City Council - Special Meeting

Thank you for allowing us that quick break. We're back into a council session, a work session. We're going to be discussing those students to the right. Item number two, fiscal year 2026, 2027, funding allocation for federal housing and community development grants and city funding for our future housing programs. Gonna welcoming at the table right now Alison Rowland, council policy analyst Tyler Dorffy, community development policy and program manager Denise Rutledge, community development grant supervisor.

Jack Markman, community development grant specialist. Allison, will you help us?

Thank you, mister chair. And yes, sorry about the long title. It was hard to figure out what to cut in that title. So just as a review for everyone, or for an introduction for new people, each year the council allocates millions of dollars in pass through grants from the US Department of Housing and Urban Development or HUD among organizations that serve Salt Lake City residents. These community providers, which are mostly local nonprofits, compete for HUD grants to help fund their services.

Many of them support city's Beginning this year, the city's annual funding our future housing allocation also forms part of this process. Both the resident advisory board of the city's CDCIP, which stands for Community Development and Capital Improvement Program, And the mayor have reviewed and ranked each of the applications to assist the council's decisions. You have hard copies of all this information. So over the next few weeks, the council will review these recommendations and make final funding decisions for HUD and funding our future, excuse me, allocations. This year Sorry about that.

This year, a total of about $11,300,000 will be allocated through this process. The four HUD programs will provide an estimated $8,900,000 to community service providers selected by the council. I can I'll run through them quickly. It's by their acronyms, cbdg, c d b g. Yes, I got it in correct order.

ESG, HOME, and HOPWA. An additional 2,400,000.0 of funding our future housing funding was approved by the council in the f y twenty six budget, and this is available to local service providers through the same process. The council opted to concentrate these Funding Our Future funds on two categories, tenant based housing assistance and equity and homeownership assistance. The public hearing for this item will be held during tonight's formal meeting. The second briefing will be on April 7.

And if needed, there's a third briefing scheduled for April 14. And council action finally is scheduled on April 21. So I will leave it to the good people from Housing Stability who are going to review a couple other things for you. And then it will be all in your hands, I believe.

Thank you. We don't typically or in years past, we have not done a presentation on this. But we wanted to give a brief presentation for those council members who are returning and also for the new council members. I am Tyler Durfee. I'm a policy and program manager with the Housing Stability Division. This is Dennis Rutledge. He's our HUD team supervisor who owes or receives the HUD grants. And this is Jack Markman. He oversees the Funding Our Future housing programs. You'll notice on the screen that the fiscal years are different.

This is because of the way the HUD timeline works. And council has already allocated these Funding Our Future funds. Some of you may recall that council approved bringing Funding Our Future into this annual application process, and so that is new this year.

You can go to the next slide. These are the goals that you guys have voted on and are in our five year HUD consolidated plan. We are in year two of the consolidated plan. It runs from 2025 to 2029. These goals, as you can see on the screen, are housing priorities, homeless services, transportation, community service, business and workforce development, and environmental remediation. And again, these are just for CDBG, ESG, HOME, and HOPWA.

Next slide. To bring Funding Our Future along with the federal programming, we align it with the housing SLC plan, which is a plan that the HUD programs are also dependent on, but we don't have the Conn plan that we use as well. We are just dependent on the Housing SLC plan. Specifically, the Funding Our Future applicants have to align their programming with one, at least one of the two goals in that plan, which is increasing housing stability with a focus on low income services, particularly those for renters, and increasing homeownership and equity building with a particular focus for those who are low income.

Next slide, please. So where we're at in the timeline, this is the first funding briefing with counsel. We have a second funding briefing scheduled for April 7 and the option for a third funding briefing, if needed, on April 14. Right now on the calendar, we have a council final vote and adaptation scheduled for April 21. And please be aware, we have a hard deadline set by HUD for May 15 when we need to submit these programs. And we do need a little bit of lead time in order to prepare those submissions. And with that being said, we'll turn it back over to you for any questions you have.

Any questions, council members? Alright. Let's get started.

I am going to share my screen so that we'll have something we can work on live, which is terribly exciting because you get to see all my stumbling. But here it is. And, yeah, I don't know how you'd like to organize it, mister chair, but I will leave it in all of your hands.

Allison, maybe you could orient us. It looks like the first page of this printout is different than what we're looking at on the screen. So maybe just we can go to oh, there. There.

Yes. Sorry. This version of the spreadsheet does not have the descriptions of each of the programs, but it does have space for council funding allocations and then contingency allocations. And just as a reminder, the contingency allocations, the council essentially passes the contingencies each year along with all the other funding. And so if there are special contingencies that the council wants to make for a particular item, you can do that there.

You can also I also should mention there was a slight change in the contingencies from last year to this year that has to do with whether the funding amount would be equal to or less than or greater than. And now it is less than or greater than. Did I characterize that right? Okay. So it's a little more generous in terms of funding the applicants who receive funding from the council, if that makes sense.

So typically what the council would do at this point is go through kind of either page by page or line by line and identify any questions because this is the first discussion. I don't know that you need to necessarily make decisions today about what allocations you want but maybe we can go page by page and flag any questions that staff can follow-up on.

Yes. If you'd like, I can just read through the titles as we go.

Let's let's go start from the top.

Okay. So we're starting with

Yes. Go ahead.

I just had just one quick question on all of it right now. On the project descriptions, on a number of them, you have unspent funding line. And so I'm just using YMCA because it's the first one that has an unspent funding line from fiscal year twenty twenty two to 2025 of 155 ks. That's 44 41% of the awarded funds. So how is that incorporated in the current request, and what's the timeline for them to spend that that money? And when does that fall back into well, go back to the HUD, I guess, in this case.

Yeah. So this was a request that the board had, that the CDC IP board, is that they wanted to know if any of these programs had unspent funds from previous years. And so we just wanted to narrow it down a little bit in years. The funding that is on the for, like, YWCA, for CDBG, is all is all HUD funding that YWCA has received through those years. A lot of these programs are actually been recaptured already and re spent. We just wanted to let the board know and to let you guys know that maybe they didn't quite make it through all of their funding. A lot of it has already been recaptured and already been reallocated through these processes. But it was just something that the board had asked for. We just want to give you the same information.

So maybe it's more is it fair to say it's more for contextual information? Exactly. It's not like there's $155,000 sitting somewhere.

Exactly. Yeah. Most of it I would say almost all of it has been recaptured. I don't know what the exact number is, but yeah.

Okay. That that helps me out because I was just kind of like, where was that money and why has it been recaptured in? But that kind of gives me a context of, hey, they're requesting 215, but over the last three years, they didn't spend, you know, a $155,000. And that's 45%. So they were they asking for more than they needed? And could that extra money been allocated to somewhere else? That's where I'm looking at. It's like, hey. We had a lot of these things that were over offered, and then they didn't spend it. Now we don't have that funding, and we we lost it. So thank you. Okay.

Okay. So for the CDBG, first section is neighborhoods, housing, and infrastructure. Are there any questions or proposals to make? If not, I'll move on to the next one, which is public services. I'll try to move on to the next one.

There we go.

And public services starts on the third page. If you want us to go back to any of the ones on the second page that are in that infrastructure category, just let us know.

So on the on the first section, on the neighborhood and housing infrastructure, it seems like all the applicants but one got some level of funding. Correct? Which is like number 11 didn't get any funding. K.

That's well, it's correct from the information we have. Yes. And the experts are nodding. So so I'm gonna go with yes. Upwards care.

Mister chair?

Yes.

On the fix the bricks program

Can you tell us what number that is?

That's number nine. I n I s team. I'm always curious on how many of these how many houses we are fixing each year with that funding because I know there's been a big backlog on on because it's not easy project. But how many are actually worth funding?

That's a good question. I don't have that number in front of me, but we can get that for you. Do you want it just for last year or like previous?

Last couple of years. As always.

Yeah. We can do that.

Yeah. It's an interesting question to me because it's a program I care a lot about. I think there's other consumers they do, but also on the unspent funds. That's an interesting piece of information right there that last year they were awarded 7 and $28,000 and they had 6 and $33,000 So what happened through the whole year with this program? It will be a good question that I'm sure that's something they were working on something. But it seems just for this program, have questions on what happened. Certainly, I don't have any interest on cutting their funding because that's an important program for me. But every time I have those unspent funds, I'm curious. So thank you.

And I'll just mention because we have the public services section up, there are two entries in red, number 14 and number 20. Those mark the only two items in which the CDCIP advisory board and the mayor disagreed slightly on their recommendations. So where the CDCIP board recommended 207,412 for Wasatch Homeless Healthcare Inc, in other words the fourth Street Clinic, the mayor recommends shifting $50,000 of that amount to number 20, which is called Fit to Recover.

Are we asking questions now?

Yes. Please go ahead.

Can get more information on number 17? Can I understand how many Salt Lakers are receiving services through the South Valley Services? And on number 18, since it's site based mentoring, I'm assuming this is a Salt Lake based site that our investment would go towards?

Yeah. All of the HUD fundings for CDBG are only for Salt Lake City residents. So the South Valley Service and the Big Brothers and Sisters programs are will be based or only for Salt Lake City residents. But I can get the number of individuals that they're

Yeah.

I want I would like to confirm. I know that the YWCA is the largest provider in the state and disproportionately handles our cases. And so I'm feeling a big impulse when people can go to other municipalities to ask them to do so so we can protect our hometown right now while things are a little tighter.

Others or shall we move along?

Before we move on, I just wanna signal that I imagine every year, always more applications rather than money and funds to be awarded. But I was really pleased to see Fit to Recover included as of the potential, recipients of these fundings. I feel like they provide such a critical community building resource, particularly in District 5 and in the Ballpark neighborhood, and have seen the real benefit and boon it is to have them in the neighborhood.

Before we move on to different categories, help me remember, is this the category that has the is it a 15% cap in terms of the total of CDBG award? So whereas a lot of the other categories you can kind of move money around to find ways to fund programs. With this one you would have to move the money around within the category.

Yes, go ahead.

I just want to kind of read your point earlier, Mr. Chair, is that all those unspent funding, I would really would like to understand why they weren't spent because we have a lot of programs that want money and that don't have it because they were overspent in a number of areas. Because that, for us, it was actually spent because we allocated it. So I would really like to dig into a lot of those, especially the bigger ones.

We can do that.

Bigger percentage wise. Thank you.

Would you like to set a threshold for them? So 5% of the award each?

Yeah, like there's one that's less than 1% and there's one that's at three percent. I'm not too worried about that.

Right. But the

one that's 30 five percent and $300,000, yeah, we'll get at that one.

Okay, thank you.

I would like to flag some organizations here that are not recommended for funding, both from the board or the administration, the mayor, which is IRC. I feel like this is some organizations that are doing key work on the community right now, especially in the times that we live in. And then Southlake American, which is an organization that works heavily in my district.

I'm just seconding everything he says.

So even the Asian Association of Utah, these organizations in the past, some of them have never received money. Some of them have received some funding. So we're talking about 33, 35, and then '22. And there are not huge requests in many cases, but if I can, you know, with working with you, if we can find some funding to support some of the work that they do, it would be useful. Now, one of the questions in the past was was there a minimum of support, if I remember right?

Yes. Last year the minimum was $30,000 This year it's $50,000

Okay. And so I wanna just like highlight that because the times I felt like merit some support for communities or organizations that are doing that kind of work. Just wish we had money for all of them. Okay. Moving on.

Okay. Let's if there aren't any other questions or suggestions, we'll move down to ESG, which is the emergency solutions grant. Doing it the slowest way possible. There it is. Can I just ask,

if we were to look to reallocate anything, which I don't think there's any wiggle room, it would have to be within each part? ESG is total.

That's correct. ESG part one and ESG part two are separate. So you can move within those parts, but not across parts. Thank you.

Okay. We're looking at ESG part one. Any questions?

If not, I'll move to the home investment partnerships program.

Any questions on ESG part two?

Oh, whoops. I was ahead of you. Sorry, mister chair.

Okay. Move on to the next one.

Now we're on home. And again, the CHDO projects listed here can't well, not every nonprofit is eligible to be able to get grants for CHDO. And I believe that CDC is the only qualified person in the state at this time. Qualified organization, I should say.

And if you have some creative ideas, or funding ideas or shaving here, moving it to there, please send it to Alison in the next little while. So it will be useful to start collecting all of those as soon as we can. Councilmember Bietro.

That would be great.

Number two, under all applications, the Road Home, the description here in our thing says that UCA will provide holistic case management. Is that a typo that another agency is? Or is that a subcontract that will go to UCA from the road home?

That's probably my fault. I think it's probably a typo. It's probably the wrong description. We can send you the correct description.

That's

Okay. Probably my

Thank you.

Just clarifying. Thank you.

Great. I'm going to move on to HAPA. This is housing opportunities for persons with AIDS. Is

this the last year for this?

The state HOPWA funding funds are ending, but ours continue.

Okay.

And so we will be the sole provider of HOPWA funds in the state.

Okay.

Moving to all applications.

Yeah. Here are the Funding Our Future.

Mhmm. And then Funding Our Future on purple.

Because this is the first time we're allocating Funding Our Future, at least the housing stability programs this way. Just confirming that these funds are flexible, they're not, are they regulated by any of the other kind of federal grant guidelines that guide some of the other CDBG funds?

No. These are not regulated by the same requirements as HUD.

But the dollar amount, we allocated that or we approved that last last budget. So we've already approved the the max amount of funding we have here. We can't adjust that funding level because it was done it was last year's budget.

For the Funding Our Future, are we treating this the same way we treat the HUD funding as in we're trying to keep funds allocated as they're banded currently?

As they're currently organized on the recommendations?

Yeah. Like, under the equity and homeownership assistance, keep that together, keep the tenant based housing assistance together?

Yes. When you set aside this funding for the budget, these were separate budget categories. So you would have to make a budget amendment. It wouldn't be you wouldn't be able to move funding.

Theoretically, we could, but it would be a pain in the butt.

It would be a lot. Yeah.

All right, thank you.

And can you talk about the, number four, the in between and the housing SLC alignment, no asterisk?

Sorry. So we're we're looking at number four? Yes. And what was the other one?

The in between?

Just that one and why on the compliance with the housing SLC if there's an asterisk by the no. That's the story.

Yes, thank you. One of the questions that was asked in the application is to provide explicit and clear how your project was aligned with these specific goals. And if they weren't clear enough in their description of connecting it to those goals, we marked it as no, that's not aligned. The asterisk is essentially saying the services fall under alignment with these plans. They just weren't explicitly clear on their alignment with those plans.

Can I reiterate my request for information at number 12 as well? No shade to Southbound Services. I'm sure they do great stuff, but if at all possible, I want our city money to go to our city entities.

Yes. I will make a note that we have those. How many people from Salt Lake City are being served by them as well?

Thank you.

So funding our future with dollars are we can move them anywhere.

You can. I think to gentleman's point, he was clarifying that when you guys approved the fiscal year twenty budget, it included the subtotal for tenant based assistance and the subtotal for rental assistance and things like that. So you could move them. You're very much legally allowed to. We would probably need to follow-up with a budget amendment to make sure that those line items were clarified. I think if you not that you want to do this, but if you wanted to just overall reduce the amount of funding for these programs and not allocate them for whatever reason, that money would otherwise fall to fund balance.

That's good to know. Thank you. Roughly quiet. Chris?

Do you have thoughts? I always, but I don't have any that I'm flagging. Okay. I'm thinking about responses to that and about ways that we can make the comments that have already been made, how do we address those?

You didn't have to indulge me with a response.

Oh, he's thinking about peanut butter.

I'm sorry. You asked me a question, the mic is on. I'm gonna answer.

Mr. Chair?

Yes.

Also, similar to council member Dugan's question about unspent funds, I'd be curious to hear a little bit more about Asian Association of Utah and Funding Our Future and the unspent funds, because I imagine that might have a little bit more flexibility than the federal dollars. So I would like to know some of the reasons why those funds were unspent.

Should we use the same cutoff of anything over 5%? Would that be Sure. Great, we'll do that.

And in this case, line fifteen and seventeen have the same exact dollar figure down to the penny on the unspent funding. It's kind of interesting that.

Fifteen and seventeen you said? Oh, so those were not specific to programs, they're specific to providers. So if they're the same provider, they'll have the same amount of funding.

Okay, okay.

So they didn't get $2.89 and $2.99, they just got 190

No, that's just saying over the last last two years, how much funding they've been awarded in total from us that they have left unspent or that it's lapsed in that period. Okay.

This is helpful.

Just on line number 21, just a question for Steph Hausen on how many people that they go through the program, but also stay out of the homeless cycle after they graduate from the program? Their success rate. And I know it's a difficult number because multiple people have need multiple times to go through addiction programs. But how many people do they successfully graduate that stays out for over a year or so?

Yeah, we can provide that for you.

Yeah, that'd a bit Thank you.

Okay. I think we are exhausting all the questions for the moment. Alison will probably send you some more. So in the next time that we discuss, we can start going through some of

the

suggestions. Is that good? Okay. Thank you.

And I will, work with these gentlemen to make sure we get the responses that they didn't have off the top of their heads back to you.

We are moving ahead quite fast. Yes.

So

we're gonna take a twenty minute break. So we're gonna reconvene at 03:45. Okay. Thank you. To go jump back on the agenda a few minutes later than we should have.

We needed a quick break. We're gonna go into item number four. This is an informational item for the state legislative briefing follow-up. We're going to welcome Angela Price, the legislative affairs division's director, to to take a moment and tell us what lovely things happened during the legislative session this year.

Thank you. It's a pleasure to be back here. Always love coming home after the legislative session. Just checking in because I know you've adjusted the time. How much would you like me to take this evening on this update?

I mean, the general talks talks about twenty minutes.

Twenty minutes. Okay. Great. Well, I've passed out a copy of our legislative synopsis, so you guys should all have that in front of you, and then I sent it to you via email about a week and a half ago. I first want to start with just offering gratitude to my team, the Legislative Affairs Division, Michelle Hoon, my deputy director, Melanie Hall, who's behind me, Dave Qualey, the attorney that gets the privilege of running around the Capitol with us.

The work that we do would not remotely be possible without our small but very mighty team. So I'm super grateful for the work that they do. I also just want to offer gratitude to our 16 city departments who tirelessly read bills, answer our frantic messages, and are just the brightest and best in the state. Our attorney team, who also, in addition to their regular client load, is reviewing bills and providing legal guidance, writing red lines, and drafting legislation for us. And then our lobby team, who absolutely crushed it for us this session.

And then last but not least, our elected officials, both the city council and the mayor. I know you guys also all have day jobs and have been so incredibly responsive and supportive of the work that we do. And it truly means a lot that I have the trust of this body. So I appreciate that. With the gratitude out of the way, I'd like to just kind of go over a few of the quick hits on the synopsis, talk through a few of our successes, and then give you an update on a couple of key bills that I think will be of interest.

And then I'll leave some time for you guys if you have any questions for me. So this session, we tracked three fifty one bills with 126 being high priority. That means that there were 53 bills and 73 subs. So we saw the highest number of bills introduced this session and the highest number of this was the highest number of bills passed as well. 53 high priority bills means that we are working, actively working those bills.

That means they're changing pretty dramatic things for the city, either in a positive or negative way. We had 70 bills that were medium priority, and we also are working those bills. And those often are bills that we are working with our partners like the Utah League of Cities and Towns, Wasatch Front Regional Council, Equality Utah, the school district, other partners that we work with throughout the legislative session. As I mentioned, the session synopsis can be found on the legislative affairs website. I slaughter this URL every time I try to say it to you, Chair Poohie.

It is slc.gov/attorney/legislativeaffairs. It never quite comes out right, so my apologies on that. But all of the bills that we tracked are on the website.

You do have a shorter one, which is slc.gov/legislativeaffairs. It redirects to the Okay.

Well, what I was asking That's that I got. So thank you. The session synopsis is on there and then also all of the bills that we tracked. One of the questions that I've gotten quite a bit throughout the session and even after the session is, wow, it looks like things were very different for Salt Lake this year. And they were, which is wonderful.

And I really attest that to a couple of things. I think it's been the strong partnerships and relationships that the city's built with the state over the last few years. That's credit to the council and the mayor. I think you guys have done a really great job of sitting at the table and having those really hard conversations. And so oftentimes this session, we were pulled into meetings that had a much different tone and tenor than they have in previous years, which was really refreshing.

We also saw a lot of bills that were held this year. And that's not something that we've seen consistently happen the past few years. What I mean by that is they were either held in rules committees. So it's kind of the first step in moving through the legislative process as you go through rules. They were held in their respective committees, or they were held in one chamber or the other.

So a bill would maybe move through the House, and then the Senate would hold it, or the Senate would hold something that didn't move through the House. So this year for I think kind of the theme is a lot of what didn't pass. And so those are some of the successes that I want to talk with you guys about here. As we were going into the session, we heard a lot about our flags and the legislation from the 2025 session. We heard well before the session started that there was going to be a bill that would potentially impact our flags.

And that bill made it through the House but did not make it through the Senate. So we are still able to fly our flags. If representative McPherson's bill would have passed, it still would have allowed us to fly the flags that the city adopted last year. But there would have been some changes there. We also heard quite a bit about the renaming of 900 South, one of our main commercial corridors and active active transportation corridors in the city from Harvey Milk Boulevard to Charlie Kirk Boulevard.

That bill was held in rules and was never heard in either of the chambers. There were several court cases that Salt Lake City has prevailed in that were different components of bills this year of legislation. And all of those cases were upheld. And these weren't necessarily things that were targeting Salt Lake City per se, but just rulings that the city had prevailed in that we were watching really closely that would have had a really profound impact on our residents. And those bills did not move forward.

I'll talk a little bit more taxes here in a few minutes. But taxes were kind of the theme of the legislative session. And so we made some great strides there in what was initially proposed to where we are now. One of our exciting bills that we got passed this year was our library notice evaluation and allowing the property or the library levy to be listed as its own item on the property tax valuation. That sounds like a minor thing, but that was something that we worked really hard on.

Additionally, another one of our proactive bills was getting some changes to the lost and found at the airport and how they process lost and found. And so we were very excited to see that bill move forward. There was some legislation targeted at I-fifteen billboard relocation. And due to the work that the city has done with the billboard industry, that bill was dropped by the sponsor. There was legislation that would have required gun storage at the Delta Center, and that bill was held as well.

And then one of our really exciting bills that we worked on and Councilmember Dugan was there that day with me. And he was joking that he was it was like he was at work with mom, which was pretty fun. But there was an energy bill that would have impacted the Utah Community Renewable Program. And we were very excited that we were able to get that amendment changed as it moved into the Senate and preserve the opportunity for that program to move forward. So we had a lot of really great successes.

And those aren't all things that the city did in and of itself, but that we did with our partners and with our lobby team and the relationships that we have. Any questions on successes as I move forward to the next section?

Can you talk about the Stewardship Utah bill?

Yes. Stewardship Utah bill so this was a bill that would have had a small registration fee for heavy trucks that were twenty ten or older. And I want to say it was like 14,000 gross weight. And that bill unfortunately died on the boards on the last night.

Just because it ran out of time.

Yeah, they ran out of time. But it didn't pass the House, and they were able to recall the vote on that and get it back into the House. And it passed the House, but it didn't make it through the Senate in time. So knowing those guys, am hopeful that they'll bring that back again next year. Thank you.

So as I mentioned, there were several key themes of the session. The biggest was tax reform, economic development, transportation, public safety and homelessness, energy, water, and immigration. And I'll kind of go through these fairly quickly. But if there's anything you guys want me to or follow-up questions that you have, please feel free to interrupt me. As I mentioned, this was the year of tax reform.

Where we started to where we ended is a really big bill. The Truth in Taxation bill is still going to be a lot of work for the city council and for administration. But where we started was potentially having a 5% cap on property tax, having changes to how new growth was calculated, having changes to what you guys are allowed to have in your fund balance and how you can use that, having any property tax increase go to and so where we ended was Senator McCay's bill SB 97 didn't make it out of the Senate. So those things of having the property tax cap, having new growth, having fund balance changes, none of that passed. Representative Akshire's bill that would have required us to bring any property tax increase to the voters also was held in rules and didn't pass.

What did pass is representative Karen Peterson's bill. What this bill does is it really provides more transparency in the truth and taxation process. And this is a really tricky policy because there are dates that are set in state statute that are out of control that are not of control of the city and how the city goes through the truth and taxation process. And so what the legislature was trying to do is have more transparency in the truth and taxation process by providing additional hearings. And if you guys are going to do a property tax increase, there's some additional steps that you need to do.

Specifically, you have to highlight what changes you would make if the property tax happened. So for example, if you have a $1,000,000 budget and you are going to propose a $2,000,000 budget with a $1,000,000 property tax increase, and that extra $1,000,000 is going to go to the Legislative Affairs Division because we're awesome, you would have to tell us why you would have to have public documents and reasoning why you would be asking for that additional increase. There's more to that legislation. I know the attorney's office and the recorder's office is working on unpacking that. There's also a safe harbor for this first year, which I think will be helpful Because in previous years, we've had some truth in taxation legislation passed that I want to say it was like 36 taxing entities didn't get their property tax increase approved this year because they'd missed steps.

So lots to come there, but and I know this is going to be challenging from a budgeting perspective if there's a proposed property tax increase, but it really is a much better place than where we could have landed. On economic development, HB49 and sorry, I should have stated that bill number. It's HB236, Truth and Taxation Amendments. HB492, Transportation Funding and Housing Amendments by Representative Roberts. This was another bill that we worked on parts of it since last May.

There's a lot that's in this bill. One of the things that I want to highlight for you is 100,000,000 for regionally significant infrastructure projects. And that is going to be able to unlock affordable housing, think things like water towers and major road structures and things like that. So we're very excited about the opportunity to potentially use some of that funding to unlock housing, whether in Salt Lake City or throughout the state. Our big bill that we worked this year was SB two forty two transportation amendments by Senator Harper and Representative Kristofferson.

This was the second iteration of SB 195 from the 2025 session. And this was something that we had been working on really. The implementation of SB 195, the Transportation Division, and Community and Neighborhoods started working on that before the legislation before the legislature even adjourned last year. And then we started working on what provisions we wanted that we were going to change. And I'm really happy to report a couple of things with this bill.

I know there was a lot of public concern about this bill during the session. We saw our residents come out pretty heavily during the committee hearings testifying concern that bike lanes would be closed and that we would be tearing out infrastructure. This bill does not require us to pull infrastructure out. It does not require us to not have bike infrastructure. And it also does not require us to roll back any of those standards.

So we're still allowed to look at what modes make sense on different roads within the city. What it does require us to do is enter into an agreement with UDOT. It does require us to adopt a critical capacity routes map and a tiering system of our roads. We agreed to that in SB195 in the presentation that UDOT gave to the Transportation Interim Committee in October, and then the subsequent response that the mayor provided to the Transportation Interim Committee in November. What that map will do and that will eventually come before this body it requires us to adopt a tiering structure for the study area.

The study area did expand in this legislation. So the study area is 600 North City Boundary to Redwood Road. Before it only went to 2100 South And I-fifteen. What we will need to do is establish a tiering structure for those roads. We have not established that yet. Tier one roads would be state roads. We're not allowed to do any highway reduction strategies on those roads. But we are allowed to make safety improvements. Tier two roads, think like a main street would be an example, would have to have a UDOT approval if we wanted to do a highway reduction strategy. It doesn't mean that we can't do them.

It means that we work with UDOT on being able to do them. Tier three and tier four roads would be local roads. And we would be able to do highway reduction strategies on those two types of roads. So I think it's really important for us to know that A, those roads have not been identified yet. This is not saying that we can't do highway reduction strategies. It's just saying on those tier two roads we will need to go through a UDOT process.

Councilwoman Mabetra.

Did they ever clarify why the expansion to Redwood Road? I mean, it made as frustrating as it was, their logic the year before was that the central commercial core was a concern to them and fine. But why why are we going all the way to Redwood now?

Yeah, that's a great question. I don't know that we ever what I do know is that the initial Western boundary started at Banger and got walked back to Redwood. And I think part of it is probably looking at the power district and the work that's going to be happening in that area. But I think we never to answer honestly, we didn't get a really great reason why that was being expanded to there. I think if I were to bet on it, it would be probably just to ensure that the power district and the development around cohesively.

The other thing that I think is important to note on this legislation is that it will require the city to adopt and codify the map into the city's transportation plan and ordinances. So again you guys will be seeing a legislative action coming before you from CAN. One of the other things that I think was a little bit of a sticking point for the community and for the city was road width. So we are allowed to maintain road widths at 11 feet on tier one and two, and they must be at least 10 feet on tier three. Those did start at twelve and eleven and so we got them down to what's best practices.

And then the last thing on this that I'll say is that we also need to do engagement around parking reductions on tier one and tier two roads if we're removing more than three spaces on a block face. And this was really to address concerns that we've heard from the business community on us removing parking in certain areas for bike facilities or bus facilities. Any questions on the road bill? I know that's a lot. Okay.

Is there a deadline for the council to adopt that map or the city to complete that?

Yeah, thank you. So we need to have the agreement executed by January. So I think, you know, can't I know the transportation division has already started having conversations with UDOT on what the agreement parameters would look like. So I imagine I would probably think sometime in the fall. Okay, public safety and homelessness.

So I think kind of the main talking, the main point with public safety and homelessness this year is that we didn't see an insurgent of funding for the campus. I think that was one of the things that was very much on the table as we were going into the session as what were they going to do with the campus and were they going to fund it. And so we didn't see a chunk of money put aside for the campus. There was some funding set aside through the nicotine tax and some other appropriations to help with homelessness, but that's more kind of broader system things. HB five seventy two, the behavioral health, mental health, and social services amendments by representative Ellison make some changes to mental and behavioral health services and the jail diversion programs and civil commitment.

And then HB three zero eight was another one of the big bills that we were working homeless services amendments by Representative Ochreland. And this makes changes to the Office of Homeless Services. It changes the mitigation funding one time and with the intention that the cities, the shelter cities will convene a working group over the interim to look at the broader mitigation funding formula. This helps keep beds online moving forward through July and helps fund the West Valley shelter that hasn't actually received adequate funding. So this is kind of a stopgap while that mitigation formula and knowing that Tyler Clancy just took the position of director.

And then let's see here. I'll just start wrapping up here on I already talked about the HB two thirty eight Utah Energy Generation and Transmission Planning that preserved our community renewable program. We were really nervous about water going into the legislative session. And we were happy that we maintained our water rights. And there was no we were worried about water fees and increases to our water users.

Those bills did not pass or they didn't pass in the way that we were concerned about. We had a really exciting bill pass, HB two ninety six, water commitments amendments by representative Wynn. Laura Brieffer, our director of public utilities, had been working on this legislation for two years. And this is something that went through the water task force. And essentially it would allow for water conservation to be considered in the conservation plans of water sorry, I'm muddling this here water being conserved going into the Great Salt Lake to be considered in the water conservation plans.

Thank you. And then the last thing I just want to touch on, which I know is kind of the main topic here in Salt Lake City right now is immigration. HB three eighty six immigration amendments by Representative Shepard. If you want to watch an interesting floor debate and procedural debate, this would be a good one to go back and watch. This bill would have removed protections from the guest worker program.

And on the third reading in the House, HB 88 public assistance amendments by Representative Lee was subbed into this legislation. And so it was a pretty feisty floor debate. This bill made it through the House but did not make it through the Senate. Representative Lee's bill, HB 88, took on multiple iterations. I think it had seven or eight subs before it went into HB three eighty six.

And where it started was it would have created a penalty for, for example, somebody working in a shelter that serves food to somebody that just didn't have an ID, not even necessarily an undocumented individual. It would have provided it would have required our firefighters, our police officers, if you don't have an ID on you and you provide medical services, you could have been fined. So where it started to where it went was much different. With that, I again just want to extend my gratitude. I know our legislative subcommittee worked really hard during the session and I'm so grateful for your guidance and your trust and your patience and happy to answer any questions that you guys might have.

Councilmember Young.

Yes. Thank you. So what many people do not know is aside from the fact that you are representing the voice of Salt Lake City, You are also representing the various expertise of all the different departments and individuals who are important in terms of engaging as a part of the process. So you're coordinating across all of those entities, as well as trying to coordinate across the seven of us in terms of making sure that you're keeping us updated, that we have the opportunity to give you feedback related to questions and concerns we're getting from residents. So by the end of it, it is like quite the circus that you oversee, Angela.

And you do it with such grace and professionalism and a degree of calm that I have to say I just find so wonderful in what otherwise feels often like a very hectic conversation and time period for the city. So just wanted to express my gratitude for the way that you and your team make sure that you keep all of us in the loop at any given time about any given bill topic, which you can see there was over 1,000. You really do run such an incredible process and opportunity to know that Salt Lake City voices are being represented in those conversations. So thank you.

Thank you so much for the kind words.

Councilmember Dugan. Councilmember Young said it all. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. I I think that there is no many words I can express, you know, that. I we're very lucky to have you and your team working, supporting us and the city's interest in our legislature. Hopefully, more sessions are like this one. We can only hope. So thank you so much. I appreciate the update. And looking forward to implementing some of the changes that, you know, came to us to implement. So thank you.

Thank you. Appreciate it.

Council members, we are going to go into closed meeting right now. So I will need a motion. Advice Advice of

please. Mister chair, I move that we go into closed session for the purpose of receiving advice of counsel.

Second. Second.

Is the second? Okay. Sorry.

I heard it

from so oh, that's yeah. Okay. See. Councilman Borden. Yeah. That makes sense. Council member Warden for the motion and Dugan for the second. Council member Petro? Aye. Council member Young? Aye. Council member Dugan? Yes. Council member Warden?

Yes.

Council member Lopez Chavez? Aye. Councilmember Carlson?

Aye.

And I'm an aye, so that is unanimous vote to close meeting. We'll be back soon. We're back again onto our agenda. We are going to move a few things around. We're going to move on to the board appointment, business advisory board, Kim Stoe.

Will Kim come here and introduce yourself? Have a few minutes to tell us why you're interesting in Counsel chair.

I'm not sure.

IMS is ready for us. So just one second.

Oh, we're gonna, should you please go ahead. We might have to do that reintroduction to

the item.

No, no, not quite. I will tell you.

Sorry, we're good now.

Okay, I'm gonna, we're going into item number six. We're moving a few items since you're here. We wanna make sure that you're not waiting for too long. This is the board appointment to the business advisory board. Kim, welcome. Will you like to introduce yourself and tell us why you're interested on this board?

Hi, my name is Kim Stowe. I'm with Visit Salt Lake. And I'm interested in being on the board because I'm very passionate about the role our business community plays in shaping the visitor economy. At Visit Salt Lake, I'm the managing director of our partnership department. So I work very closely with all of our partners that fall into the hospitality, tourism, and business community.

My job is to help them connect with each other, collaborate, take advantage of our marketing opportunities so that when we do bring in all of these visitors into our county, they're able to take advantage of the dollars that are spent here. We're passionate about pushing business to our local restaurants. Our visitors are dining there, visiting our attractions, buying tickets to our sporting events, visiting our local retailers. So I just feel like it's kind of a natural extension for me to be a part of this, that I can bring some insight on what's going on in our visitor economy and learn how we can help our residents and our visitors have a great experience with that.

Thank you for your willingness to serve. You know, these boards are very important as you know, so we're excited to to have you. Any any thoughts? Thank you for for for volunteering for the city and to bring your expertise to to us. The process works this way. We're gonna put you on the consent agenda on the meeting that starts at 7PM today in the formal in the the formal meeting across the hall. You don't have to be here at all for that meeting. It's a procedural item at the end of the agenda. The administration will contact you soon enough after that to onboard you and ensure that you have what you need.

Great.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We are going to jump back to the item number five, ordinance zoning map amendment at approximately 1073 South Navajo Street. Gonna welcome to the table Austin Kimmel, council policy analyst, and Olivia Kwetko, principal planner. Austin, is your time to give us a short introduction?

Okay. Thanks, council members. This is a briefing on a proposal to amend the zoning map amendment for a parcel at 1073 South Navajo Street from R 15000 to R M F 30. The the applicant states they plan to retain the existing two bedroom single family home and build additional for sale family sized homes on the property. The proposed ordinance requires the petitioner to enter a development agreement with Salt Lake City with two specific conditions.

The first is that the existing home on the site be retained. And the second, that any additional dwelling units over four units must be for sale. The planning commission voted six one to forward a positive recommendation during its January 14 meeting. Policy questions can be found on pages one and two of the council staff report. And I will turn it over to Olivia from the planning division who has more details about the proposed rezone. Thanks.

Thank you. Good good evening. Like like Austin said, this is a petition for a zoning map amendment at 1073 South Navajo Street. Next slide, please.

Oh and I'm sorry if I can interrupt too. We also have Kelsey Lindquist at the table I forgot to introduce.

Okay. So this, property is currently zoned R one five thousand. The petition is to amend the zoning to RMF 30. A couple facts about this property. It's roughly half an acre, just shy of half an acre at point four nine, 21,000 square feet. Like we mentioned, it's got one single family home on the property now. And the applicant is proposing to keep the existing home on-site and split up some lots in the rear for additional for sale housing. Next slide please. And I guess one more slide. Thanks.

Okay. So as far as the West Side plan goes in 2014, you can see the subject property highlighted on the map. It's kind of in between some neighborhood. Oh, lost a minute neighborhood and community nodes. The West Side Plan calls for reinvestment and redevelopment in the West Side community through changes in land use, improved infrastructure, and community investment, And to protect and encourage ongoing investment in existing low density residential neighborhoods.

Providing attractive, compatible, and high density residential development where needed, appropriate, or desired. Next slide, please. So some of the things in some of the properties around this area, there is a elementary school directly to the north that you can see on this map. There are a handful of lots nearby that already have a little bit higher density housing such as duplexes. There's a few lots that are already a little smaller than the required 5,000 square feet in the RMF 5,000.

And there are some condos going up to the south. Next slide, please. This is I wanted to pull this street view and aerial in for you guys to take a look at. One of the conditions of this map amendment is that that home that's already on the site stay on-site. So what I think that this does really well is preserve the feel of the street and keep kind of a consistent block face.

So I've got those street views here for you to see. I also have the aerial pulled in. As you can see, there's quite a lot of space behind where that existing home is, including a pretty large detached garage and a couple other small structures. Next slide. The community benefit proposed for this is, for sale housing, which is outlined in our community benefit ordinance, something that the city would like to see more of.

I pulled in, just some quick census data to show owner occupied versus renter occupied in the Glendale community versus Salt Lake City as a whole. Salt Lake City as a whole has pretty close to fifty fifty owner and renter occupancy. In the Glendale community, there are only about 30% of resident or only about 30% of housing units that are owner occupied with 70% renter occupied. So this is this is a community benefit that I believe would be, a great addition to the neighborhood. Next slide.

Okay. So the main difference, the main reason for this request is to allow a little bit more flexibility in what could be developed on the site compared to say using a planned development or our affordable housing incentives. The R 15, district is limited to single family dwellings with 5,000 square feet per lot. The RMF 30 District, allows more flexibility with single family homes with only 2,000 square feet per unit, two family dwellings, cottage style development, row homes, and multifamily residential. Most of these uses require 2,000 square feet per unit.

And I mentioned earlier, the site is roughly 21,000 square feet. So by the numbers, this lot would be restricted to about 10 units per acre. With the existing home being kept on the site and required parking and open space, we've been looking at seems like that may be closer to like six to eight units would realistically fit on this lot. Next slide, please. As Austin mentioned, the Planning Commission did vote to forward a positive recommendation to city council for this zoning map amendment with the identified community benefit and details stipulated in a development agreement.

And next slide. Though I think that may be my last.

I'm just going to offer a point of clarification. The RMF 30 on this specific lot would allow about 10 units per half acre. So a total of 20 per acre.

Council members, any questions? Council members, you

So the the the house sits in the front and has looks like it has large front yard, So that takes up a good chunk. So that you said six additional units on included with the house the house plus six additional units. Is that what you're kind of estimating the most out of it?

Like, most likely. Yeah. The applicant hasn't developed a site plan yet to kind of see how that realistically could fit in.

Okay. And then the second question is that the development agreement would stipulate that they have to be for sale? And is there a now I buy it, can I buy it? And what's the the requirement for me to live in that house that I after I buy it? Is that can that be part of the development agreement? How does that work on the development agreement?

The applicant is here and can speak to some of those specific questions if that would be helpful.

Which is from our planning side of house or zoning or requirements of the development agreement. They they sell it to five different individuals who says that they have to live in there for a certain amount of time. Is that part of the development agreement? Or is that how

Yeah. I believe you could stipulate that it be owner occupied in the development agreement.

Okay. Yeah.

Personally, I'm supportive of of of this. These slots on Nalaho Street Nalaho Street are so so long and empty in the back. Yeah. It's it's actually quite unique in the area, and it's under under utilized land. So any chances that we can allow some of these neighbors for opportunities to expand housing, it's I think it's a win for the community. So generally supportive of it. I'm excited to see more of those hopefully in the area as well. Yeah. Thank you. It seems like we are ready to move on to the next item. I appreciate the briefing.

Thank you.

Now we are getting caught up a little on time. We are jumping into item number seven. This is an ordinance, an amendment for daily water consumption and enacting temporary zoning regulations. Now we're gonna welcome Mark Cottrell, city attorney, to the to the table. Catherine Catherine Pasquier, senior city attorney Laura Breifer, director of public activities for a short introduction. Introduction.

I think, Mr. Chair, I can probably handle an introduction. And then we can rely on them if the council has additional questions.

Even better.

So there's actually two pieces to what you guys are considering tonight. One would be an amendment to section 17 of the city code which regulates public utilities. And then the companion piece would be temporary land use regulation relating to water as it's referenced in the planning section of the code. So the temporary land use regulation would affect the part of the proposal that is section 21. And the ordinance ordinance relating to section 17, if the council adopted it, would go into effect immediately.

It would cap it would remove the exemption of the cap on for institutional high water users. And if you guys want to add anything else. Sorry, we surprised you. Didn't.

No. Thank you for that, Jen. I know with respect to the city attorney's office, Catherine Pastor here can likely provide some more information about the language. She's the one who helped draft it. And of course, Laura Breifer is here to sort of talk about how it affects the water supply in Department of Public Utilities. So I know, Jen, you

set us you set us

up with an intro about what the ordinances are and the TLUR. I'm not sure if there are any questions right now or if there's any additional information the body would like to to hear or see.

And just to clarify, it is on the council's, formal meeting for action tonight.

Councilmember Carlson.

Director Breifer, you've been before us a lot recently talking about just the historically warm winter that we've had. And I'm wondering if you could just share a little bit about what the current water outlook, situation is looking like for us.

Yes. Thank you council council member Carlson. So the water outlook has changed slightly since we were here last, a couple weeks ago, and not in the right direction. Because of our warming temperatures, we are seeing, a greater decrease in our, snow water equivalent and our snowpack in the Jordan River Provo, Utah watersheds where we receive most of our water. So that snow water equivalent is now at 49%.

And it really isn't expected to grow. The other issue is that runoff of that snowpack appears to be, happening much earlier than normal. And so those two two things combined, caused us to, declare a stage two, under our drought and water shortage contingency plan. And really we're asking everyone to conserve. And I think the changes to these ordinances sort of reflect equity across the system in terms of conservation and just being really good stewards of our water resources.

Not only this year, but we have droughts. We've historically had long range droughts. And the city has always planned ahead for those in our forty year water supply and demand plans, our our water conservation plans that we regularly update. So we're constantly monitoring and constantly updating, you know, all of our water management tools.

Councilmember Petra.

I just wanna say thank you for being so proactively prepared for this. I mean, I I there's I know there's no way to actually be prepared for what we're likely to face over the summer. But thank you. I feel capable. And my neighbors were just posting talking about when you made the declaration, they were frustrated saying, why are we being asked to conserve, but the institutional use isn't being addressed yet? So thank you. This is something that my neighbors are actually asking for and does safeguard us. So thank you.

Thank you. Yeah.

I you know, the the announcements and your briefing about the the state of our water and snow caps, it's it's very concerning. And we have been moving legislation over the years here in our city to to make an impact and to make a difference. We need everybody to make a difference on their own too. So thank you for bringing up this this ordinance change for us to discuss. Any other conversation?

Okay. Thank you so much for the briefing. We are going back going forward. So to discuss item number eight, this is an informational discussion of Cesar Chavez Boulevard, honorary street name change. Jennifer Bruno is gonna help us with, again, our council director to with a short briefing.

Thank you, mister chair. Several council members requested what options there were to consider changing the name of Cesar Chavez Boulevard, which is an honorary street name in the city based on recent news and investigations. And so we pulled up what the process is just to redo an honorary name essentially. What we kind of summarized is the process that we used for our last honorary street name, was for Pastor Franz Davis. The administration proposed the name.

Think both administration, administrative and legislative branches had been reached out to by that community and so that was just the formal path. So the council then submits the proposed honorary name to the public for feedback. And it's just for feedback. It's not a vote. Then notification is required to be mailed to all abutting property owners abutting the street that would be affected and welcome any comments via email, phone, written letters, etcetera.

Then the council held a public hearing where that specific name was discussed, and then the council voted to approve deny the request. I think there are several names that have been floated around in terms of options for renaming. And so there is a list of considerations that is in city code as it applies to naming city assets, which technically this is not a city asset. But the council has sort of informally used this as guidance when you have decided on honorary names. So the list, I'll just kind of quickly read it.

No name shall be chosen that causes confusion due to duplication or similarity of an existing named location with Salt Lake City or is the name of an entity associated with alcohol, tobacco, firearms or sexually oriented businesses or is the name of a religious or political organization or is a religious leader unless such leader is being honored solely for their civic contribution, may have an inappropriate a name may not have an inappropriate acronym, short form or modification, be discriminatory or derogatory, a name may not relate to or create a controversial situation within the city or recognize a single individual for a contribution similar or identical to a contribution made by others within a particular group associated with that individual. So that's the guidance for naming city assets. Like I said, you can I think the council, discussions with the mayor, can be flexible about that? The mayor has indicated support for changing the honorary name. So maybe we can just open up the floor.

Yes. Councilmember, some initial thoughts about about this and some names or ideas? Maybe you have received some emails or that you wanna share. Councilmember Petra.

I would really love for us to be a little bit deliberative and not knee jerk about this with the unabashed intention set that Cesar Chavez represented. The reason he was chosen was because of the assumption that he represented something wonderful from the Latino contribution. And since the pioneers fled religious persecution to Mexico, that Latin heritage here is really strong. And so that's the only marker I would like to leave is that this has been a perennial marker of the contribution of the Latinos to the improvement of a salt laker's life. And that is the overarching place mark that I would like bookmark that I'd like to leave here.

But I would like to actually create a more deliberative process that allows us to understand the community actually because I've heard several people going, can we stop naming things after people who are going to disappoint us? I've heard people say the movement is what is important. I've heard people say that there are ideas. So I could be open. I would like it to be community centered.

Any other thoughts? Councilmember Carlson.

I echo Councilmember Pietro's comments about a deliberative process And just want to say, from my perspective as a council member and also a Latina, just how disappointing this news was. And yeah, just disappointing and heartbreaking, honestly. And I think that's true for many members of the Latino community to have heard about this investigation and what occurred. And so I think a deliberative process makes sense and also echo an opportunity to really acknowledge the contributions of Latinos to not only the state, but also Salt Lake City as a whole and hope that in that deliberative process, we do that.

I will echo the sentiment here. You know, painful, horrid, disappointing. It was just all the feelings together. And but in so many ways, the fight, focusing on the fight, focusing on the community and the achievements of this movement that was accomplished by this movement effort is what gave me hope to continue highlighting the movement and the accomplishments. And I I agree that creating a process to allow for some feedback from the community.

I certainly have a personal preference with Dolores Huerta, fighting these fights alongside farm workers and highlighting her work as a leader in the community, as a Latina. And to me, it's important for visibility and to make sure that we are not throwing the baby with the water as well. And there is there was incredible accomplishments by our community. Well, big fights to to for our rights. And I wanna make sure that we don't just ignore that because of this horrible news by Cesar Chavez.

So I I will open more thoughts. Council member Dugan.

Thank you. And I I appreciate that because I I'm I agree with everything you've said, all council members. I think a deliberate process in acknowledging the work of the the farmers and putting food on our table and the and the hard work of the Latinos in that work. And But we do need a deliberative process and let it involve the whole community in this process. And it's not something that we need to rush into at this moment. But let's look at how we've done it in the past. But take it take it a time to do it carefully and very deliberately and thoughtfully.

I would like to add that I feel I feel like his name has to come down. Yeah. His name has to come back down from the streets. Yeah. That's Must come down. Certainly, we wanna make sure that we do it with you know, correctly, cost wise, you know, for respect to our taxpayers, but his name must come down. So council member Wharton.

Thank you, mister chair. I, just also wanna say that, you know, without, like, influencing the results, because I do wanna also hear from the community that, I like that we have an opportunity to well, we have a tradition of having streets named after civil rights leaders, icons in Salt Lake City, which is something I'm really proud of, that and jazz players. While this is a really sad situation and a really difficult situation, I think we have an opportunity here. We only have one honorary name of a civil rights leader that is a woman. And I think that we have a great opportunity to add to that, whether that's with Dolores Huerta or someone else that can represent more than one thing.

So I hope that, for me, I hope residents will speak to that issue and will come to us with their thoughts and suggestions on that issue. But that's the opportunity that I would like to see come out of this you know, really sad situation.

Councilman councilman Petrou.

The only addendum is I want it to be deliberative, but I do want it to have a timeline. I don't want us to lose this in the middle of everything, so I do want us to hold ourselves accountable to a timeline and and to make sure that the community, especially those represented, get a chance to express themselves.

I agree. I think that the question that I came to me when we were all talking about the delivery process is What does the delivery process look like for us? Because this is an honorary street naming. We basically get to decide what that is.

I was going to say that all of the processes in the past, the city has had a proposal that public then reacts to. So we might just need to think together about what a process where there's not a specific proposal or a specific name looks like.

I love a good task force.

Please, no. Please, for the love

of What about a survey?

I would love if there was a community effort that came to us similar to how Harvey Milk Boulevard came to be, where, you know, you had a lot of leaders and community members who kind of came together, know, coalesced around a request and did the work of researching that request and where it should be, what was most appropriate, all of that for the city to consider as the main option. So I hope that anyone that's listening to this will follow. I think that process went really well. I know there were some bumps in the road. But I think overall, it went really well in terms of it being community led, that you had multiple groups within the LGBTQ community that came together for that request.

So I hope we see something like that from the public.

So do you sorry, just clarification. Would you want council staff to convene that group? Or is it more just that we maybe reach out to key community leaders that maybe you guys know to request that they think about it and come back in a couple weeks with the recommendation?

Yeah. I maybe this is overly optimistic, but I feel like this is still very new news. I I feel pretty confident that I think community members will start organizing around this and that I feel confident that my colleagues and myself on the council will help to provide feedback in that effort. But think it will come organically. And I just hope that it comes.

I think we can do something organically without putting a specific timeline on it, but recognizing that we want to move relatively quickly. We don't wanna make this decision two years from now. And so I think that, you know, for anyone that's listening, I know there are leaders out there that are that they'll start work organizing around this. I think we wait for them.

Councilmember Young?

I just would like to add. I mean, I know that, the conversations have already begun. And so to me, I think it makes more sense for council members to just actively share those communications as they come in amongst the seven as opposed to convening an outside kind of organization or something like that. To me, that makes a lot of sense because then wherever the point of contact is, we can just agree to share it amongst ourselves to be able to kind of coalesce around solution.

That's great. And if you could share that also with staff, I think then we can begin to track it and maybe figure out how soon because if we're getting most requests about one name, you know, I think that can expedite our counsel process. Right?

Thank you.

So it's like important to also acknowledge the administration's response to this to interest in replacing the signs as soon as, you know, you know, we go through our process or and also acknowledging that we wanna make sure that we do it fiscally conservative, you know, doing it right. And so thank you to the administration for being part of that. So I think that gives us quite, quite direction. And I think it allows I know Councilmember Lopez Chavez also had strong feelings about this. Unfortunately, she's not online at the moment.

But I wanted to highlight that she did mention this into our conversations quite a bit lately. We have two written briefings items. If council members have any questions, feel free to raise those now or by email, and staff will get back to you. So that's, item number nine, a resolution, sure house streetcar extension interlocal agreement between the Utah Transit Authority and Salt Lake City. I imagine that's what it says there.

And then item number 10, a resolution for the Second Amendment to the Interlocal Agreement between Utah Inland Port Authority and Salt Lake City. And as this is the older part that we discussed this morning this morning? No, this early afternoon. It felt like a long time ago. From the RDA. So that finishes the items on this work session. There's reports from vice chair and the chair. No reports. There are announcements from the executive director.

Chen? Thank you, mister chair. There is now a vacancy on the Metro Water Board. That's one of the council's five slots. Annie Cromer, who many of you know and love, has recently resigned from the board.

So we now need to go through a process that's outlined in state law. But if you know anyone who might be interested in that board, where they can apply is slc.gov/boards. Also just forward names to us and we're happy as council staff to reach out to them and see if they're interested. The other question is does the council want to form kind of an interview group that worked last time where a couple of you interviewed the candidates that did come to us? I know it's not always you don't always have a plethora of free time, but any volunteers?

I see consumer Dugan volunteering with both hands right now. I hate you. I am okay doing it. We did it last time. We'll do it again. If unless consumer Young wants to do it. No. Okay. We can do it. Yeah. Okay. Thank you everyone. I now I I think this concludes the meeting for for the work session. We reconvene at 7PM for the formal meeting. Thank you, everyone. Bye.