City Council - Regular Meeting

We will go ahead and get started. Thank you, Mr. Fratto. Welcome, everyone. We appreciate those who are in our chamber with us tonight as well as joining online. As a reminder, we do take public comment, general citizen comment, but not before 6 o'clock. We work through our business, and then we try, as we finish an agenda item, if it's 6 o'clock or later, we will go ahead and take public comment. Okay. I see someone already filling out the blue card, so that's perfect. And you'll just bring it up here to Mr. Fratto, and then we'll hold on to that for our general citizen comments. So those onl

Councilwoman Christensen, thank you. Our dearest Heavenly Father, we are so grateful to be gathered together this evening. We thank thee for blessing us so abundantly and for the opportunity that we have to live in Sandy and in this wonderful country. Please watch over and protect our employees that they would be able to be safe in their different duties. Please bless the council and administration that we'd be able to express our thoughts clearly and be able to listen to one another and to make the best choices for the residents of Sandy. We love thee and we say these things in the name of th

Please stand and we'll join together in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Thank you for that, Councilman Christensen. And we'll begin with introductions over here, please.

Marcy Houseman, district four. Allison Stroud, district two. Brooke D'Souza, at large. We have two council members online. If you'd come off mute and introduce yourselves, please. Chris Nickel, District 3.

Thank you. We'll continue over here. I'm Sandy Bayer, Monica Soltansky.

Thank you. So we are going to go ahead and move into the first item on tonight's agenda. This is an informational item. We have an additional update on our Crescent View Middle School, all the conversation around bonding. So who is taking point? OK, off we go.

Thank you. Thank you both for being here. Questions from the council? OK. Ms. Sharkey. Oh. Ms. Christensen. Then we'll go with Ms. Sharkey.

I just wanted to hear from the mayor about her recommendation. and the thought process behind it, how you came to that. Just a little more background.

If we can do our deliberation first and just get questions answered. I mean, I understand that's a question, but it's, yeah. Let's unpack what's been presented and discuss as a council and then absolutely come back to that. Ms. Sharkey.

So maybe it's a Jason question. I'll put my question out there and whoever is going to answer it can step up to the mic. So in terms of the bond resolution, the language, in terms of the bond language, for the purposes of financing, all are part of the costs of acquiring, developing, constructing, renovating, improving, preserving, equipping. What does equipping include and what does it not include? I'd like some clarity on that.

Kind of. It gets me to thinking what things might not be included. You did touch on some of the things I was wondering about. Like if it's got a recreational use, can we use the bond money to buy soccer balls and nets? Although they won't last 20 years, so... Could we, maybe could we is a different question than would we. Would we?

Yeah, I just think about, I'm really drilling down on trying to educate myself and maybe even the public about what wouldn't be included. I think about, too, the Arts Guild's use of a potential of the auditorium for rehearsals and plays and stuff. Could we buy all the equipment needed to operate a stage and sets? Could we buy sets? I know I'm getting into minutia, but I am just trying to understand... what for sure would not be included that we'd have to plan for as a council in other forms, perhaps in other forms of payment.

Like anything that was presented, do you have questions on? Okay. Thank you, Mr. Sousa. Go ahead.

Thank you. Brett, I was just wondering if you could pull the slide back up that has the tax costs for the $21 million option, because it's not in the packet. And I missed it when you were doing it.

And then also what's missing from that data is the amount, I know it's been stated a few times, but the amount of an average price Sandy Home. Yeah.

Well, yes, and I guess I'm trying to understand some of the previous information that was put out. I was just looking at a previous Crescent View Middle School presentation that was given to the council, and it looks like it was on the July 14th meeting. Is that right? Anyway, it had – I'm trying to pull it back up. So it had the price of the property tax impact at the $21 million slightly lower.

Okay. Cause yeah, I've just pulled it back up. It took for a minute for it to come back up and it was at $3 and 35 cents per month based off of the average household. And so then, um, my other question is, um, concerning the commercial property. Is that price value also $739,100?

Okay, that's helpful. Thank you. And then the whole timeline for should this go on the ballot and should it pass and bonding for it, what was that date again approximately, when that Is it next year, or would it be later this year that we would actually issue the bonds? And what are we thinking interest rates might be like at that time?

Okay. No, that still answers my question. I'm thinking even best case scenario, you know, it goes on the ballot, it passes, the council comes back and affirms, you know, the decision. It's still probably the end of the year, beginning of next year, the earliest maybe that bonds would be issued, I guess similar to the timeframe for the fire station, right? So who knows what interest rates are going to be like at that time.

Are the general obligation bond interest rates still better than the revenue bond? Yes. Like enough that it still makes sense to pursue that path if that's what we were going to do?

Okay, thank you. So that was all my question for them, but I do have another question and it does have to do kind of with the recommendation that was put out today. It would be more of like an attorney question. Okay, so my question is I'm trying to understand the parameters with this general obligation bond potentially right and the city's requirement of neutrality in communicating with the public and I know that there has not been a decision yet but like at what point how does that play into the future should this go on on a ballot and and And part of the reason I ask is because I noticed th

OK, so if there are communications that have been created up until that point that maybe are questionable, do they need to be removed? Do we need to scrub our social media to exclude those to ensure the integrity of this process?

That would be what I think is the sharing may be a concern. OK, thank you. That answers my questions for now.

I have a couple of questions as well. And you can stay on this slide. That works for my question. Because I know the question applies to this slide and the previous one of the $30 million. And you sort of spoke to that earlier. And I just want to reiterate. Authorization, let's say the vote is yes, put it on the ballot. Let's say voters authorized, et cetera. So this amount that is indicated here, the property tax impact at the $21 million or on the other side at the $30 million, that is if That impact is if we bond immediately for the full amount. The impact is less, and I think I know the an

Okay. And again, your recommendation is that's part of the voter information pamphlet. Scenarios, it's not binding. It's just helping voters understand this is what we are, we're asking for authorization for this. Here's all of the different ways, the possible scenarios that we could ultimately end up bonding up to this amount that you approve.

Which brings me actually to my second question. Well played. So I've been thinking ever since last week of what it looks like perhaps because to elaborate or perhaps connect to what Councilwoman D'Souza was just asking in terms of timing. So if If we were to consider ultimately, um, the council were to decide we were going to do this in, in two or three tranches, two or three, a series of, of, of three issuances. Um, and it could fall in the lap of a future council who hasn't been a part of this deliberation. So my wondering is how might we, um, help, help set in place some expectations around

Yeah. That's helpful. And I think you understand kind of why I'm asking it is sort of setting a vision. Anyway, it looks like you're going to add.

Right. So what I'm hearing you kind of say is, at the minimum, Marcy, don't lose sight of the fact that we need to have, in order to close on March 1st, we need to have at least 17 million.

And I completely recognize that the council will be a part of the deliberation with each issuance. I hear that loud and clear. But my question kind of stemmed from, as I pondered on our conversation and our deliberation last week, I had this thought of, well, what if the deliberation over the issuance after the $17 million, I got you, Is a sits in the hands of a different council. Like, you know, we have a change or something. What might we do to communicate? And I like how you use the word intent. So that's what I'm sort of searching for is, um, how might, how might we offer a little bit of i

Yes. OK. Go. So if we move forward with something tonight, it's been presented. all over the place that Canyons is asking $17 million. If we went with the $21 million, then that extra $4 million. If Canyons came off of that $17 million price, is there anything? And I haven't seen it either in the language, but are we specifying that this is how much we would be paying for the property versus this? So we could, if canyons came down, which, and there's still discussion with that, but if they were able to come down off of that price, you know, if we were able to work with them a little bit more,

OK, I do see Mr. DeKeyser's hand. So let me just get clarification on his hand. Is your question relative to what's been presented tonight, like so far, Mr. DeKeyser? Or is it because I want to also make sure we get Councilman Christensen's question to the mayor? So I'm just trying to determine order.

Yes, I have a few questions and then a comment.

The council received an email tonight at five from a resident. And so I just wanted to clarify some of the things they're asking about. My understanding is that the structure of this issuance is serial, correct?

Yes. So we have some financial information as that affects the average monthly homeowner that is applicable to the serial issuance. The next question then is about whether in the information that the public receives, whether there would be a debt service structure as part of that.

OK, so not required, but common practice to include it. And then finally, my comment, just reading the proposition language, I think it's fine. Oftentimes, as a voter, these propositions seem overly complicated or not clear. And I just wanted to point out that where it discusses that the amounts are $59.98 per year for a household, it goes on to say, and $5 per month. To me, that seems like an or. It's just a little bit. To me, it reads as you're paying the yearly amount and the monthly amount. So I would just like some consideration to make that more clear. Thank you.

That's it. Thank you, Madam Chair. MS. OK.

Thanks. That was great clarifying. Ms. Nichol, I see your hand. Again, I'm thinking about sequencing. Is it questions relative to what's been presented? MS. Yes, ma'am.

MS. All right. Off you go. MS. I'm concerned that the language doesn't have the option or it would be limiting our options that we've already put out to residents as selling a portion of the property. So I think it's really critical that we stick to what we presented to the public and maximize that instead of inhibit us with this property.

What does everybody think about that? So are you addressing that? Is that a question for our presenters or a deliberation?

It's necessary because we have put that out there as a possibility to residents. And if we don't end up doing the magical plans or getting in a financial pinch, we need the option. And so can I... I would like to see language in the next resolution that includes selling the property, or a portion of the property, whatever it is.

So your request would be language... I'm sorry, I don't want to paraphrase. Will you say it again?

Language that includes selling all or a portion of the property. Because those are scenarios one and three, I guess, something like that.

In the resolution language or on the ballot? I'm just clicking. In the resolution. OK. Staff, does that make any questions on that from Ms. Nichol?

Right. I think it needs to be in the resolution and the bond language.

And it would simply be brought back for consideration like the council would decide as a body if we're moving forward that language or not.

Oh, I see what you're saying. Okay, Ms. Stroud had an add-upon. Okay, I'll come there next.

So a couple of different questions, but it is kind of related to the same thing. But one of them, so a little bit with Ms. Nickel, what she was just asking, if we did this in a couple different sets, so a different tranche, the initial was $17 million. if we paid that off early. So if we sold off part of the property, if we got into it and said, you know what, we're in over our head, we're just going to sell everything, whatever. If we move to sell part of it, do we have to have the bond for a certain amount of time? Is there like a prepayment penalty, a time frame?

Do you have, and I know this is like completely winging it right now, but an idea of what that cost would be either at the 21 or the 30 if we went with that other route? And I bring this up because we had several options that had been presented to the public where we could be selling off a portion of the property. And then Ms. Nichol even bringing up now, so just kind of looking at that, it sounds like that that could happen. And so I'm wondering how that changes what the cost would be to the residents and businesses.

Not a significant. OK. Thank you. I guess something to kind of consider if that was, you know, we keep that in our pocket. And then back to, you know, the question that that resident, you know, that Mr. Kaiser brought up. Can you explain the difference between, I had asked a little bit of this earlier, the difference between a term and a serial issue is? And then I have some questions on the serial because you said, I believe that you had said that this would be a serial bond.

And that's a little more typical. So the serials are more typical to municipalities.

So I see that our bond counsel is not here. And he's not online from what I understand. So I'll have to rely on the attorneys that we've got. I'm remembering back to what Randy said last week about bond language. And this conversation about adding flexibility seems to me a little bit in conflict with what we talked about last week where randy said something like the bond language needs to be specific enough so that the voters are clear on what they're being asked to vote on but not so specific that you can't add some flexibility or we can't allow ourselves some flexibility. And I'm thinking th

Yeah. So it also feels a little bit too like I appreciate what Ms. Nickel just said, but we've been drawing a line between buying and keeping the property, buying and selling off some. Do we... Can we decide? I feel bad about deciding that later, right? Like we, it is, it's a topic of discussion and it's an important one that we've been having with the public. And so I guess I'm asking a philosophical question rather than a legal one. I'm asking about what is right, right? But what do we, can we be right? nonspecific and then just we spend the money or we don't and we say to the public, we dec

Stopping short of doing something that you haven't talked about at all, right?

So, you know, I appreciate what Council Member Nichols said. She wants to retain the right to buy the property and then sell a portion of it. And she would like that. I think if we were to entertain that, because that's a pretty controversial component of this whole thing. So if we wanted to do that, I suppose we could put that in the bond language among all the things. And she's suggesting that. Now, you said something very interesting when you started this, which was just be careful because if you say something that you think is going to put the bond measure in jeopardy, Are you sure you wan

All right. I see Ms. Nicholson has this same line of inquiry, right?

Yeah. Did I state my need wrong or my want wrong was that I think it needs to be included in the bond language. I didn't necessarily want to specify it going on to the ballot information, the pro or con, but I think it does need to be in this resolution and for the bond language. That's what I meant. Did I hear wrong, Jason?

Yeah, that's, I'm not... I'm sorry, I'm not expressing myself very well. That's not what I was getting at. I just want them to know in the resolution, not specifically the bond language or what goes on the ballot, that that is also an option that could happen. When they want to dig deeper, that option that we've been saying for the last month is still an option. specifically state that in the resolution that we need to adopt in order to move forward with the bond.

So do you have what you need for Ms. Nickel?

MS. Ms. Nichol, does that align with what you were seeking? MS. Yes. MS. OK. All right, I think that's everything. So we'll go to your question, which moves us into hearing rationale.

So yeah, just like the thought process, Mayor, and then just like high level, I don't need every detail, of the 3.7 million for improvements to safety, safely operate the building in existing spaces, like what are we thinking there?

Well I think it's clear the Crescent View Middle School acquisition presents a larger issue. It shows that Sandy is at a crossroads to preserve the land or to develop the land. And over this last couple of months of the community conversation we've heard a lot of feedback. We've heard feedback from our residents who are frustrated that every last postage stamp of land seems to be developed for higher and higher density. And that's kind of been the undercurrent of the mood over the last couple election cycles as well. And we've also heard from residents who are frustrated about raising taxes an

Thank you. Do you have any clarifying questions?

I wanted Martin to talk about some of those startup costs. Okay, go ahead.

Thank you. Miss Nichol I see your hand. Go ahead.

Thank you. I just have some comments that I'd like to share. This is not in rebuttal to anybody else, but I've taken a lot of time and analyzed the recent studies and surveys that have been completed. And these studies were done without a deadline or a timeframe. They were taken at times when nothing was going on. So I really wanted to kind of focus on some of those answers. We do have a parks master plan that was just completed in 2024. And this is one of my favorite quotes in it. In order to achieve high level of service and the department provides every decision met with a question. And thi

Thank you Ms. Nichol. Any clarifying questions for the mayor and her rationale? Yes Ms. Sharkey.

So I do have a question for the mayor or for Martin and that is in relation to phase two. So if what we're looking at is a phase one at a cost of 21 million dollars which acquires the property and does, you know, improvements, buys equipment to allow an operation of it. And that, I mean, I can agree that we are kind of hazy on what comes after that, right? So I'm very interested in this proposition, but I do have questions about it. And that is, so phase two is, If that's a continuation of what we're doing now, an analysis of what the needs are, speaking to the public, asking them about their

I think these are good questions. It's assuming a lot of worst case scenarios. Phase two.

I'm asking about phase two, your own words, your own words.

So I'm saying we need time to get into the building to experience it, to develop the strategic partnerships. So I'm not assuming a tax increase. Are you?

Yes. I'm assuming that's what I'm trying to narrow in on.

I don't think we have enough to make predictions right now, Councilmember. I don't want to get locked into what it's going to be before we've even had a chance to consult with the residents. That's the first step. I can't tell you.

So you think that there's a scenario with, you've defined it as phase two. Looking at a future, more future expansive uses, but you're thinking the cost could be zero to do that. I'm asking that question. Could the cost be zero?

I'm not going to say what the cost is going to be because I don't know yet what the residents want it to become. So in fairness, I can't give you an estimate on cost and operations. But I know that unless we preserve the property, we'll never have the chance to ask that.

So you don't know what it would cost. Can you even think of a cap of what the upper end could possibly be?

If I could add upon the questions that have been asked, what I'm hearing in terms of the description of Phase 2 could also happen via authorization at the $30 million and we only issue a bond for the $17 million and we then treat the process in the same way that you just described, so I'm not hearing that We are limited to a very same public process a planning process. I'm hearing that the vision for phase two can be accomplished in more than one way.

Yeah, and I don't think you would get an argument from anyone. I think what I'm trying to clarify is that what's been communicated as the why for doing $21 million bond right now in order to allow for a very public process and additional study and perhaps some design, et cetera, could still occur with a $30 million bond where we think of it as the series that we've heard. et cetera. And I want to loop back to what I shared earlier in this conversation, which was it's important that we, as the current body making this decision currently, have the ability to indicate our intention. And where I f

Thank you, Madam Chair. This conversation is getting a little confusing to me. I'm sensing some miscommunication between the council and the administration. I just want to clarify overall, though, that what the mayor is saying in terms of phase two is fully contained within the $21 million bond. Is that correct, Mayor?

No. So the $21 million bond allows for the property acquisition and basic updates to get it operational. If we proceed further and do a further development of, let's say, turn it into a civic center or a performing arts center or something like that, or take recommendations or suggestions of all the different partnership proposals that have come to be, We planned that in a separate phase. So that would not be funded with this general obligation bond because it only goes up to $21 million. Again, it's a value proposition. The support for a $30 million figure was really taxed when we went up to

Thank you for the clarification. I missed that. I was thinking of phase two in terms of the initial improvements that we do after acquiring the building and wasn't clear that that would be a completely separate bond. Or how would we put that?

Separate funding, separate analysis. So would it be a tax increase? Would it be a bond? We don't have those questions yet to have the answers. That's what I'm saying today.

Thank you. MR. Mr. DeKeyser, is that everything you needed? OK. Thank you.

bring it back here I'm seeing a nod okay mr. Sousa okay okay so I'm kind of gonna kind of wrap up my thoughts I was absent from the last meeting when you know this was presented again and discussed and so trying to catch up on on what was presented then versus what's being presented now and the conversations that occurred and my own thoughts on that so I thought a lot about where to start, and I don't really know where to start. I'm going to say that I'm probably going to be a little bit more direct and frank just for the sake of ease of getting through this conversation. I have concerns for m

Thank you, Ms. D'Souza. I honestly think that's where we are. We each need to, so I don't think you need to necessarily apologize or think. We have to give this kind of clarity. We have to start sort of saying where we are so that feedback is received and then what gets brought back to us for consideration next week, we're voting. So I think you're right to just say where you are. So I appreciate that. Ms. Straub.

thank you madam chair a couple things and they're kind of in a couple different directions but the very last thing you said I wanted to address that because that was the last thing that popped up you know he said you were frustrated with you know Canyon School District and the lack of negotiations I even as this last Sunday I had someone who is either or very, very, very closely affiliated with one of the decision makers, call me and spend a significant amount of time on the phone with me. And they are frustrated. They are frustrated with Sandy City. Out of all the cities that they work with,

Could you say very clearly what input you need from the council?

So I would look so right now my question is do we spend 17 million dollars purchasing putting out for a bond for Crescent Middle School and instead of 4 million of going towards chairs and things like that when we don't have a phase two plan is take $4 million and build out space so that the police department has a place to go. So keeping it the $21 million, which is where at least that was the dollar amount. that administration felt was palatable for residents. It may not be the exact funding in certain areas, but it was a dollar amount. Would the council be interested? Is there any sort of a

Thank you for clarifying. So I'll respond, and then I'd like to kind of just hear from everyone so that you get the feedback you're asking for. In my opinion, we are voting in a week, and there would be significant change to the entire conversation we've been having. The bond, the resolution would have to change, the bond language, the voter information packet, because now we are, it doesn't, in my opinion, fall under what we have considered tonight. So I'm not interested in that. that change. We discussed this last week and took a vote. I know it was 3-3 but I just would invite everyone to we

And that's always just a follow-up with it to clarify.

All right. I'm going to keep going down here, Ms. Christensen.

I am absolutely interested in it. I can kind of see from the head shaking where this is going. And if this isn't something that as a council we decide is an interest right now, I would just like to advocate for the opportunity to, during carryover possibly, to fund Ms. Nichols' study and to look at this

seriously to determine where our space needs are going forward for the police department so I'm not interested in taking up police right now certainly something that I would like to study and look at and consider and exercise some good planning and make some good decisions on that in terms of where we are now I think that we have led the public to believe that they're going to help make us the decision on this, on Crescent. And I think we've certainly asked their opinion. I always think like... If you're going to ask the public's opinion, you ought to be prepared to say yes. I feel like the on

Thank you, Ms. Sharkey. Bringing it back to the feedback that Ms. Stroud has requested, Ms. D'Souza, where are you?

I will say that I recognize that the police department has space needs but i also believe that you know like the the arbor building was purchased to help address some of those space needs and departments have been approved to move into that building yet nobody has and so the police can't get any relief until you know some of those dominoes fall and so i'm at a place where i think the dust needs to settle on some of the decisions that we've already made to really understand the right decisions moving forward for the police department. So for that, I am not supportive of this proposal at this ti

Thank you, Mr. Sousa. Ms. Nichol, I see your hand. Could you provide feedback to Ms. Stroud that's been requested?

Yes, thank you. It's admirable what you're asking, 100%. But this is what I foresee in the future happening. we do $4 million for a police room remodel. And I hear the conversation of police don't need anything now because we have given them a police remodel. I think it adds a negative effect to getting them the type and kind of building that they really, really need.

Thank you, Ms. Nichol. Mr. DeKaiser, could you provide Ms. Stroud with feedback on her question?

The $4 million, some of that is going to need to be used to pay for the closing costs on the loan. And then we're not just going to operate the building empty. We need the money to make it usable. And we voted this down last week, so I would not be supportive.

Thank you, Mr. Kaiser. Thank you, Mr. Kaiser. The one thing I would add to what I shared earlier that I've not yet surfaced this, but happy to do so, it might be worth considering. I know the police department is next on our management study rotation with a new police chief. It could be that we think about moving that management study up a year, and first, do the management study and get that information in the same way that we did with the fire station. And then the management study becomes kind of our guiding light, so to speak. So food for thought, but have you received the feedback that yo

I have, I think, and it actually is for next year because we didn't do it this year.

Yes, but I'm saying we could potentially move it up a whole year. Like we could finish the study we're on right now, get it to the end conclusion, and decide as a council to go ahead and jump right into the next one. That's what I'm saying for police. Okay, so I like... Not that you need me to like it, but I appreciate the sort of direct numbers we're starting to give, because honestly, I believe that is what our staff is probably very hungry for. So I heard... I don't want to say it back. Ms. Sharkey, would you clarify? All I need is a number. I feel like we've given, well, pause, sorry. Let

OK, number of years. We're not voting on voter information packet, but we are voting on resolution language and bond language.

Okay, so let's do it in those three pieces. The easiest one to start with, is there anyone opposed to the 21 years being the term? And online, anyone opposed to the 21 years remaining the number in the resolution? Mr. DeKuyser, I don't see you. I need a yes or a no.

Would that change if the bond amount changes?

Thank you. Mr. DeGeyser, does that answer your question?

I mean, yeah, I'm fine with the term. I'd be fine with the term changing if we felt that was best based on a changed amount. For me, this entire conversation, a lot of it, there's some questions that the administration will work with the bond council on. And I will mostly just have faith in that determination.

So I need you to say you're good keeping it at 21. Because that's the current language in the resolution. So I just. I know. But I want them to bring back. So we're trying to give them as much guidance as possible.

I'm saying I'm flexible based on the recommendation of our bond council.

OK. So do you have what you need relative to that piece, number of years? OK, let's now revisit bond recommendation that Ms. Nickel brought in. Just for the sake of clarity, Ms. Nickel, would you please say again what you were hoping to have added to the resolution for us to consider?

I would like the option to sell a portion or sell the land be explicit in the resolution that we are may be going to adopt next week.

So council, any thoughts on her recommendation? We need to provide feedback. OK, I'm seeing Ms. Christensen is supportive. Ms. Sharkey is supportive. Ms. D'Souza is supportive. That's a supportive. Ms. Stroud is supportive. Mr. DeKaiser.

I would like to ask Tracy or Lynn if that's necessary.

Okay. I heard you say Mr. Cadell first, so Mr. Cadell, could you weigh in on that, please?

Yes. And I think Ms. Nichol, correct me if I'm wrong, Ms. Nichol, but I think her intent was to not mess with the ballot language. This is resolution language. Ms. Nichol is nodding. Correct. OK. So Mr. Kaiser, do you want me to go to Mr. Pace?

No, I just don't understand. The city can sell property. I'm just not quite sure the point of it. As Mr. Cadell said, it's unnecessary. But no harm, no foul. I'd be fine, I suppose.

OK. And I'm supportive of it coming back as well so that we can see what that could look like. Correct. Correct. Which brings us to, oh wait, sorry, I don't want to move us on to a number. Are there any other thoughts in terms of amendments to the resolution language?

Ms. Stroud? I'm not sure it's really amendment to the resolution language, but if we need to ask, you had talked about, so following up on that question, that if we So the public bond versus kind of that private, do we need to talk about that? Because then that, no?

Perfect. I just didn't know if that changed the amount that we needed to have for residents.

Okay. Does that give you what you needed? Okay. Anything else? Ms. Nichols? No. Okay. No. Good, good. So now our last piece is number. And if we could just do a quick go down the line and give a number so that staff hears from each of us and has the information they need. What number would you like to see come back in the resolution? I know it's been spoken, but just for clarity's sake, could we say that one more again? I'm going to start down on this end, Ms. D'Souza. What number would you like to see come back next week? Will I start elsewhere? I will start with me in the middle. I would lik

I have options. So... I'm willing to do multiple options depending on where the rest of the council is. But I would say $17 to $21 million would be the two options in my head. Okay. Ms. Sharkey.

My number's 30. I don't want to surprise the constituents with another bill later. So my number's 30.

Thank you. Ms. Sousa? Well, I have a question.

If it's in this $30 million scenario, what are we saying we're going to do with that money? I mean, obviously 17 is to purchase it, but what is the other amount? How are we communicating that? Because that matters in what I'll say.

Okay. So, so I have another question and maybe this is, I don't know where this goes, but this is something that I feel is incredibly important to communicate. And that is to ensure that, that people in some way know that there are operations and maintenance costs that are not included in this bond language. And so I don't know if that's in the voter pamphlet or what, but that would be a condition for me is ensuring that We communicate that the yes on this does not get us all of the money.

Well, but that wouldn't be O&M, and we couldn't use the bond for that, right? And so I don't know. Would it be in the voter pamphlet then?

Okay. Okay. So where am I on this? I... do feel some concern, similar to what Council Member Sharkey shared with what has been publicly shared and asked about. Ultimately, the council has the decision slash authority to issue the bond, to approve an amount for bond issuance. And I can be supportive of asking the question. make my decisions ultimately should there be an opportunity to come back for bond issuance. So I could be OK going up to the $30 million.

Ms. Stroud, thank you. Ms. D'Souza, Ms. Stroud.

I don't think we've told residents. what we're doing. We've thrown out ideas. I don't think we know what we're doing. I don't think, and not in a bad way. Administration doesn't know what we're doing. I mean, that would be asking residents. I what I want to do is to give residents the idea to or the option to provide their inputs I understand by saying 30 million, you know, it could be this could be this could be this but you know Hey is the token poor person? I've said that again, you know, I'm on the council. Um, I'm not sure for me, you know if I see something for 30 million dollars I am a

OK, Ms. Nichol, would you weigh in on that with a number, please?

Yes, thank you. I want to reiterate that it's imperative to let the people know of the ongoing costs. And those have not been addressed yet. possibly even saying that there could be a tax increase, because that's a possibility. We haven't heard anything from administration that has signaled how we're going to manage that yet. So I'm assuming that. And not a bad thing. I'm just pointing that out. And I am not willing to go over $10 million, the appraised value. OK.

Thank you, Ms. Nichol. No, she's not willing to go over $10 million. Is that what you said, $10?

OK. Mr. DeKeyser, would you weigh in with your number, please?

I just want to echo the mayor's comments from earlier that our new CAO is a professional in parks and recreation, all things. And so I am supportive of the $21 million.

All right, staff, we've answered, I think we've hit the three. Is there anything else you need from us as you prepare to come back? Wait, sorry, let me just get their, let me get their response. There's no consensus.

That's what I was going to say. We don't have a...

I was told not to paraphrase or summarize, so I am asking staff what they need from us.

Whatever we decide tonight is probably what they need.

You're welcome to ask clarifying questions of us and have us elaborate.

We do have a question for Ms. Christensen, if you could. It's more of a question for the council, I guess.

Our goal tonight was to answer these three questions, right? And so we've got three for 21 million, three for 30 million, and one for 10 million. So we haven't answered the question. I know it's not binding and it could change, but I kind of feel like we need to have at least four people agree. Is that a possibility?

Please. So at first I thought that there was a problem. I don't necessarily know that I think it's a problem right now, because literally it's just a number. All of the other stuff will be the same. And it gives a week to maybe come to consensus. Yep. That's kind of what I'm saying. It'll be next week's problem.

And I actually appreciate that recommendation in terms of I mean it could be it just comes back at 30 million the way it's currently written and then we you know potentially make a motion and have conversation just like we follow our process and we see what support there is next week for that and if not then we know that we need to come up with a different number.

Please. So here's another part of the problem. We're having this conversation publicly. It's all public. There's still potential negotiations with the school district. We talk about how that impacts it. This kind of, in my opinion, impacts it. And what I'm going to say is not going to be helpful to anybody. But if it's not $30 million, the $21 million plan, the way that it was proposed doesn't make any sense to me. It was never presented to the public. And so I'm either $17 million, we buy the property, and we use the field, sell the rest, because we literally don't have any more money to do a

Thank you for that, Miss D'Souza. Miss Sharkey?

I could just go back to, are we listening to the public or not? We shouldn't be making any final decisions tonight. We have one more week. We're just posting our video with some more information to the public. I'm wanting to hear more. So I'm not feeling the need. to arrive at any kind of final decisions tonight. I think that's obvious. So more public input accepted right up until the bitter end next Tuesday night. Yeah.

Thank you for saying that back to us. Does that sound like a good plan, council? Okay.

One more question is would it be beneficial as a council, and I don't know the answer to this, but to do one more survey with just purely the three choices, like these are the three options we're looking at for the ballot, like where's the support for it, or is that not something we want to do? And I'm fine either way. I'm just throwing it out there.

I think, can I just answer? This is me just answering your question, then I want to hear from everyone else. I think the options that are out there are just visionary options. And regardless, ultimately any of the options that are expressed as being supported by the community are possible. with the up to language. So I personally do not feel. I think the decision needs to be made. We're voting next week. I think we've done such a good job with the time constraints we've been operating under. I feel that I have the information I need, and I can only speak for myself. I think that could potentia

I like the idea of Brooke. I really do but I think we would question the Which proposal goes on there and it would be a just another something for us to debate at this point I want to in a way, but I don't want to in a way.

I don't know if that helps Yeah, and I'm totally fine with that. I mean it sounds like it will just muddy the waters at this point So I'm fine with that.

It's always good to throw stuff out though. Thank you Okay So I think we have fully discussed that. Thank you, staff, for being really clear on what you need from us, what you got. I think we have a plan for next week. So thank you very, very much. We appreciate you. Yeah, so I'm gonna move us on. Actually, hold on, public comment. I know we're well past six o'clock, so thank you, public, who've been waiting for us to get to a place in our agenda where we could do that. So I am gonna move us to our general citizen comment. As a reminder for those in the room, if you are interested in speaking,

Oh, sorry there. Now I'm on mic. Thank you very much. Next we have Pat, Patricia Jones.

Thank you. All right, next we have Dan Brady.

Thank you. Thank you. All right, Mr. Henry Butters, please.

Thank you. We will now turn to our online participants to see, could you please offer those instructions?

All right, well, with that, I will close public comment and move us back to our agenda. I want to just do a quick check. How about a five-minute break? Are we feeling like a five-minute? And then we'll come back and do our remaining business. So Mr. Frato, we'll go ahead and take a break. We'll be right back. Public and online folks, we'll be back. Thank you.

Recording stopped. Recording in progress.

All right. Welcome back, everyone. Thank you for taking that short break. We are going to move on to the next section of our agenda, which is our consent calendar. I'll look for a motion. Motion to approve the consent calendar. Second. All right. We have a motion and a second. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Say no. Think we heard I from online as well. Right. Mr. Prado. Okay, so you have what you need Thank you moving on We are now on item number five councilman Christianson bringing back for a second reading her advice and consent proposal. I

Okay, so after last time we discussed this, we went through and implemented everyone's suggestions, so thank you all for that. They should be reflected in the red line. I don't know, do we want to pull up the red line? Just so you can... have a visual while we talk. Also, I've talked to administration. Justin's talked to administration. We've talked to legal. We made some changes that they requested as well. And today I talked to Katrina about it. I think we're all good and on the same page. that we have everything that we discussed last time in there, the changes that were requested and some

All right, Ms. D'Souza, please. All right, thank you. So I just want to try to understand the, because I'm looking at both, but the red line, what's different from last time you brought it forward?

Mostly it's adjusting the language to take out specific requirements, just referring them back to code.

So is the red line all the differences, basically? Yes, that's it. OK, so then I do have a couple of questions. Let me just make sure I can find the other one really quick. OK, so my first question is, It was important to me to have a written notice to the appointed candidate that their position is not final until consented to by the council. Yes. I don't see that in there. Is it in there?

So that's something that when offers are made that require that it's explicitly stated. Right, Mark? That's what I was told.

So it is in their offer letters and That's what we're being told by HR.

Well, I was going to say, and I guess the reason why I'm confused by that is in conversation with a few of the candidates up for appointment, they have said that they were not aware and they had quit their jobs and they were very concerned and confused by the process that we were undergoing. And so that was what I was working to...

Okay, I saw that Mr. Pace, can I see what he has to say, Madam Chair? Yes, please.

I'm glad your memory is better than mine, Lynn. Okay, which one, where was that?

You know, I just, again, I just wanted to make sure because it was in conversation and it had happened more than once, you know, and it puts a lot of people in bad positions. So, um, okay. Then my other question has to do with, um, the interim process. And so interim appointments, it would be D the D section where it's talking about, you know, no interim appointment or combination of interim appointments can extend beyond four months unless, and then it's unless an extension of time is requested in writing by the mayor and the request shall be accompanied by a written report to the council des

It would have to be a vote, is my understanding. Lynn, will you correct me on that? But if it's requested, we can't make decisions as a body without a vote.

I'm fine with that. I thought that was the intent. And as I was reading it, I felt like that language wasn't explicit enough. So that was my question. And I could support this with that added language. Okay, and then I just had another question. So before it said that the administration would provide this information to the council, you know, the package, and then it would be put on an agenda. But it looks like now it's just as long as we have it for publishing the agenda. Am I reading that right?

I think it's under vacancies and then D. Oh, let me go up.

So it has to be sent, because those things aren't, like the request to have it approved to be on Advise and Consent has to be received by the time the packet is published, right? Like on that time frame. But the information that the request would go in the packet, the additional information would not. That would have to be emailed out to the council by the time the packet is published.

OK, well, and so I guess that's where I thought it was earlier before. I thought that the language talked about it being provided to the council at the time that it was requested to be put on the calendar. And the reason why that matters to me is we've had situations where, you know, If the administration knows that they are planning to put this person up for advice and consent, then they're given phone numbers and they reach out. But we don't yet have any information. And if we're waiting all the way until the agenda is published, then that's not necessarily providing us with the information

I know. I'm just saying that from a practical standpoint in trying to improve the process for council members, it would be better if the council members had some of that information. I can't imagine that you're going to offer a job or a potential job to somebody that you don't have a clear background check on yet. I mean, maybe you do conditionally, but that's more the least of it, really. But you'd have a resume. You'd understand the process that you undertook to hire the individual and some of that information. I don't feel like it's an improvement of the process if we're waiting until the a

Those are my comments. Correct me if I'm wrong, but from my experience, we would have everything except... the background check when a job offer is made and the job offer is conditional upon passing background and drug test, right? Correct. So we could adjust it to say that when it's requested all of those items with the exception come with it and then the full packet has to be available by the time that it's published? Because then you would have a resume, you would have an offer letter. That's basically it.

Well, and those are just my thoughts. I don't know if anybody else actually cares about it, but I, you know.

No, I can see your point of like getting, we were called and we didn't have any information.

Okay well those are those are my comments and with those modifications I could absolutely support this. Mr. Jensen.

Just a couple of clarifying questions. So this one. So exhibit A minimum qualifications item B. the City Council may decline to give its consent to a proposed appointment, even if an appointee meets applicable minimum requirements. That's good to state. Or should we also add, or for any other reason? Or is that understood? Or can we decline for any reason?

Well, I will admit, without naming names, I have heard people say that they felt they could not vote no to a candidate that didn't meet the minimum qualifications.

So I like this amount of clarification, and you're saying no further clarification is even needed?

My other question, and I don't know. I don't care either way as long as I know I can use any reason and that I'm not held responsible. to anything in this ordinance, right?

Oh, or for any other good reason. Yeah, maybe we leave it alone. And then exhibit B, I just want to make sure for it to be like super clear that eliminating these 15 positions and absorbing all of it into one sentence is that each one of these 15 positions has been included in this new single statement?

Yes. We went through and we checked, and we did make sure we included, because all department heads, human resource directors, city treasurer, city recorder, city engineer, city attorney, and CAO, so we did double check that all of the positions were included.

Makes sense. That's good. OK. Yeah. That's it. OK.

Checking online, any? I saw you come off mute, Ms. Nickel. Yep, there you go. You're on.

OK, awesome. On page 43 of our packet. in the first vacancy submission and appointment of information, A, it doesn't state how that information needs to come to us. Do we need to put in writing at the end of that?

Where it says, when vacancies occur in a department head or statutory officer position that is subject to the city council's advice and consent, the mayor shall give a courtesy notice to the council of the vacancy. Do we have to put in writing? Or is that assumed? Or could it be in passing?

So I've got two for in writing. Anyone else like that or have an opinion?

Does writing include text, email, or text?

Going on that? Yes. They can't submit a new interim until they let us know about the... Can I ask a question?

Yes. Sorry. Please. Okay. So one of the situations that I think this brings up for me is the treasurer position. We didn't... Well, I guess we were notified that Corey, OK, maybe that's different. Anyway, is there a reason that we need to put a time frame? Or is it assumed that when a vacancy occurs, we will be notified when it occurs?

I'm OK without it being there, but if you guys want a time frame?

I guess it's, I mean, if it hasn't happened in the past, but could it happen? Is that something that would bother us if it took us, if it took them five days to tell us, oh, by the way, one of the department heads is no longer with the city, and it happened last Monday. I mean, it hasn't happened before, could it? I don't know.

Yeah, I didn't know if we were putting a date in writing. Yes, we are going to add the in writing. Okay, awesome. And on that same page, I think I mentioned last week about wanting to see the employment contract. So I would like to propose that there's a number six that includes the employment contract.

So the employment contract is part of what is required. It's just not called the employment contract. It's called the offer letter, right? And in the offer letter, it has the salary and any benefits, including vacation time, car allowances, phone allowances, anything that they will be compensated with has to be part of that offer letter. Is there something different? Where's the offer letter in here? It's called proposed compensation package. Thanks, Brooke.

But yeah, that, and you weren't the only one that asked for that. There were, I think three council members that asked me to make sure that was in there.

Oh, okay. And what number is that? Am I looking in the wrong area or is it under that same area? And I'm just not seeing it listed one through five.

I don't see it yet, but it's been highlighted on the screen.

Oh, thank you. highlighted on the screen, I can't see it. It says, the appointee's resume or equivalent summary of academic, professional, and experiential qualifications, proposed compensation package, and then it goes on to talk about any other boards or nonprofits or commissions that they serve on will be provided as well, like a conflict of interest.

Okay, just a quick question. Maybe HR or Martin can answer this. At the same time we do the proposed compensation package, that is the employee contract, right?

Okay, awesome. Never mind. That was it, just about the in-writing thing.

Okay, any other questions? So it sounds like we've kind of shaped it to be in a place. Yes.

Is it okay if I make these three changes that we talked about? If Justin helps me with that and then it comes back on the consent calendar?

I will answer that as me. Yes. I'm seeing a yes from Councilman Shark. I'm seeing yeses online. Mr. DeKaiser, Ms. Nickel. I think we can adopt it tonight with that language, if you wanted to.

Oh, Justin's saying yes as well. Sorry, guys. Wasn't paying close enough attention.

So are we comfortable with a motion that includes those amendments? Yes, Mr. Jensen.

Thank you. We never want to make it harder. We just want to make it better so we all know what's happening. Okay, so if I make a move. Oh, sorry.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I was not here during the July 14th meeting, so I went back and watched the video a second time to see if my thoughts had been discussed. And they hadn't really. And I could kind of blow this up, but I'm not going to. One thing, though, that I would really like to, c changed is in the in the memo it said that uh this is just about the process and that recent discussions regarding appointments have highlighted ambiguity surrounding the advice and consent process and demonstrated the need for greater clarity regarding the respective roles and processes of the mayor and ci

Okay. Um, I'm fine with doing it within two meetings. My only concern, and this was something that was brought up by, um, others was that if the person who is, um, up for advising consent is not available for those two meetings, it was more of a, that was from like admin, like what if they can't make it, but.

Well, if you want the job, you better be available.

Which, so I'm fine with that. How do you guys feel?

I will say that there was some, like even in the survey approval team, there was language that, is equivalent to best efforts on the mayor's part. So this isn't uncommon. And it really is best efforts preserving the expectation that there may be something that has come up from the council standpoint that pushes that out. So I'm comfortable with the language as is.

I think, based on what I heard, we're in support of the language as is. So were you going to like, I was going to say, since you've sort of been taking notes on the changes?

Yes. Okay. So then I would make a motion to pass, oh, sorry, I don't have the number in front of me. Ordinance number 2654, thank you. With the changes regarding vacancies would be notified to the council in writing that when the Advising consent is requested that it includes the offer and the resume and that the rest of the information will be provided by the time that the packet is published. And the third item is that the interim under the interim vacancies section that we include that the council needs to approve the extension of any interim vacancies before they can actually be extended.

Second. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Discussion on the motion? Does that encapsulate everybody's idea except for Aaron's? Mr. Sousa has a thought.

Just discussion on the motion. OK, I don't want to be a stick in the mud, but I almost think it would be better to come back and consent. That way we can see it in writing before it gets approved, and it can be pulled out if necessary. Just because there's lots of technical moving parts on this, that would just be my thoughts.

I know, but I'm just saying that that's my thoughts on discussion on the motion.

Discussion on the motion. Gotcha, gotcha. Other discussion? Looking for discussion, Ms. Nickel or Mr. DeKaiser? Okay. All right. So we have a motion and a second. Go ahead.

Oh, yeah. Thank you. Public comment, please. Since we are voting on this item, we'll go ahead and open for public comment on this item. Anyone in the chambers, which is not very many of us left anymore, but feel free to fill out a blue card and share that with us. We'll hear your comments and then we will move to online. I don't think we have anyone in the chamber so Mr. Frato will you go on online.

All right, thank you for that. We will close public comment, bring it back to the council for a vote, please.

Thank you for that. So that brings us back to our agenda for, there we go, for our final item, which is a closed session. So we would wanna move to standing reports and then get a motion to move into closed session and adjourn from closed session, right? Yes. Okay, so let's go ahead and do standing reports. We'll start with our executive director.

Thank you, Mr. Frato. We'll make our way around. Standing reports, please.

Just quick thanks. One to our staff. It was two weeks that we were trying to coalesce around getting out another video for Crescent Middle School. And so thanks to Dustin upon your return for taking that up. and making that work out for us and for Parker and whoever else helped in, um, administration or staff to get that done. It was, it was rocky for a little while, but finally, after two weeks of effort, we got that done. Also want to thank both, um, the public works department and the fire department. Okay. You guys will remember in 2023, we had that record runoff here. where we were all pr

I just wanted to congratulate the police department on a really great event last night for the night out of crime and It was a great event got some good public feedback and then Today, Allison and I attended the AT&T Fiber Launch. This is the flagship store in Utah, and they are going to be putting a lot of resources into our community, so that was exciting to see them, and they're really excited to be here. A big thank you to Janelle Fox on the PUAP committee who just retired, and she has been a staple in our public utilities department for many years and has done an amazing job, and so I jus

Thank you for that. I don't really have anything, so we're going to move on to questions.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The retirement for Jio, she's been here 17 years, and it would be different not seeing her as you walk in. And she's worked with a lot of us and kept us up to date when we were on the public utilities advisory board. So great turnout up there. And she was saying that she didn't have to plan that. She's usually done that in the past. When Chris Edwards and I, we walked up there and Chris had put together, we were able to give her, on behalf of the council, a couple of Hale Center theater tickets and she was very appreciative and looking forward to not having to wake up t

Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. I got to take care of online. Yes. Thank you. Thank you.

Miss Nichol. Thank you. I just wanted to say thank you, Allison. That program is phenomenal. I love it. Next year, I'd like to, or when it opens, I'd like the council to be included in the festivities. And also a follow-up on Dustin's, request or update on the video. I was hoping Martin, in the spirit of collaborative work, would be able to put that on the city's Facebook page and push that out via all the social channels.

MARTHA MINOWSKI- He has agreed to do so. I know you were online, but I looked over at him when Mr. Fratto said that would be the case, and he nodded and confirmed that that will be the case. So thank you for verifying. And Mr. DeKaiser?

I believe that is all of our standing reports so we'll need a motion as I mentioned earlier.

Motion motion to go into a closed session for character competence or professional competence Which we will then recess immediately after that adjourn. Sorry a John adjourned immediately after that I Need to say where it is or

So we have a motion and we have a second. I can't remember. Oh, Councilwoman Christensen is the second. So roll call vote, please.

All right, thank you to all who've joined us. We're going to move into our closed session. Have a good evening.