideration because they will become uh part of Sandy and at some point you know we'll will be asking us to to put in those improvements.

Uh but once again they've been paying the county taxes uh and just haven't had those yet.

I there any sort of um agreements or arrangements?

Sorry, that's like equine, um that have been worked out.

Is there any sort of consideration that we may have with that?

Because there are I mean side blocks, you know, th those improvements, the you know, the high back curve and gutter, all of that is expensive.

So this is something that we can send additional information to, but the MSD is the entity that is responsible for zoning, planning these types of decisions for those areas, and so as a council, we aren't immediately involved with those things, it's the MST, and I can send all of you additional information on that, but those types of decisions are made by the MSD board, which has representation from um several of the entities that participate in the MSD.

So all the funding is is directed through them.

So the tax okay, but I would appreciate that.

Additional information for more symbols on that, because that's a great question.

Yeah, and you're right.

There's a lot of little areas that have it's weird, right?

It's you're like the sidewalk ends.

There's no place to know I hear some go from Sandy to County.

By all means, yeah, you know where it ends, right?

So I think there's gonna be some discussions on how that moves forward and you know how the what the funding looks like for sure.

And I think the mayor's office will be part of that discussion with MSD.

Great.

Thank you.

Look forward to that too.

Any other questions?

Okay, thank you both so much for sharing this and good information with us tonight.

Thank you.

We appreciate your service.

All right.

Just as a reminder to those who are either in the room or joining online, we do take public comment, but not until after six o'clock for policy.

So we're going to move on to our next item.

But just know that I'm watching the clock.

Public comment will be available.

If you're in the room, please fill out a blue card in anticipation of that time.

But since we do have time, we're going to go ahead and move on to item number two.

Administration is presenting kind of an update on Crescent View.

Mr.

Meekham, I believe you are leading us through that.

Correct.

That is correct.

Thank you.

And here come the slides.

So we had a very successful, we had a very successful open house last Wednesday night.

I think everybody was there and had a chance to interact with people.

So thank you for being there.

We've got another one coming up tomorrow night.

And so that the council asked that we uh put together the options that we've been talking about, so that's why we're here tonight.

So what I'd like to do is just walk through uh the different options.

Uh we can certainly take questions.

We've had some follow-up emails and hopefully provide information you were looking for, but you know, happy to provide any additional information.

All right.

Okay, so just a reminder on the summary.

I think this isn't news to anybody, 17 million dollars.

Um the key is the uh uh fifth bullet point deadline to put on the ballot, and that's the reason that we're talking is in order to come up with the money.

Uh we would need to go through the bond route and to do the bond route, we've got a deadline of August the 20th.

That is what's driving the conversations uh that we're having.

Uh this one right here, the concept number one.

Uh this is uh the concept that uh as you come in, you've got the eight acres of the existing park up on the north, and then you've got the 17 acres that would tie into this.

Uh this particular uh scenario would provide 30 million dollars, the bond amount of 30 million dollars for the capital cost of going into the building and to the property to make some upgrades.

The uh next slide is the uh breakdown on the 30 million dollars, and how that would be the average household $4.80, and that's on the $731,000 house in Sandy.

Right, Brian?

$731?

All right.

Uh these are estimates on uh operation costs.

Uh the um uh $400,000 of operating a uh you know, having team members operate some of the uh items in there, uh utilities uh comes out this information from the school district by the 172.

And then the the others are offsets, and so the program revenues for every conservative estimate 100,000.

Um savings for not having to pay junior GIS rental, which is what we do right now because that's where the junior jazz play is at is at the middle schools, so that would save $15,000 of paying uh not having to pay the school district.

And the $99,000 is if the um the existing Park Stenrect building, we pay $100,000 on utilities, so if we didn't have that building, that would be something else that could be credited towards this.

But of course, those are all policy budgetary questions.

So that's where um the operating is, and I'll go through the other scenarios too, and then we can back up and certainly address some questions.

Uh scenario number two is the same idea, except for it allows a swath to uh to go to some kind of private development.

What exactly that would look like and how that would do could be something that is decided later on, which is reflected in the bond costs right here, and so there were some questions around scenario two and three.

Scenario two and three, this is how much it would cost in order to buy the land and to do some building renovation.

So it doesn't assume any amount of uh density or anything that would happen on the housing, those are just simply unknowns right now.

Uh so that scenario on the capital costs is just reflective of what it would take to take down the property, make some renovations on the building, and that would translate into 392 a month.

And then on the operating cost, uh, because the building would be smaller, uh, then the prices are uh reduced accordingly, as is some of the revenue because there wouldn't be as much programming in there, and uh so that's where the uh operating cost comes from.

Scenario three is just kind of scenario two, but bigger, meaning that there's a less uh property for a community center.

There's more for some kind of development in there, but the same assumptions were used.

So in this case, the 21 million dollars reflects the 17 million dollar price tag for the ground, another $4 million for building renovation, which includes knocking part of the building down and then restoring or using some of the rest of the building.

And that would translate to $335 a month, and then the operation costs reflective again, a smaller operating cost because there's less building to operate, smaller utilities, and also smaller revenue.

Number four is the uh scenario where it's just basically buy and hold.

And so this scenario contemplates uh $17 million for uh taking down the land in the building and then doing nothing else with that.

Uh average household cost about $2.72 a month, and operation then is uh basically uh uh you know operating the building as is, really not putting anything into renovation, but you just using the existing space.

Uh but this building footprint is the same size it is now, so some of the operating costs in scenario uh four are the same as scenario number one.

And then of course, scenario five is the city does nothing at all.

That's kind of the basic uh question before us is to do something or not to do something.

If we do nothing, uh we know for a fact that the that the uh school district already has offers and uh would sell it to the next bidder if the city wasn't involved at all.

So uh obviously then there's nothing needed from the city there, and uh this is just a recap on the um amount of effort put into being able to communicate with folks.

Um the web page uh video that everyone was involved in.

Uh thank you again for that participating in that.

The flyers and everything that's gone on right there.

The last one on the list is the community survey, which we're working on right now, and the idea is to send that survey out shortly after we do the next open house.

And so that will be um wrapped up, and we'll send that over to Dustin and then uh Council Member Stroud, you'll get that as well, so you can take a look, and then we can come up with the final version and send that out.

So that's the community survey uh that we've got coming up, and um, and these are some pictures from last uh Wednesday night.

So that's kind of the uh the overall view of what's going on and happy to talk any questions and scenarios and what comes from where.

So anything else, please.

Um before before I take questions, I just I wanted to acknowledge you.

You um responded very quickly to some questions that I shared.

I did pass those along because and I think some of that was even incorporated here as a anyway.

Yes, yes, you're exactly correct.

Okay.

Um so I just wanted to say thank you for that for being so responsive and answering those questions ahead of time.

And so just wanted to before we jump into questions, say thank you for answering the questions that came in prior to tonight.

Absolutely.

All right, council.

Any questions?

Mr.

Nickel.

I have quite a few, so maybe I'll stop after a minute.

Um so I have I love this idea.

I'm very excited about it, exploring it.

I'm I have concerns that we have we have a rec center that we haven't even opened, and so those two can't be competing.

So we need to be really strategic about what we put in the building and what we offer in the building.

Um I think it will lend to Alta Canyon success or failure.

So that was just something that I wanted to express concerns about and um the OM costs.

I have a question on.

So you've got the utilities that what Canyons has been paying for, right?

Correct.

Can we get can we see the um operating costs for canyons hold period for the past six years?

Meaning it I'm six because I want to know at a fully functioning school how much they were versus the limited amount uh things they use it for now.

Yeah, I don't know uh how much we have, Dan.

I don't know what has been okay.

So we would have to look into that.

I don't know.

Okay.

Um that's all for right now.

Okay.

Councilman Sharky.

I've got lots of questions too.

Looks like we're gonna have to go around and around a few times maybe.

The purchase price of 17 million dollars.

Who set the purchase price?

School district.

School district set the per purchase price.

So um we did um we we had appraisals done, correct?

Tell me about those appraisals and what we found in the appraisals that we had done.

I'll turn to Dan.

Come on up.

Thanks.

Yeah, so there were three appraisals done.

And they came in at one was at 17 million, 165,000, one was at 8.5 million, and another was at 10 million even.

The one that was the highest was the can't that was the one done for Canyon School District, right?

The other two were completed for Sandy City.

One was for Sandy City and then the other one was uh shared cost, just yeah.

Were there hypothetical conditions?

Um I think all of them assumed a uh yeah, a rezone of it.

Yeah.

So the I'm not and I don't have them all in front of me.

I don't think there were any major extraordinary assumptions.

The assumption was it was zoned as uh something higher, I believe.

The one of the appraisals was done at R18.

Yeah.

So and that one came in at around seven something, right?

Uh I don't have them again in front of me.

I know that um, yeah, they all assumed an up zone.

Except for the canyon school district one, it zoned it as is.

At the at 17 million 165?

Yeah, yeah.

It wasn't any hypothetical conditions.

Okay.

But I can't.

Have you seen that one down?

The one the school district got?

Uh-huh.

So why such a large variance?

This is incredibly subjective.

Um these kind of properties are so difficult to appraise.

I mean, you know, a hundred and twenty-eight thousand square foot building.

Um, yeah, I mean, I've I've yeah, I've been doing this a long time, they're just so subjective.

You know, it's like who who's gonna use this size of a building?

So the one that the school district got at 17 million, does that one presuppose that the entire 17 acres would be used for residential development?

And is that why the valuation is so high?

Because a developer would pay that for land that they could develop for sale, correct?

So an appraisal will determine what the highest and best use of a property is, and they concluded that the highest and best use is a school.

So in my opinion, that's not the best conclusion because I think who's gonna use 128,000 square foot school, if not Canyon School District.

Yeah, so I I take I took a little bit of issue with that because yeah.

Well I appreciate that kind of honesty.

So with all that variance, you're our professional.

Yeah.

You we we have three um three appraisals, two of which are separated by the one is twice as much as the low, the highest one is twice as much as the lowest one.

Yeah.

What do you have an opinion?

I do, and and my opinion is a property's worth what you can get somebody to pay for it.

And oftentimes it's through the the marketing process that you actually find out what it's worth, especially on a very specific property like this that's so subjective.

Um we actually have five points of feedback here.

So we have the three appraisals I mentioned, and then we have the two offers that they received from developers.

Um was at 17 million and one was at 17.2 million.

So those are the five points of data.

Um, you know, I've been doing this a long time, but it it really is whatever you can get somebody to pay for it.

You know, if you're in a condominium complex and you have two other comparable properties that have the same size, you know, you can usually, you know, peg that value pretty closely.

Um but something like this, you know, where's your comparable for 17 acres in Phil Sandy City with 132,000 square, 128,000 square foot building on it?

Um it's it's just incredibly subjective.

And anecdotally, one of the appraisers was we were walking through, you know, he I don't remember his words, but he acknowledged that these are very tough to appraise.

So I guess the root of my question is.

If we are giving our voters or taxpayers the option to pay 17 million dollars for this property, are is it a fair ask?

Are we suggesting that it is a fair purchase?

Now, if what you're saying is it's fair if we think about the fact that if we don't use it for our intended purpose, it would be used for housing and therefore 17 million dollars is a fair price.

But we're not going to use it for housing.

So is the amount that we're going to pay for it a fair price?

Yeah, so there's there's two questions there.

One is are we paying market value for it?

And the other is you know, is there just an opportunity cost that we can exercise or not?

Um I think that latter one's clear.

You know, we we know what the price is gonna be.

It's not like you know, there's some negotiating there.

We know what our options are.

Um for the other, I mean having two other options or sorry, two other offers, and you know, they haven't marketed this property, this property openly, so having two unsolicited offers, um, you know, that for me gives me quite a bit of comfort that we are paying market price.

Okay.

All right, you can come back to me.

So I just like market price, market price for a school, because it was estimated at 17 million dollars for a school as a usage.

So is one of the bids a school that wants to move in there?

No, these are both for redevelopment for housing.

So it's only to redevelop would be allowed to be redeveloped at 17 lots.

So is someone's paying 17 million dollars for 17 lots?

Uh well, they would be paying it again right now, it's just 17 acres zoned R140.

They're not you know, it's not platted or anything like that.

I think their hope would be to get more lots out of this.

But then if they do R18, the appraisal goes down to 10 million.

Well, those are two different appraisals.

Um but yeah, I mean, that's the conclusion of this uh I'm just having like I a hard time because if it's a school, it's worth 17 million, no rezone, period.

But if we rezone it to R18, then it's worth 10 million or 8.5 million.

And so I just I'm just having a hard time like putting my head around why we would pay 17 million dollars for something that's only worth 17 million to us another school district or to us when no one it's not worth that to anyone else.

You're asking that if it's if the land value is a lot less than 17 million, why would we be paying 17 million?

Is that right?

Especially since we're the people who are in charge of rezoning if needed, and we probably aren't willing to.

So what would you see what I'm saying?

Like it doesn't feel like that's uh I I do.

I I would have I guess I'd first caution that you know I wouldn't necessarily take these appraisals to the bank because I do think that it's what you can get somebody to pay for it.

Um and again, it's so subjective, so I don't think you can necessarily say you know it's 17 for a school but eight million for land, because I don't necessarily agree with these appraisals.

Um at the end of the day, it it is it's whatever you can get for it.

Is there any room for negotiation in the price?

We can go back to them.

I mean, we're in due diligence, we can terminate the contract in our discretion.

Um, short of terminating, we could go back and ask for a price concession.

I'd be surprised if they would grant that just because they do have two competing offers at our current price.

Yeah.

Okay.

Madam Stroud.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um so on the like a couple of things is so on the the OM for the future, you know, on option number one, which when I left last week that seemed to have the most stickers to it.

Uh it showed you know a little over $350,000 of annual operating cost to it.

And that was that was taking $99,000 something.

Right, $99,300.

Yes, for uh no longer needing to operate parks and rec building.

Um the the park staff we are moving, um, or we've indicated that we'll be able to kind of do some shifts here.

Um but so I've got a little bit of question about that as well.

But where are we planning to get this 350 if if it was option one, that's what we move forward, put that on the ballot, voters see the benefits, and and you know vote for that.

Where would that 350,000 come from?

That would be a council decision, right?

That's a policy decision about where the where the money comes from or if there's anything to shift around, uh, that would be up to the council to make a determine a final determination about how it wants to approach the uh uh funding the operation cost.

Um, you know, there's a number of unknowns, right?

The you know, number one, the the you know, the amount of programming revenue right here is pretty conservative.

You know, so part of the you know, part of the um amount of revenue can come from that you know, you can either increase fees or you can increase participation, it kind of depends on what you have offering there, but that would offset um the uh uh so you know there's there's a number of factors that that uh the council would decide about how it wants to fund that.

And you know, keep in mind that there's um you know, there's this facility and the other facility, maybe is there's some you know, um uh uh some opportunity between the two of them to share staff to um you know look at reduced costs, but if you know if both of them are on the uh are on the table, you would want to look at how could we how can we best apply the staff and how much would it really cost to operate uh both of these facilities.

Okay, um thank you.

And that's I think one of my struggles with with general obligation bonds is that it it takes into the fact the price of what we're doing right here and not necessarily the ongoing expenses of um you know, if the HVAC system goes out, if it needs to be re-roofed, if there's some significant damage or or something that that needs to change in the future, because we've looked at exactly what it would be right here if we make these updates, if we make these changes, and what that is.

Um so I I I am looking at that, wanting to make sure that if there is some sort of additional cost increase to voters, is that they are made aware of that so that they're walking into this and that there's not surprises in the end.

So you know, I appreciate you know, kind of looking at that.

Can I can I add to that?

Yes, I think.

Because part of what you're talking about are uh, you know, fixes and renovations, right?

So part of the way that you prevent um future problems is by upgrading.

So that scenario number one, for example, anticipates a you know, it would be a $30 million bond, 17 would pay the price, $13 million would be left over.

So then you would go into the building and say, okay, um, what other building the grounds, uh, how far can that $13 million go?

Can we use that to upgrade the facility so that we don't have you know any problems that uh for some time down the road, as opposed to scenario four, where if all you're doing is a $17 million, you're basically you know locking into that $17 million.

You're gonna buy the property by the building, and you're buying it, you know, as is, and there isn't really a lot of money uh to be able to go in and fix some of those things.

So, you know, you're kind of buying um uh you know, some anticipation of problems down the road, you know, whether it's the roof or whether it's the you know HVAC or whatever those kind of things are.

So, you know, as you think about how much should go in there, uh building some um uh building some amount in there so that you're able to take care of those facilities, then goes into the thought process about how much the bond should be in the first place.

Okay.

Um and that helps in deciding, you know, on the on the front end, which kind of leads into my next question.

Uh the I don't know if I call them a minute of programs that we'd be or that we could look at.

So when we did when we looked at the recreation center, old Alpha Canyon, new Sandy Rec Center, um, you know, we had some small group meetings, and you know, okay, well, what would you like to see?

And in the beginning, I mean, we were just brainstorming all over the place, you know, trying to define some ideas and decided that that was just too much of an ask.

Uh, but then we met in small groups and were able to kind of come down to what we are building right now.

Is that a similar process of what we'd look here?

Would it come back to the council to say um, you know, council, what do you think on looking at uh child care partnerships, on um, you know, looking at at theater, uh would that be a decision that we have?

Well, there's an you know, the the uh uh you know, take for example the scenario number one, and it you know, it anticipates using some of that money to program into uh revamp the building if you will for some specified uh items.

So, you know, yeah, there would need to be some further discussion about what exactly goes in there.

Um will you address some of that in Merle in terms of the programming, what you know, the possibilities in the building.

And and Martin, if you want to pitch in on that.

Yeah, I think definitely that what the idea that you said would be where we'd uh start with is to try to get focused groups together, what can we do in this new facility?

We know we already are offering, right?

We've got junior jazz, we use it in the winter.

All of a sudden, okay, we can use the fall, spring, summer.

Um the outdoor space is being rented uh from the Canyon School District for um tackle football.

So all of a sudden we generate that revenue right from the beginning, and what other programs could we offer there?

We move some of our soccer or or flag football or other programs like that.

Um but back to Chris Nichols' suggestion is what do we how do we make this different enough so it's a benefit for the community.

Um most of the time you have a three-mile radius around a recreation center.

So uh as you have that three mile radius, that's who will come to that recreation center and be served.

So this definitely has enough space between it to offer different things, but you know, great opportunities to be able to go, oh, in the summertime I can go swim at the county recreation center, and in the wintertime I can play pickball at the um Crescent View uh community center.

And just a couple of things on our end right now, we are renting sets, props, costumes, but we have a very small warehouse in the L-shaped building at the top of the corner.

The police have this portion.

We have this much of that portion, and then facilities has the rest.

So we are maxed out on the ability to do that.

Um so uh if we could have more space to work there, we could expand those offerings.

And then because we also we rehearse where we perform, we're sort of calendar locked.

Like we can't do more shows, we can't do more programming because there just aren't enough days in the calendar that we have access to the facility.

So even if it's just a rehearsal space, it allows us to reduce the burden on Mount Jordan Middle School by letting us rehearse in other places that could open more opportunities to provide more programming, which does bring more cost to do, but also potential more revenue through ticket sales and through participation fees.

So there's some ways that um that can improve for us uh with the arts guild.

And I guess that's kind of what I was looking at is you know, will will it come back to the council to say yes, we want X amount of square feet or section for a you know public-private child care partnership.

Um we would like to use X amount for uh theater or rehearsal space or black box the idea, something like that.

Um, and then looking at parks needs, you know, that's a it's something that you know I've asked inquired about a few times, but looking at you know on the outside, like an all abilities playground, something else that is going to make a draw, a citywide draw, you know, to bring people in possibly farther from that three-mile uh radius.

But that was my question was is this something that is going to come back to the council, assuming we move down and we we hit all these markers and this is where we end up.

Um would it be would we be involved in determining what is going to be programmed in this space?

So Madam Chair.

Yeah, Martin had this.

May I so my answer to that is yes, most definitely.

The the traditional process that uh projects like this would go through is exactly where we're at with conceptual.

Should we acquire the space and then once we have the space, um what do we do with it?

It moves from conceptual, then if if we say yes and and we go to a geo bond and the voters support it, we would then go into what's called schematic design.

And so we know exactly what's there, what the building condition is in, who's used it, and we start to engage the public.

Uh we we continue in what we're doing.

We talk to our professionals in parks and rec and facilities and arts and culture, and and you as council members to say, hey, what are you hearing from residents?

We look at our youth groups, we we keep talking about out the football, but also one of the the groups that is used that the most for the past 40 years is Utah Youth Soccer.

They've rented it from the school district forever and use those those uh fields and spaces as well.

Having the gym now, we could also provide programming indoor, and so that would potentially generate a lot of revenue.

So we we we go from conceptual to schematic, and that's where you really fine-tune the costs.

The the costs that we've given you are estimates and they're conservative.

Uh we potentially increase our our expenses and lower the amount of revenue on purpose so that we're we're trying to be conservative and say, okay, here's the number.

But as you fine-tune and say, All right, we are gonna do child care, we're gonna do pickleball, we're gonna do rentals, we're gonna provide theater space, you can really get more detailed cost estimates as you move forward.

And then once you're settled on schematics, you move into into construction and you bid it out, and you actually get the the true market cost of that.

But you know, this is a process that I've been involved in uh with the county, running four bonds for the county, doing hundreds of projects, uh, a couple hundred million dollars.

And so it's it's a good process, and the the public involvement that we saw last week that we're seeing through our emails, through social media that hopefully we'll see again Wednesday, that's what we want.

We want to hear from our residents.

Um I was happy to hear, you know, there were people that came in and said, I don't want this.

And I'm like, great, I'm glad to hear from you.

You know, you you're probably one of these other options.

And uh we weren't trying to chase them away or or uh tell them their voice didn't matter, it matters just as much as everybody else.

So that's the process from my viewpoint um and my experience overall.

So hopefully that helps.

Yeah, I heard a lot of you know the cost and looking at things, but the important one is I heard Martin said yes, the council will be involved in what goes there.

That's thank you.

Councilman D'Souza.

Thank you.

Um the questions that haven't been asked.

I'm curious about the options that consider selling a portion for development.

And if I recall reading some of the literature somewhere, the uh zoning contemplated in the concepts is is it one R18?

Is there's no assumption made.

There is not.

So the the concept plan that um includes the number of houses on seven acres, for example, what like that's just you know, like pretty drawings, or does that correspond with a zoning?

And I'm saying that because if that's what we're putting out to the public and asking for you know, feedback on, is it misleading to provide a picture of housing units on a parcel of land that doesn't reflect at all maybe what we would actually consider?

Well, we don't know.

I I mean that's that's you know, the concept is that it's gonna be something else other than city uh community center.

That something else likely is gonna be housing, some kind of mixed use in there, but what that is, we don't know because it hasn't been addressed.

So all we're saying is that that there would be a portion of land that would be sold off, but that amount of sale, the you know, the it's not taken into account at all because what the the bond that you're looking at or the number that you're looking at is just the how much it would cost to bond to uh get the land of the building and then to do something on that building.

So in those uh two scenarios, two and three, part of that amount going to the building is is to tear down a portion of the building.

Uh but those are just estimates because we don't know how much it would, you know, go to development, we don't know any of that.

So all we're saying is this is how much it would take.

Because remember, the the you know the the the issue the the the logic issue we've got to get through is do we or do we not um take down the land and and then those other issues or subsequent decisions that can be made.

Great.

Okay, so the again going back to the concepts that consider selling a portion of it.

Do we have um or is it is it reflected anywhere in any of the materials or even the email that you had sent back to Marcy Um does it contemplate a sales cost for that parcel for that's suggested in the concept?

No.

Uh can we go back to the um just one second, Ryan?

Justin will pull it up.

Okay, great.

Just so we're all in the same page, the numbers I'm referring to.

All right, let's back up here.

All right, so I'm gonna go just to number two as an illustration.

Okay, so uh number two, so this is this idea right here, and uh the part that you see in beige right there is uh you know eight portion that would be sold off uh for development.

So the number that's associated there, the 24.5 million dollars is is the cost as we break uh is the cost of taking down the whole 17 acres in the building, and then it's and then some amount of money to uh deal with the building and dealing with the building in that scenario was to lop off a portion of the south building.

So it would it would cut off part of the building, and then you would have some money to um uh do the rest.

But so none of that land that none of the the density, nothing is taken into account because that's the uh the question is are we gonna bond?

And if we are going to go through the scenario, this is what it would take to take down that uh that initial piece and deal with the land.

Well to get to that next one.

Okay, and I and I get that, and that's kind of what I figured, you know, um when I'm looking at all of it, but I think that it's important to know or have an idea of what these concepts um translate to in terms of um potential sales price um realistically, even on a conservative scale, considering a conservative um you know zoning um because that would essentially offset some of the costs, and that's not being shown or considered in any of the concepts, right?

And so from a from a completely transparent standpoint, it seems like an afterthought that should be more of a forethought and presented um up front with the with this information.

potential sales price um realistically even on a conservative scale considering a conservative um you know zoning um because that would essentially offset some of the costs and that's not being shown or considered in any of the concepts right and so from a from a completely transparent standpoint it seems like an afterthought that should be more of a forethought and presented um up front with the with this information and you know I guess when when we considered whether or not we were going to look at develop or excuse me look at purchasing the Crescent View Middle School property I was under the impression and supported um I was under the impression that the administration was also looking at an option or favoring an option that considered selling um a portion of it and and so when it's come when it came back and gone out to the public and it's got five options and you know two of them are keep the whole thing and two of them have some level of parceling off for housing development I was kind of taken aback because again like I was under the impression that the administration favored an option that considered partial development and the thought process was is that it would that the sale of that property and development would help offset the cost of the purchase of the school.

And so you know with the council being charged with the decision on whether or not we're going to go forward with the purchase or for a geo bond you know I I I it's more important than ever that the council have the information that we're gonna need to be able to make a decision you know one way or the other.

And so I I want to express some concern that I feel like we are spreading the ask really thin with five different options in such a short amount of time.

I don't know that I understand I don't know that I understand that strategy and it concerns me thinking a few you know a few weeks down the road as a council member trying to figure out okay are we you know are we going to put something on the November ballot for a bond and if so what is that going to be and you know I think I'd like to also understand the feedback that you're getting when and how how is that feedback being um received how what are we how are we ensuring that their Sandy residents and taxpayers that are providing feedback are we?

Because again all of the information that the administration is collecting is strictly to inform the council so that we can decide if and what we're going to put on a bond.

And so you know that's going to be really important too.

Can you talk about the feedback really quick?

Sure.

The um so one of the pieces of feedback for example from uh last week were uh people coming in and leaving comment cards with their names and with their addresses so uh we have a list of the uh of the feedback cards for example and that just got put together yesterday I think and there might have been I think it was 105 or so comment cards of those there were maybe five non-Sandy residents so you know so there is that that data set from a week ago that uh you know there's only a handful of non-Sandy residents and everyone else listed their address there are a couple that didn't but for the you know by and large they they listed their address.

Can we also go back to the bond question for just a second Brian can you come down let's talk for just a minute about um some of the the bonding and some of the restrictions and and which goes to the answer about why the numbers are what the numbers are.

Part of it has to do with bonding mechanics.

Yeah so that the timing if you want to sell off part of the the property and the land and then recoup your costs timing comes into play with the bond issue because a lot of times we think of a traditional loan or home mortgage you can make early payments you can pay the principal down at any time that's not the case with the uh geo bond or other bonds we're selling these bonds to institutional investors and they're investing in it with a guaranteed rate of return.

And a tranche of bonds is sold at each year so you have a 20 year bond there's there's investors buying bonds for each year of the 20 years.

And there's typically a 10 year call provision on that.

So we could sell off you know and entitling the land and then selling it off may take I don't know one to three years.

And so there's a timing issue is you you need to upfront the costs and then if you have a two or three year time of recouping some of that.

There's usually a 10 year call on the bond.

So we could hold it into an account and then wait until the call is comes up in 10 years and then start to pay down some of it early anyway those are some of the mechanics behind it and and that's why we chose to say it's not going the the residents that are voting on this would still see the same tax increase on their rate for the GO bond throughout the duration until that at least the 10 year and we can potentially start to pay some down but it's it's not like a car loan or a mortgage where you could refinance it and lower the payment after a year or two.

And if we can sell it, if if that comes into play and after the the call provision, if we can pay some down, then great, they would see a reduction in the future, but it's not going to be any time really soon.

So that's why we opted for that.

Okay.

If an option is selected, let's just hypothetically say that um concept two, since it's up on the screen.

And there is um seven point whatever acres, I can't see it's really small, um, that are proposed to be sold in the future for development.

What happens to that land in the meantime?

Because I'm hearing that they if if that is the plan, it's not necessarily going to be an immediate thing.

It might be, but even if it was, we couldn't um we couldn't necessarily uh pay off the bond or add, you know, pay pay any more earlier because of the the call provision.

So what happens to that land?

We're not going to develop it, right?

Like we aren't going to spend money to develop it or but we but we're maintaining it.

Yeah, yeah, going back to to Martin's point about uh programming and getting to a schematic level, then the cost then at that stage we would say, okay, you know what makes sense, what do we think makes sense?

Of course, you don't really know until you go out to the market and you get a buyer for that.

But you say, okay, uh here it is right here, we'll take this portion of it right here and and we're gonna mark that off.

But yes, in the meantime, you're gonna be if it's if it's grass, you're gonna be cutting the grass and watering it.

If it's a parking lot, you're gonna you know make sure that it's it's uh uh not causing a problem for anybody.

So yeah, there would be a uh maintaining it until it got segmented off, sold off, and double with that down the road.

And I would just add we we've heard from current users that have relationships with the school district, Alta Youth Football, Utah Youth Soccer, we would continue those uh those relationships right away.

They generate revenue, they provide recreation opportunities that currently exist.

So we we would try and find the highest and best use uh to continue use of that space.

Okay, and then sorry, I just have a couple more questions, Madam Chair.

On the bond, just to follow up is this assumption that I've done is a 20-year bond.

So uh you could go out 25, 30 years too, and that would bring down the the monthly impact lower.

Um also we could look at if you did want to go forward, we could look at more creativity, maybe do a series A and a series B, where series A is just the 17 million to take down the the property and then the series B is for the improvements, and maybe we could try to look at more lenient terms on that or uh earlier payback or a lower call provision.

Those are things we would want to explore is how to structure the bonds if you gave the go-ahead to look at it.

So in the the email that you sent Councilmember Houseman, that's why we put, you know, according to the bond documents.

So whatever the bond documents are gonna, you know, whatever agreement that we go into is going to dictate how uh all of that mechanically happens.

And I just want to add one other point, if I may.

Um we're we're trying to be very transparent, and there is a carrying cost here if if we purchase the property and then look to sell it off, it will take some time to make sure that we're following the the state procurement and and all those rules, but um just totally lost my train of thought.

I will come back to the other one.

That's okay.

Well, maybe it's um you know we've seen inflation goes up, and so our costs of improvements the longer we hold and wait to improve, you know, it could increase our costs.

I don't know if that's what you're thinking of.

But I'm just thinking specifically in terms of how I I'm trying to understand the technical aspects because I I want to make sure that um it's completely clear and I feel informed when we're asked to make a decision here in a few weeks about how all of that's gonna work.

And so, you know, I didn't understand that in a typical geobond situation that we wouldn't be able to early pay and that that would be a hindrance.

So, you know, developing that land early, you know, but I don't want to hold on to it if we've sold um this plan potentially to the public and it's you know agreed upon, then we should make good on that and you know develop that the portion of land that we said we're going to.

Otherwise, like you like Martin said, we have carrying costs, there's ongoing maintenance cost, you know, things like that.

So I appreciate Brian that you suggested that there may be other creative financing opportunities depending on you know what we end up with and where the council is from you know the budget standpoint.

Um can I ask a question?

Maybe this is for you, Lynn, about the um a potential geo bond.

When i i i if the council were to put a question on the ballot, is it do we have to select one option?

I I would imagine that's best practice, but or legally may we say, do you want this one or this one?

I have wanted that myself.

And I am not uh I'm not the expert on bond questions, so I would want to refer that question to bond council.

But in the abstract, I don't know why you couldn't put alternative options.

Option one, buy it all, do you want to pay this higher price?

Or option two, do you want to do something less that costs less?

I don't know.

I would want to ask bond counsel.

Okay.

Well, that would be I think we should inquire.

That would be a question that I I think we should have um information on prior to us needing to get to a decision.

Yeah, we could ask about that.

And we are planning to have bond counsel at a future meeting as well.

So I'm not a lawyer, I don't pretend to be one.

Um I have run four bonds for Salt Lake County and worked with um bond council, and from my experience um they would advise against that.

And it was either a for or against is their recommendation.

And I'll I'll defer to what's illegal or not, but that was the recommendation in my experience.

Yeah, I mean I can imagine that it might be best practice, but I was wondering if it's you know legally we are only allowed or or not.

And I guess that's part of where five concepts becomes difficult to wade through, you know, if you have to select one option.

Um okay, well, those are my questions.

I just I I think the feedback is going to be crucial and being able to determine um you know where the feedback's coming from and not just Sandy, you know.

I I'd like to see the spread um throughout the city if it exists, um, and the sooner the better.

And that's all I have right now.

Thanks.

So, like a poll are you suggesting, like sending out a citywide poll?

Well, I know I'm not suggesting anything.

I just you know, whatever the administration has already planned for feedback, you know, hopefully it can be um disseminated or collected and then disseminated in a way that helps us see the geographic interest.

Yeah, working on that right now, and and I'll I'll um add to that thought uh that um you know when we had the open house on last Wednesday, like I said, there was only a handful of non-Sandy residents that we cataloged uh people who were signing in, and those people were asked to put dots on the different you know one, two, three, four, five scenarios.

And we had upwards of about eighty-five percent uh put their dots around concept number one.

So you know, we've got another open house tomorrow night, so we'll assemble some more information, but overwhelmingly the concept number one from the open house on Wednesday night was the was the selection of people who attended.

Is the only feedback that you're really soliciting are is at those two open houses?

Well, no, we're doing a we're doing a survey.

Yeah, as soon as soon as yeah, we're doing the survey as soon as uh we get done on Wednesday night.

So it depends on how quickly we get back and you know settle on questions, but we anticipate that going out hopefully Thursday of this week.

So when our and I would just add when our joint video went out, um what was that a week, two weeks ago?

We opened up a uh forum that residents could provide feedback online.

We've been collecting data from that, and we we've had hundreds of people.

And so we're in the middle of the process.

We're gonna share all of that information.

Dan showed where Dan goes, he's here somewhere, showed me a map today, you know, just starting to pinpoint addresses of people that are providing information to us.

So we're we're baking a cake here.

Cake's not fully baked, so when it is baked, we will make sure and share all that information with you.

It's it's it's a great process.

We're excited to to share that, not only numbers, data, you know, points on maps where people live, but then the written feedback as well.

Yeah.

No, I I appreciate that.

I just want to make sure that it comes as quickly as it's able to, because waiting until you know the council meeting where we have to decide is is not helpful.

So all right, that's all I had.

Thank you.

All right, I've got a little bit for you as well.

Um, but much of what I prepared to ask has already been asked, and I've been taking notes, so um, we're good with that.

I'm just gonna move on uh to checking my understanding on a few things.

So one thing I guess I'm just drawing our attention to, and I imagine everyone else saw it, but but when looking through the concepts, the the cheapest or most affordable, whatever way you want to say it, option to build is not necessarily the cheapest option to run.

So I I appreciated the addition of operational predictions.

I get it that their predictions, and that's all we can do at this point.

Um but it's interesting.

So c so concept four, lowest bond for the purchase.

Um, thank you.

Um sorry, you know, I lost my thought there.

Nope, you're good.

Lowest bond.

Um, but no renovation.

It's it still costs 303,000 a year to operate, which is nearly as much as concept one that you just said told us 85% of those who did respond at the at the open house with stickers.

Yep.

Um 85% roughly, so that was their favorite.

So in terms of operational costs, the difference between concept four and concept one is roughly 55,000 operationally.

Again, I know we're predicting, but yeah.

So the uh you know the difference on the on one and four, uh four you've got you know, you've got money where you've remodeled, so there's likely going to be more spaces that are designed for what they're used for.

In scenario number four, you're dealing with as is.

And so you're you know, they're likely gonna be some things that you can't do, or maybe it's a square peg round hole scenario, and you just can't get that, so you know that there may not be as many programs therefore, it may not be as much operational cost.

That was the thought behind uh the difference between the two.

They're similar, but that's how they would be different.

Thank you.

Um so a couple things I'm hearing, I just kind of want to summarize so that it it definitely feels like the council needs far more um information, like in an ongoing, so let's let's plan on having weekly check-ins on this.

Um, but a couple of key things I heard the the concept drawings that include include what it how much land we could potentially sell, like we buy and then sell.

I do understand the confusion because there are little houses illustrated in it, and so it could potentially be causing some confusion if people just assume oh, they've already got a plan for rezoning.

So maybe we just and I know it can't happen before tomorrow night, I understand things have been printed, but it's worth considering.

I think Housewoman D'Souza makes right, that was you who said the little houses?

Yeah.

Um I think she makes a good point that we just need maybe maybe it gets labeled housing and not looking like individual lots.

So I think that's an easy fix, please.

And we this process has gone quick, and and we were just trying to be transparent, putting a generic representation of housing.

We purposely did not put in high density housing and apartments, trying not to scare people saying, hey, you know, this is what's gonna happen here if you don't secure it.

So from our point of view, we were just trying to be transparent and saying some type of housing to be determined.

Yeah.

But you can see how drawing out parcels with a little house on it could be.

So I think it's important to listen to that feedback.

Um I also heard across across everything that was shared, um, the the need to provide more like as information is coming in, provide that to us kind of in a timely manner rather than waiting for a formal presentation.

So as data has been collected, what whatever can be shared, because we are gonna be asked to make a rather big decision in just a short amount of time.

So I that was something I heard across everyone.

Um my own question I carried in tonight really is from the rest of you.

Do we need more information?

You've all answered that question because you're asking for a lot more information.

So think my own personal question was that.

And it feels like the information that is needed.

Um I love the idea of the bond.

Um, and I put it in my notes and now I've kind of lost it.

The uh there it is.

I I love the follow-up that you've agreed to do in terms of bond counsel coming to meetings, helping us understand what we can actually put on that.

Um the question that has not yet been answered, and it could be bond council question as well, that I did not hear anyone specifically ask, nor have I heard answered, so I'm gonna go ahead and ask this.

Um the amount we bond for how do we take into account appropriate balanced education and information to the public of what the amount could potentially be used for while not painting ourselves into a corner so that as we get new information, we we recognize okay, we might have said it's we're gonna bond for you know uh th 20 30, whatever.

Yeah, we we we're gonna bond for this, and the public isn't expecting this exact thing that's on concept number one to materialize.

So how do we strike a balance and how can bond council help us as we start to go into the preparation of messaging so that there is real clarity around the the bond decision is we're buying everything, or we're buying and then selling part.

We're buying and then selling smaller part.

So we're not committing to design to programming to any of that.

And I just want to make sure we're super clear with the public.

Sure, yeah, a couple thoughts.

One is that as the process goes on, that the deadline for the August 20 is to be able to get the ballot language to the county.

And so that ballot language has got to be exactly what's going to be on the ballot.

You know, the county's just gonna say, thank you very much, they're gonna take that question, they're gonna put it on the ballot.

And so, you know, so crafting that language and the amount that it is being asked for.

So it's basically going to go, you know, here's the um uh you know 30 million dollar example, uh, you know, are you for uh a bond to do X, Y, and Z at the 30 million dollars, and here's how much it would cost you.

And then with the right with the conversation with the bond council, then it comes into what exactly that language is.

And I know Martin wanted to add to that.

Yeah, yeah, Ryan spot on, um, running four bonds for the county.

That language, Councilman Housman is really important.

The and and it's one of the things that we will work very closely with with our with with you, with the administration, with our bond council, so that it's descriptive enough, but there's also an uh slight flexibility so that you know recreation space.

Um we we won't put in there, will you put in or this bond is for 13 purple colored pickleball courts?

It's for recreation space.

And we we want to be open and transparent, but as we go from concept to schematic, there's got to be a little bit of flexibility.

What we won't do is go and change it from a community center to all of a sudden now it's going to be a waste transfer plant, and we we use the bond for that.

So we're also representing to the bond market.

We're telling the bond market here's what we're gonna do.

So it isn't just our our residents, but it's also the marketplace who's gonna buy these.

Thank you.

Um yeah, I just wanted to add, you know, as you're trying to thread that needle, we do have to be you know wary of how many words are on the ballot and and that kind of thing.

But we do also have the opportunity of the voter information pamphlet that's required, and that in that pamphlet you can go into more description and have pictures and designs like we did with Fire Station 31, and we were able to provide a lot more detail.

And and like that process, I would just echo what I've heard from my colleagues, which is it's it's we're we're brought along the entire time and helping shape that language and um shape the messaging to the public, and and so I I've heard it said several ways.

We need your help in informing the public about this, so absolutely.

Okay.

Um so that question was answered yet in in terms of yes, I do think we need more information.

Um I've tried to summarize across the table of things I heard.

Okay, Councilwoman Nickel has another question.

Um Alison, thank you for bringing that up.

And the double edge uh or the double standard, it's a policy decision on how we fund the OM.

I'm gonna throw it back on administration, and I want you guys to create uh funding source for this.

So we don't have to, so we're not backed into uh a tax increase trying to fund the OM.

So I want to see OM covered in the budget.

So statement, not question.

Yeah.

Statement, well, not question, and I would um formally request that that be brought back next week.

So if we're we're moving quite quick on it, and that's a decision that we will be making for the foreseeable future on it.

And um I don't I don't like it when you say it's a policy decision.

This is also a policy decision, but you drove the bus on this.

So that's just a statement.

Um also so access to this facility is kind of tricky if you're coming from the south end.

Have we looked at any scenarios that include um making connections through the dead-end streets on 110?

The on the map, it's hard to see on this one right here, but the gray areas right there on the west side are dealing with the access.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Dan, but that's what that's what that gray area put that you know within that circle.

So it addresses it in the land between the elementary school and the uh Crescent View Middle School.

So have we looked at accessing the through access through dead end streets off 110?

So yes.

Okay, and state street?

So yes, on this scenario right here.

Okay.

If you go the you know, if you go to the concept number four, you're just buying the land of the building.

There's no money to do something like addressing the land or addressing the access.

Well, I think it's important that we that we talk about access because it's going to be for the community.

And there's also an access, a direct access on Crescent View from State Street.

Have you guys given that any consideration?

The only consideration is what you're looking at right there.

Okay.

So that means that you're going we're planning on opening up the dead-end streets onto the property.

Into the property, but also into like 106.

That's off the 110.

Sorry, 110.

110th and on the state street, like we would where it's currently a dead end for those neighborhoods, we would open the streets into the state street in a hundred and ten.

So yeah, on concept number one on the north, there's a hundred and tenth.

Yeah.

Right.

And so right next to the existing park is a street that goes to the south.

Couldn't tell you offhand what it is.

But the concept number one shows that that street continuing through and providing access to that portion of the building again is conceptual.

Yeah, yeah.

But I just I didn't realize that we'd be opening up a neighborhood into busy streets.

So that's new information for me.

Well, I I'm asking if that if yeah.

And there's also connection on Crescent View Drive that the city can create an easement that it would come up from State Street to the property as well, because there's a straight shot.

Right.

So these are things that the city would need to take into account in terms of how much goes on to the bond, right?

So if we want to say, well, I I want this street there, we better make sure on the bond question that we provide enough money to be able to put that there.

So that's just some things to keep in mind.

Yeah.

Sorry, I think I did I Councilman Sharkey, did I see you had another?

I do.

I don't think Chris is.

Oh.

Okay.

Um actually I'm done for now with that.

Let me, I think a lot of them have an answer, so go to somebody else.

Go ahead.

You know, I think that I think the questions are showing you that even we are a little uncomfortable with the lack of specificity here.

And if if I'm I'm uncomfortable with it, I can't imagine what the public's gonna do with it, right?

And the last thing I want them to do is have inaccurate assumptions.

So I feel a very strong need to drill down on the specifics here.

Um in terms of the operating costs, I think the public needs to understand this could be a second tax increase.

So we'll ask you about one, and that's in terms of acquisition and building, but there could be another to operate these.

I think they need to understand that.

And I I appreciate Ms.

Nichols' uh comment that you should come back with a proposal to cover the operating expense, but if that is in terms of program fees and revenue, I'm a little I'm uncomfortable with that, that we're making some estimates.

The estimates that we know to be true because we now have land of our own to use and we don't have to pay a fee for its use, that's acceptable, right?

But the rest of it, we're making assumptions about child care revenue.

We decided not to do child care at the new Sandy Rec Center, but all of a sudden we're deciding to do it.

I'm a little confused about that.

Um I I uh I'm concerned about um I also am highly concerned about competing with the new Sandy Rec Center.

I like what you said, Ryan, about maybe a scenario where this becomes a satellite location and it's producing revenue, membership-driven revenue for the Sandy Rec Center, that would be a really really interesting proposition.

Um in terms of the housing portion of it.

If we were to remove all the depictions of homes and just call it residential, that would leave me with more comfort.

I think we may be misleading the public on these maps that we're showing them as to what it could look like.

Um it's definitely not R 140A.

It's um and it doesn't look to me like it also corresponds with what the the um the general plan map future land use map we just adopted too.

It looks somewhere in the middle.

It looks arbitrary, it looks assumptive.

It looks like maybe it was trying to replicate what's in the neighborhood already, which is not necessarily very likely.

And we don't want to be giving the public the wrong impression about what they might be getting.

So I I just want to make sure refine, refine, refine, sp specific, specific, specific.

Um all the these assumptions are great, and I realize we haven't had a lot of time.

I I tool I realize that, but time is of the essence to start getting specific and making sure that the public is really well informed about all the likelihoods, not the concepts, but the likelihoods that they ought to be facing in making these decisions and the aftermath of them.

That's all I had.

Madam Chair, thank you.

Thank you.

All right, one sec.

We've got to give everyone else a second chance for number two.

Um before we go on over here, I I want to make sure we are clear that the information we are asking for, and I would ask council members to to think through what you need, and perhaps even we we compile that so that it gets shared with Mr.

Frado perhaps.

But I want to make sure that we are asking about the the things we need to know to make the decision that is right in front of us, which is are we going to put this on the ballot?

And if so, what are we how what is the amount we're interested in putting on the ballot for for voters to weigh in on?

Um and in general, what are we saying that would be for?

So I know there are many, many, many, many more conversations ahead, and we are going to need to dig into all of that during the whole education period of what we are doing to inform and uh enlighten the public as we prepare them in a very neutral way, because I know we cannot advocate, but it prepare them to make a decision on the ballot.

So we will have, you know, from from late August to November for that.

So I'd like to kind of compartmentalize so that we make sure we get the most critical information first, and then we continue to ask for information.

So as you're thinking through everything you've asked tonight and um has been answered and what has not been answered, please feel free to share with us what is most critical in terms of making that decision of will we bond or not, if we do, for how much, and what are we comfortable saying it's for.

So wanted to make sure I I I think through that with all of you.

I did remember my other question.

Um so as we think about the 114,000 in savings that was noted over and over in all of the different concepts that comes from closing the current parks and rec building, um, which would also mean that gym is no longer available and it's a highly used gym.

So those savings appeared over and over, um, and that only happens if we truly vacate that building, and it is savings.

So are we basically saying part of part of what we're communicating to the public is if we move forward with this, um, that that 114,000 in savings that we're capturing in the concept plan is because we are planning to close this building.

So again, that's a that's a decision that hasn't been made.

So that that's that's part of the challenges of that there are just several things that we don't know.

We're uh assuming to be the case, right?

So if you've got if you've got a scenario that envisions that building uh you know, again, this is um uh you know, this information right here, uh we've we've put out here using our best thinking about what that might look like.

Uh but no, I mean I we haven't represented that we're closing that building is just an if then, you know, if we did this, then we could use the money for that.

Okay.

Listing it as operating costs that are being saved wouldn't in effect communicate to the public.

If we do this, we're closing that building because we are capturing that amount as potential savings.

So we are communicating in it then scenario is what you're saying.

Yeah, I'm saying that that if uh you know, again, when when the question is well how are we gonna operate that, then we look at the operational uh what are the options that we have here.

That's simply an option, right?

If that's not an option, if we say no, we want to keep that building, then we gotta look somewhere else.

And you know, whether or not there's any money there somewhere else, I don't know.

But that's the the these are the kind of things.

So as you're as you're talking about budget, and what is that budget look like?

You're gonna have to make some assumptions into you know this would be true under these circumstances.

Uh but these are but you're assuming things that haven't taken place.

And and what I'm hearing uh kind of in several in several ways is we need you to come forward with a recommendation.

We understand that that there's a lot of decisions that have not yet been made, but because of the time constraints we're under, we need to hear your best recommendation for accounting for these operating costs or whatever.

So rather than this is just an if then, I think what I'm hearing is we we need a proposal to come back.

This is how we hope to cover these operating costs.

Um and then the other thing that I know is for later, but I want to make sure I comment on it.

Um what is not really in play is potential revenue that could come in from programming we've not yet even explored.

And and and to say you asked a question about child care.

I want to make sure we're eye on the record, at least my understanding is this is very different.

This isn't it.

The former uh Alta Canyon child care was provided by us and our staffing.

What is being a potential programming is the child care is provided by an entirely separate entity.

Public private.

If we are talking child care, I want to make sure we don't compare it to how we've done child care where we provided the child care because that's not the intent, is my understanding.

That's our understanding as well.

Um all right, that's I just want to make sure I got that last question asked.

Councilman DeSusa.

All right, really quick.

I I wanted to come back to a couple of things, and you know, we'll go ahead and provide, I guess, to Dustin kind of collect our our thoughts.

Um they are in a recorded meeting for the most part, though, so if that's helpful.

Um this comes back, it'll be really important for me and I think us to understand um the specifics of the renovation development costs.

So, for example, in scenario one, you know, 17 million is a purchase price, um, 30 million dollars what we're asking for, 17 million will go to the purchase price, and then 13 million is is I I need to understand what we get for 13 million dollars, you know.

Um, you know, not just like pickleball and this or that, but are we going to be um in the example if we end up with the example where we um have to where we take demo half of the building, you know what is the cost to demo that and then and then put put it back up?

Are we going to be uh updating HVAC?

What is that?

You know, kind of your best estimates on how why you're asking for $13 million for development and renovation.

So and then I I too will not be able to um move forward with a project that cannibalizes Alta Canyon Recenter.

And so I think in some way, shape, or form that needs to be clear, and we need to understand how this how this facility will operate in a way that enhances or improves but does not cannibalize or detract from because anything that does is going to be very difficult for me because we've just spent quite a bit of money to put in a new facility, and it makes no sense to you know do something that would diminish that.

So those are my two thoughts right now, and I'm good.

Thanks.

Ms.

Nukle.

One last one.

So two weeks ago we saw some preliminary plans, and you guys had discussed uh including the parks and rec building in the purchase at an amount of $300,000 or $300,000.

Oh, three million, three million.

Where does that stand?

There's where I'm sorry, where is what stand?

The historic or um the historic building in Sandy is being used as park and rec building right now.

And we saw some earlier plans that you guys had said that the canyon school district was possibly looking at buying that property.

Where do we stand, Martin?

Uh I'm happy to discuss uh real estate uh offline.

Okay and can do that.

Um how are we going to if if it is included in it?

How are we going to let the residents of district one know that this is a package deal that we get a building and we take a building away as well?

So my thoughts on that.

Any other questions or comments?

Mr.

Chair, I just have one more thing I'd like to bring up is um sometimes as parking recreation professional, we put two hats on, right?

And oftentimes we put your recreation hat on.

But the thing that I overwhelmingly heard at the open house last week was the need for this open space.

Um, you know, the residents are used to this green space.

They go uh most of the time residents don't know if it's a park or if it's a school, they just go play on the grass.

Um and so often these these different concepts we're looking at, we're looking we're thinking a lot about this building, but that green space is very valuable to our community.

Um I just want to make sure we keep that open uh up front.

Madam Chair.

Yes.

So I I sent you all an email saying uh, hey, if there's some specific information that you would like, please respond back to it.

I know a lot of it was expressed tonight, but yeah, you know, expressly in writing would make it a lot easier uh for me to make sure that we get it right.

And so if you wouldn't mind responding to that, I'm happy to provide that to Martin and to Ryan so that we can make sure to get the correct information for you.

Thank you, Mr.

Fraddo.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

So we have definitely met the six o'clock time frame.

So we are going to move into our public comment.

And again, this is the portion of our meeting where individuals can comment on anything related to city business.

We hear from the public, but it is not a back and forth conversation, but our role is to really listen and hear from the members of our community.

There is a three-minute time limit so that we make sure every individual has the same opportunity.

So we'll start with the cards that I have received.

But again, for those who are in the room, if you do want to make a comment, we ask that you fill out the blue card and share it over here.

I'll go through what I have in the chambers and then we'll move to online.

All right.

So this is Christine Leesburg.

I'm hoping I said it right.

Yes, please come on up.

You said it right.

Most people don't.

Okay.

So it's a lot to cover in three minutes.

I'll do my best.

I am representing a lot of people in our neighborhood and in the city.

And we're really, really concerned about the overcrowding, overbuilding, wondering about the noise ordinance and if it's enforced in the neighborhood at all.

We've got um kids running who with their motorcycles and racing up and down the streets, you know, the parents who let them do that.

That blows me away.

But anyway, um, wondering about, you know, what can be done about that.

Do they need to get some kind of a um uh certification or some kind of a registration or you know, as far as what the age limit is and where you know we draw the line.

Um there's there are people who are having open fires in their backyard still, even with our you know, banning of the fireworks and everything.

So um just so we can have a safe and healthy neighborhood.

Um there are quite a few things that we're really concerned about.

Um so we're wondering about the enforcement of that, and we would like to help too, not just pose the problems, but um keep an eye out for those things.

There's um overcrowding in the cars, it's difficult a lot of times you can't see to go out to the road.

There's a lot of rentals, and there I know that there's um there are um there's only so many people that can live in each home, and there are requirements for that, and some some of that have to be related or not related.

Um I think that's not there.

A lot of them are not following those ordinances.

Um there's as far as the noise, um just you know, some of the the blowers, the yard maintenance, you would not believe how loud some of those get.

I'm wondering if they're using industrial size, whatever.

It is um so we're also concerned about um the overcrowding of our city and all of the high density building.

A lot of them don't have there's a right on the road, they don't have a whole lot of you know um it's just when do we say no to all of this overbuilding?

We know that there's a need, but you know, I've lived here for over 30 years, and I it's just really hard to see what's going on in Sandy.

We look at some of the other developments, you know, over closer to Salt Lake City, and some of the high density um buildings that are my concern is they're so overcrowded and there's no time no space for people to even get out and walk.

It's just a parking lot.

So um I'm wondering also, where many of us are wondering about you know the UN their agenda 21 in 1992 they proposed, and they're following through with that.

My time's up.

Okay.

So the Earth Summit.

If we're following along with some of that, and I I'm really can we're really concerned that we're following along with a lot of that agenda.

And feel like the governor is following along with that agenda, which would not be good.

Ma'am, we've hit your three minute mark.

And thank you for all that you do.

And we we don't necessarily need your address on the blue card, but we would be if you we don't need it on the public record, but we would be interested if you could share with Mr.

Fraddo perhaps the area in which you live in the city.

Um, so that because some of those questions you specifically asked, we we sort of want to know the area, but we don't need it on the public record.

But if you would be willing to share that so we can follow up.

Thank you very much.

Okay.

Next we have Shelley Gilwald.

Thank you, Shelley.

Hello, Council.

Thank you for having me.

I prepared a statement to read, if that's all right.

My name is Shelley Gilwald.

I'm the legacy fields director for Utah Soccer Federation, more commonly known as U Tell You Soccer Association.

We are based here in Sandy on State Street, right across from America First Field.

Statewide, we represent over 60,000 competitive soccer players.

Here in Sandy, we registered approximately 1,500 children between 8 and 18 last year.

On behalf of Utah Soccer, we would like to be on the record in favor of Sandy City purchasing Crescent View Middle School for community use.

Specifically, we'd like to advocate for its continued use for competitive youth sports.

The collective body of soccer clubs based in Sandy are known as District Three.

Sparta United, Blue Knights, Cottonwood FC, Avalanche, AYSO Metro, and a few independent teams.

To avoid overlapping requests from local municipalities and duplication of resources, these clubs came together decades ago to coordinate field scheduling, referee assignments, and player registration.

District 3 has been leasing Crescent View Middle School from First Jordan and now Canyon School District for over 40 years.

For more than four decades, the children of Sandy have been playing and training for competitive soccer on the very fields you're now considering the future of.

Competitive youth soccer games played weeknights and Saturdays in Sandy.

This ran between mid-March and late May.

Additionally, on any given weeknight, up to a dozen teams may use the online grass areas for training, with player numbers approaching 250 players a night.

I'm not quite sure when football fits in with all this soccer use, to be honest with you.

Looking back at our membership rosters for the past 15 years or so, we show well over 10,000 Sandy children having participated in our competitive leagues.

Well, over 30,000 players have joined our Sandy-based clubs in considered fields such as Crescent View, their home fields.

Aside from well-known benefits of providing children opportunities for sport, we also learned the city council to consider the economic benefits of facilitating such robust soccer programs.

Take the 188 games last spring with an average of 15 players per team, 30 players per game.

That's over 5600 opportunities for families to dine out after a game, stop at a convenience store to gas up and grab a tea treat, or better yet, run errands.

This doesn't include the concept of being able to have futsal leagues indoor.

Um this is only talking about the outsor league.

Um thank you.

Final point.

We're partnered with Herriman, we're partnered with Ogden City.

We would very much like to take this and partner public-private with you all and help solve the revenue solution.

Thank you very much.

Okay, um, the last card I have, unless we have any more coming in the room.

Henry, come on up.

Thank you, Bert Christensen, for calling me back in and talking to me.

I had someone drop something off at my house.

Hey Henry, could you grab one of the mics and just we just can't hear you?

Sorry.

Thank you.

Can you hear me now?

Yes, there we go.

I had someone drop something by my house, and I'm not gonna name who who it was or anything.

But our mayor did something in a city part.

I want to bring public.

She did it publicly with her horse, not Langard or writing rightly with a horse.

What if that horse would have trampled over someone and killed a kid or anything like that?

And the mayor was her prosecuting attorney for a long time.

That's my concern.

Why didn't she get prosecuted for this?

Breaking the law.

Because if I would have done it, I would have been right down to the county jail house.

That's how I look at it.

Martin, thank you for everything you have done for me personally.

You've been great.

With everything on this park thing, I think it needs to be more transparency on this.

What's going on with this new building and stuff?

More transparency needs to be brought out before I think we put out the money.

That's how I looked at it.

And thank you guys.

Thank you.

All right, that is all the cards I have for in our chambers.

Um, if we could turn it to those online, Mr.

Fratto, please.

Of course, thank you, Madam Chair.

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

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

I'll call your name in the order in which you raise your hand, and you'll have three minutes.

Go ahead and raise your hand now.

I'm not either, so um, I will go ahead and close public comment.

Thank you, Mr.

Frato, and we'll come back to our agenda.

We are on item number three, um, Councilwoman Christensen for a first reading on a new advice and consent process.

So turn it over to you.

So this proposal, let me pull it, is I want to be very specific.

It's about the process of the advice and consent and how we handle it.

Is um a council and administration.

The purpose of this proposal is to establish a process.

It does not alter or expand anyone's authority in any way.

It's very much just a process.

I want to make that really clear.

Um, it doesn't change the mayor's authority to appoint department directors or statutory officers, and it doesn't expand the city council's authority to approve or reject appointments, it just keeps them exactly where they're supposed to be, but it provides a clear, more consistent process for doing so.

Um Justin, we pull up the thank you.

So I just wanted to walk you through the proposed process and then get your feedback on it and see if this is something we're interested in pursuing.

Make it a little bigger.

Can you make it bigger?

Or no?

I'm just old.

Okay, well, pretend you can see that.

So here's the two pathways we have.

And um, thank you.

We've broken it out by um the legislative advice and consent process on one side and then the interim appointment process on the other side.

So I'm gonna start with the interim appointment process just for fun.

Um so when a vacancy does occur, the mayor determines that an interim appointment is needed, and then she selects the candidate.

Um these aren't new requirements, these are the same requirements we've always had, they're just listed here, and then the mayor notifies the city council of the interim appointment, and then an interim person can be appointed for a maximum of four months.

Um they are approved, great.

End of process.

If they're not approved by the council's advice and consent after the four months, there's a process there as well.

So it could be extended if approved, if not the interim ends, or they could get an extension to the interim longer if needed.

Pretty straightforward.

The big difference is that it sets a time frame for interim amounts unless otherwise approved by the city council.

So then if we look at the legislative advice and consent process, um, so the vacancy occurs in a department where advice and consent is needed, and then the mayor provides a courtesy notice to the city council of the vacancy.

Um then the mayor conducts recruitment and selects a candidate.

So if and I know I know I'm reading it to you guys, so but if the position requires advice and consent, no, we just go through the standard hiring process, no big deal.

If it does, then the mayor will submit that appointment to the city council, including the items such as position, required qualifications, um, a very high-level higher hiring process summary.

I mean, this could be as simple as we're not defining what this is.

It could be like I found someone I wanted and I tracked them down and made them work for us, or we did a hiring process across 50 states, like it whatever that process is.

Um then also their resume and experience, um, their proposed compensation, and then any boards or commissions that they serve on, just so we can make sure that there's no conflicts of interest.

Um if the candidate meets the minimum requirements, uh, then we will go through the process of the conflict of interest and financial disclosures, um, and then the council will schedule within their best effort um advice and consent within the next two meetings, and then the council will vote on the advice and consent.

Now, if same process at that point, if the consent is granted, the employment begins.

If the consent is not granted, then the mayor can request them to stay go through the process of the interim appointment again to find a candidate that is approved.

So that's the overview.

How are you guys feeling about this?

What questions do you have?

Is this something we're interested in looking at?

All right, I'm gonna start this slide for this one.

Councilman D'SUSA.

Thank you.

Um yes, I'm interested in in looking at this and moving forward.

I um overall like the thought that you've put into the proposal.

Um, you know, I I I think that there have been some inconsistencies with the process that has led to questions and confusion by you know multiple um parties.

So I I think that it if you weren't gonna do it, I would have done it.

So, you know, thank you for taking that.

Um, but this this is something that needs to be looked at.

So I do have a couple of comments, questions, um, things that I think um I personally like to see um in in bolstering it.

Uh in the very first, the very first notation that I have is under the exhibit A vacancies A, so when the vacancy occurs, um the mayor shall give courtesy notice to the council.

I think there needs to be a reasonable time frame that council is notified at the time of the when the vacancy is noted.

So whether that's you know, five business days to to send out a notification email or or whatever.

Um, I was thinking same on on note defining a notification time frame for uh the appointment of a department head, but I think that as I read through that, that had other obligation or um other attachments that maybe would take a little bit more time to garner.

So I don't know that I have that same comment there, but I think that notifying that the vacancy exists should uh include the council in that at some point we will be asked to consent to a nomination.

Um that was the other question that I had.

This is super technical, but and and this is a legal question, and I'll I'll go to you, Lynn.

For an appointment to occur, advice and consent has to be given, right?

So it's isn't the references of of the appointment, it's a nomination of appointment until there's consent.

Well, the and I haven't I haven't tracked the language exactly through this, but but there's an appointment of an interim person versus an appointment of a per position that requires uh confirmation.

So um take your communications director position.

That was a position that was created.

Uh there was no interim, there was someone nominated to fill that position.

That position does that person doesn't serve until they're confirmed.

But an interim person might.

Right.

I guess I'm just trying to say that you know, language.

So you like it like something more like instead of appointment, like proposed appointment or something like that.

I just think that anybody also that would be in a position to be considered for appointment that may look through this process, have access to to this, it's just clearer about the fact that appointment doesn't occur unless consent has been given, right?

Yeah.

Um so whether it's you know a nominee or proposed appointee or whatever, that would just be a suggestion.

And then um on the second page, F, um, an individual shall be informed their employment is subject to the council device of consent.

I would just include in writing.

So an individual shall be informed in writing that their employment is subject to the council's advice and consent and whatever the rest of that says.

I I like that.

I think it's um an important addition.

Um let's see, I've got chicken scratch all over.

Notice it's closer.

Okay, so the interim appointments.

The one thing like I I understand and recognize legitimate need to appoint somebody on an interim basis, right?

Uh especially if the vacancy was not known or or well noticed or right.

Um it makes sense that you need some continuity um in that position to um continue, but at the same time it shouldn't be it's kind of like the exception to the rule, right?

And so how do we think about the interim appointment process from the standpoint of ensuring that it's used in you know in legitimate exceptions and it does not become the rule or you know the the work around per se.

You know, in the example that somebody had given, maybe it was Lynn made a comment, you know, if consent is a given, then it can you know then it could go through the interim process, and that's not the point of that, right?

Um and so I don't know what legal uh authority isn't maybe the right word, but um in from a process standpoint, how tight we can get with ensuring that this is indeed a temporary thing.

Um like you have four or four months.

Um like if somebody is was not consented to, they they shouldn't be allowed on an interim.

Yes, once there's once consent in this, it's once consent is asked for, if consent is a no, they cannot be interim or in that position.

It's they're no longer allowed.

They'll have to go to someone new.

Okay.

Just wanted to make sure that that's an end.

Okay.

Um so a written written extension requested by mayor, is it a request or is it just a notice?

It's a request.

And so there does need to be an affirmative action.

Yes.

Okay, just wanted to make sure because um it I don't know that it would make sense otherwise.

Um then sorry, I'm like trying to understand my note here.

Um again, I if there is I think it is, like you know, the the mayor shall give notice to the city council of an interim appointment.

Um I was just thinking of noticing, and I don't know the I just want to make sure that it comes as quickly.

The time frame, yeah, that it's as quickly as possible.

And you know, also understanding we'll look at it again with like an a focus on like the time frames, make sure they're yeah, okay.

And just an understanding of of the reason that it's that interim is being requested, right?

Again, like this really should be an exceptional use, not a standard practice.

So I I would be more comfortable if that were made more clear in some way.

Okay.

Um but overall those are those are my comments.

Thank you.

Thanks.

I just had one question.

So on this one where it's the interim appointment process, and it says select interim candidate who is current employee, one or more years, former employee, two plus two plus years left in good standing, another qualified individual.

Do we need the first two?

I mean, shouldn't it?

That's a Lin question.

Um number three sort of subsumes the other two.

So yeah, I it was just wordy.

I was I was I think that's how it's written now.

But noted.

Other than that, okay, thank you.

And she asked the one I had.

So thank you for clarifying.

Um you have anything?

I think I'll just work with you on this offline.

Uh just because there's some slight variances between what you have in the written description and what appears in the flow chart.

So I'll just I'll just kind of let you know what I noticed and then discovers.

Thank you.

Before we move on, though, what you're you're good with at coming back for a second here.

I am for sure.

Yes.

Thank you.

And the this is how it flows now.

Or we don't have the flow chart.

We don't really have a flowchart.

All right.

And I don't know at what point this is offered, but I would like to see the um actual offer before we give our advice and consent.

Because an offer is is uh submitted.

So under the appointment packet, when they when the mayor says, hey, I want to appoint Jo to this position, she has to can provide those items.

The position, qualifications, hiring summary, resume, proposed compensation.

And offer and offer letter.

I think that's I think they're the same thing.

Are they okay?

Tell me.

Because that that's that gives the car allowances.

That should that really shows that.

Okay.

Yeah, it includes the whole package.

Okay.

Yeah.

Yeah, that's cool.

I like that.

I I am sweet.

Madam Chair, I have a question.

Yes.

When you're ready.

Um let me just tell her where I am, and then I'll take yours.

Yeah.

Because I I said I didn't have any more questions, but I failed to indicate I'm very comfortable with those coming back for a second reading.

Thank you.

Yes, thank you for your work on this.

Mr.

Jensen.

Uh just seeking some clarification.

So in your proposal, item number 11.

Um you include information technology services director.

Um from my understanding, that's a change.

Um, that position has not been advice and consent.

Uh has gone through that process, just seeking clarification one way or the other.

Okay.

That might just we might have just looked overlooked that.

We were just looking at department heads, honestly.

So check I'll check that.

Is that something that you want to choose?

I'm not opposed, but I let's talk.

Yeah, I'll talk to you and we'll let me know what you guys think.

On the last question, just really quick on the um advice and consent process, the appointment packet, so all of the information that we're requesting.

You that's intended to come even like I'm not expecting that in the agenda packet.

We're expecting to get that before it's even agendized.

Yes, okay.

It should come when the mayor asks them, says I'm ready to put this person up for advice and consent.

It should come with that request.

Okay, thank you.

That makes sense because I just wanted to say that in you know in the past, you know, we've had people reach out to us, which is which is helpful, but we have no information sometimes at the point that people are reaching out to us, and so it's really important that we have that up front.

So thank you for considering that.

That's great.

Okay, I think that's everything for this item.

Thank you for bringing that forward.

Do you have what you need from us?

Yes, thank you.

Okay.

All right, so we're gonna move on to item number four, Councilwoman D'SUSA on also a first reading.

Um something with surplus real and personal property.

Take it away.

Yes, thank you, council.

Uh this is something that I have been mulling over for um months and months, and with some recent changes to state legislation as well as uh hiring our our personal or excuse me, our real property manager, um, it made sense to update our code to both you know clean up the process and um be in compliance with state code.

Um and I also wanted to add a request for strategic reporting annually on our real estate holdings, and so this uh proposed ordinance um does all of that.

So initially the ordinance um and and it doesn't it kind of like does what um council member Christensen's did in terms of process, this defines the process by which the city will undergo um in certain situations, and initially the ordinance was written for property, include real and personal kind of combined.

Um and it was um quite a bit shorter, there wasn't a whole lot to it.

Um the council has not been involved in any way um previous to this um consideration, and so this was kind of a uh baseline starting point.

Um with that the personal property is taken care of by our purchasing agent, and now that we have a real property manager consideration of the differences in those two types of property and how they're handled needed to be given.

And so, in in um developing this draft ordinance, you know, we worked um with Tracy and I asked for Lynn's feedback and Dan's feedback to ensure that um on an initial reading it wasn't overlooked, and I think that there was you know quite a bit of really good robust discussion on um what went into this, and so that is kind of what I'm asking you to consider at this point.

So I will kind of open it up to questions.

Thank you for that.

I'm gonna start on this end this time.

Just keep ping-pong.

Ms.

Nickel, do you have anything?

No.

You've been first up.

I know the whole time.

Okay, we'll come back.

I can swing anywhere.

Yes, Councilman Cherky.

I support it.

I had a chance to ask you just a couple of questions earlier.

My questions got answered, and so I'm good to move this forward.

Can I really quick that reminded me?

And I sent everybody an email earlier to correct an error that I had made when I was trying to combine all of the various input input a change input changes?

That's not right anyway, um, into one document.

And so everybody got that just for the record.

It is subsection H1.

It was intended to read as follows.

If the city desires to purchase real property valued at or less than 250,000 for the benefit of the city, the mayor is hereby authorized to effectuate such purchase without prior approval from the city council, provided that sufficient funds have been appropriated for that purpose.

And I had duplicated language so the process for under 250 and over 250 was the same, and that wasn't intentional.

So I just wanted to clear that up on the record.

Thank you, Councilmember Christensen.

Yeah, no, great.

I just okay.

Remind me who is in charge of doing the annual inventory.

It would be or do we not care?

I mean, I don't care, but I was gonna say how we worded it.

I don't think that it was worded as the real property manager, it's but I assume that it would be council members the mayor or the mayor's designation perfect.

Okay, yeah.

No, I like it.

Thank you.

Um I'll go ahead and comment.

I like it as well, and I appreciate um your your responsiveness to the questions I sent ahead of time.

You answered all my questions.

Um except for just one little additional one.

Um so and maybe maybe I just didn't catch this, and you've shared it already.

Um but in terms of like competitive return value, affordable housing, open space, um, etc.

The the amendment allows for that on a disclosure basis rather than council approval.

Is was that kind of your question?

Who determines the eligibility?

Um and what might it be appropriate um for it to come it to us in a written summary instead of after the fact.

Can you point to the section that you're referencing?

No, okay.

So just have my name.

Um just here's what I wrote.

Who who determines eligibility and whether below market conveyances should come to us for a vote rather than a written summary after the action has been taken?

I'm sorry I can't tell you where it is.

Yeah, when I read that I assumed it would be the administration, but I that they would make that decision.

But I don't know if that's true.

There's time.

I've I support it coming back.

I I can get back to you on that, just clarification.

But yes, I mean ultimately the administration makes the determination.

Um, and I guess I didn't understand that that was your question, Councilmember Christensen, because the the reporting is is kind of different from maybe the a determination earlier on in classifying something as surplus or at some but intended use that would be administrative.

I'm just gonna send this to you later.

Okay.

Because it doesn't change.

I'm I'm very comfortable with it moving forward to a second hearing.

Um so let's see.

We're do you have anything?

No.

Back to Miss Nickel, please.

What was the thought process around the 250,000 threshold?

So the state says that I don't help me word this in a minimum maximum.

The last bill that passed.

Yeah, the last bill that passed set the significant parcel property no higher than 500,000.

Okay.

Our our current ordinance has it at 40,000.

And so trying to figure out so the 500,000 threshold um really captures is meant to capture significant parcel.

You know, what and what do we consider you know Sandy City as a significant parcel?

What do we as a council feel is significant and should follow the process outline for that type of parcel?

And in consideration of what that meant, um, we had conversations about defining de minimis parcel.

Um, and we define that as you know, it has some um more nuanced language, but ultimately it's you know a quarter acre or less.

When I looked at real estate um values, and granted, most of them are active, not necessarily sold in Sandy for raw land in the residential in like a residential setting.

An acre is approximately give or take, um, depending on where it is, like a million dollars.

And so um at a quarter acre, a quarter of a million um is is kind of how I came to um put that number up as a as a starting point.

Okay, is can we do we have flexibility to lower it to 200?

It can be lower than 500, it just can't be greater than 500.

Okay.

I might consider 200,000 because that's still a substantial amount of money.

Um I'm looking at the dollar amount, the the substance of the dollar amount rather than what the parcel is.

Yeah.

Well, and and that's and you're right, yeah, trying to determine what was significant and what I thought the council may be interested in in weighing in on, right?

Um what's what price point is likely to have a value greater than X, right?

And so that that was kind of the thought process.

And really, you know, it is a it is a council collective kind of decision on what we feel um would be appropriate to set a significant parcel dollar amount at.

So, you know, there's there is absolute flexibility on what that is, because like I said, right now it's 40, but when 40 was established, I I think you know there was it was probably um 30,000 was more significant.

And 40,000 was for um procurement of uh generally what would be considered personal property or a service, right?

Is that how it's defined in there?

I actually think that it's um it's separated out as um significant parcel of real property means city owned real property whose estimated value is 40,000.

That's what it says right now.

So it is specifically real estate, but that's what I'm saying is this was written so long ago that 40,000 that you could purchase a significant parcel or sell a significant parcel for 40.

1978.

So that's what we're doing.

So anyway, trying to modernize it for our current land values was also part of the gotcha.

So this is does this ordinance have to do with also the personal property aspect of it with procurement?

It does.

So that that has increased from um notice, not necessarily you know, council involvement or approval, but notice over um $5,000.

Right now the council is not noticed at all.

Um it is just the the mayor's cabinet and the mayor, and so I've included um council notice through our executive director primarily.

The current threshold um is two thousand dollars, and with feedback from um the purchasing agent, I suggested increasing it to five thousand to again to accommodate for you know inflation and increased values just so that it wasn't overly burdensome.

I don't think we get that because I $2,000 isn't that much.

I've never been noticed on something like that.

We don't get noticed now, that's what I'm saying.

Oh, and so the the So we would get notice on anything over five.

Over 5,000 and over, yes, with the mayor.

I like it.

Yeah.

Mr.

Jensen.

Yeah, we'll we'll make sure to include you as we go forward on our bent and broken lawnmowers and uh the disposal of that.

Happy to do that.

But um just just a couple comments.

Um I I really appreciate this uh effort and and this initiative.

Um Dan Nelson is amazing, and I just wanted to point that out, and we're extremely glad to have him on our team and working with us.

And um I know he's he talks with each of you and a lot of you, and and um I just wanted to publicly thank Dan and say that he he's been a great addition to this team.

Um is we're going through this.

I I recognize and appreciate that the controls in there, totally for them, supportive of it.

Um I just want to rem remind you at times there may be opportunities that come to us where we have the chance to secure a property.

Yeah, in my past job happened quite frequently where hey, there's a property that's available and we need to act quickly and nibly.

We will still go through all the processes, but there may be times, and I'll work with Mr.

Fratto at that times if some of those come up where hey, here's an opportunity, let's try and move quickly through that.

So I just want to point that out.

And then the last part, uh the annual report, I love it.

I I think it's great.

Um I'm all for reporting.

What I want to make sure and set the expectation though, is we're we're cautious and careful in the report not to say, hey, we are now targeting these seven properties, and we publicly put that out there because it will then impact our ability to get them, the sale price, but we we can be broad and vague in saying, hey, we have goals in this area, and so just in the the written public report, there may be some aspects of it where it's gotta be a little more general, but love the concept and the idea and supportive of it.

Thank you.

Can I respond to that really quick?

So thank you, Mr.

Jensen.

And yes, um our real property manager Dan Nelson was um really helpful um along with Lynn to kind of pull all of our thoughts and um all of our interest together into this document.

So um in terms of purchasing property, you know, that was a conversation, and there's consideration in here to allow a contract to be written with due diligence, um considerations that require you know um the process and and where the council is is included in that process to play out.

So it doesn't prevent the administration from moving forward to try to get under contract, you know, considering that there's more process that may still need to play out um before a property can be purchased or whatnot.

And then the last thing that you said regarding the reporting yes and the reporting that I'm talking about more has to do with the current holdings of the city.

But at the same time, you know that is a uh a common um request or concern concern maybe isn't the right word but um consideration that that the administration uh be more communicative with us on some of those ideas maybe through you know closed session where it's appropriate and applicable because we recognize the sensitivity um of that information when trying to negotiate a real estate deal but at the same time you know I didn't I didn't include um requirements or legislation for um closed sessions on those but it would be I don't know if anybody else has any interest in doing that.

I didn't include it initially but I I think that it would be really um great if the administration um engaged the council in that way more often thank you anything else I I think you have what you need right for your second reading yeah and if any has anything else you know reach out in the meantime.

Thanks.

Okay.

Thank you for bringing that forward I I really like our first human process I think it's smart.

So we're gonna move on now to our consent calendar which has items five, six, seven, eight and nine on it motion to approve consent calendar I'm sorry was your is your microphone turned on it seemed like it's gone off quiet.

I don't know.

Should I say that is your green light on now it is now it is yes if you wouldn't mind saying it again just so it's part of the record I was you know testing you see if you're with it let me repeat myself so we are now moving on to item the next item which is our consent calendar which is items five six seven eight and nine motion to approve consent calendar okay we have a motion and a second I can do I don't need a roll call do I could just do a voice call vote for this.

Okay right we'll take a vote all in favor?

Aye aye.

Any opposed no opposed and uh do I am the am I the one who says that carries you're welcome to is it unnecessary we all understand that that carried unanimously well from the Sandy I was going to say maybe congratulate on the that was uh big big time consent calendar there.

Yeah so welcome aboard we're thrilled to have all of you yes okay so then we're gonna move on to item number 10 our public meeting Mr.

Jake Warner I believe you are kicking this off.

And last time we sort of merged these two together but tonight we are voting.

So are we allowed to still have you address both of them together and then we will vote separately or what do you recommend?

You know I would um I guess there's two ways that I would suggest you could uh if you're comfortable with the general plan let me do you mind if I back up and please maybe for the record just give an introduction um uh the Boyer Company has submitted uh applications for property at 825 east 90th south approximately 7.2 acres uh their proposal is to uh develop the current CTEC property which the canyon school district is selling for a town home project of 86 units and in order to do so they have submitted a general plan amendment to change the land use from institutional which is consistent with the existing land use or the existing use of the property um to medium density neighborhood and then to rezone the property um to the PUD 12 zone and uh as such there are two items on your uh agenda 10 and 11 both associated with that same uh proposed development and uh I would suggest that if you're comfortable with the land use with um that property um separating the the rezone application if you're comf comfortable with that as a land use the medium density neighborhood that you could act on that and then move on to item number 11 or you could have the discussion if you wanted to ensure that you're comfortable with the zoning part of it before deciding on the land use part of it you could have a joint discussion make sure you're comfortable with the back end before you take action on the front end either way that you want to handle it.

Thank you for that guidance.

I I would like to kind of ask the council what what you're feeling do you feel comfortable with the land use decision and we can go ahead and like vote on hearing a no.

And we can go ahead and like vote on hearing a no.

Okay.

So we're gonna joint discussion both of them.

If I could add just one more thing, um it sounded that like there may be some interest in um working out some type of contract associated associated with the zoning.

I have um asked that the applicant come prepared for that discussion, and and I think it would be useful for your discussion, hopefully effect more effective and and uh a better use of your time maybe for some in involvement from them.

And so I believe that they are prepared to have that discussion with you, and they may have some idea of directions they could and couldn't go relative to to that discussion.

Uh so if if we could um I want to learn a little more from my colleagues and then figure out kind of next steps.

So I heard a no whispered pretty quickly.

Um could you elaborate a little bit more on what you need from this discussion?

Yes.

So I very much would like to do a thing that we just talked about that I can't remember.

Thank you.

A development agreement um on this property to make sure that we um meet the needs we're trying to meet in our city.

And I know that last week when we talked about this, there was a lot of differences and not any like one solid thing we decided to do, just like talking about options, but the more um we've looked at this and like thought about it and gone through, and um I really think that um in my opinion, we do need a development agreement to make sure that we get um an appropriate density, and also that we have owner-occupied provisions in there, whether that's like we talked about before, probably like the CCE and ours to ensure that like only a certain percentage of these are allowed to be rented, and that's part of the agreement.

That's where I need to be.

And and that is you need that to be able to then make a land use decision.

Yes, because to know we're my understanding is if we agree to the land use decision, we don't they don't have to provide those things for us.

We are it's a done deal at that point.

Are you asking that?

I uh that's my understanding.

Tell me if I'm wrong, Jake.

So you could look at it as completely two separate applications, right?

If you are comfortable with um that property, again, if we had the map up, that property is surrounded by medium density neighborhood land use on the current well on the current future land use map.

Yeah.

That sounds contradictory, but um on the city's existing future land use map, surrounding properties or medium density neighborhood.

If you feel like that is a strong argument that this should probably go medium density, that that's an indication we want to give as a city regardless of the rezone decision, you could act on that application separately.

But it would if we do change it to medium density, it would automatically allow a PUD-12.

Right.

That's what we decided.

You could still you would still be able to handle a rezone decision completely separate and whether it's with this applicant or a different applicant, the the map would change in the general plan, and that map just simply gives an indication that there is some argument through the general plan that the city might support some medium density on this property.

Okay.

But it's the zone, right?

It's not just this property.

The zone gives the entitlement.

The land use just simply gives an indication that we as a city may support some range of medium density on this property.

But that has replications with more than just that one property, right?

It would be the properties around there.

The properties around there already are medium density neighborhoods.

So we are the general plan amendment application is applicable to the same property that the rezone application applies to.

No.

Okay, thank you.

Well, and I the other thing is is I think we want a legislative agreement.

We don't so I just don't see the need to rezone it until we have our agreement.

And I guess what I'm saying is um and you could turn to the attorneys, but typically a development agreement comes with the with the rezone, and so you may want to hammer you sounds like you want to you particularly, council member wanna, I shouldn't point to um it sounds like you um would be in favor of that development agreement um accompanying that rezone decision, and that could be done completely separate from the land use decision, or you could wait and make sure that you've worked all that out and then make both decisions concurrently, or you know.

I would feel more comfortable that way.

I don't know how the rest of this bill I would say.

And that's kind of what I'm trying to uh so is there anyone who is who is comfortable with the land use decision?

And I will just say I am comfortable with the land use decision being um yes.

It is it is appropriate to change the general plan because of all we've been talking about in terms of transition corridors, etc.

So I am comfortable with the with the land use uh decision.

Is there anyone else who is yeah, I would say I I'm I'm getting a little confused.

Both of these, both of these are land use decisions, right?

I'm just one what I I want to I want to go to Jake on it.

So one of them is merely a general plan amendment.

General plan amendment changing the designation on this property from institutional to medium density neighborhood.

And then there's a completely separate decision, separate vote, separate resolution on the rezone.

Correct.

So yes, in answer to your question, I am comfortable in taking an action on the general plan amendment as separate from the rezone.

And sorry for the confusion.

The general plan of amendment is to revise the future land use designation in the general plan.

So I love how you you clarify we're talking about moving from institutional to higher density as part of the map.

So thank you for fixing my language there.

Okay, so I'm comfortable, you're comfortable where I'm I'm comfortable with that too.

I understand what you're trying to accomplish.

And you know, I I I would agree that if if that's what we're going to do, then we would want to do it with the zoning.

But this is not the zoning, this is just changing that designated use.

Um and so yes, I'm comfortable taking that on and then having that conversation subsequently.

Okay.

I would rather wait, just because if we don't move forward with this rezone, um, then we've already then we've changed the general plan.

Um and originally, when this was put together, it was for the use, and you know, that's what residents had an opportunity to speak on.

Um they were comfortable with it, that's what was there.

There wasn't talk of it changing to something else.

Um so I I I would rather wait and then just do it at the same time.

Um that way if it if the rezone does not go through, then we don't have a developer that comes in, looks at it and says, Oh, this is what it is.

It can leave they it can leave it up to them to come up with their own ideas for it.

So my preference is to wait, but medium density.

What is medium density?

What's the range?

It is up to 12 units per acre.

Up to 12.

I mean it's not significant, but I just to leave it kind of the way that it was presented in there.

Okay, so I've got um comfortable moving forward, comfortable moving forward, comfortable moving forward.

Where are you?

Councilman Christensen.

Again, just talking about the first one.

If the majority wants to do it that way, I can.

I like the other way better in case this doesn't happen and we still got a school sitting there.

But Councilwoman Nickel?

May I just have a clarifying question?

Um this wouldn't change the zoning rate on if this deal doesn't go through, it would still be zoned that.

Right?

Medium allowable, we are we are basically saying that may medium density is an allowable use of this.

Isn't that theoretically everywhere?

Okay, I don't know.

And I don't not according to our general plan.

There's parts of the city that medium density is not an allowable use.

Okay, well, I know um I I would prefer to to move forward on this and go ahead and take a vote because I think for me, it's not a contingent thing.

I I believe this is the right move.

Um this there is going to be a change because this is no longer going to be a school.

And because of all the work we've been doing with housing and missing middle and thinking about transition corridors and all of that, I think it is appropriate to designate um this as an allowable use for medium density, regardless of what we do next with the zoning.

So that's sort of where I am.

I'll take entertain a motion unless somebody wants me to just make that motion for again.

We are uh item number 10.

Sorry?

Yes.

I would make the remote.

Oh, I don't have the number in front of me, but I will I will make a motion to approve the general plan amendment for Canyon Gate.

I I need a resolution number because I don't have to.

It's 26- uh ordinance 26-51.

That you second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second.

Any discussion on the motion?

And madam chair, yes.

This is a public meeting and a voting item, so we will want to take public.

I will before I take the vote.

But since I just called for discussion, any discussion?

Okay, now we'll thank you for the reminder.

We'll take um public comment on this specific item, item number 10.

And I do not have any blue cards on this.

And I don't see anyone nodding like I want to talk.

So let's go to online, please, Mr.

Freddie.

Of course, thank you, Madam Chair.

Uh if you're joining us virtually this evening and you'd like to comment on item number 10 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 hand, and you'll have three minutes.

Not seeing any hands raised, madam chair.

Thank you.

I'm gonna go ahead and close that public comment then for this voting item, bring it back for roll call vote, please.

Madam Chair, who was the second on the motion?

I was Ms.

Houseman, yes.

Ms.

Sharkey, yes.

Ms.

Christensen?

No.

Ms.

DeSusa, yes.

Ms.

Stroud?

No.

Ms.

Nickel.

No.

Um that motion resulted in a three to three.

So the motion fails.

It just stays until it doesn't have to be fails.

So how do you act on this?

Well then we can't do the second.

Now we can handle it together.

We can't unless somebody we have to we have to do a reconsideration.

Yeah.

So if right.

Can I talk about it?

Is it leaves?

Yes.

So we can hear the second one, and if we can come to an agreement, which if we do do a development agreement, there's no way it will happen tonight, right?

So when they bring it back, we can reconsider and change the zone then at the same time.

Yes, sorry.

Yes, change the general plan at the same time.

Right, Jane.

I don't know if I have clarification on that point specifically, but on um the last rezone that we handled, the uh council approved the rezone subject to a development agreement that included certain conditions, and then we simply proceeded to execute that development agreement, and then upon execution of the development agreement, the rezone is in effect.

So we were talking about the general plan amendment.

That um I I don't know what the uh procedural process is on that where you've had a vote that is.

Madam Chair, I can speak to that.

So your policy essentially says that any member can bring back an item for reconsideration at a future meeting.

If you were going to reconsider the vote tonight, somebody on the losing side, right?

The negative side has to bring it up.

But uh in that situation, you know, it's a tie, so it's kind of awkward.

But uh yeah, anybody can put it back on the agenda for reconsideration at a future meeting.

So hang on one second.

Let me let me make sure I'm understanding.

So um you were saying we can proceed with item number 11, have a conversation.

Um we can't take a vote on a rezone when the general plan has not been changed to accommodate that rezone.

So following a conversation, a council member who who just voted no could say, okay, based on the conversation we just had around development agreement.

I am now comfortable going back to item 10 and reconsidering it.

Yes, so the motion was to adopt that ordinance, correct?

Correct.

So somebody who voted against adopting, right?

Against the motion, could say I'd like to reconsider that this evening.

Tonight, but it can only be someone who voted against adopting the correct plan.

Correct per policy.

The other option is that you can be said to me.

Well, wait.

Council members.

Council members, could we make sure we're getting your dialogue on the record?

Yes.

And I'm trying to navigate this.

So if you'll if you'll let me uh navigate this and get clarity, and then we can figure out what next say it again to make sure we're yes.

So the motion was to pass the ordinance to adopt the ordinance.

So per policy, uh somebody who voted against adoption of the ordinance could bring it back for reconsideration.

So one of the council members that voted against adoption.

Okay.

But wait, they're not on the losing side.

The motion was to adopt the ordinance.

The ordinance was not adopted.

Correct.

So those who voted to adopt are on the losing side.

No, the motion was to adopt, right?

Somebody who already voted to adopt would not change the vote by bringing it forward for reconsideration.

It has to be somebody who voted against adoption.

Correct.

Yes.

So let's hear the other one.

Somebody who voted against could say we would like to reconsider.

Right.

Alternatively, you could put it on a future agenda, and anybody can do that.

It doesn't matter whether you voted for or against any council member can put it on a future agenda.

Okay.

Thank you for that clarity.

Yes, Ms.

Nickel.

The only ones who could, if I'm understanding correctly, the only ones who could do it tonight are the three of you who voted no against the amendment.

If anybody could bring it forward in a future meeting, but to rediscuss it tonight has to be one of you three.

Because you're essentially changing your opinion.

Yes, yes.

So I think the chair could I just add a point of clarity.

Absolutely.

If you hammer out the rezone and that's the way you want to handle it, I think that's the better way.

But just for clarification, there's nothing that requires a rezone to be consistent with the general plan currently in the city's code.

That is something we may want to consider with our code rewrite.

That's something we've talked about in the past.

But just for clarification, there's no requirement that currently in state law or in our city code that requires uh that consistency.

It again, it's something to put in the back of your mind for our code rewrite, but currently is not.

So you are saying in essence we would not have to go back and revisit number 10.

I think it's better practice if they're consistent myself.

That's why we encourage the developer to bring forward a uh general plan amendment, uh just for clarity for transparency and so forth.

So I think that's the better practice if they are consistent, but it's not currently a requirement.

Thank you for that, Mr.

Warner.

And thank you everyone for we we learned something a little new tonight.

Um so then that means uh we are done with item 10.

We're gonna move on to item 11.

And we already have um some thoughts on what it's going to take to get to yet a yes from some of you on this rezone, and that's going to be a development agreement.

So would this be an appropriate time to ask the developers, the applicants what you said they had an option that they were willing to work with and see if it's something we're willing to work with?

I think that's uh yes, the answer is yes, but I want to make sure we're efficient in the use of their time as they come, and I want to make sure we put out on the table sort of what we are looking for.

What I heard from you was um I I want a development agreement that puts in place um structures around this is home ownership, all of the things that we sort of have been talking about.

Tools that we don't yet have, but we're working towards, and so that's what I'm hearing is to prioritize home occup like homeownership, um not rentals.

Uh I didn't hear anything about a change in the zoning that they are asking for, but I mean if I could pick I'd say PUD 10, but that's what I'm more flexible.

So the developer agreement that you are interested in is what helps us ensure there is homeownership.

Yes.

Anyone want to add to that of what you might be looking for if you are interested in a development agreement.

Please, Ms.

Nickel.

Those are that's the main for me.

But I I want to have staff also present this again so anybody who's just joining now can see what's being presented.

And but um and I want to talk about some parking, but mostly home ownership having uh most of the properties be uh for as for sale product rather than for rent.

Okay.

Anything else needs to be added in terms of some things you want to hear from the applicant when they come up.

I want to make sure they have clarity and please, Councilman Stewson.

It's not necessarily something that I want to hear.

I just want to make sure that like we understand that anything that we do is a contract and is bilateral, or and so both parties would have to agree, right?

And so um I do think it makes sense to hear the proposal that you know they're prepared to make.

Um and and you know, I assume that it addresses in some way uh the conversation that we had last week, but um I also would like to say that I I do favor um for sale property.

Um I don't know that I feel it necessary to go too deep into home ownership or like well, owner occupied and or deed restrictions that for sale um at a minimum.

Thanks.

Okay, so Mr.

Warner, we have had a request to just if you could do a a recap of item 11 so that those who are tuning in for the first time kind of know what the applicant is asking for.

And then when you feel ready, please, we'd love to have the applicants come and present.

You mentioned that they have um sort of put a proposal together.

We'd love to hear that.

So uh just to repeat uh some of the information from item 10.

Uh, we're talking about property, approximately 7.2 acres at 825 east, 90th south.

The property has been used for quite a while, a long time.

I don't somebody may have a better idea than I do by the canyon, owned by the canyon school district and and utilized for their CTEC programs.

Um they have located another facility.

Um part of their um funding for that new facility is to sell this property and put the uh funds from this property into the new facility, and um the Boyer Company has the property under contract from uh the canyon school district and is proposing a housing development here of 86 town homes.

Again, um they uh they're proposing a little bit tighter uh density up on the frontage, and that would be supported by the current by the existing future land use map and the general plan that that does have the transition corridor overlay along the front edge of 90 south.

With that um overlay along the frontage, we felt like again that the general plan supported that.

Um, but there's nothing that indicates the depth that that should apply to a property, and and staff did not feel comfortable saying that the transition corridor overlay should apply to the 500 foot depth of the the entirety of the property, and so encouraged the applicant to come forward with a general plan amendment um for the medium density um designation that would be consistent with what they're asked on the on the ray zone, which is for PUD 12.

Property is currently zoned R18, which is a single family residential zone.

Um educational facilities aren't allowed use in in residential zones, and that's why the Canyon School Disc property is uh permitted to operate as they have in that zone.

Um couple of things that have come up, uh questions and and issues and so forth.

Um traffic, um access, uh parking, uh buffering, setbacks.

Um a lot of those things are typical issues that we address at the site plan stage.

If you're not comfortable with um the city's ability to uh manage those issues through the site plan stage, then that would be where you would need to raise those issues now.

But those are issues that staff is not looked fully at.

We've had a lot of discussion about uh this uh proposal.

We've been meeting with this applicant for almost a year now and and have had some input on the concept plan that was presented to you that does reflect um a level of comfort that staff is at as far as feasibility of of this project, but is in no way uh a full thorough review of a full set of plans that would go into the the entire depth that the site plan and subdivision process would would get to.

Um as part of that uh there are some regulations in the PUD 12 zone that would address um just standard regulations in that zone, some of the issues that have been brought up.

Um the PUD 12 zone does require some buffering.

The way that it does that is it requires that around the perimeter that um the setback around the perimeter be twice what the um current minimum setback is of any adjoining residential properties.

So there is some buffering there.

Um as far as height, the PUD 12 zone would have the same height restrictions as the uh surrounding residential um developments, which is 35 feet.

The um the properties to the south are two-story homes.

There was some question about whether or not um you know, two-story homes on this property would be having a significant impact, and I'm just saying that the existing homes there are two-story.

Additionally, there is some raising grade from the canyon school district property to the south.

The the grade actually does go up a little bit, a couple of feet on average in general there, um, but staff is not able to determine right now what the you know it has not been provided and and would not be able to be provided what the elevations would be of the finished grade of the of the proposed development or those homes.

So that would have to be looked at through the site plan and subdivision process, the the relative difference between the existing and and the proposed.

Um there are parking regulations in place.

Um I'm just trying to think of other issues.

I uh I did reach out to the school district, they were gonna report back with um their projections on the proposed um development, and they said that might may take some time, and I haven't heard back from them yet.

So that is one issue that was raised, and and I did not provide information, and that's the reason that it wasn't provided.

So thank you.

And I I failed to acknowledge um your effort to answer a lot of our questions that came in ahead of tonight's meeting.

Um I I so loved your compilation of and I appreciated the council reaching out ahead of time because this there are there are clearly a lot of questions.

We still have questions, but I meant to acknowledge you at the beginning and say thank you for the time you took to kind of respond to the group and and address everyone's questions.

So thank you.

Thank you.

So do you feel like now is appropriate time to hear?

I have I have a couple questions for Jake.

Oh, so so sorry.

Never mind.

I jumped again.

Councilwoman.

Yeah, so the planning commission, what was their recommendation on this?

Uh seven zero unanimously in favor of of the application.

Of both applications.

Uh neighborhood meeting was very positive.

Again, I I don't want to say that the comments we heard there were reflective of all the neighbors.

Uh we I believe we had 10 people attend, three people spoke, and and those that spoke were in favor.

Again, they they want to know what's going to be proposed, and a lot of those answers would come with the site plan and subdivision process, so there would there would be additional meetings in the future associated with those applications to look at those um in more detail.

But um, but generally the overall feeling of the neighborhood is that they they welcome this type of medium density.

Yes.

Okay.

From those that have commented so far.

Okay, thank you.

So, Jake, are you saying that this is an average of PUD 12?

Um, so in taking into consideration the entire, what is it, a seven-acre parcel, seven acres plus, and that the concept plan shows an average of a PUD 12, but along ninety it is it it would be a greater density if we looked at that specifically and individually.

So is it would we say that the middle section is a PUD 12, but the um the 90th frontage is a higher density than that, and the rear portion is a lower density than that, leading to an average of PUD 12.

Is that what you're saying?

I think that would be correct.

If you were to break it up into three segments, the south, the middle, and the north, I think it does transition and and that's good practice in from my perspective.

Um you've got some small lot but single family stuff around um the south, and so they're proposing some of their lower density units, you know, greater buffering and so forth along that south edge.

So I think if you were to divide it up into three segments, you you would have a lower density on the south, probably closer to a 12 in the middle and maybe a little bit higher right along the frontage.

And again, that would be supported by the general plans transition corridor overlay of the transition corridor overlay would support a density of up to 16 units along the frontage.

Not that the zoning would need to go there, but in the right context, and and according to the council's actions, but according to the general plan, it would support up to 16 units along the frontage.

And so I think that this plan does reflect uh some attention to the general plan, assuming that the um general plan amendment they've proposed were to be approved, that it would be consistent with that direction.

So did you just say as a PUD 12 there would be 16 units across there, but in this concept plan there are 21.

So the higher density has allowed for five more units.

Is that what you just said?

Five okay.

No, I'm saying that across the entirety of the site, the density is 12 units per acre.

But if you were to break it up into three sections, you probably would get probably not even a sixteen along the frontage, but something a little higher than twelve along the front edge and a little bit lower than twelve along the south edge.

But across the entirety, they would have to comply with the twelve units or whatever the density is that's associated with the zone that's approved.

Okay.

Um we did get some feedback once then one of the neighbors at least saw how two of the neighbors, I guess, emailed the council that once they saw the height of the development that they were very opposed to that.

That would surprise me because I have not really received an indication of height except for that you know.

They would still have to comply with the 35 feet, but you're right.

That's been the extent of the height that's been discussed.

There's probably two stories throughout, except for maybe some three-story on the on the front edge.

And again, all that is is the applicant saving intent at this point, they would have to comply with the zone once approved.

So then I think we're we'd love to hear from applicant and and just as you come up, um uh uh a a reminder, uh as we it sounds like we'll be discussing um a development agreement.

I I think staff is very open to hearing from us of what we would like that to be, but I don't know that we necessarily have to hammer that out tonight as much as provide direction and then cool.

All right, and Madam Chair, may I just add to that?

I I think what would be helpful for us as professional staff is for you to talk generally with the applicant, uh tell them the things that are important.

They do this all the time, they're very talented in this space about the things that are important to you rather than negotiate the finer points of the deal, even though I know you all want to be involved in that, um, and and then task us to work with them to reduce something to writing and bring it back.

Uh so you actually have something to criticize rather than just talk in the abstract.

I think if you just talk to them about general concepts that you'd like to see, and they can tell you whether or not they can't do it, and then we'll reduce it to writing and go from there.

That that's that's my best thinking.

Okay.

Thank you, Mr.

Cadillac.

All right.

Um by way of introduction, again I've spent some off it with the boyer company.

Um good to see you again.

I don't know as if I've ever done a council meeting back to back.

So um you guys have a full schedule.

Um I appreciate the guidance, that's really helpful.

Like I I think dialogue is is really important, and that helps us all figure out if it works or if it doesn't work, and I appreciate appreciate the candor.

That's really helpful for us to know exactly where you are and what works and what doesn't work.

And as Jake said, staff has worked really hard over the last year, and we appreciate the effort that they have put in.

You know, even though it was preliminary and we didn't know what direction we were going, I think the time we spent was time well spent um putting together a plan and just making sure that if you know it ended up going this direction that it would work.

So that gives us a degree of confidence to you know stand here and talk uh in a little bit more detail about some of the development agreement items.

Um we're pretty simple.

I I I don't think we need to get into details.

I am hearing one issue from you, and I I think you know that that issue is pretty clear.

Um, we're hearing it's the the ownership opportunities.

You indicated that last week, you reiterated it this week.

Um we weren't as committed on it last we not because we want it to be cagey, but because this process takes so long, and I think you can all appreciate as you're involved in this, um, you know, you submit a rezone application, then you move to preliminary, then you move to final, then you do architectural drawings, then you build it, and by the time you're done, you know, you're 24 to 36 months out, and I I wish I had a crystal ball and could see where the market is and know what housing pricing will be and you know what AI is gonna do to all of our jobs.

I'm I'm we're not sure.

So for that reason, and that reason alone, we we often look for flexibility.

Um it's not that we have some scheme or some you know thing that we're trying to pull over the wool over the council's eyes, it's just we don't know where markets are going and we don't know what things are going to look like.

And to make an economic decision, you know, in three years based on you know today is really hard.

That being said, you know, I don't think you know there there will still be a a need for home ownership.

Um it may be stronger, it may not be as strong, but I I think we're hearing that that's something you want to prioritize for your city.

So I I do think that we are willing to enter into an agreement, a development agreement to self-restrict on those ownership opportunities.

Um, in return for that, we would like some certainty just as to density, and we don't need to approve a specific plan.

But if we could say, hey, that PUD 12 is the zone and that 12 units is the acre would be sufficient for us to you know give us the comfort level to self-restrict on that those ownership opportunities.

I did hear some talk about potentially, and we see this with other municipalities, um having a percentage available to to rent still, just as a some flexibility.

I don't know if there's a specific percentage you you have in mind, or if that's something you want to take off the table, that would be helpful for us to give us some uh just some optionality.

But that's one question I did want to ask the council just to help guide our thinking.

Um but you know uh aside from that we are um willing to enter into restriction on ownership opportunities to to help you achieve that goal.

So thank you for that.

I appreciate um it it's you spoke that very well, like very balanced, very well very well presented.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Not that you need me to like approve of your presentation, but no, that that's nice to hear because yeah, we often you guys don't know you go home and like, oh man, I I screwed that up.

Why why did I say this or that?

So that that's I appreciate that.

Um and I'll still say you know, go home and beat myself up, but I appreciate that.

Thank you.

All right.

So council will nickel.

Yes.

I just really want to say thank you.

This is really really refreshing.

We've never had someone come in and say, we hear you and we're willing to work with you.

It is really refreshing, and I I really like it and appreciate your your uh approach to this.

You have nothing to beat regret what you said.

It was you're really spot on.

Um I understand how much deed restrictions can affect a bottom line sales price, those types of things and the the just the general marketability of a product like this.

What I'm more interested in is um I want to know that they're gonna be individually parceled, right?

Are we gonna have individual parcels on those?

So if you feel if if there's any um flexibility on a percentage of how much can be rented, um you still have that opportunity to sell down the line.

Um I'm interested in in discussing um a certain percentage being held as rentals, whether you help you hold them or someone else hold them.

That's not my business.

So those are those are my thoughts.

Just in quick because I can answer one of those really, we do plan to plot them individually to provide that optionality and and individually parcel them as well.

Yeah, yeah, they're they'll be individual all you know, whatever the number is, 86, they will be individually parceled so that they'll on the tax roll, you have 86 different units and can transact any one of those individually.

So that that is our plan, yes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Where am I?

Anyone?

Is that a yes?

Okay.

So you did say you you were curious about like specific percentages or yeah, just when that was mentioned, is there a number that you have in mind?

Like and I'm not saying this is like an NLBL by any chance.

This is like work it out with them, but like uh personally, like the five to ten percent range is in my head, but I I'm not I think there's a little bit of flexibility.

Gotcha.

So what I I appreciate that, and it's uh you know, not a not a 50-50, it's not half half, it's a small percentage.

Would that be an accurate representation for the council?

And and to be completely transparent with you, you know, if we do for sale, our our plan would probably be to do all for sale unless we get in a pinch or a jam and can't move any of them in a difficult market.

It's nice to have that option.

You know, if we get stuck with all these town homes three years from now in a really difficult market where interest rates are 11%, you know, it's nice to have the option where we can't sell them to rent some of them.

So even at that, you know, percentage if it's not 50, be that 20% or whatever, is is helpful, but I I we're not our intent wouldn't be to lead out with that because it just doesn't make sense to mix the two.

Okay, anyone over here.

Um I also will echo the sentiment.

Really appreciate you coming, you know, solutions first, and hey, let's try this.

Um I am very, very comfortable moving forward with what you've you've just indicated.

I um I appreciate your candor as well to us around here here's where we can meet you.

We see what your interest is, you really want to encourage home ownership.

That's a priority for you as a city.

Um, and your candor around we we really hope to get the 86 units.

I we've been talking a lot, and you've probably watched these conversations around um tools and and making sure that we understand the impact of some of the expectations we place on developers, and so I'm very comfortable with the zoning that that you've brought forward, and knowing that you are um willing to sort of self-restrict and and move into a agreement.

I don't have a number about rent.

I I must have like somehow fallen asleep during that part where someone brought up a percentage.

I'm so sorry.

Like I I'm like, what?

I don't remember talking about a percentage of rentals.

But I'm I'm I'm I'm comfortable with wherever that kind of lands.

I don't feel the need to get in into the details, but I um I'm ready to to support this.

Councilman D'Souza.

Thank you.

Um I too was going to say I appreciate your candor as a group.

And I too go home and criticize the things that I say.

You're not you're not alone.

Um but I was gonna say, you know, I I have been part of the Utah League of Cities and Towns for Sandy.

Um I participate in the um conferences, uh very aware of the conversation that happens at the legislature.

Um I'm also a residential realtor.

Um, you know, the conversations that the developers have with the legislators that then you know enact legislation that affects you know land use and whatnot, and you know, it's a very complicated, it's a very complicated relationship for all of this.

And um, you know, I I I want to say that it I I appreciate the candor and the fact that we're able to have this open conversation and extend a little bit of trust to each other um by doing those such.

And um I hope that that we can be a model maybe on how these conversations can go and how these um zoning decisions um you know can be had in the future um because I I really do think that ultimately like we want the same thing, right?

And and understanding your needs and having you understand, you know, our needs or what's important to us, and then trying to find some some appropriate middle ground where everybody wins um is great, and I feel like that's where we are hopefully headed.

So it's that that's what it sounds like to me anyway.

Thank you.

We appreciate that, and it's uh it is a collaborative effort, I think.

I mean, yeah, that's that's something we try to do as a company and and and to listen and to hear, so I appreciate that that feedback.

You know, and as a city, I think you know, we want to be part of the solution.

You know, we don't want to necessarily be the problem child that is the um the anecdote that creates legislation that affects all of us, right?

So there's plenty of that, yeah.

Yeah.

Um but I was gonna say, you know, in terms of of rental, I can be I I'm totally flexible too, you know.

I think that I'm interested in and addressing the needs realistically, you know, and and providing um some flexibility and balance.

Um but at the same time, I think that the desire for me and what I've heard from others is you know predominantly um for sale or owner-occupied, right?

So thank you.

Gotcha.

Thank you.

Just I mean, I talked a lot about this last week, and I feel bad.

I know I spoke with Mr.

Fraddo about this and a couple council members as well, that we didn't give this direction last week, um, so that we didn't have to, you know, kind of work on this because that's something that I think we could have gotten at, you know, but I'd like for staff to be able to work on an agreement, and then we have that, and then we can look at doing everything kind of all at once, but appreciate what you're doing and you know, and listening and and understanding, even going back to you know the the housing summit workshops that we did in the summer.

Um, you know, and that's you know, it's something that we've heard time and time again with any rezone or option that comes up, you know, that's a desire is you know from this council, you know, to be able to to provide people with an opportunity for um to put down their roots and to have something that is not just their house, but it's their home.

You know, something that they can invest in.

So, you know, appreciate your understanding on that and and looking forward to to moving forward with it with an agreement.

Great, thank you.

Council Sherman?

Um I too appreciate your willingness to work on the terms and conditions of the of a development agreement, and I'm fine with what we've been talking about, reserving some for rentals.

My issue is still around the density.

Um it is currently zoned R18, um, which is probably not terribly important.

It's more about what's around it.

So R18 would be five units per acre.

Around it, we've got PUD6 and PUD7, so six and seven per acre.

We're talking about doubling it tripling what the current zoning is in terms of density.

Um I thank you very much for pointing me to that develop the development that you built in the old RC Willie.

I did drive through that.

Thank you for doing that.

It's it's a beautiful the architecture is beautiful, the um the buildings are beautiful.

I think that is too dense.

And here's what comes to mind when I drive through a development like that and contemplate what we're talking about here.

In terms of city planning, I I just I want to make sure that we're not only building housing, but we're building communities.

I I just I want to make sure that we're not only building housing, but we're building communities.

And when I take a look at the open space, I see it.

I think the main purpose of the open space in this concept plan is to separate buildings.

I'm not sure a lot of it is really usable for the community.

Um I see that there's what a dog park and you know something else there.

I but it was what it was what struck me when I drove through the old RC Willie location.

It there was no one outside.

There wasn't much grass for people to meet and congregate.

I did see a little playground.

I saw an open space that may have been for dogs too.

Um but it did it didn't strike me as a place where people that lived in the community would meet and gather.

It just looked the green space looked to me like the necessary separation of buildings.

So you have a you know a 15 foot wide section of grass there.

Um so that it's just my that is my concern.

I j I simply think that it is too dense.

If we're even contemplating, like PUD 16 along the 90th frontage, that is more dense than I've ever seen in Sandy.

Um I understand the need to build smaller homes to make them more affordable, but I don't want to do it at the risk of losing a sense of building a community.

Um so that that is where my discomfort lies continues to lie in the uh in the density.

Okay.

Um question then it I'm I'm hearing that.

We we may or may you're gonna have to you're gonna have to inform me.

So are we not willing to vote on this tonight because we want the development agreement to come back?

So then are we going to revisit item 10, or are we just bringing them back together and we move very quickly?

I think we need to give staff direction.

Okay.

But that so what I'm hearing, and correct me, I'm hearing we'd like staff to work with applicant.

Um they've agreed to a development agreement.

Um we might need to have just a little more conversation to help provide clarity in terms of is what's coming back to us a change in the zoning.

I am comfortable, especially because this goes two ways.

Um they've they've given to us around uh in terms of self-restriction on um homer home ownerships for sale priority.

I'm not comfortable asking them to change to a less dense.

I know that's not where you are, Councilman Sharkey, but that's so I feel like that's the one piece that we may not have been really upfront about, and if we're gonna have them come back, I want to make sure they have full clarity on where we are.

So that's where I am.

I am comfortable with um the PUD zoning as it currently is so long as it comes back with that um development agreement that focuses on home for sale only.

And we know where Councilman Sharkey is.

I'm happy to lend my input on that.

Please I I am absolutely fine with the zoning that's been requested.

So I can do either 10 or 12.

So you would support it coming back as long as we have as long as we have a development agreement with the other items, I'm fine.

Okay.

And maybe a little bit different.

I would love the 10.

Um, I know that we've talked about this.

I if I I have more focus on the home ownership, but if it was a little bit, so instead of a 5% of rental at a PUD 12, if we did a PUD 10 with maybe a little bit, little bit more uh flexibility with with rental, um, I could look at that.

So, you know, if that's kind of that's you know, depending on what works for you guys as well.

I'm comfortable with the zoning as it's been proposed.

I think that it aligns with our future land use map.

I understand the transition corridor and the um density being moved up front.

Um and I I do have an interest in making these um affordable but not affordable, you know, but less in price, and I understand um the economics of that.

So I'm comfortable where it is.

Yes, I think one other point needs to be clarified is that I um five and ten and twenty percent um were thrown out numbers.

My number was a round ten, theirs was around twenty.

I think there's a meeting in the middle for that, so let staff work that out as well.

So I didn't know I because I'd like them to be clear on that as well.

So great point.

Anyone uh want to add to that percentage that is sort of their their cap.

Okay, I think staff do you have Madam Chair?

Please.

So my request would be um that uh the council you know make a motion.

Okay.

And the motion that I might suggest is something along the lines of you know, a motion to direct council staff uh to work with the applicant, the city attorney's office, and the planning department to uh put together a draft development agreement for council consideration based upon your conversation this evening, something along those lines.

Okay, we have a motion and we have two seconds, but I'm gonna give it to Councilman Stroud over here.

And Madam Chair, I think Mr.

Warner has a comment as well.

It's probably gonna negate everything I just said, aren't you, Jay?

Not at all.

Oh wise one, teach us.

This is more in relation to item number 10.

Okay.

I wondered if we could make a motion for reconsideration of item number 10 to come back concurrent, you know, with with when the development agreement zone are brought back.

So can I are you making that?

Well, Madam Chair, I mean I I don't know that you necessarily need that.

I mean when we bring it back, we're gonna bring back a script for you that does the that makes the change to the code of that does the code amendment that does the master plan, does the I mean there will be the three different things that you approve.

And it will all be done on at the same night.

We'll just notice it all, you'll approve it all.

That was the assumption.

I just wondered if we needed to clarify that that's the same.

Reconsideration is in place to bring that back as well.

I think so.

And and I am assuming as quickly as staff is able to do that.

And yeah, I would say I I would the mo I think you leave the motion as as stated and we'll you we can attach that item.

I think there's an understanding that it's gonna be brought back.

Um sorry, I don't mean to go off on a tangent, but I'll also mention I looked at our policy uh just to verify whether or not I was a hundred percent accurate.

And we have a weird section in our policy that says when there's a tie vote, anybody can vote for reconsideration.

It doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but I went back and looked, so I just wanted to for the record let you know.

Well, the only reason that's the case it doesn't make sense is because we're a body of seven.

We don't have ties.

Well, but tonight we do because we're a body of six.

There's plenty of reasons it doesn't make sense, you know, but we don't need to talk about those tonight.

And the fact that Dustin raised it in the same meeting, it can't be convicted of perjury.

That's exactly right.

Okay, so it could have been anybody is your point.

But we but we don't need to because we are folding it in.

Does that help provide the clarity that you feel like we need it?

And then in terms of timeline, we will work as quickly as you are able to, and I'm ready to hear that put that on on an agenda quickly.

Okay, council, any final.

Oh yeah, that was a motion and a vote.

Thank you.

Wait, do I have to take public comment on this because it's a more of a direction?

We should take public comment.

It's listed as a public meeting item and a voting item.

Um also was there a second to the motion.

We after public comment, you should take a vote on that motion as well.

Yes.

Um and so the public comment is on we have a motion and a second to direct staff again to work, development agreement, etc.

etc.

coming back.

Um so we'll take public comment on this item.

And I do not have any blue cards, and I do not see anyone waving me down.

So let's go to online, please.

Thank you, madam chair.

Uh, if you're joining us virtually and you'd like to comment on item number 11 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.

I don't either.

So thank you.

We'll close that public comment and bring it back for a roll call vote, please.

Madam Chair, was Ms.

Christensen the motioner?

Yes, thank you.

Ms.

Christensen, yes.

Ms.

Strout, yes.

Ms.

Nickel, yes.

Ms.

Houseman, yes.

Ms.

Sharkey?

Yes.

Ms.

DeSusa.

Yes.

Madam Chair.

That motion carried six to zero.

Thank you for that.

So we the next item on our agenda is actually a possible closed session.

So rather than go into that, um, we usually go ahead and take thank you.

Sorry, I just I heard closed session.

I'm very like, I just move on.

And I should have acknowledged I acknowledge all of you.

Thank you so much for being here.

I'm sorry.

I just okay.

Next item.

Um so before we do that though, I do want to take an opportunity for standing reports, and then we'll do a motion where we go into closed session and then adjourn our meeting at the end of that closed session.

Is that the right path?

So we typically start with our executive director, Mr.

Fraddo for standing reports.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um I'll I'll send out you know information and written report on Friday, so I'm not gonna go into details on that, but uh, there is one thing that I wanted to mention, and that is um next week uh in the agenda planning calendar that I sent out.

We had tentatively um identified a possible um tour with Galloway architects um of a council chambers that they remodeled to get council feedback.

I've talked with them since then and I've kind of moved them a little bit away from doing that tour, and instead what we're hoping to do is have them come in next Tuesday and spend some time in kind of a workshop fashion with the council to discuss the chambers remodel, conference room, etc.

I will not be here next Tuesday.

I will be out.

Um obviously Justin and Chris will be here.

I'll talk with Justin, he'll be able to kind of help lead them on that, but it will be led by by the architect that we've hired to do the design, which is Galloway.

And unless something else gets put on the agenda tomorrow, as of now, it's the only thing on the calendar that could change.

Um I think tentatively we're planning on just doing it here in the chambers.

Um but they'll be the ones kind of leading out on that, and we'll be looking for your thoughts and initial feedback before they jump into the design process.

Um outside of that, I'll mention in that last meeting in July the 28th.

Um we will have our uh colleagues from the MVP shelter here to do their mid-year report, which we you know agreed to when we spoke with them earlier.

Um then there's a few other tentative items that night as well, so I'll just kind of leave it there, Madam Chair.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Ms.

Nickel, do you have anything?

Ms.

Sharkey, do you have anything?

Ms.

Christensen.

I just wanted to um thank Director Cump out there for um the what a great oper job he did with the lunch last week to combining the public works and the public utilities and seeing those two groups come together and start their journey of working together, and I just thought you did a really good job.

So thank you.

It's been like three weeks since we've done this.

So we missed a meeting and I so there's a lot of stuff, but yes, um, that was that was great.

I did want to bring up so youth council.

We had our meeting the end of June.

Um, you know, several high schoolers showed up and just the eagerness, you know, in their eyes and their willingness, and then also this year having two mentors return.

Um that's gonna be great.

They've the youth council has already been busy.

Uh they did the emergency drill uh over at America First Build, participated in that.

Um, and then they've also been up to uh they helped out for the show up with teachers, you know, we're there from 11 until I think we left around 3:30, um stuffing bags, and you know, and that's in many of them went back the next day um to help out, you know, just doing some volunteer opportunities there.

You know, so that was that was great.

Uh had uh a couple of retirements, so Shane Case and then Jim McClintic and lots of uh employees showing up for that.

You know, uh a lot of knowledge, institutional institutional knowledge that uh that left when when those two gentlemen did.

Um the historic committee, and that's been so long that I remember we canceled this month and then we scheduled one.

Uh I'm not 100% positive exactly on that uh you know going through.

I don't know if you remember, I'd have to go back and look at my notes, and I was just looking at my phone on my calendar.

We talked about the code development.

Uh yep, code development.

That's right.

We talk about that every month.

Um, you know, looking at that, I do know the uh the Heritage Festival is coming up in September, so something else to look forward to.

Um 4th of July festivities, longest day of the year.

Parks and Rick, fantastic job, police, fire, lots of presence out there, uh great demonstrations, a lot of people.

Hot day, but not nearly as hot as it was two years ago, and it wasn't rainy like it was last year.

So um great job, you know, with putting that together and and keeping that moving forward.

Um that's as far as I got in my calendar, so hopefully nothing in the last couple of weeks, but a lot of stuff.

So thank you.

Thanks.

Noted.

Thank you.

And really, really productive.

Great conversations around a lot of curiosity around the arts folding into tonight's discussion.

And we heard from Mr.

Marsh, who's not in the room anymore.

But so there were a lot of questions about that and a lot of advocacy in the room around some dire needs that the Arts Guild and has to answer what they know the call is from the community around the arts.

So great meeting.

And one of the things that I found really exciting about that conversation was having a Sandy Children's Community Choir.

So it was uh it was a rich discussion around what talent do we have and who might be able to have that.

So uh appreciate all that the Arts Guild does.

Also attempted to go to the uh Sandy Amphitheater concert, but as I'm sitting in the Arts Guild meeting, um Merle gets a message that the amphitheater is being evacuated due to lightning, and I went anyway, hoping that there might still I might still catch the show, and it was it was quite a um lengthy wait, and I will admit I finally just thought I've had a long day.

I'm gonna go home.

So I did not get to wait out the the rain and enjoy it.

But I did later, like I think they did resume the concert.

So I I appreciate both of those opportunities to be out in the community and and love our arts.

I see something here.

Those are two more things.

So the Pops concert was phenomenal at the Amphitheater.

That was not the one that was evacuated, but you brought up the youth with singing, so they had the uh the youth showcase and excellent.

You know, it was very it was a patriotic theme for America 250 this year, and probably 80-ish students that are up there, kids who were up there, and they nailed it.

You know, the Arts Guild does Camille does a fabulous job with that.

So, you know, but that's all of those kids were just right on cue.

You know, the choreography with it, you know, their speaking parts, so and that's yeah.

So they they loved it.

They nailed it again this year.

So there you go.

The youth and and singing.

So another opportunity for them to practice some other place.

Thank you.

All right, thank you, Mr.

Jetson.

We're ready for you.

Uh thank you.

Just a couple items.

Um as a reminder, the public meeting for Crescent tomorrow.

Uh we appreciated your your presence and attendance last week.

Encourage you to, if you have time, come out again.

Uh come talk to residents, come listen to residents, and uh we welcome your participation there.

Um then just a reminder.

Thursday, we have the there's a pinning badge ceremony swearing in at station 31 with 10 firefighters promotions, um new folks.

So encourage your participation there as well.

And I forgot to mention I will not be able to be at the thing, the uh open house tomorrow night.

I'm literally getting up at O Dark Hundred to drive down to Cedar City for work.

So I'm cheering you on, all of you who will be there.

All right, so then what I'm looking for then is like I mentioned earlier, a motion.

We'll go into closed session and adjourn at the end of closed session.

Okay, I would like to make a motion to sorry.

Oh just kidding, I was like, that's right.

You are a standing standing report.

And I it's even in my notes.

If if you would like to slide through, we'll get that pulled up for you, man.

Thanks.

Yeah, we missed last week, so we'll hit this week and then we'll skip a week and go over the other week and totally change it.

But just the construction update report for the Sandy Recreation Center.

Oops, I went too far.

Um as July as of July 7th.

So you can start to see that there's a curb, crew of poured, curb, and gutter at the West Parking area.

This is the front of the building.

See it coming together as well.

Mason continue, Mason work continues to work on the south elevation and the west elevation brick.

So this is both on the west side and moving further east.

Starting to take color.

Uh this is the east side.

Uh this is where they're putting in a lot of the large windows.

Um I think those are the windows we're looking at right there, so they're they're coming.

Uh the north side.

Um looking like a uh completed, somewhat completed building.

So it's getting starting to look really nice.

Uh roofers have completed the roof over the locker room and the pool equipment areas.

And pool equipment has started to arrive and is being installed in the pool equipment room.

Um and then this one is also a picture.

Uh so that's on the left side on the right side is the upper second level uh restrooms.

And so including with the second level restrooms, um painters have begun painting the filled house ceiling and exposed uh ceiling below the tracks.

You can see the white being painted there.

Um and then back to uh they're actually starting to put their hanging drywall on level two and also in that that exterior uh bathroom area that we talked about.

So it is coming together, and so we are super excited, still on budget, still just making fine uh small things come up and we we resolve them and we move on and we find the avenue we need to, but everything's on track.

Any questions?

Any questions, Council?

I don't think so.

Thank you for that update.

Okay.

Now I'm gonna make a motion to go into closed session to discuss litigation and the purchase of real property.

And then end the meeting.

Second.

Okay, so I have a motion and a second.

Oh, the motion was oh, Brooke D'Susa was the second, correct?

And and it was to adjourn the meeting at the end of close.

You heard that?

Okay.

Ms.

Christensen, yes.

Ms.

Tesusa, yes.

Ms.

Stroud, yes.

Ms.

Nickel?

Yes.

Ms.

Houseman?

Yes.

Ms.

Sharkey.

Yes.

Madam Chair, that motion carried six to zero.

And Mr.

Jensen.

Just for the record, we'd like to include myself, Lynn Pace, Ryan Meekum, and Dan Nelson in that discussion.

And it will be here at City Hall.

Got it.

Thank you.

Thank you, everyone.

Have a good night.

Oh my god.

Okay.

Well, we're seeing other things.

Well, just putting that with I see I'm in here.

I'll listen to the songs.

I can't totally.