City Council - Regular Meeting

And item number four, the straw poll on the Rio Grand District public Improvements. At the table we have Ashley and Christina. It's all yours, Ashley.

Thank you. We will keep this super short and sweet. Um, the CRA is requesting a straw pull. Uh, we can go to the next slide. Has the request on it, please. Thank you. Um, Siri is requesting a straw pull to allocate an unbudgeted uh 3,75 $75,360 from the depot district infrastructure improvements program to the depot district infrastructure design, construction, and site work project. Uh this project budget was created through budget amendment two of FI24 to enable the CRA to begin implementing plans for the Rio Grand District public improvements. Um so the funds could be used to support the following activities. Um public improvements design site work to prepare the properties for construction and public improvements construction.

Thank you Ashley. Any questions for Ashley? I will look for a straw poll. Mr. Chair, I move that we allocate I was counting on reading on that. So if we can put it back, that will be very helpful. Um I I can now memorize that. Thank you. that we that I I move I move that the uh that we allocate uh 3,75,316 from the depot district infrastructure improvement program to the depot district infrastructure design construction and site work project. Um and I feel like that's enough.

All right, any questions? Show your feelings. And that passes unanimously. Thank you very much. We're moving on to number five. Report and announcement from the executive director. Seeing none, report from the chair, vice chair, madam, vice chair. I have nothing further to report and uh CRA staff. Danny, floor is yours.

I'm getting ready, Mr. Chair. Thank you for the opportunity. I think we have a presentation. Um, first off, I just want to thank you, Mr. chair and and the rest of the board for the opportunity today to present our items. We know there were some pretty good issues today, so thank you for the time and everyone's involvement in getting us through those. So, acknowledge that and appreciate it. Um, couple quick updates for you if we can jump to the next slide. First, some project updates. Um, 22 South Jeremy Street is a property we own uh over by Reduana 2, right adjacent to the Folsam Corridor. It's a property we've been working on what would be the remediation for and getting it ready for redevelopment. Happy to report that we have received that regulatory approval and we hope to begin cleanup on the property. This will address some of the long-term ground contamination on the site and allow us to move it forward with activity along Folsome Corridor as we redevelop it. There will be a public meeting held on April 28th to share the information and gather any community input on the property. Another project update is we have released the request for proposals for what we're calling the Perry block. This is the community garden site on 100 South over by 600 West that we own. 2.3 acre site. The RFP calls for a mixeduse development with a strong residential component including uh home ownership uh for sale housing component as well. And we're also asking for groundf flooror arts and cultural space as a preference for that project. Proposals are due June 12th for that. Next slide, please. Following up on the earlier discussion regarding our affordable housing priorities and funding, we are pleased to announce that we have formalized the agreement with CDCU to create the down payment assistance loan program. This is a $2 million allocation that you as a board approved back in fiscal year 25 as part of the residential wealth buildinging program. Then as Bron and Tracy explained earlier, this is designed to

help load to moderate income individuals and families ex affordable housing and build wealth. Um this is expected to support about 20 first-time home buyers earning 80% or greater of area median income. Um and it includes Westside Community Initiative funds um for eligible households west of I-15. So look forward to rolling that out. Next slide, please. Quick update on Japan Town. Over the past six weeks, staff has been working with the Japanese community and the arts council to select a mural artist. This mural will be located on the multithnic senior high-rise tower that faces Japan Town. Um, four artists were pulled from the pre-qualified artist pool and invited to submit proposals. The committee selected the final artist and the design will be revealed at the April Japanese Festival opening ceremony. So, the mural will span the majority of that building facade at 3,000 square feet and cost approximately 72,000. Uh, and you as board are invited to attend that festival and see the reveal of the final design. Next slide, please. Continuing with the mural theme, uh, in North Temple, we received 10 eligible applications for walls uh, and six have been selected. Depending on funding, we will move forward with five to six of those. Artists again are being chosen by the public art programs pre-qualified lists and then the selected artists are expected to complete the murals and installation during the summer months. Next slide, please. I was looking at you in case you wanted to say something.

Thank you.

Okay, you you had that that look, so I wanted to pause. Um and and finally, we are pleased uh following the board and the city council's actions last month that the UTA board has approved the interlocal funding agreements for uh moving forward with the S-line extension. So this execution of the agreements will be the next step before construction. Uh first steps will involve initial civil engineering construction work and then demolition of the sugar house buildings. So construction is expected to start in the coming weeks uh pending permit issuance. So, if anyone wants to go take any pictures in front of those murals before comes down, uh you are been properly notified that you're on notice that that is coming down and and those are going to go away. So,

uh next slide. I believe that's it, Mr. Chair, unless there are any questions from members of the board. Thank you, Danny. Mr. Sure. Quickly, I you know, not not to to ask for your answer right now, but maybe you know, a couple years ago, we started I know that your staff has worked very hard on this on the uh leasing of um uh business fronts um program type of I don't know what you call it, but do you have any update updates on where that is?

We do. We uh staff continues to work on that. That is something that we are looking to bring to the board in the future in terms of what that program and policy may be. our focus has been on rolling out the CDLP. So now that that is uh about to be rolled out and go public, we can dive deeper into what is the leasing assistance or whatever program name we're going to come up with and we anticipate bringing it soon. So yes, we're still moving forward with it. Thank you.

All right. Thank you, St. Danny. And that uh or we have a written briefing on theformational semiannual status report of the CRA commercial loan portfolio and nothing on the consent side of the house. No further close session. We are adjourned and we will be meeting in the we begin at 4:01. So you guys have 16 minutes. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Please.

Hey, hey, hey.

Heat. Heat. Hello honey.

Hey. Hey. Hey.

Heat. Heat. session meeting. Uh our meetings are public and you're welcome to join us in person or by watching from the council agenda page, Zoom or YouTube. Uh we hope you continue to join us in whichever manner you feel most comfortable. This is a work session meeting during which

there is no public comment. Uh you can join us uh at the April 21st meeting uh at 7 p.m. uh for the formal meeting to share your comments. We of course welcome your feedback anytime by mail uh at PO Box 145476, Salt Lake City, Utah 84114. You can also email us at council.comslc.gov or by uh our 24hour phone comment line 8015357654. Comments we receive on agenda topics are shared with council members and posted in our website slc.govconsel. The first item on the agenda is an ordinance community clean energy programs. We're going to welcome Liha Weaver, council deputy director at the table. Uh Sophia Nicholas, sustainability deputy director and glade saw senior energy and climate program manager. Hi, thank you. Um, I wanted to just do a quick introduction and then I'll turn time over to sustainability staff. As you saw from the memo in your packets, um, this is the culmination of many years and hours of work. Um, the city has participated with 18 other communities to set up the community clean energy program with Rocky Mountain Power. Following the public service commission approval order, all of those communities must now decide whether to officially join the program. Joining means that Rocky Mountain Power proceeds with setting up the program for all of those participating communities and then the program begins early in uh 2027 and all customers, power customers are enrolled but can opt out. Um there will also be some assistance for low-income customers available and that is um more

information about that will be made public and also is available on um the website. Uh the monthly charged is determined based on the participation rate and so it could change but currently is estimated about $4 per month. Um, I also wanted to highlight for the council that there will be some mailing expenses and the um, sustainability department will be holding an amount for startup costs in the event that is needed to reimburse Rocky Mountain Power. And once the council takes action to determine whether to join the program or not, um both the council staff and the sustainability staff and mayor staff will coordinate on more outreach and information to the community so that they know what to expect um as Rocky Mountain Power is setting up. And with that, I'll turn time over to Sophia and Glade with more information. Thank you.

Thanks, Lewa. And thanks everyone for having us here today. We are very excited to be talking to you about this major milestone with the community clean energy program. Next slide. So just a note on uh language. We have uh been using the Utah renewable communities as an informal name for the program over the years. Uh we are moving towards using the formal name which is community clean energy program. That's what will be on Rocky Mountain P's website. That's what will be in the notices. Um, we'll still use URC for the agency, which is the collection of 19 communities, but not the program. Next slide. So, what is it? It's a brand new program uh that was just approved, giving Rocky Mountain Power customers and eligible communities the ability to choose clean, reliable energy. It's been designed thoughtfully and intentionally since 2019 when HP411 passed and was the enabling statute to create the program and uh been thoughtfully designed with the utility and Utah renewable communities of which Salt Lake City is a member. It was approved by the public service commission and found to be in the public interest on March 4th, 2026. Salt Lake City now has the opportunity to consider an ordinance to formally adopt the program, meaning all eligible Rocky Mountain Power customers in Salt Lake City will now have the option to choose clean energy directly on their on their bill and they will be automatically enrolled, we're estimating, early 2027 with the choice to exit at any time. Next slide. So why develop this new clean energy program? Uh just a little recap here. Uh it's solutionsoriented. We all know that

there's a growing demand for energy in our city, in our region, in our state. This program at the moment is really the only game in town for bringing online clean energy to meet these growing needs of our community and doing so in a way that supports the environment and keeps the air clean. scale. We have a unique opportunity to drive investment at scale to really move the needle on clean energy investment. The Utah renewable communities represent about 25% of Rocky Mountain Powers's electricity sales in Utah. We don't know if all 19 are going to move forward, but if they do, this is more than anything that has been done in the past. Choice. It offers homes and businesses in our communities a new option for where their electricity comes from through Rocky Mountain Power in a way that current offerings do not. Investment, clean energy investment supports jobs and economies often in rural areas, but it benefits the whole state and the whole region. And then finally, health and environment. Clean energy helps to avoid pollution from other energy sources. Next slide. So, what will the proposed program look like for customers? This is just a little example. Um, customers will continue to be Rocky Mountain Power customers, um, receiving the same reliable service that they always have as Rocky Mountain Power customers. They will begin to receive notices if Salt Lake City adopts the ordinance in late 2026 and will be automatically enrolled in the program in early 2027 with the choice to opt out at any time. Glade will cover this in more detail, but there will be no cost to opt out initially and after um a couple of months after six months to be clear, there will be a fee to terminate participation.

And there will be this new clean energy line item schedule 100 on Rocky Mount Power bills. And I'll turn it over to Glade after I do the next slide, which is the PSC order. We won't go into a lot of detail on what the order itself says, but just the highlights here is that the state regulators approved the program. Uh they gave us clarity on key details like the initial program rate, customer opt- out information while acknowledging further items will be worked on in parallel and will be brought back to uh the commission for a follow-up ruling. We have now with this March 4th decision a 90-day clock for communities to consider the ordinance. So that's through June 2nd. In parallel to communities working on the ordinance consideration, the URC board and support staff will be working with Rocky Mount Power and other parties to the docket to continue um working through the remaining items. At the same time, we're also working on a resource procurement for clean energy, which is really exciting. uh for the first for the first project or projects for the directly to serve the Utah renewable communities program. And with that, I'm going to turn it over to Glade. And before I do that, I just want to um acknowledge and thank Council Member Dugan, who is has been very much involved in this over the entire period. We couldn't be where we are without him. He's the chair of the URC board. So, thank you for all you do.

Next slide.

Thanks, Sophia. Okay, I just want to elaborate a little bit. Uh Sophia mentioned that the public service commission had approved a number of items with their program approval uh including the initial program rate, the rate that will show up as that schedule 100 item on the electricity bills. So let's start with residential customers. Uh uh we asked for and received a simple $4 per month residential uh charge as opposed to a volume charge that might be hard to to understand. So, just a very clear flat rate per month. And that rate includes a few things. It includes $3.88 per month uh for uh the program fee to actually pay for the the cost of the program. Uh as well as 12 cents per month to cover a surge charge to cover uh uh credits for low-income customers. And those credits, the way it would work is that same $3.88 $88 charge will show up on a low-income customer's bill, but they'll also receive a 3.88 credit netting out to zero. Uh, in terms of eligibility, uh, basically all uh, residential customers in participating communities are able to participate with the exception of those who participate in schedule 135, which is uh, the net metering program for those who have rooftop solar or and are kind of grandfathered in on an older system. Uh next slide please. Wanted to uh uh elaborate a little on the lowincome offerings associated with the program. So for qualifying low-income customers uh the following provisions uh exist. There's very importantly ongoing outreach and engagement. We need to make sure that folks understand what this program is, what uh what implications the implications are for remaining in it. Uh for those qualifying low-income

customers, as I mentioned on the last slide, participation is free. You uh as a result of that enhanced bill credit and like all customers, uh low-income qualifying low-income customers can always choose to opt out of the program at any time. But for these customers, there is a wave termination fee. So they can opt out indefinitely beyond the uh termination of the cancellation window that uh Sophia referred to. Next slide please. Uh and just to to show how the the low-inccome offerings work. So to qualify uh the customer will need to be a Rocky Mountain Power customer that receives a Rocky Mountain Power bill, live in a participating community, and have a household income at or below 150% of the federal poverty level. Uh and then there are sort of two pathways. One is to apply for the home energy assistance uh target program or heat program. Uh and then once they're part of that, they would automatically be enrolled in the help program, Rocky Mountain Powers schedule 3 program. Uh so that's one pathway. The other is just to directly apply for the help program uh and receive the the assistance. So once once you're enrolled in help, you're in schedule three and those credits apply. Next slide, please. Want to turn quickly to non-residential customers. Uh they are build at a volumetric rate or per kilowatt hour usage uh based rate uh of uh 0.00609 00609 or or basically 610 of a penny per kilowatt hour plus a that uh same 12 cent per month uh sir charge to help fund the low income credit uh credits. And just a quick example, so if a medium-siz office building were to use uh 6880 kilwatt hours uh in a given month, um without the program, their

bill would be $847.39 per month. with the program, the bill would go up by $422 uh for a 5% increase. So that's what that looks like. And those same um eligibility requirements apply uh sorry apply here that schedule 135 customers with net metering are not eligible, but other customers are for non-residential. Uh just briefly, next slide, please. Sorry. Um, I wanted to hit on something about long-term rates and the way that the public service commission addressed those in their uh, order. Uh, like all utility rates, uh, rates for the community clean energy program are going to be periodically adjusted uh, under uh, no more than annually under the statute. But importantly, so that raises a question of what's going to happen in the future with rates. But importantly, the public service commission uh in their uh uh ruling found no evidence in the record that suggests that program rates are likely to meaningfully increase from the initial rates approved in the order. Instead, under Rocky Mountain P's proposal, they would decrease uh rather significantly after the first two years. So, the idea is that people would be making their opt- out decision during that termination window and beyond based on those high early rates. And and that's important. So folks are are are informed and making uh a good decision about their uh desire to continue to part participate in the program. Um next slide please. So just to orient you, we've thrown out a lot of dates and time periods, but again the the program approval was March 4th. That started the 90-day clock that Sophia mentioned, uh, culminating in a June 2nd deadline for the communities to adopt the program. Uh, after that, there would be a fivemonth period while Rocky

Mountain Power gets their billing system set up, their software, their uh, 1800 800 number and and that sort of thing. And then beginning on or around November 2nd, we would have the implementation date that would start a 60day or two-month noticing period after which there would be a commencement date when the when the uh bill impacts start to be felt after which they'd have four months to uh continue to cancel or opt out of the program without a termination fee. So to be clear, there's six total months, two before the bill impact start and four after the bill impact start for folks to have the opportunity to uh opt out of the program. Uh there would be after the uh cancellation window I just mentioned, after that six-month period, there would be a $30 termination fee for residential customers and a for for non-residential customers, that fee will vary based on uh their size and and what rate schedule they're in. and and there's also a similar provision for new and annex customers um for in regarding noticing and uh the cancellation having a cancellation period. And I think the last thing I wanted to touch on briefly is oh sorry next slide. Thank you. She's looking at my own computer. Um there are other programs offerings for clean energy that Rocky Mountain Power provides for their customers that you may have heard of some of these but I wanted to touch on them briefly. Uh there's the blue sky program that allows participants to voluntarily contribute $1.95 per 100 kilowatt hour block or a $1.95 uh sorry 1.95 cents per kilowatt hour to support renewable energy. That usually goes to support local grants for things like roof rooftop solar but largely goes towards funding the purchase of what what are known as renewable energy

certificates or wrecks. and those can come from anywhere in the nation. So with that latter class of project, those projects don't necessarily benefit our communities directly. So it's a good program, but it has different objectives. Um similarly, there's a subscriber solar program. There's an existing 20 megawatt uh solar farm in southern Utah uh uh that offers folks the opportunity to opt into that program, but the participation in that program has been capped and Rocky Mountain Power has not signaled uh any indication to or any uh desire uh to go forward with building new projects, at least not at this time. Finally, uh folks can always if they have the resources put rooftop solar on their homes and businesses, but that that uh you know requires the resources and also um uh you know doesn't work for every location. So we think this is a a great program that complements these other programs and importantly it's largecale and supports uh new regionally based clean energy projects. Next slide please. So the next slide talks about the ordinance requirement. Uh there's a good write up about it in your staff report. Um but there is a requirement if Salt Lake City would like to move forward with our participation to adopt an ordinance that we have placed in uh Title 9 Chapter 50. Next slide. the ordinance itself uh really just enables all of our uh community members to have the choice of whether they want to remain in the program or opt out of the program. And then finally, um Lehwa mentioned some budgetary considerations. Overall, there's a lot of conservativism built into the program as a whole. We're happy to talk about any questions you

have in that regard. Uh we could go on and on to be honest. Uh but um the one thing that we are going to be bringing before the council in budget amendment five is a request for uh Salt Lake City to sign the startup cost agreement with Rocky Mountain Power. This is a little bit of a um um I don't know chicken and the egg situation. Uh Rocky Mountain Power has administrative startup costs that they need to pay for that need to occur before they can start collecting program revenue. But the program revenue will ultimately uh pay for those incurred startup costs. But they require a contract to backs stop those in the case that there is a immediate and really catastrophic um level of unsubscriptions um within really just the first month of the program. We've run the numbers. We feel like it's almost um impossible for there to be enough optouts. uh for Salt Lake City to be on the hook to actually need to expend those funds. However, we do need to request them so that we can sign the contract. And I'm happy. Next slide. We'll just leave the summary slide here for you and happy to answer any questions.

Council members. Yes. Com. Um very excited for this program. I think my one question is the onetime termination fee of $30. Where does that go? Is it go back to Rocky Mountain Power? Does it go specifically to the renewable program in general? Where does where does that um get allocated to? It goes to Rocky Mountain Power and it is to just help uh stabilize the rates overall. So, it directly goes to the program. Any other comments?

Yeah, I appreciate that. All the work and effort on this program and then the just maybe a a comment on people moving in to the a participating city or moving out from a participating city. Uh how does the opt out work on that? Could you kind of just inform people when you move in? How many months do you have until you can opt out? That's a great question and uh a lot of these details we're we're still confirming, but it's our understanding that for new or co new customers who who move to a home in a participating community or for someone who uh whose community gets annexed into the program which could happen coming from a county for example. Um those customers we believe will have a 60 uh day window for a noticing period during which no program rate applies and during which no termination fee applies. At the end of that 60 days both the program rate and the termination fee would apply. So unlike the the um initial program that there's not that fourmonth extra window there. So and that's just uh how it was set up in the administrative rules and in the statute. So,

thank you. And can you also kind of touch on the low-inccome plan is a great program, but there's not there's a lot more uh residents eligible for the low-inccome plan that are are not participating. And can you talk to us through how uh the program is set up to uh educate the population that could actually be served by this and with no cost? Yeah, it's a great question and I'll just note that by statute all of the communities are required to have their own low-income outreach plan and we had to submit that uh with our application to the public service commission. So those low-income outreach plans talk about this uh credit that that that we worked worked out. They talk about the no uh termination fee and they talk about all of the community organizations that we have identified to work directly with to make sure that people are aware of this program. The um social service providers and others that are working um uh you know in in this space anyway with their clients and and community members that are low-income serving. We are also more than happy to take any other suggestions that the council has uh for ones that might not be on our list. Um the but to your to your point about how many participants are actually on the help program um there are a lot more people that are eligible to be on Rocky Mount P's existing help program than than currently are on the help program. So we see this as one of the benefits of our program could be that we're raising awareness of the community clean energy program. People can can can join help so that they receive the you know the ter or the the the the fee waiver for schedule 100 but at the same time then they become eligible for the

rest of Rocky Mountain P's um existing utility assistance. So, and we have been uh talking with various community organizations about helping us with that outreach, including Weber State actually that um is prepared to do it on behalf of the state of Utah. Yes. Go ahead. recently, you know, Rocky Mountain Power released their 2025P and uh can you walk us through how much uh wind and solar was on that RP and what their CO2 emissions were going forward?

Yeah, h happy to discuss that. So, as as uh Councilman uh Dugan mentioned, Rocky Mountain Power recently came out with their 2025 integrated resource plan update. That's the the it's a planning the integrated resource plan is a a planning cycle they go through every two years and in the off years the even years they do what's called an update kind of a light version uh of the plan and in that most in each of the integrated resource plans the company looks out 20 years looks at the load they need to serve uh looks at the resources and the costs that they can choose from how to serve that load the different types of energy sources and they make decisions they they develop what's called the preferred portfolio, the the path that they uh want to go forward with. And in this most recent update for the Eastern Service Territory for Rocky Mountain Power, there are no new renewable builds and uh and for across their entire system, their CO2 emissions go up. And I think this really underscores what Sophia said about us sort of being the only game in town. uh you know a few years ago there were uh plans for a really big buildout of clean energy from the company and their recent plans have changed that and so this makes it all the more important I think that that we have this opportunity for our residents and businesses

thank you Mr. here. Thank you. I we appreciate the the update. This is a big deal. It took, you know, no time to get to this place, right? Uh it was very fast uh very smooth. Uh no, I obviously this is a big big deal in so many ways. It's a huge milestone for for the cities that are participating uh and showing our commitment to to clean energy and to the reduction of um emissions and to uh getting our electricity from the right sources. So, thank you for the work on this. Thank you, Council Member Dugan, for you being uh the one assigned to this or you assign yourself to it. But like, thank you for for really

He knows more than he ever wanted to, but I think you're enjoying it. You have you have been uh who really carry the water here uh or the cables, I don't know. U Thank you for for all the work. We appreciate the presentation. Thank you very much.

Um moving on to item number two. This is an ordinance about camping and obstruction public property uh and park rules text amendment. We're going to welcome Nick Tarvet, council deputy director. We're getting all the deputy directors today to present to us. Uh Rachel Otto, chief of staff, and Sara Mononttoya, senior city attorney. Uh Nick, can you give us uh and uh different people that I presented uh um former council member Johnston uh and Jable, but thank you Nick. Can you start?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will give a um quick highle overview of the background on this and the key changes. Then Andrew will go in depth. I we think that it would be helpful for the council members to pull up the staff report um because we'll probably go through that quite a bit. So, this is a briefing on proposed updates to the current camping ordinance to address challenges arising from increased use of public spaces such as parks, sidewalks, park strips to be used as living spaces for sleeping, storing property, and preparing meals. The proposed updates proposal updates the definition of camping and consolidates existing rules to be clearer and focused on behaviors that cause problems while aiming for humane and compassionate enforcement. The key changes are camping now includes more than just tents. It covers broader living accommodation behaviors. It applies to all public property, not just parks. It includes sidewalks. And the new definition includes sleeping outdoors or in a vehicle on public property during closed hours, typically 11:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m., leaving personal property unattended on public property closed to the public, and using public space or vehicles as residents of dwelling for living accommodation purposes. Andrew,

uh, thanks, Nick. And make sure we identify that, Commander Jared Gilbert from the police department's here joining me today. Thank you very much, Commander. Uh we also have uh attorneys in the in the audience who can help correct anything I misstate, intentionally or unintentionally. So direct your attention to uh page two. We'll start on the staff report under additional background information. The the first thing I want to point out to everybody here is we're talking about a very specific city ordinance. Uh I I wish that I could incorporate a solution to housing difficulties or shelter difficulties, um vehicle difficulties, everything else. nuisance issues in the city in this ordinance, but we cannot. This is not intended to solve homelessness. We are working very hard in other avenues and other entities and organizations to do that. This pertains to our current camping ordinance in Salt Lake City proper. So, I want to put that out there because in our discussions, it gets very easy to go to places of talking about all of the struggles we've got or parks has or streets has or the general public has and we can't necessarily address all of them here. although we're willing to take in any feedback and keep working on those as we can in different parts of the of the code. Okay. All right. So, we've had a no camping ordinance for a number of years. Uh it has outlawed camping with a few exceptions over the years. I think the ordinance we have right now when I read it initially really reflected the reality of decades ago when boy scout troops would go camp in public parks or up the canyon. it did not necessarily envision people living in vehicles full-time as a place or the number of people without housing finding places to sleep at night. Um so we tried to update this to reflect the new reality. However, in the course in the last year, two years of um going through this, the new reality has shifted again. Uh two years ago, if you remember, we had a lot of people camping in pug poke parks, rights of way, park strips um across the city during the daytime and nighttime

and vacant properties. We don't have the same volume anymore. It is still a problem. Um but if you'll notice, we've got a lot of people who are in shelter. We have 600 more temporary shelter beds than we did a couple of years ago that are still operational. We're working to keep those open all the time. The police department has done enforcement and we have heard of people moving outside the city limits to other cities. There's still a need for housing and shelter in this county that's not being fully addressed. We're working on that. Um, but we don't see the same issues in Salt Lake City we did a couple of years ago. So, it may feel different to you than it did maybe a year ago talking about this issue. The definition of camping now, it used to be really focused on setting up something that looked like a camp, shelter of some sort. that was sort of a threshold to talk about camping. In the new ordinance, we're trying to address um people who are are living outside in camping with actually our right to be in public spaces at certain times and hours. Okay? So, if you'll see in here, it talks about public areas. That means including parks. We don't want to criminalize people being in a public park or on a public sidewalk and using those things like uh we we envision them to be used. However, we also are trying to dissuade people from camping in those places overnight or doing things that are campreated. So, in here you're going to see the camping definition now includes sleeping outdoors on page two near the bottom of your page. Um, between these hours of 11 and 5 in vehicles, which is brand new. We've never identified living in a vehicle as camping before. Um, and lo leaving personal property un unattended in an area that's public like that. Um now we also have um something called limiting accommodation purposes there. This is to address uh the difficulty the police department others have had in and identifying that someone's not setting up a shelter but there probably are camping there at times and there's a list of things here sleeping storing

personal property preparing consuming meals establishing sleeping quarters laying down bedding uh temporary structures etc. um that would identify somebody is camping even if they're not setting up a camp per se. I know some of you are probably thinking about this thing that's tricky. It is tricky. This is hard. Um now from the police off perspective, um you'll get his input as well from the department about how to enforce this in a way that trying to balance uh personal liberty liberty rights with our public spaces. This section is meant to say if you're seeing two or more of these activities, it's probably indicating it is a camping situation. and you could intervene. Does that make sense? Okay. Now, that's the definition of camping that we're going to go off of here. If you go uh up to page one, uh actually that hits it right there. Page one, page two, and then you go down to page three, excuse me. Um in page three, there are some exceptions obviously to this. Uh no camping. if it's authorized by a property owner along a parade a parade route within 24 hours um such as days of 47 parade in our case or the mayor declares a state of emergency even in those exception times you'll see below that um it's still not appropriate to camp in certain places where it would be an immediate threat um to person's public health safety within 1,000 ft of certain facilities um 500 ft of daycarees, senior centers, schools, 10 ft driveways or building entrances or exits or in a repairarian corridor overlay area. So those are the exceptions to this um where even if you're um authorized perhaps or that it doesn't doesn't fit. So that's a technical stuff questions so far about this members

question. Thank you. And I do see that you put in there for parade routes 24 hours before is uh included. Just wanted to know um that that was one of the hypotheticals I was going to ask about. Should we expect people to pull permits or we have families that have the tradition of coming to camp or barbecue um sometimes many days in advance to Pioneer Day? Just kind of curious what we're thinking of enforcement on that.

Well, it's hard obviously, right? Uh we're trying to allow the use of the public space for positive parades, right? In this case, we're not necessarily interested in going through a parade route and saying you seem to fit, you don't seem to fit, you fit, you don't fit. That's not what we're trying to do here. We're trying to carve out a time where from an enforcement perspective, it's probably a little less intense enforcement in those areas. As long as people are following general rules of decorum and and public spaces, those kind of things. So, we're trying to balance both those things because a parade is a rare event. It doesn't happen every week, every month, every year. Um, but maybe once a year in these cases. So, it's more the exception. We're trying not to sort of throw the whole thing um in there with this exception. Um we're not trying to sort of write a policy that's going to address the exception as the rule. Let's keep the rule as sort of a general rule and then the exception happened those times.

Okay. Thank you.

The other big piece here is occupied vehicles. Um, in Salt Lake City right now, we don't have a lot of daytime camping, per se, but we have a lot more vehicles perhaps we're used to. I don't have the exact numbers right now, but we know that reports of vehicles are climbing and approaching that of actual camps in the city. People living in a vehicle generally have no place else to go that is their home. Often times the vehicles are older um probably not in as uh good a repair as maybe newer vehicles are and maybe are not even allowed in certain RV parks because of the age of the vehicle or the condition. It's a really tough situation because when they're parking on a public street, it also could be a public health issue with the county overseas with graywater release or other issues coming from a police perspective. Sometimes it's not necessarily the actual owner of the vehicle or person of the vehicle. It's everything else that comes around for business, so to speak. So, it does create a nuisance at times uh on the street. Right now, our current ordinance is a parking ordinance that doesn't allow you to park in a public street face for more than 48 hours. We've had struggles because that means you have to go out and inform somebody you're violating. They have 48 hours to comply, but we also have to get back to that exact place within that 48 hour 48 hours to mark that. and it was over a weekend or our volume is high enough you can't get back in that t time frame. So it took us weeks and weeks um actually last year and a half ago we were at about 12 weeks um before we could actually get to a report of a of a parking issue. We're down to about two weeks now give or take maybe less than that now. Um this ordinance because it would define that as camping that means the police department could now be part of the enforcement of that. So it wouldn't be a parking enforcement thing alone. It would be a camping enforcement. The parking restriction would still apply uh but the police could be called in situation to address that violation of the of the ordinance. Does that make

sense? Now, I have not answered where people go. Um that's a huge problem and I understand that'd be a question for this council and it's a question for all of us. We are still working as hard as we can to figure out temporary shelter solutions for individuals, places to legally be um that would also accommodate uh the particular needs of folks who are unsheltered or living in a vehicle. We don't have enough of those, but we're still working on it. One of the problems we have um to contend with in our ordinance is we're not we're an island in some ways right now, but we're trying not to be an island completely. If the cities around us are also enforcing on a higher level than we are, it does create an imbalance and a problem city. Um, if we're too strict, it means other cities also feel the impact here. We're sort of united in that. So, we're trying to we're trying not to be an outlier too much, but also not push this too hard to criminalize um a state of being. Also knowing that some people who are experiencing homelessness may be violating other laws or in vehicles are violating other laws as well. From an enforcement perspective, it's tough. Um, so we're trying to balance all those views right now in this ordinance as it stands before you,

Mr. Chair. That's one more. You just mentioned vehicles and so you're uh grouping that all together. You're not being specific like, you know, he's got a twoc car uh, you know, a Honda Civic or motor home. They're all they're both the same. You're not differentiating the two different living arrangements. They're all the same, and you're going to treat them all the same. Is that how just to make it simple on the the enforcement side of the house? Yeah. In this proposal, it doesn't differentiate types of vehicles. It's the activity in the vehicle.

It's the activity in the vehicle and surrounding the vehicle. Okay. All right. Thanks, Okay. Council member Carlson.

Um, thank you for this presentation and I think I just want to um share some statements before moving towards my questions and I think um want to just share that I realize that we're balancing two things here. We're balancing the very real impacts that um uh camping can have as it intersects with substance abuse and mental health challenges and the impacts on parks, public spaces, and surrounding businesses and right ofways. I understand those impacts. I experience them in my district. At the same time, I am concerned and frankly not interested in a further criminalization of poverty or homelessness. And so I'm holding both of those realities in my mind and it's from that nuance perspective I I want to ask a couple questions. Um the first question is we've got some alternative response teams already set up in the city. How will those alternative response teams that include social workers and encouraging connection to services be deployed in conduct in in um connection with the enforcement of this or in with the enforcement of this proposed ordinance? I I think that this starts well in advance of enforcement of the ordinance. So, uh this council and the city have funded the volunteers of America street outreach team for a couple of years in the city specifically for um doing outreach to individuals who are experiencing homeless homelessness. That should continue on regardless of this. In context of the other responses, the police department has social workers involved for specifically trained in mental illness and mental health support, crisis response support, those things. A lot of our interventions have been targeted towards camping. So, we have a a weekly meeting uh that is led by HART, the homeless engagement team in the city that includes uh county

partners, law enforcement, outreach partners, private uh partners as well, and the city urban services team. and they take all the reports across the city through the app or calls and they go through and evaluate and um they have a staff member who goes out and evaluates the report where it is the situation on the ground. Um and then they talk through who's engaging with whom. The VO outreach team oftentimes says that we're engaging with these this couple here. We're working with them on a housing voucher. Could we work with them for a little longer before they get displaced to try and get them into a shelter or a housing situation without losing contact with them? We've done that a lot. That'll continue to happen as long as we have that outreach team. From the other side, the urban services team, we coordinate with them about where, when, and how they're going out. We don't want to throw heavy equipment at everything and doesn't need heavy equipment. Sometimes it's a matter of we've given trash bags out to individuals out there and they picked up their own litter at times. We're going to try and do the least restrictive approach possible all the time and coordinate these across all our entities. With that being said, the county health department sometimes says that this is a county health violation. It has to be addressed. And there are times when that's hard. Um it's hard because it means we have to go in with our resources and help clean up. In one situation recently, it was in the sign of a mountain. Um a very dangerous place to do this and difficult. But because the county health department also identified this is a serious issue that um needs to be dealt with, we had to sort of invest the time to do that. Um, our intent in that crew is to make sure we're all coordinated and we're not duplicating services. We're also not ignoring services and we're trying to get the right support in advance of that. Often times outreach teams are not very interested in going out with the police officers to um a group of individuals um because it's two different responses perhaps from the individual on the street. They may be receptive to somebody doing outreach. They may not be from an officer for whatever the reasons are. So we try and do that a little separately at times, but the police department social workers

will be involved in a lot of those situations. There's also a difference now between people who oftentimes are camping for long periods of time in the foothills or along Jordan River and folks who are sort of are laying on the sidewalk on Main Street or in a park strip by a track station with not stuff necessary around them. Um, in those situations is very different needs perhaps. We still want outreach at times to go with them, but we may not need a full cleanup for somebody there versus the foothills. And if you talk about the two-minute sort of situation here, um that's a general rule we're trying to use to help balance enforcement with realistic time frames to clean up. Um from moving from a sidewalk or in front of a building entrance, we can't necessarily be there for half an hour or 45 minutes. Um if it takes that long because or in the middle of a street, we need to get them out of the street. We also want the officers to work with the social workers so that if there's mental illness situations going on, it's not just physically move them out there, but we try and get the right services to them. Which is why from the police department perspective, they have access to VA detox beds on a daily basis to the um to St. Vincent Depal overnight shelter on a daily basis to try and offer that for folks to get in there if they need that. Um, generally speaking from an enforce enforceforcement perspective, and I'll I'll speak, they got to turn. Um, but the police department generally when they come across somebody and they get notification they're violating the the ordinance. Generally, people do move. They pack up and they move along. There's very few situations where it's a confrontation necessarily. We try and avoid that anyway. Um, does that answer what you're trying to get to? Yeah, it leads me to my next couple of questions, which is exactly what you talked about are, you know, where we are

now at this point in time versus what you alluded to a year ago is is different. And currently the practice is, you know, I imagine law enforcement approaches an encampment and people pack up and they move along to another part of the city and the problem's not solved. And so I'm curious about with enforcement of this ordinance, how does it solve that problem, if at all?

Well, when you're talking about somebody who doesn't have a place to live, the ordinance doesn't solve that. I think when you talk about the city budget from the CRA or the or the regular city budget and affordable housing investments and our support of emergency shelters and the mayor's work on the state homeless services board, etc. We're trying to address that in those environments. um this ordinance does not necessarily address that, doesn't answer that question for you. And so that's hard that way. And sorry, just last thing I'll say is that if that's the case, what's the purpose of this ordinance given how does it materially change what's already been going on for the past year or so that has changed many of the conditions for the better in our parks and our public spaces?

Well, I think the first thing is we have not had a really way to address vehicles. um that's a huge um sort of hole in our ordinance that wasn't anticipated years ago. So I think that's an immediate sort of change that will probably be felt mostly in the city in a lot of ways. The second piece is um right now in the code you can't obstruct a sidewalk for instance and you have like two minutes for reasonable notice to not do that. But in the other part of the code it says reasonable notice without defining that. It makes it difficult from an enforcement perspective that consistency for officers trained on and make sure they're all following the same expectation. Um that's a change also on the enforcement side. The other thing I'll say is that we've been living off of um really nickels and dimes for a couple of years keeping shelters open. I hope that doesn't change. I hope that it changes for the better if it does where we have stable funding and we have consistency in our shelter system and our housing system. But if it were to change again and we lost shelter beds, we could see an increase again in people on the streets and we'd have similar um what we see today may or may not be sort of the standard going forward. And we need some consistency in our ordinance. I'd say to ensure that we have a reasonable understanding from the officer side, from our outreach side, and from you all about what the public can expect from the city enforcement.

Council member Young,

thank you. I I do appreciate you bringing this forward and just want to say I know that the vehicles issue um has been pretty prevalent and that in working with Salt Lake City Police and the experts that we have, the tools in their toolbox are very limited like when it comes to being able to proactively engage in that. we saw that deteriorate to a worstc case scenario. Um, you know, not too far uh outside of Fairmont Park. And if you ask the neighbors and the business owners and the individuals who frequented that area, we knew there was going to be an issue, but there wasn't an opportunity for a proactive intervention until it was far too late and, you know, a tragic end um for that family. So, I appreciate looking at it in terms of how are we adding tools to the toolbox. My follow-up question to that is how are we going to know if that is working? So, are are there certain, you know, elements, measures, dynamics? What are we looking at to say that if this moves forward to become a part of the ordinance, is this the right approach for the city or do we need to look at something else? It's an interesting question uh and not an easy one to answer. I'll say today from an ordinance that's intended to standardize enforcement and talk about it that way. Then generally we're looking at sort of the actions, right? Does this address an action quickly? Does it deter an action perhaps? Um does it show our response times uh decrease? Um, so we're we're quicker at getting there. Those kind of things. You could look at it that way. I don't think that's a full measure of this though. And the reason is is because uh from individuals who have no place to be to

live, they're going to have to live someplace. It may not be in our city anymore, but they're living somewhere else. From our city perspective, I think a couple things to think about. One is all of our efforts collectively, not just the enforcement side, but also the proactive offering resources side. Are we seeing a decrease in the time it takes us to address an occupied vehicle? That's a measure that's probably a good one for us in this situation. Are we seeing a measurable decrease in the amount of camping in the city? Now, it doesn't mean we're solving homelessness necessarily. It means they're not camping in our city. I would hope that with everything else involved in that as well, we take both our measures and also statewide measures, point in time count measures, etc. that we see a positive outcome to that, that means that we have decreasing camping because people are resolving into positive situations rather than just relocating elsewhere. But that's a harder metric to sort of show over time, but that's our intention. I think the other thing is, and you all know this, is it's a it's an intangible piece. It's about what does a park feel like in there? Is there a tension going on? Can we work on the tension between um people have no place to be to live and people who are recreating the park? Um I think there's some pieces like that that we've seen a decrease over time in the city already from the parks department response at least from their staff of saying I've have a decrease in the number of issues I've had personally with individuals or park um patrons. We've also seen a decrease in some ways of the number of um individual homeless providers working in parks versus working in other locations like Community Corner. I think that's a positive sign as well that we're trying to be more proactive in coordinating services for the unsheltered, making sure the unsheltered know where to get services and working on the number of shelter beds and housing units we've got. So, I think all those work together towards a metric we're looking for, but it's not as clean perhaps as I'd like.

Yeah, Mr. Share, I'll just wrap up. So, um, Andrew, very few people could have responded to that question in the moment, um, with the expertise and the comprehensive nature that you did. So, reminds me and everyone in the room why we're so fortunate to have you leading out on this. I think as we see this process move forward, I do think it's something that would help me as a council member be able to be more fluent in some of those measures. um both whether it's like a baseline and kind of where we're going, you know, just to be able to um help articulate the actions of the city and how we're looking to see if some of those things impact it. So, a future conversation, but I do just want to honor like the expertise that you were just able to magically come up with while sitting here. So, thank you. Lo Chavez,

I want to understand better in this process because we're standardizing policing. Policing usually deals with civil or criminal citations. Can you kind of walk me through that process as well as I I'm just trying to understand recognizing that there are folks today that use vehicles as a last resort. Um I've certainly met them in District 4. Some of them are constituents that still have jobs, have families. Um, and as we try to meet these needs, what is reasonable? What should we expect from a police officer? And is there an opportunity to have both proactive but also to react to the truth that if we are citing that means we're indicating that it's an individual that could participate in housing. Um, you know, I'd love to see a policy that really helps build a pipeline if we're going to remove this option from them to make sure that we're not just enclosing them or exposing them back into the elements, but we're giving them the opportunity to translate their experience into transitional housing or permanent supportive housing or other types of organizations that are really picking up where public funds aren't able to go and and participate.

Sure. So, I'm going to let uh Commander Gilbert answer the police side specifically of it, but I think the wording you used is important here. We're talking about changing a city statute and ordinance. Um, we also have internal, say, police department or parks department policies about how we do certain things. This deals with the statute end of this, but from a police department policy, they could still go in with certain expectations like here's some resources I can offer. what's my policy in taking into context the situation with the weather, the location, other things going on. That's a sort of internal policy thing that we can shift and change based on resources and things, but I'll let Vender Gilbert deal with that.

Yeah, thank you. Um, so for an enforcement perspective from a car to an RV, it's going to be similar to like a camping citation for something like that, but that's not our first option. Typically when we go out on these, like the hillside got brought up, for example, that we're up on the mountain side, we had worked with several of those groups on five different occasions to try to connect them to services. Um, our social workers will go out when we've been on the Jordan River Trail. They'll go out with us and we'll do what we can to get them to connect to services. We really do this as a last option. Um, it's not something we're excited to go do or eager to get out there and go do it. responding to complaints and as a last resort to address a problem or concern. Um, as as far as the criminal aspect of it, I can't speak to the the civil sites. That might be more your house.

I think we could pull the numbers too, but we we don't have a lot of citations for this situation or or arrests in the last couple of years. I think it's very few. Generally speaking, I think in maybe correct me if I'm wrong, commander, but um when individuals are approached and said, "You're violating the city ordinance," um they generally don't want to sort of get in trouble. It's more trouble for everybody involved than not. So, they generally will comply either moving or packing their stuff and leaving, that sort of thing. Um again, it doesn't solve it, but generally compliance is happening just with sort of notification of this. Same with the parking statute. Most folks when they're informed that you're violating the 48 ordinance do move. They comply with the statute if they can. And even folks that the vehicle is not operable, there are people helping them move it. I think that's happening already. So, we're not having a large number of the citations that way necessarily, we'd think. Um, but again, this is not trying to criminalize it as much as trying to have a a consistent ability to enforce across 500 police officers and our park staff and everybody else.

I'll just wrap up my comments. I I keep thinking about the Gerald Dean King and the type of camping that's happening there and how we can produce as close as possible a policy that you know again these are women oftentimes that can't make it into the shelter. They're ending up as a last resort on the sidewalk and recognizing balancing that with the private property ownership needs. Um and you know I I think this is not a policy that is intending to be perfect but I think we can have more discussions on this. I'm I'm really interested to see how we can overcome that, especially as we try to move people into shelter and then eventually into other transitional housing. So, thanks. Thank you, Mr. Petro. Hi.

Yeah.

Um, okay. So, as our city has disproportionately borne this burden for the rest of the state, you've been an amazing resource in helping balancing some tensions. And one of the biggest tensions that exists on the west side is um making sure that our school students feel safe um even if people are forced to sleep in their cars. What will a policy of implementation um around this policy and enforcement look like? If I'm living in my car, the likelihood that I'm tuned into this meeting right now isn't super high. The likelihood that I read whatever tweet we're going to use, um, will we do signage? How how will we notify people about this? And then will there be kind of a more assertive period of us letting people know that, you know, we're there's a lower tolerance for proximity to schools?

Uh, it's a good question about how do we inform the public about this? It's not always easy to get the details out. Even you all or our city staff understanding the nuance of a thousand feet from certain facilities versus 500 versus 10, that's hard, right?

Um my guess is, we can talk through this with the police department. Um but they're probably going to be called out more quickly to certain areas around schools, for instance. If an occupied vehicle is there for more than a day or two or even a day, they may go out immediately or within a few hours and address it with them. And I think that's an internal policy question about um do we inform them first because generally we want people to comply with the law before we go through the citation process. Um I think right now we'll be talking about going out and always trying to address and say this is why you're violating the the ordinance right now. And if they comply it's probably not different than it currently is. What may be very different is the rapidity at which we get out to address somebody. Um which in some instances have been weeks um versus days versus hours. I think in this situation, particularly when the police department um understands that it can't be within this of a school, it's probably a much quicker response within a few hours. So, from the public perspective, they're probably going to see some um immediate response than more immediate response than before. I think from folks who are experiencing homelessness or in vehicles, that's a tougher situation. My experience is oftentimes word gets around very quickly. Um, now it's not all always exactly accurate, but the idea that enforcement is changing does get around fairly quickly. But we also want to make sure that the officers and and public park staff and other folks have a very clear and concise sort of overview of this and what's changes are so everyone's working off the same page of information and they can give out accurate information to the public as well. Um, and then my second thing is it it appears because we still don't have any strategy for increasing places for people to go um and just stop being poor isn't really a policy. um that we've created hours where people's option is to wander, to meander

through the city from 11:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m. Um that causes me to fear. If if I were to put myself in that place, I would look for darker, more secluded places where I couldn't be seen when the very human urge to sleep happens, which then makes me worry that we're pushing um vulnerable people particularly, but really everyone, anyone who's homeless is vulnerable, um into more dangerous situations. Are we doing anything to enhance sexual assault reporting capabilities? um any sort of trust building so that people who will be victimized feel confident in their ability to get help. Um I understand the pressures pushing us to tighten up this ordinance and I'm I'm someone who like the the parking next to my kid's school, next to the elderly person, these are problems. Um, so I am not at all saying that I'm faulting us for thinking creatively about this, but I am also saying that those people who are unsheltered are also our constituents and under the 14th amendment deserving of equal protection under the law. Um, it's probably an impossible thing that we're asking to do here to equally protect them and those who are sheltered without any apparatus in a very Christian state for taking care of the poor and downtrodden. But approximating as imperfectly as we are, are there any apparatuses for the likelihood that we see an increase in victimization because we are pushing people to darker places that are less monitored?

It's hard to forecast things. I'll say that I echo the concern. U oftentimes people as we get fewer and fewer people outside for instance generally people outside may have higher barriers to coming inside for various reasons a whole variety of ratio issues right trust issues primarily but also um other issues about being in concrete spaces or public spaces or fear about those things a lot of our efforts outside of this ordinance are probably what maybe you're trying to get to I think from a large high level perspective with the recent legis session, there's been a renewed emphasis on addressing subpopuls in homelessness. The obvious one we've talked a lot about are high utilizers of um police resources, people who get arrested a lot or cited a lot. That's gotten a lot of attention. It's also a good way to start this process because there's a small number of people taking a large bandwidth of public services. That's a good thing u to address that population in a different way. It's also a good to address subopuls like women um couples, youth, those kids in different ways as well. And so in the discussions with the state office of homeless services and the new funding they have talking a lot about subopuls and addressing them in very specific unique ways that maybe haven't been done to scale before. I think that's important to what you're talking about. That's preventative, that's proactive, that's before it comes to um you know 2 in the morning on the street kind of situation. Even in those situations though, we wanted to ensure that the police department had access to immediate beds in the detox center, to immediate beds in the women and children's center with the VA, the there as well. Um, access to St. Vincent Depal, the shelter itself. We want that in their toolbox. It's not big enough, but it's there so that an officer could come across somebody there and try and get them into a positive place. You citing somebody for sleeping on the street in the middle of the night is not going to help the officer or the person there, right? Um, so I think the

officers really want the toolbox as well and trying to access to those services. From a city perspective, we don't run those services. What we do is we fund ability to get those beds held for us. That's part of the annual budget we do. That's why we do that. Um, the other piece to think about in here is the social workers. Now, it's expensive to run social workers, but they're meant for that specific purpose. um to deal with a situation where a regular an officer who's wonderful and trained is probably not the right person necessarily for that situation. We need those social workers more broadly and that means hours of coverage that means shifts those kind of things. The more we can do that the more we have um the right resource for the right time at the right place whenever you need it because you're never quite sure when you're going to come across that. That's an ongoing discussion with you all and our city. Um, it's a policy. It's a it's a financial discussion, but I think we're in the right place. We need to expand and develop it more.

Council member Dugan,

thank you very much. Thank you as always, Andrew, on this work. And I and I appreciate the uh the ordinance and what we're trying to do here. And I also appreciate uh you know, this is not solving the homeless side of the house. This is one slice of it. And uh we talked a little bit about uh metrics and also where do we where do these people go? And can we do we see an avenue from what this ordinance allows us to do and and have metrics to say to the state we are seeing people that would be perfect fits for micro shelters, perfect fits for uh you know switch point motel and you know if we had this much money we could take these hundred individuals, house them, stabilize them and they can be productive. because they're not living in their car. Will that allow us to make that maybe we can make that connection and maybe we can make that connection and then transport that connection to their brain so that they can actually maybe fund it. Is is there is there an avenue for that to happen where we have some data that shows that we have actually people that would be perfect fits for the micro shelters or the hotels from the from what we're seeing on the vehicle. um uh data.

Yes is the first answer to your question. I'll say that because um the state office of homeless services recently hired a former sergeant in the police department from our department. I think specifically to address um the folks who have u frequent interactions with law enforcement who are experiencing homelessness. So, they've already requested and gotten a lot of data from us about our last couple years of work with them from the police department perspective. Now, it doesn't talk about all everybody in homelessness because most people who experience homelessness never have to interact with the police department very much. Um, they're not doing criminal activity for the most part. They're actually staying in shelters or transitional housing or vehicles and they're really trying not to violate the law. Um, but for that sub population, it has been very helpful to work with them to say, "Here's what we're seeing. That's what they're seeing. Let's address that in very specific ways. The first example is we actually have a number of individuals from the project connect program that we're working with who actually been placed in the micro shelters because that was what their need is. So when we go and partner with OHS, we've always requested from them we need access for our police department, our fire department, our social workers to some of these beds so that when we come across somebody who needs that service, we can get them in quickly. So yes, we are doing that immediately. I think we need to expand that to a broader um data set um in a more proactive way, but I I'm confident that they're moving in the right direction that way.

Chris Horton, just uh briefly, can did you look at um other like u compare this to language from other cities ordinances um and can you talk a little bit about those considerations that went into this? We did uh I say the royal we because I think the city attorneys did a wonderful job of doing the research on that and I'd probably be speaking at turn if I talked about other cities if that'd be helpful here. We could probably take the time or we could do it offline. Depends on what

Okay. Thank you. Um I you know when this ordinance came to be presented to us, I shared with with you uh and and the staff that presented this um my concerns with with the ordinance. Um but also trying to see how the administration is trying to be balanced uh with the pressures that we are under. Um I do worry that um this is too close to criminalizing homelessness. Um and it but the alternative is what is it's is really the question on the table. Um the alternative is uh not having the right tools to address the problem. Um, so it ultimately goes back to we as a municipality trying to solve a problem that is way above our league, uh, way outside our resources, um, and being blamed for it at the same time. Um, so I don't um I struggle really with you know moving this this uh this post to to really what I think it is going to happen and I hope I'm wrong but is more citations more more people getting into uh struggling with the system because of those citations maybe some of them even getting arrested and um and we know that that doesn't really solve the problem for everybody Maybe the argument is that some of them may actually get their life in order because, you know, they interacted with with law. Um, but this is a much bigger problem that we can address and I struggle with with it. I do believe that the leadership of the police department um is honest and sincere on how they

want to approach this these uh tools and not um hammer down on the community. Um, I I I do believe that I do believe the chief uh heart and and the leadership at the police department. Um, I what I worried is in practice on the ground to the rank and file police officer, how can we make sure that everybody's on the same u bandwidth and applying these tools um the more balanced and and and correct way possible. Um that is what I'm worried about. I want to know how can we ensure that the police department, every officer is going to try their best to um balance this correctly.

Yeah. So to we have several components to do that. One, I think the language in here would help clear up some of the confusion with conflicting ordinances uh like the loitering on the sidewalk versus blocking or obstructing a sidewalk. um you know the officers get conflicted in which one's appropriate to charge. Uh but as far as just overall training, we we have training programs that we do that are every trimester throughout the year that involve every member of the department and it's very easy to get consistency through those trainings because it's a requirement that they attend. We also have online training that is um for like example like case laws or ordinance updates that goes out to everybody to get it out to the the department faster. And so we can incorporate that with a combination of online training with in-person training so that everybody's on the same uh understanding and has the same training and the same information to empower them to do their job. uh you know with compassion and with the expectations set from the administration. I think we expect from every member of the community to balance the you know the the obligations of citizens uh and then the the compassion of the system and I'm I'm hoping that u this doesn't go too far into uh a place that I personally don't think it should should go because we don't it's very unfair to be on the other side right uh when there's not res enough resources available um so I would love to um hammer down on that training and making sure that our officers and maybe even a timeline because moving this ordinance forward right now or soon enough means an immediate you know carb blank and authorization for the officers to enforce. I want to make sure that there is clear expectations and and boundaries

of what the values of the city are and why do we see this issue as not a black and white issue. Um so I personally would love to see that training or no personally I don't want to see the training I want to see that this happening and that before the ordinance is implemented that there is a plan to make sure that every officer understands why uh this is a complex thing and not just a black and white issue. Um and um personally I wanted to try to narrow it down to you know make sure that there was more enforcement around neighborhoods since neighborhoods um are the ones that experience more of the challenges of you know unsheltered neighbors too. Um unfortunately we couldn't really find a way of doing it. Um I do wonder um and in the summary of the ordinance talks about um providing a notice to an individual that there are you know in breach of this ordinance or you know of the law really and c could the city um with this providing of a notice um include some resources including information the document that explains what resources are available um and what numbers and what you know like more than just I know that that's another piece of paper but um and maybe you know many of them may not read it but I'm hoping that some of them may uh so I I will feel comfortable if as part of that notice of breach that there is some physical uh resources provided um to those individuals

I think council member you hit a point that I think is being addressed in different avenues and different ways. From the state legislative perspective, there was a bill that talked about first responders in the state needing a list of resources with them that they could use in interactions with the public. A lot of the intention of that was mental illness support or addiction support, but it could include everything you're talking about. I think we h when we talk about this ordinance, it's really our enforcement tool, right? our expectation about public um uh boundaries for our city, but it doesn't address policy internal about how staff does it. That's what you're talking about about how does our police department have the resources and knowledge about what resources are available to them in those interactions through the training piece. It's also about what else are we doing as a city outside of here. We're funding a deeply affordable housing. We need everyone to do the same as we're doing. Fund the housing, fund transitional housing. In our previous budgets, we've funded outreach services. If we didn't fund that, we don't probably have an outreach team in this city that does the work we're asking them to do. We funded a business liaison for homelessness. Somebody who has experience in homeless outreach and businesses who can work with all of our businesses to interact with them and explain and talk through and build that understanding because homelessness is not necessarily something that we solve and we're done with. It doesn't go away. we try and get to a place of of um of basically base zero where we're not increasing homelessness over time. We're decreasing it completely. We're still going to have interactions and we need people who can help the public understand those interactions and the resources and how to deal with it instead of just frustrated, maybe lash out. Those are things that we control the city to fund. That's a budget thing. So, as you look through the budget going forward this year, um, as you look for resources like that, I think it's important to remember that that's as important, if not more important than our actual ordinances, um, we need both of those working

together to be effective.

Yeah. So, I I'm looking forward to maybe specifically to see some delivery of something. Uh, I don't know if it's in some other different way, maybe in coordination with what the state is pushing to. Um I do also um struggle that you know by like we discussed here earlier today this doesn't solve the problem um and what it basically does it pushes it away um and I don't know if that's the argument to the state that we wanted it to make right we want the state to to realize that there is a problem and by hiding it in some ways I'm not sure that this um this gets solved D. I don't know if that encourages those decision makers that have the funding really to make a difference in homelessness to actually make a difference. Um, but I also understand, you know, my neighbors. I mean, many times I'm like reaching out in behalf of a neighbor that is seeing something that is very concerning and trying to balance that out. And um, I I just uh this this this policy um and this this shift in in direction is is a struggle for me. Uh, but I I'm not blaming anybody here. We're all in the same boat and we're all trying to figure out how to how to make the best out of this uh crisis. Um, any other comments, council members?

Okay, thank you for your time. Uh, we might be sending some questions or thoughts your way. Thank you. Happy to happy to help. Little behind now. Um, probably more my fault. Number uh three is an ordinance for the master plan. Anson map amendment at approximately 346 350 354 and 370 south 800 east and 775 east 400 south we're going to welcome at the table Kate Werrett council policy analyst analyst Grant Aman uh principal planner

great thank you um this is a proposal to amend both the zoning and the master plan for properties located in district 4. Um they are near 8th east Lynen and fourth south. So that's the general area. Um this the second pro um not all of those properties need to be reszoned. Some of them are already zoned um what they are proposed to become. Um the master plan amendment includes um a request to change from medium density residential and medium density transit oriented development to highdensity transit oriented development. The applicant is requesting these amendments to allow construction of a mixeduse building with 109 residential unit of a mixed scale of unit sizes and commercial ground floor space uh adjacent to 400 South. Um in the in addition to these applications, there is a third application that the planning commission is also reviewing. Um and that is a d a design res review application. Um at the their November meeting, the planning commission recommended approval of the zoning amendment, but they did not recommend approval of the um general plan amendment. That was due to evident their their opinion that evidence did not provide um what they felt needed to be demonstrated from the proposals to comply with the consideration. Number three, the applicant's community benefit unit replacement and tenant displacement proposals. Planning staff has recommended approval of the amendments of all of these items. Additionally, at the public hearing for the planning

commission meeting, there were eight people that spoke and all of them were not in favor of this application due to concerns about solar blockage in the neighborhood neighboring lots across the street not adjacent to the property, the bulk and height of the building, and incentivizing neglect. There's a couple policy questions associated with this one, including um you may want to discuss whether or not you feel density should be high or medium in this area. Um and also um whether or not you support amending the zoning map amendment and general plan. With that, I'll turn it over to planning staff.

All right. Thank you so much, Kate. Uh good evening, council members. I'm Grant Aemon. I'm representing this request for the general plan and zoning map amendment for these properties. Next slide. Uh the subject property is located on the corner of 400 South and 8th east. As you can see here, this image notes its significant placement along the tracks fixed rail red line close to the uh 900 East station. There are three properties subject to reszone and five properties in total that are impacted by this request. The general plan amendment and zoning map amendment will require approval by the city council. The intent of this reszone is a mixeduse multifamily storefront building consisting of 109 residential units with storefront commercial along 400 South. Uh this project includes design review, but the design review only requires approval by planning commission and it is currently tabled at planning commission. Next slide. Here you can see the two requests there. The reszone request is outlined in black there on the right and then the general plan amendment is outlined in blue and you can see the overlap between those five properties. Next slide. All right. The first request is that general plan amendment. The applicable general plan is the central community plan and it designates the properties currently as medium density residential and medium density transit oriented development. That's that light kind of olive green and then that mustard yellow color on the map to the right. Uh the proposal would change the future land use map for the properties to a designation of highdensity transit oriented development for all five of those properties. This request is consistent with citywide plans which I will discuss shortly. The central uh actually next slide.

The central community general plan states higher intensive uses may be located near light rail stations. These areas are in centers of high population where pedestrians are more concentrated. Uh and that is specifically for highdensity transit oriented development designation. Next slide. The second request is that zoning map amendment or reszone and it only impacts the first three properties. Uh as you can see the entire block is MU5. The request would just be to bring those three properties up in line with the the rest of the block. Um the existing zoning designation is residential multif family 35. The proposed zoning district is MU5. The zone is different from the RMF35 district because it allows a mix of residential and commercial units. Uh it allows a maximum height of 55 ft. It has more permissible setback and open space requirements, but it also includes a higher threshold of design standards than the RMF zone. Since we started this, there's actually been some changes to the RMF zone. Um, previously the RMF35 zoning district did not have any design standards and that is the approach that was taken with this this project is there would not be design standards. The applicant has uh uh submitted a proposal that meets the design standards of the MU5 district. Um, all right, next slide, please. Next slide. Sorry. Oh, sorry. Uh, all right. Thank you. Um the total square footage of all three properties combined is roughly 14,500 square ft. Um the again there was a change to the RMF uh 35 district just shortly. Uh it used to say

a bunch uh of regarding how many units could be built and it was variable depending on how much square footage was underneath it. Uh it used to be that only five units would be able to be built. Uh now currently there are seven units. That RMF35 proposal that just went through increases that to 20 units. This proposal would uh put roughly 40 units on that space where that RMF35 is. Next slide. In order to mitigate additional density, any reszone request requires that the that the applicant chooses and outlines a community benefit. Uh the community benefit they have chosen is housing aligned with community needs. The project adds 109 units of infill transit oriented development housing. Uh the project includes a broad unit type mix including two unit or two-bedroom units, three-bedroom units, and a four-bedroom unit as well along with community serving commercial space including a publicly accessible space geared towards a local gym as a prospective tenant. Uh the proposal advances the the general plan's goals for growth, housing variety, and multiodal transportation. Details for the community benefit are finalized by city council and secured through a development agreement. Next slide. Uh next, the requirement for unit replacement and tenant displacement. The zoning ordinance does address the concern of demolished units and the applicant has outlined a required plan which is included in the staff report that indicates full compliance with the requirements of demolished units and displaced tenants. All seven units will be replaced bedroom forbedroom. The applicant has chosen to contribute to the city's housing fund which satisfies the code requirement for unit replacement. The applicant has agreed to all the requirements of 21A.50.050 050 for the four units that are currently occupied as stipulated in the

development in a development agreement. Staff has found that the applicant's plan satisfies the requirements of the ordinance to replace existing units and provide full relocation assistance for all occupied units, including moving costs, fees, deposits, and rental assistance. Uh though final details may be confirmed by council and secured through a development agreement. Next slide. As mentioned earlier, the proposal does meet the goals outlined in the the applicable planning documents, which are Plan Salt Lake, the central community plan, the 400 South transit oriented development plan, and housing SLC. These plans indicate a strong desire for density and mixed use along transit corridors, including 400 South. They also mention desire for familysized or multi-bedroom units. Um, notably the project is also within a quarter mile of two fixed rail transit stops. And although there is no bus that runs along 800 East, the 209 bus goes along 900 East and offers UTA's fastest headway. Um, I wanted to read this quote as well, which is specific for the transit oriented development of the central community plan. It says, "Encourage the development of mixeduse projects near light rail stations to create a livable, walkable urban environment." Next slide. Um I I should also mention this project requires design review because it would exceed the maximum facade length in the proposed MU5 which is 200 ft. Again, that's tabled with planning commission. Uh and finally, planning commission forwarded a negative recommendation of the general plan amendment and a positive recommendation of the zoning map amendment to city council with details stipulated in a development agreement. Discussion as to why the general plan amendment was not recommended for approval was centered around the necessity of the request.

With that, thank you. This concludes my presentation and I'm happy to take uh questions at this time. The applicant is also here as well. Yeah. Council member Lopez Chavez. Thank you. If the applicant wants to go first, that's fine, too. So, no thanks. Let me let me organize the meeting. Um, so do you have a question for staff? Uh, I was just going to mention some comments about the reszone, but so if you if you want to ask the applicant, we can have them uh at the end. We can have them to present and you can ask them directly questions. But if you have questions for staff, you don't have Okay. Any questions? Okay. Let's let's welcome the applicant. Um the applicant will have five minutes to present.

You guys came through the whole meeting. So you you you've seen it all today. We've seen it all today. Okay. You have five minutes. Is your time now? Uh absolutely. No, I appreciate council's uh time and the opportunity to be here. I am Hire Madson, vice president of construction at Harditch Hospitality, owners rep rep. Um, I think Grant did a great job presenting our project. Um, we've been working on this for quite a long time, so happy to field any questions you have now. I don't have any more to add at this point. Okay. Council member Lope Chavez, you have some questions regularly.

Thank you. Um, and I appreciate the time that you've spent with the community on this. Can you walk me through again with the commercial space? That was some of the last comments that we had had on our call. What the total amount of square footage is? And then we had talked about price points. Um what is that square footage average? Especially as we talk about who will eventually be that tenant in this neighborhood.

Yeah, absolutely. Um so it's 2650 square ft of available retail space. Um it is carved up into two sections. We do have a drive entrance for the subterranean parking garage that splits that up. Um, and the way it's designed is that larger space that's 2200 square feet could be parcled up into smaller tenants if needed. Um, the marketing plan is to see what possible retail tenants want to take the space. Um, local businesses, whether it's a convenience store, a coffee shop, a gym, lifestyle, health, fitness. That's kind of what we're hoping to add to the neighborhood as we think it's a need. And obviously with the walkability and the whole point of the fourth south corridor for that live environment and transit and walking around, we think that a gym would be a a very uh attractive tenant in that space. So that's who we would target. We would target local tenants um local gyms um to see who would be interested in it, but we would also go after the national big brands and stuff like that. Um the price point right now it would just be following market. Um so it varies a little bit because you have anywhere from 18 bucks a square foot triple net to I've seen up to 27. Um so I think it's going to be in that range. I wish I could give you a real dialedin number but it's kind of a moving target right now. No, I I appreciate you considering again, we talked about this is the biggest public benefit that the neighborhood, you know, in the first proposal, we had some uh preservation or adaptive reuse. In this new proposal, the commercial space is really where the impetus has lied for this neighborhood. And I just wanted to make sure and you know really put it on the record that I

think when because we're not able to preserve housing units that have been affordable obviously you purchase them but they really did serve a purpose to this neighborhood and because we are increasing in this transit node um specifically on 8th east we're going to see a lot more egress points of vehicular transportation that uh that was my only concern still that was an outlier was this commercial space. I'd love to see if there's an opportunity. Um, I'm going to be supporting this because I think you and and Grant has done a fabulous job really interpreting density, making sure that we meet those community needs. Um, but I just want to articulate again that this commercial space has the opportunity to be broken up if you can't meet those demands. This is still, according to our census track data, um, a very low-income uh, neighborhood. It's one that receives a lot of different support. Um, and so I just want you to consider that because we're we're seeing a lot of development that's trying to place uh commercial spaces and more luxury retail experiences. Um, and that doesn't seem to match the consumer's price point. And so as we consider that, really taking that opportunity to look at how can you bring that cost point down because that, you know, in a in a triple net lease, that's still significant amount for a new business owner, for example.

Yeah. Yeah, I think one of the things that we want to make sure we're doing is something that's sustainable and we've talked with you before about I mean something as exotic as a dog wash, self-s served dog wash, um even like secure bike storage for people using the tracks. So, we just want to make sure that we're not creating something that's an empty storefront um going forward and really, you know, has some vitality to it.

Yeah. And with that, I'll just end the comment saying, you know, again, 400 South, that's the biggest thing is that it's not that we don't want the development, it's that 400 South and the commercial spaces there have difficulty with retail. So when you say gym, my ears perk up because we have so many of those gyms and it's created a lot of uh you know, again, it's stagnation and we want to activate 400 cell especially knowing it's a to. Thank you. Thank you. Um it seems like we don't have any more questions, so thank you for the presentation. Oh, council member Dugan. Sorry, I didn't

I'm just kind of uh my question is more to council member Lopez Chavez. Is is this are you looking for a development agreement for this portion because this is just a reszone of the area? Uh and do we need to put this in a development agreement and that's and do we have those terms of that of your points for a development agreement? So there will be a de development agreement that is approved at the same time as the ordinance um if if that is the direction that you want to go. Yes.

Okay. And does that development agreement uh capture what council member Chavez wants or was looking at? Yes, it should. Oh, okay. Okay. Yeah, we Okay. All right. All right. Thanks. I wasn't sure there. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for the presentation.

Thank you. Um, we're moving on right now on the agenda. I'm going to make some uh executive decisions here. Um, since you know, you guys gave me the microphone. It's your fault. Um, so I'm going to move to item number five, which is anformational item. Welcoming the Sal County Council for a presentation. Uh we're going to welcome at the table uh council member Amy Wender Newton, the Sle County Council Chair for District and she represents district 33 the council and Susan Harrison Sle County Council member at large welcome and uh council member Rose Romero Rose Romero for some reason I ch you know I struggle with saying your name uh Rose Romero also welcome welcome at the table it's your time

thank you so much we really appreciate you being willing to let us come today. And um we also have council member Johnson who represents Salt Lake City who's sad that he couldn't be here tonight. So um we wanted to give you a brief update just on some things related to Salt Lake County. We're trying to do a better job of educating um people in our county about our budget, about what Salt Lake County does. And so we've been talking to several uh city councils just to run through some things. Now, you're going to already know a lot of this and so we'll go pretty quick through this and then um be happy to answer any questions. What's my best way to move forward?

So, Scott on our staff is running the slides. So, just say next slide when whenever you're ready. Okay. Thanks.

All right. So, we'll go ahead and um so we are almost wall to wall cities now as a county and this will be completed in 2027. Here's kind of an idea of when the different incorporations happened. And I know you all have a copy of this, so if I go too quickly, you can go back and and look at it at your leisure. Go ahead. Um, some have asked, well, if we're Wald Cities, do we still need the county? You guys are pretty well aware of what we do as a county. Um, a lot of our facilities are in your city. In fact, I have a list here of all of our county facilities that are in your city, and we work closely with you on criminal justice. And so um anyway, I'll go ahead and move forward. So these are some of the examples of services that we provide. Obviously the big one is criminal justice and public safety. We have the jail, we do prosecution, behavioral health is something that we do. Um elections, you're all familiar with that. the health department, aging and adult services, um, behavioral health, the culture and arts, and again, you have a lot of our facilities in your city, conventions and tourism. You're well aware of it. You're also kneedeep in in this, and it's a great uh boon for our economy. And then regional parks and recreation, library services, which doesn't apply to your city because you have your own. And then property tax administration. Go ahead. Um obviously you not every city wants to have their own jail or their own you know elections or whatever and so that's why the county has an important role especially when it comes to regional services. Go ahead. I think you know a lot of our council members um we have uh our mayor Jenny Wilson and then nine council members three of which are at large and six districted and that ensures that

everybody in the county has four people that they get to help elect. Go ahead. We also have our independent elected officials that do different things related to property or prosecution or um treasuring. Treasuring is that a thing? Money. Yeah, go ahead.

So, one of the things that we are trying to do a better job educating on is our budget. We have a $2 billion budget technically, but a lot of that is pass through. You can move forward. Um, we have about a half a half a billion dollars that's just pass through dollars that go to our cities or UTA or others and we still have to count it on our roles. So, um, we really have about a $500 million general fund. You can go ahead and that general fund is the one fund that the council can control and 74% of that is public safety related. Um we have things like enterprise funds that our golf courses are self- sustaining and whatnot. You can go ahead and so just wanted to help you um see how much of our general fund was public safety related. about half of that general fund is our uh property tax. And so that's something that when we look at how to better utilize property tax funds, it gets tricky because there is so much needed for public safety. Go ahead. You can move past this one. You guys already know how property taxes work and how truth and taxation works. You can go past this one, too. And then this is the portion of property taxes that goes to the county. You can move forward and move forward. Um, one of the things that we try to do as a county, we we appreciate our AAA bond rating, but we also try to be fiscally responsible and do stress testing and and other things. Um, we had our budget session this last December and um, we had to make some hard decisions because public safety costs are going up. Um, one of the things that we decided to do is to recognize that we weren't best suited to do daycarees. Um, we had a fraud audit that didn't look

good. We had some other reports and information that made us realize the best option for us is to bring in other people who are really good at doing daycare and let them use our facilities. And we focus on criminal justice reform and the things that we're we're really good at as a county um tourism and um things of that nature. And so that's what we decided to do. Um, we are talking to different people who may be able to utilize those rec center spaces for child care. Um, we actually have been in conversations with Salt Lake City Youth City about the Northwest um, daycare looking at that facility as something as maybe a potential option, but nothing's been officially announced. Um, also we are going to be starting an afterchool or a summer program this summer for the kids who need somewhere to go during the summertime. And this is something Councilwoman Harrison and Councilman Johnson brought forward. Um, and so look forward to that to to get some more information as we move forward. I just want to end by talking a little bit more about the public safety piece because it is such a big connector that we have with you as a city. Um, we are going we made the decision that we're going to do a lease revenue bond to add on to the jail. And while we recognize that we do need more jail space, we are also making a significant investment in doing criminal justice differently where we are wanting to give help to people who need mental health or um substance abuse help and ensure that we can decrease the number of people who um are in and out of the jail. And so through the lifeman model that we are working on right now, that is something that we are moving towards and we've made significant investments in that. And so um we are going to be adding on to the jail, but it won't be on the ballot. It's going to be something that the council is just going to do as a lease revenue bond. You can move

forward. This is just some more information about our public safety needs. Um as you know, we have the Metro Gel and we have Oxbow. We'll be closing Oxbow. It's an old gel. it has a lot of um maintenance that's needed on it and it's not cost-effective to keep that open and so um this will be add-on to the metro gel you can move forward and I think that is our last slide so are there any questions or um anything that you want us to know that you're working on council members do we have uh you know questions for the other uh entity on the table

no council member loaves Thank you and thank you for the presentation and thank you for coming to visit city hall and uh I really appreciate the work you do. As you know, I got to participate in your county budget process. So, District 4 residents and specifically the East Central seniors of our city would love to know and hear what should we expect on the future funding for the operating cost of the 10th East Senior Center.

Oh, I'm so glad you asked that. So, as you know, during our budget deliberations that was we were looking at, do we keep putting money into this or, you know, when we have other senior centers close by or not. Well, we did decide to continue to do the upgrades on the building and the ongoing costs. We found a um a new market tax credit that we can use towards it. And so, we are moving forward as planned. Yeah. And thanks for participating in our budget process. It's great to see you as always. Awesome. And I really appreciate that answer. Thank you. Yeah. Uh, council member Wharton next and then council member Petro after.

Uh, yeah. My first question was similar on not just the tenth east senior center, but what there were some other senior centers um as well. What's the long-term plan about those? Is it are you thinking more of a similar path like the daycare of having a private operator or

No. Um, with senior centers, I it's an interesting question because we do have some cities who build the building and then we just come and operate the services. And so, you know, we may look at that in the future for future centers. As far as in your city, the commitment I believe um and I I guess I shouldn't speak for the whole council because we haven't actually taken a vote on this, but at some point Northwest or Riverbend um that that's an older building and we will look at rebuilding that um so that it has plenty of space. So, um as far as any other decisions, there hasn't been any specific decisions on that. I don't know if my colleagues here want to chime in on that.

If I may, Mr. Chair, just add. So I just I think it's a really important discussion. Every budget session can be difficult. I think this last budget session was the most difficult I've experienced on the council and you know many of you are aware of some of those challenges that we had during the budget session. But I think what's important is what we're doing now and how we're moving forward. I'm very very grateful that we have this commitment to expand summer programming, summer summer camps for kids and that's in a more widely distributed area throughout the county. I'll I'll tell you my commitment that I will continue to fight for is supporting families, supporting how we help make things more affordable for working families in the community, supporting our most vulnerable and our seniors. So that's my commitment and there will always be you know budget challenges as we face each year but that is my commitment to you.

Yeah. I'll just say that I don't think uh I mean we we have items that come through our city budget every year that people write in on that are kind of the big thing for that year. And last year I had way more comments about the county budget than about the city budget. and they were all about daycare and senior centers. Um and then um and then before that, the year before that, it even though this wasn't part of the budget necessarily, I got so many emails about a Robin Hall. Um, but I think I I've told some of your colleagues on the council this that the thing that I hear the most consistently from residents about the county and the budget and like complaints that they're making, and I don't I don't want this to be like accusatory. I don't mean it that way. um but is about the facilities just that the county facilities feel like that the maintenance has been deferred as long as it can go or way too long and now we're uh in trying so hard to be I think fiscally conservative were undoing that because now they're too far in in deferred maintenance in some respects. I mean, I say that as an outsider. I'm sure you could come in and criticize all you want about the city budget, and you're welcome to do that. Um, but I just wanted to bring that up because I I appreciate the feedback that that sometimes I get, um, when people confuse which elected official they're talking about. Um, and so, um, I hope that I feel like you're doing that in some of the decisions that

you're making or are trying to kind of t turn the ship, um, a little bit. So, um, if there's something that we can do to help with that, um, I mean, we want to be good partners, too, and we we know about the the challenges of deferred maintenance as well. So, I it's not an easy decision.

Well, I appreciate that remark because you're right. I mean, we're concerned about deferred maintenance, too. One of the things that you could help us with is as people talk about the county, we want them to better understand what is property tax funded and what's funded with everything else. So, public safety is mostly property tax, right? But when we talk about like rec centers and other facilities, those are funded with like our track funds, the TRCC funds, and so the tourism taxes as we like to to say. And so, um, it's it's just about balancing that, right? And so, we're not trying to cut, but we need to have a more robust plan on deferred maintenance, and we're working on that. So, thank you.

Thanks. And I'll I'm happy to spread that information, share that information.

If if I could just also say, I think the feedback is very helpful. Um, one of the reasons why we're doing this is because we're not um collaborating enough sometimes with our cities. Um, we actually started this outreach effort with our state legislature uh members because sometimes they were working in opposition to the county's interest in some ways. So, building these relationships, having these conversations, getting feedback is very important. And there is a bit of confusion in this community. Um, I was hearing about the hotel at Sugar House Park uh recently. So

it's uh it's I I won't I won't tell you where the views were, but but I think you guys got it. Take care of it. Thank you. Thanks for coming. It's I appreciate this. I I feel like we should do this more often. Yeah, agree. Group therapy sessions. Okay. Um thank you for being here. Um you listed out the services that the county provides. Um, are all of those derived from statute according to the So, how do you decide what things you provide and what things you don't?

Um, that's a great question. So, we obviously we look at statute first of what statutoily do we have to provide and then we look at what does the community expect that we're going to provide and a lot of those quality of life things that you see on there, you know, the rec centers, the parks, that type of thing. um because the funding sources that we have like through track and zap and all of those that is the public saying we are interested in this and so that's where we have have done that um things that um we also have to look at how do we have fair tax policy where everybody can benefit that was one of the issues with the child care is you only have some people who could take advantage of that right and so um anyway so we look at how can we be fairer to everyone and try to provide service for for all. But yeah, it is a lot driven by what we hear from the public and some of it we've just been doing for a long time, too.

So, I'm going to need you to hear what I say, even if what I say doesn't come out the way it should. Um, because I think your metric of fairness is disproportionately burdensome to my neighborhood. I represent Rose Park and I know you care about this. This I'm preaching to you. You have been you you helped us open the Huntsman Mental Health Center early. I am not this is not an individual indictment. As a matter of fact, I would consider seven out of the nine council people people that I trust and can work with on anything. Um however, I'm not just representing that area. I'm a mom who went all three of her kids through York County Childare who was only able to return economically to the workforce because of what was provided there. And not only were my children well taken care of in a place that allowed me to become a member of the workforce who could focus knowing her kids were cared for, but my children to this day, my firstborn turned 15 yesterday, has a more secure experience in his community because the seniors from Riverbend used to come over and help feed him. and they still see him in Smiths because the women who took care of him are still checking him in and out when he goes to that rec center. And when he acts a fool, there are people who have known him since he was 2 years old who helped potty train him, who are telling him, "You know better than that. Don't let me find you over in that space." So what you built through those child care centers may not physically show up in every community the same way, but your ROI on what you did in ensuring that people like me who are as hardworking as possible got care for their children to get those young people to adulthood safely is an investment that wasn't calculated. And I do have to say it was beyond infuriating to hear it

called a subsidy. It's an investment in a utility. I am concerned about getting east side young people in Draper to adulthood without trauma safely and they should be concerned about getting the my neighbors as well. And guess what? Democracy sucks because sometimes you do the heavy lifting and sometimes you do the receiving. And I don't I I can't live in a world where those things come down to just dollars and cents. We're we're on the precipice of facing our own. We too have an expansive and there's some programs that we have created dependence on and at this moment GDP is not going to show it because defense spending will cover the lived experience is recessionary. Our neighbors are living in an active recession even when macroeconomics will not demonstrate it. And so what's happening is we've created dependencies and to pull them back at the point where people need them the most without actual things that are going to take their place is legislative malpractice. I will be guilty of it. So three fingers pointing back at me because we have a really rough but this this is not the way we govern. And so, um, I need to put that on the public record because it is the real experience of my neighbors. I know three families who are currently panicking and their children, a combined five children will either be under supervised or unsupervised. And when that kid chokes on the grape because a 16-year-old decided to stay home from school to watch them instead of, you know, the people who we have at the county, it's going to be a devastating moment for all of us. Thank you for sharing that, council member. I especially love the story about your son and and that's that's amazing. Um, one of the things that we are looking forward to um with the changes that we've made is now we have

child care providers in those same facilities or we will be um but it's going to focus on low-income families. Before our child care program had no income qualifications. So, you had middle and high income families who were being subsidized by taxpayers who made who who were struggling to make ends meet or were on fixed incomes. And we're trying to shift that so we can still keep child care seats open but have it focused on low-income families. And so, um anyway, you're you're absolutely right. It's so important to have that community around our kids. So, thank you for sharing. Thank you, uh Council Member Dugan.

Thank you. Appreciate. Thanks for coming to the big city. Uh my question is it resolves about the uh the mental health side of the house. Uh earlier today, you might have been here when we were still talking about our homeless camping ordinance and we had a long conversation about that and we struggle with that because you know you have a camping ordinance but then you you also struggling on where those people go and and where do they house and we've you know we have a micro shelter here. We have a number of shelter beds as you always aware, but we're always struggling with on the mental health side of the house and that's not that's on on the county uh statute of taking care of and how do you budget for that and how do you balance your budget for that with the needs with the state and the feds and and the funding side of the house because just like everything else, there's there's more need than dollars and you have 74% of your your public uh property tax goes to public safety and this is just as big as public safety. I think it's probably part of public safety in a lot of respects and how do you balance that and how do we help you balance that and get more money from the states or the fed.

Yeah, go for it. So, a agreed. This is one of our top priorities. And as Councilwoman Wender Newton mentioned, in addition to our work to expand the jail, which we've known we've needed for years and years to expand the mental health beds in the jail, we are actively working to improve access to those services. Just this year, we are opening over three group homes, which will open up over 100 additional beds for those with severe mental illness with wraparound services. That's just one example of what we're doing. We're very grateful to Representative Dunigan for helping get past a Medicaid waiver that will allow us to bill Medicaid while folks are in in our jail. We're getting getting that rolled out now. We're also expanding our treatment for substance use disorder within the jail. Currently, we can just continue that treatment if someone has already been on it. This change will allow us to start someone in that treatment. And that along with the work that we're doing to expand that warm handoff to the community from, you know, our incarcerated setting, the the goal is to get people to the treatment that they need, whether it's substance use, severe mental illness, and housing. And I know you guys have been I'm preaching to the choir here. We are partners on this, and the state is also um part of the stakeholders here in working on this. But we are very committed to reducing barriers that that we have control over to get folks housed, get them treatment for severe mental illness, get those substance use disorder treatments more accessible, and then so we stop the cycle. They actually remain in supportive housing after that.

Can I just add one thing? Oh, sorry. Yeah, but I was just going to say um I was talking to the folks from Interm Mountain Healthcare today uh as they came in with a charitable care conversation and one of the things I brought up to them is how much um youth in our community are beginning to suffer stresses because of the immigration status in their home and their fear of detention and their parents' detention. Um so there's a whole another component that we're not quite having the conversation with. I wanted to put it on their radar because in other states they're they're experiencing that trauma in a very meaningful way and you know with what we've seen in the press we're we're under the spotlight too. So it is something we're working on and and trying to make sure we're our private sector partners are also recognizing what may be coming and thinking about how they're providing charitable care. And just to add to that, I think part of what um Council Member Romero is saying, and I fully agree with and I'm preaching to the choir here, is moving upstream so that we're reducing some of those traumas that that our families are experiencing throughout the county, you know, with access to affordable child care, access to like a livable wage, a good paying job, great education, so that we have fewer folks that end up interfacing with our criminal justice system because it's it's never been designed designed as the way to get people on a path to success and mental health treatment, substance use treatment, housing, and supportive housing for folks that that need that help is is something we are very passionate about. Mayor Jenny Wilson has been really leading out on this and I appreciate the council's work in a bipartisan manner to to get these things going and and improve um and work with cities like you and the state to to make an improvement in the community for our residents. Council member, I'll just add too when you talk about state and

federal and how we, you know, do that to help with the mental health. Um, actually, Representative Clancy ran a some legislation that provides a million dollars if if we would match to expand the mental health group homes, the ACT teams and all of that. And so, we are going to be making that additional investment to draw down those Medicaid dollars and utilize that. And it's, I think, a great partnership to show between the county, the state, and the feds. Thank you everyone for Oh, council member Young. So, sorry.

Sorry. you said something that just pulls at my heart. So, I just wanted to say thank you. Um, I really do appreciate the expansion of the pass access for our kiddos um to be able to enjoy the the facilities um that are available. I know personally that when, you know, you're down to, you know, limited funds in the summer cuz you've been feeding your kids who normally can get, you know, food at school and other places that it can be hard to find, you know, opportunities for engagement. And I think that the county leading out on that is incredible. And I just wanted to, you know, express appreciation for that. in a hard budget year, you guys are looking at every last dollar, but I think maintaining that makes a big difference for our families um in terms of that engagement. And I'll also say I have a family member who's an employee um and it's it's a great place for a first job for kids um and they've really enjoyed um working and kind of learning about being an employee with the county and it's an experience that will carry him through life. So, thank you for those things. Thank you.

Thank you for sharing that. We really appreciate it. And it's part of the work to help our families be healthy, help with cost of living stress, and hopefully get those kids off of those phones more often. So, thank you. Thank you for the presentation. Thank you for for putting yourself here um and and setting, you know, finding the time to do this. Um I Council Member Win Newton, you were the only one that has left from the times when I worked for the council. I know. Um and uh you're the senior member I guess um for a few more months

for a few but I uh not only I learned a lot about policy and and politics really uh the county council back in the day and behind you another all my former bosses. Uh I think I had everybody as a boss at some point. No one knew what they wanted me or you know at some point they didn't want me anymore. I um you know one of the things that I uh learned from you and from the this council um is generally a willingness to work together. Absolutely.

And right now we have a few big projects uh certainly we have many that were partners, community centers, senior centers and uh you know theaters and where we are really partners investors in it together. Um but I you know the the Sal palace uh and the district you know we are partners in the success of it. I struggle sometimes with understanding why why select city is only sometimes partner on those with you but there's you know the state sort of seems to be pushing their responsibility and their benefit because they also benefit from the success of these facilities that bring and attract money to the state. So, how can we sometimes uh how could we be part of sharing this story and to trying to convince those those that might may have those resources to really invest on something that is not a benefit to Salt Lake City only, it's a benefit to the whole state. And that's what I worry sometimes that many think that benefiting Salt Lake City is uh is a problem and this is bigger than that. Well, I'll just say I think our state leadership like our governor and um the Senate president and speaker, they understand the tourism piece and what you guys help provide um with having a nice place for tourists to come and um you know participate in the arts and culture and and whatnot. Um I think we saw that when the discussion was had on on the downtown revitalization. So I think that's a positive step in the right direction is that people understand better what what you guys are doing for the whole state in in what you're generating uh for everyone in tax revenue. So thank you for what for that.

If I could also just respond, you know, we also promote the Southtown Convention Center, right? And so that brings in a a different group of allies and supporters and the economic engine there. So your point's well taken. should be recognizing this as tourism industries and bringing those voices to bear

and Salt Lake City is investing dollars into this to the actual South Palace and potentially you know costs we are subsidizing some of these costs to make sure that it's a success because we want it to be a success. Uh but that is a little bit generally one could say a little beyond what we supposed to do. We still invested in it and the success of it but I uh while we are trying to solve so many problems at the same time related to homelessness and and uh it doesn't seem to be enough um and I just uh if there is anything that we can do to help uh you know share our impact uh and what we're bringing to the table um we would love to be part of that. So thank you for your time. Thanks.

Thank you for the work that you guys do and the public service uh that you provide to to our county. So, thank you. Thank you. Appreciate you all. Thank you for your service. I really appreciate the many ways that we interact and partner together. And please reach out to us if there's things we can do to strengthen that. Thank you. Thank you everyone. We're going to uh take a a brief break um uh right now. Um and I don't know how long. library.

We should do the library and then break. Okay, let's do the library. Uh I uh feel bad for they're not they're busy right now, but we are going to bring the library u people to the table. Uh library, Salt Lake City Library. Um we are moving back to the to the um to the item. I'm sorry for that shift. Uh we appreciate you for waiting. Um this is item number four, fiscal year 2026 2027 proposed budget for the Salt Lake City public library system. Austin Kimmel just joined us at the table, our council policy analyst to give us a brief introduction. Noah Basket, the chief executive officer of the library and the library director and Taylor Van, chief financial officer for the library. Uh Austin, it's your time.

Great. Thanks, council members. And uh this I think officially kicks off budget season. So I just want to give a brief introduction before turning it over to Noah and Tyler. Um as you mentioned, the Salt Lake City Public Library is here to present its FY27 annual budget. The total proposed budget for this fiscal year is 53,193,189. This is an increase of about $10 million or 23% from FY26. The increase is driven by a higher amount anticipated for the required pass through of property taxes to other entities, an increase in capital projects, a cost of living increase following the approval of the collective bargaining agreement for library employees which was approved earlier this year. And a few other key points I'll make is that the library does not propose a property tax increase as part of its annual budget. The library is developing a proposal to fund B branch improvements and potentially a new branch location which it intends to discuss today and discuss further at a future meeting. And that proposal may result in a tax increase at a future point. Last, the library is not proposing any additional FTEES. And uh as a reminder, the Salt Lake City Library is considered a separate legal entity from Salt Lake City. The council's role in the library budget is a little unique uh to city departments. The library board sets policy for library operations, and the council is tasked with reviewing and approving the overall budget and setting the libraryies tax rate. Policy questions can be found on page two of the staff report. And with that, I will turn it over to Na Noah and Tyler. Thanks.

Thank you.

Thank you, Austin. Uh, great to be with you, city council, and good evening. On behalf of Salt Lake City Public Library, I am pleased to present you all the library's proposed budget for fiscal year 2627. Uh Tyler handed out a our budget book which has present been presented to uh the library's board of director was approved by that body in its March board meeting. Uh we have a great deal that we're really excited to share with you all as part of this year's proposed budget particularly as we look forward to the next chapter of the library in service to building a stronger Salt Lake City. Um, we're really excited in particular as we wrap up our strategic planning later this spring and this budget speaks to that future. And also as a part of that next chapter, we're excited to share with you the connection between this next year's proposed budget as well as the opportunity to bond for some of the critical needs of the library as well. So, um, we were going to start out our presentation with just a few library trivia questions, but in light of time, I think we may, uh, postpone those, and if we have any time at the end, we can we can circle back.

Yeah, definitely. I I can't. No, this is a test. The question,

uh, well, yeah, if we have time, we'll we'll circle back. How's that sound? Uh so with that could we skip actually to slide nine. Okay. So we began this tradition last year with you all in light of the um fiscal 2025 year request for an increased uh tax for the library. We really did feel like it was incumbent upon us as a library to report to you all as the city council and the public at large on what the actual return on investment both in terms of um that that financial investment, what's been the return to Salt Lakers. And so this slide shows just some real actual um returns in terms of what we've been able to do with that additional funding over this last year. Uh we have been able to provide competitive staff compensation. Uh we were able to this past year have an increase wage increase that was particularly focused on our entry- level staff and uh as Austin mentioned we were also able to reach uh a labor union agreement earlier this year uh ensuring that we're supporting uh our staff well in terms of compensation. We've also been able to really focus on some prioritized capital projects. As you know, we were able to reopen our rooftop plaza at the main library across the street. And I am happy to report that we are ahead of schedule under budget on the crescent wall renovation happening at the main library as well. So, even though it says on this slide it's scheduled to wrap up by June, we're actually hoping we're going to be able to open up to the public next month, April. Really excited about that. Um, as it relates to uh really thinking about ongoing uh stewardship and sustainability of the library, we've really been able to strengthen our philanthropic strategy at the library. This past year, we launched the Salt

Lake City Library Foundation and we also launched our next chapter capital campaign. Uh really working to leverage local philanthropy as we think about some of these significant capital projects in the library's f uh we were also able to increase annual giving, private annual giving to the library by nearly 300% over this last year. So the early fruits of our library foundation effort um we're seeing early fruit really really in an exciting way. We also were able to secure eight new grants from local foundations as part of that effort. Um, and this past year, uh, an important part of this past year's budget has been strategic planning consultation that's been ongoing and, um, has really been deeply informed by some really intentional and intensive community engagement work. And we're excited to be able to present our final strategic plan after it's approved by our our uh, city, our uh, library board in June. Next slide, please. Uh I will point to the right side of this slide first in terms of some um some really encouraging statistics. This last year we saw foot traffic across the library system increased by 20%. About 1.3 million visits to libraries across the city. That's a pretty significant year-over-year increase. We're also seeing circulation counts go up. So people continue to check out uh and leverage all of the services that the library provides. circulation was up by about 8%. Our unique patron count was up by about 9% and new signups for library cards was up by nearly 12%. Now on the left side of the slide, um this was actually a question that we did as part of some public polling back in 2023. Amongst a number of other questions, we asked the public, would you support or

oppose additional funding for the Salt Lake City Public Library, even if it resulted in a property tax increase for residents? Back in 2023, uh 73% of Salt Lake City residents that responded to this poll said yes, they would either definitely or probably. Um, we were interested in getting a read on how that public sentiment may have changed. Um, and so we asked this question again earlier this fall as part of our polling surveying that we did um with our strategic planning community engagement. Uh, as you all know um, Salt Lakers are feeling the uh, increased cost of living in a number of different ways. Um, we were very very prepared for that number. to um to uh not be what it was back in 2023. Um next slide, please. Uh that's not what happened. We were surprised to see that that number actually went up by 15%. um where uh 87% of Salt Lake residents pled this past fall said that they would definitely or probably support increased library funding even if it meant an increased property tax for residents. Okay, I'm going to turn it over to Tyler Bar, our CFO, to talk a little bit about the long-term financial strategy that undergurs this forthcoming budget as well.

Thanks so much, Noah. Next slide, please. This is information that uh we've uh we've made an effort to share with the council each year as um we've presented our budget slightly different format to to be more visual. Um this slide represents the beginning fund balance at each of these fiscal years that we see forecasted. The red line on this slide represents the floor below which we do not want to fall. Um that's about 2 months of of operating revenues or 16%. Next slide please. If we go back last year um this black line represents um our projection uh and we were anticipating hitting uh or falling below that line, that red line in fiscal year 28. Um next slide please. thanks to some unplanned revenue and some one-time savings um year 25 uh you can see that uh our our fund balance is a little stronger um and we're we're thrilled about that um we have stayed the course uh we've worked the plan um that the library has instituted uh a few years ago couple years ago when when no and I came on board um and uh it's exciting to see the opportunities there uh next slide please. So, um, I want you to pin this slide in your your memory for just a moment. Um, we'll come back to that, but it presents some great opportunities for us coming up here in fiscal year 28. Um, back to Noah, we'll talk about um or excuse me, no, we some specifics on the budget. Next slide, please. So high level and the this information is in um the the budget book that we handed out and that was in your packet. Um as far as revenue goes, we're projecting a 2% increase relative to uh new growth um including the expiration

of the greenery district increment. Um as Austin mentioned, no property tax increase is proposed. Um, and uh, our budget has included these passroughs previously and um, Mary Beth and I were just talking and um, I think a lot of that will fall to the city specifically based on some some uh, some changes in accounting um, and the way that the county has has been treating things. Um, but that's an important element that has been significant in our budget in the past. Next slide, please. terms of expenses, our staffing, um the the budget includes, consistent with the the uh union agreement, uh a 5.5% increase in wages. Um that includes a 3% cost of living adjustment and 2.5% for uh STEP union eligible employees. Um the same 2.5% would be applied to non union employees um for longevity increase. No headcount increase. So any any changes that are going to come as a result of the very exciting strategic plan around the corner, we will um act within the existing compliment um and not increase uh our headcount. We've also decreased travel by 10%. Um which I'm pretty thrilled about. Uh in terms of our strategic plan, programmatic enhancement is a significant piece. We we are aligned with the mayor's priorities of child, youth, and um uh technology literacy, workforce development, civic engagement, um and English learning. Um and our strategic plan will double down in these areas to make sure that we're focusing on those and particularly with uh with communities that um need a little extra help. Next slide, please. In terms of capital, we've identified

$1.9 uh million in um improvements um replacement and enhancements to to buildings that need them. Um some furnishings, $400,000 in IT projects. And then we have also identified, consistent with our practice the last two years, um $3.3 million in reserve or contingency projects. Um those are items that are on our list of deferred maintenance things that need to be addressed. Um but as we have seen the last couple of years unplanned revenue that gives us an opportunity potentially to take advantage of current pricing instead of waiting a year or two for for inflationary costs to to overtake those. So, um those projects will not proceed until we we confirm um at a couple different points in the year that that funding is is available. Um another important point on capital, it does include um approximately $6 million for architectural design and um and construction documents for our Day Riverside and Anderson Foothill branches. Um Noah will talk about uh some of those in a little more detail, but that's an important component, a very significant component of the capital project budget this year. And

we have one more slide. Next slide, please. Thank you. Um, so the the the slide that we pinned in your your memory um as a result of the one-time savings and revenue creates some great opportunity um to to to get a jump potentially on some of these capital projects. So with that, I'll turn it over to Noah.

All right, next slide, please. So this project plan might be familiar to many of you. Uh this is something that we've shared with you over the past well more than uh more than two years longer than Tyler and I have been here in talking about potential bonding scenarios to pay for the critical capital needs of the library. Um so uh you can see here um I know you can't see a lot of the details of this project plan um but it involves uh a number of steps related to community engagement that I know a number of you all have been uh actively involved in really uh to take that community engagement to work with our architectural consultant MSR to develop concepts that then um really inform these future capital builds specifically a rebuild build of the Anderson Foothhill Library. Uh recognizing that there's some really significant capital improvements that need to happen there in short order for it to continue to be um usable by the community. A renovation, expansion of the the Day Riverside Library, and um a new full service library in the Ballpark neighborhood. And then you can see in the bottom half as we talk about the funding strategy, we have launched our philanthropic strategy, our capital campaign and our um and as you can see we're kind of right here at a time uh kind of a critical point in time in determining next steps related to potential bonding scenarios. Next slide please. And just as a bit of a recap of kind of where we are, you know, the Anderson Foothill Library, our highest highest circulating, highest door count library across the city. Uh there continues to be significant settling issues that um are happening. Uh in fact we um we recently reviewed uh the structural report from um our consultants from 2023 and they said you know within the next three years you're going to have to do significant remediation work for that

library to continue to be habitable and here we are in 2026. Um, we have done a great deal of community engagement as I've mentioned. Um, we've, uh, spent about $400,000 in that design consultation. Thus far, um, we do have included, as Tyler has mentioned, in fiscal year 2027, $6 million in the proposed budget that would cover the cost of architectural designs and construction documents. Um, we've launched our capital campaign. Uh we are deeply grateful for council member Petro's uh support of the community project funding submission to representative Malloy in support of the day riverside expansion and uh included in the handouts that Tyler passed with you all the govern financial officers association awarded the Salt Lake City Public Library its award for excellence in government finance early this year. And so and it h it relates to both um some of the planning related to these capital projects and some of the long-term um financial forecasting that Tyler's team has done. So really honored to be uh receiving that award. Next slide. Um so you can see there's um I'm going to talk through two kind of separate um scenarios here to update you a little bit on some of the libraries thinking uh regarding some of the potential bonding opportunities in front of us. Uh next slide. So first um uh the possibility of a general obligations bond. So we uh have had several conversations with youth city council over the last uh two years have been in coordination with the financial office um finance department of the city as well as the um mayor's office around this possibility of a geo bond for the library. Um it's it's a it's a large scope uh includes all three um capital projects that we've discussed

including a false full-size ballpark library. uh a geo bond does have a bit of a fixed timeline. Um the city you all city council uh would have to approve uh placement on uh a ballot by August and residents would vote in November and then the library would be would be really working towards uh that geo bond vote as we've been direct as we earlier um several years ago were directed by uh the mayor's office. Uh we've had many conversations with you all. Uh we've heard uh a lot of really good feedback um from city council um just around the timing and around the scope and recognizing other costs associated with just the cost of living um that you all are hearing from residents um and have really appreciated that feedback and have taken it to heart, have listened deeply and in light of that feedback um are are bringing forward to you all another route forward to try to address some of these critical capital needs through a local building authority bond. Next slide. So just I'll in the next slide I'll go into some more detail around uh what we're proposing. Um but an LBA bond uh for the library would be smaller scope. Um, it would include the rebuild of the Day Riverside or the rebuild of the Anderson Foothill Library and a renovation expansion of the of the Day Riverside Library. Uh, it wouldn't um cover the funding of the full-size ballpark library branch. We would continue to be we continue to be really excited uh and to be partners with the city and the CRA to help make that library happen. We can we will continue to fundra for it and in a few months time we'll have concept designs for that facility. Um but we would be looking a little bit further down the road as Ballpark Next um continues to think about the phasing and the full funding

structure of how that library gets built. Uh there's a bit more flexibility in timeline related to the LBA bond. And when you think about all the um confusion around potential tax increases um with the city's truth and taxation process, this gives us a little bit more flexibility in terms of when um uh a bond would be approved by city council and and this would be something that would be smaller. Um and we've had really good conversations with Mary Beth and city finance around um the potential benefit of this route. Next slide, please. So, here's what we are asking city council to consider. Uh, that they would approve uh an LB LBA bond for the library in winter of fiscal year 2027. That's this coming winter. Um, and as Tyler mentioned, uh, in looking at the long-term financial forecast, that would this would require an increased um, tax from the library for fiscal year 2028. The library does have existing revenue in our fund balance to cover a first the first um $3 million bond payment um of what would be a $40 million bond. Um and we would be proposing a $6 million tax increase for that fiscal year 2028. Half of that to service um that LBA bond for the next 20 years and half of that to um to service increased library operation costs. Um, our financial forecasting shows that with that increase in fiscal year 2028 and based on long-term financial planning that we would not need to seek an additional tax increase as a library until fiscal year 2034. Next slide, please. Um, and then I I kind of shared some of these details already, but uh this would be a $40 million bond, which we which it would be sufficient along with our

capital campaign to cover that rebuild of Anderson Foothill and a renovation expansion of the Day Riverside Library. It would be a 20-year term. And again, we uh continue to be really excited about the having a larger library replace our uh a bar our ballpark library, which we also really love. But um we we are really excited about the opportunity for a full-size librarian ballpark down the road. Next slide. Um so this la I think this is our last slide and it um outlines a bit of our the library's budget process which is a uh a little bit longer. Um it was back in March um AP the in February we presented our budget to the library board. They voted on that in March. Um this this last several months we've been engaging with you, city council and the mayor and other city partners around um the library's budget and then um that we'll do staff presentations to share a little bit more about the budget. uh and um June you all would vote uh on our proposed budget and um July and beyond is related to we will have a strategic plan by then as of June of 2026 and um our request would be that you all would we would be able to come back together later this summer um in July to be able to discuss more the possibility of the LBA bond for the library for these critical capital projects as we've described. And with that, next slide. Uh, we thank you all. We I think the last thing is that we handed out t-shirts for you all. We probably didn't get the sizes right. Sorry about that. But, um, the library's tagline, uh, we work together to make lives better as Tyler and I are sporting that this evening. And we just wanted to extend the library love to you all. So, thank you all. Welcome. Any questions?

That makes me very happy that you thought I was a small and Chris was a was a a medium. Um looking at size, but we'll redistribute. We have a plethora of extra smalls, too. So, but that's the that's the polite way. I see what you're doing there. Um no, council members, don't be shy. Council member Petro, Council Member Petro, and then Council Member Carlson.

I happen to have survey results directly from my constituents about the library. So, when I speak, I can speak like with actual authority. I'm so excited about this. Um, okay. So, uh, you know that when you came to me, I was really skeptical about bonding for library. We're I've got a lot of neighbors who are worried about water in their houses, you know. So, but surprisingly, even though you are ranked lower in a priority list than I would have expected, you are ranked not in opposition by a majority of the people who respond to me for this bond. But the clear mandate that I have here is to mitigate to do the least impact that uh the financial insecurity is high.

And so while Day Riverside is something that people want to see investment in we have everything like they want you to invest in materials all the way through to the teen spaces there's a lot of marmalade envy in these in these comments here.

Thanks District 3 setting that bar for us. Um uh you know it really is wide ranging. There is an there they are imploring you to to not do anything that would stress out budgets. So I don't know if a larger geo bond at a lower interest rate is comparable to what an LBA bond would be if it carries a higher interest rate. I don't know if we have other bonds falling off that make this neutral to their taxed experience. But as you're looking at this, if you can present that sort of information, um, that will help me in deliberation. It'll help me in informing and gathering. I don't know any of the answers this budget year because it's going to be hard. So, I am going directly to constituents more than I do on other topics. So, if you can provide that sort of information, if you can check, I know um, Mary Beth keeps a really great list of what is terming out on bonds, so where we have kind of some flexibility. if you can present that information as we move forward, it'll just be really really helpful to me as we move forward.

Certainly, council member, I I should have also clarified too, I don't know if I did this, our our proposal is to go with the more um uh scaledback bond. So, it certainly is mindful of what you're hearing from your constituents around um concerns around overall cost of living and um really mitigating that cost. And so that of those two pathways, we are we are um proposing the the less impactful path. And um we have worked with the city around when different bonds uh fall off. And that's part of why they're they have directed us to think about this just to make sure that the city preserves its uh flexibility and capacity to do other kinds of bonding in the future, which we really appreciate. And your other question, we we we have done some preliminary um uh development of statistics around what the impact would be with an additional tax increase that we're proposing for a typical household and we're happy to provide more of that information.

Yep. And really quickly on the interest rate question, um an LBA bond is only very very nominally more expensive than a geo bond. It's still a city bond and so it's a city-rated bond. the difference. I mean, I don't know the current terms, but like the last time we looked, we actually funded the Marmalade and Glendale branch libraries with an LBA bond. So, when you guys convene as the LBA, that's what you're doing. It's the pass through to that. Um, it's like 0.25 percentage points. So, it's really um I wouldn't say it's negligible, but especially with th those amounts, but it's still considered a very um cost-effective financing mechanism. Carson.

Um, my question was, uh, similar to council member Petro's question about wanting to see the difference between the two. and um also say I'm bummed to hear about the recommendation around ballpark, but also have similar pressures and have been hearing similar pressures regarding property tax increases um with my residents and how spread thin they're feeling despite maybe loving a library, wanting a library, especially since our district is the only one that doesn't have a full service library. So,

we hardily agree, Council Member Carlson. We're really uh we're excited to continue to work with the city and the CRA to make that um to make that library building happen in other ways. And we'll have some really exciting uh concept drawings to be able to help bolster that effort and fil philanthropic support specifically for that library has been really encouraging to so far. And in addition to the um the facility needs, our forecasting includes here in a few years staffing for that new branch. So, we're we're looking forward to that and hopeful when the timing is right that uh we'll be ready to go. Any other thoughts, council members? Okay. Thank you for the presentation. Thank you all. Thank you.

I can't tell you how excited I am. Okay. Council members, we uh we It was Taylor Swift, right? Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. We're going to ask about that after the fact. After the fact. We are going to take a little quick break right now. Um food on the counter. There is food on the counter.

And then we have one more item on the agenda. So, let's uh grab some food uh stretch our legs and and so on. Heat. Heat.

Hey. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat.

Hey. Hey. Hey. Heat. Heat.

Hey, honey. Hey.

Heat. Heat. Hey, hey, hey.

Hey. Hey. Hey. Heat. Heat. on the agenda to item number six.

This for fiscal year 2026. I need one of those like hammers. What is the name of the the thing? Um the gabo. Yeah. um fiscal year 2026 2027 funding allocations for federal housing and community development grant and city funding our future housing program followup uh at the table Alison Roland council policy analyst and available for question a lot of uh Tyler Dorphy Dennis Rottage uh Jack Markman um all of them work with community development policy and pro you know community development grant supervisors and grant specialists so Thank you everyone for being here. Allison,

thank you, Mr. Chair. You may notice um this is actually Heather Royale, not um Dennis, but but Dennis is what was listed. He's not able to be here this afternoon. Um let me let me follow my script or I'll go off on a tangent. This is the final opportunity scheduled for you to review the funding recommendations of the CDC board and discuss any potential changes. Responses to your most recent questions from the second briefing last week can be found in attachment C7 of the updated staff report. Also, housing stability received the finalized federal funding amounts yesterday, which is earlier than usual. Overall, HUD will provide $41,000 more approximately than KN had estimated, but the increases and reductions are unequally spread across the different categories. um home, hop, CBDG, CDBG and ESG. Um so this limits the fact that they are spread across the categories limits the kinds of changes that may be made to the proposed funding amounts for applicants. And you should also note that the amount of funding or future funds has not changed since these were allocated by the council as part of the FY26 budget. The housing stability division worked quickly yesterday and today with the new information from HUD to apply the contingencies that are proposed for FY27 to identify which organizations would be affected positively or negatively by the finalized funding from HUD and the changes in funding for HUD for housing division staff. As you might remember, uh the housing division takes a small percentage of each one of from each one of the categories to cover their own um administrative costs. So the changes overall include that home funds were increased by almost $15,000. HOPA increased by over $71,000. CDBG decreased by 36,000 and well almost

37,000 and ESG decreased by $7,500. These are reflected in the updated funding log which I attached to an email I sent to you a few hours ago and they will be highlighted in pink on the simplified funding log tab that I'm going to put up on the screen as soon as I remember. Um the other things to keep in mind that I highlighted on at least the version I have up on the screen and in the one I sent to you. Um there's the highlighted items in violet mark where the council seems to have agreed in the April 7th work session and the ones highlighted in yellow are funding changes that were suggested by count by one of the council members or more of them but not yet agreed to by the group. So I will get my uh screen up as soon as I can and uh Mr. chair. I'm as you would like to uh continue. I'm ready almost.

Uh I think that maybe that was the the best way to go. Um there are definitely more um more items that are sort of pending um in the f in the funding our future than anywhere else. But that may just mean that you'll go faster through the first loans. Let's uh Sorry, I seem to have What have I done? There it is. Oh, no.

I apologize. This is supposed to be the easy part. There it goes. Alison, do you want to maybe just go through verbally what the yellow ones are? I'm

about to share my screen. Sorry for the delay. I know there's nothing worse.

A different item. Oh, I proposed Alison, I'll get her. Can we share a letter to the administration about this? Thank you, Alison. So, we are here on the neighborhood. This is the CDBG um neighborhood housing and infrastructure.

Yes. Um because uh number 10 community of CDCU was the lowest ranked one in this category that received funds. It's marked in pink and because of the way the contingencies are written, it lost approximately $24,000 um because this amount came in lower than expected. You'll see that the um that the housing st the housing stability division also um will charge about 80,000. Is that right? Less um or is it 8,000? 8,000. Sorry. Decimals count.

So on that section, council members, we're good. Okay. Yes.

Yep. And then in the public services division, the um the item that lost because of the reduction in contingency funds or rather the reduction in funds is number 19, the road home. And so it's down by about $6,000. Um, I believe you had decided on um on agreeing with the mayor's recommendations for number 14, the Wasuch the Fourth Street Clinic. Um, and then you also added another $10,000 to that. You reduced 17 number 17, South Valley Services to zero and you took the other $50,000 from that and added it to something further down the page. Excuse me.

No, that was already there. Oh, um, fit to recover. Sorry, that didn't get turned. I thought that was always there. Oh, you're right. That was that was already there. What has happened here? Oh, what? Um, there's one still further down. Salt Lake American. There it is. where the 50,000. That's what it was. You're right. Yeah. Sorry about that. Um and then you had considered moving 50,000 from the from number 16 Thrive Center to uh Wasuch Community Gardens and I am no supportive of that.

Someone proposes someone other than the chair on whether to move um also on our future dollars. Right. Right. Oh, sorry. If if staff has an update on that, I would appreciate it because I know they applied for FOF as well. So, what the difference is between the FOF funding and the CDBG funding for if for Rosa.

Did they answer that question? Did did they get back to you guys with information about that? Yes. So, uh for CDBG number 27, uh that is uh to support the salary of a job training program director uh for funding our future that is to support the salary of a case manager and we have additional information we can give as well but both are associated with the green team. Do

you want to get that? Yes, that's correct. They're both associated with the green team. Um the funding our future application is case management and the CDBG application is programming. So they're two parts of the same piece. And the re the recommended amount um in funding our future is $52,600. So slightly more. Is there a motion a proposed trouble? Yeah, I would. Yeah, I would just keep it the same. Thanks.

Let's keep on going down the list. And although those colors are great, by the way, I am so lost. Uh because we had the old numbers, now having the new numbers, and I thought I had a good understanding of the new the old numbers now, but we'll get there. Um

so um if we move along from there we'd be at emergency solutions grant. Um I believe Mr. Chair you suggested finding some funding our future funds for Rough Haven number five. So, I um I feel like I'm going to uh get behind your idea um and uh funding um uh you know to some level and I would like to throw it out there for for all of you um you know again I I think that it's all of us could make a case about different organizations list. I don't think that all of them do a good job. They do amazing things. Um but um the space that Ref Heaven uh services is a very unique space and it really affects us in some of the goals that we have as a city uh related to those that are in recovery or in homeless, you know, experiencing homelessness and whatnot. And um so I would love to propose to support uh this uh request um to 50 is what usually is the minimum. Is that correct?

Um to the tune of $50,000 um but to pull it from I wish I wasn't the first one doing this. So can I ask a question before he does? Oh the microphone. May I ask a question before he does? Um so the first step house item in ESG part one can you tell me more about that one took number three.

Yeah. So that's funding for their resource uh resource center program. So um it's the essentially case management they bring people in it's a resource center and that's the funding that they use to um provide that programming. Okay. So it's like an FTE it likely. Yeah. Okay. Never mind. I don't have a good solution there. Okay. Okay.

But let me let me do this. Let let me put put a pause on this uh idea for one second and then because I felt like maybe a question coming in later may answer or not this the potential here. Uh so let's keep on going. Uh give me a little more. Okay. in the home category. Uh there were no proposed changes by the council and you can see that neighbor works and CDCU um both would receive actually more funding, a little bit more funding than they had been recommended to receive. Um so you can agree with that or suggest something different if you'd rather.

How much more uh was it again? Um, for Neighbor Works it would be about $11,000 and for CDCU it would be about $2,000 more dollars and this is it has to stay within the that category. So we're going to move it around. Thank you. Any comments here? Okay, let's keep on going. Okay. In hapwa that was home

um just slightly increased because of the increased funding from HUD. Um so in Hawwa um both housing connect and uh Utah community action action thank you um would receive a little bit more um than they would otherwise because of increased funding from HUD or rather more than expected funding from HUD. And then we're down at um funding on future dollars. And this is where there's a lot of yellow because the council mentioned a lot of things that they'd like to find money for. So So can we like support HPA like and close that one? Yes. We're good.

Are we on funding our future? Yes. So funding our future is exactly the same because it didn't receive any head funds. Yeah. This is

So you have the same dilemma as last week. I would like to phone a friend. Um and so my request is to um for number 21 first step house um of their request of $679,513. I would like to propose an award of $255,000. And I would like to propose it coming back from what was dropped to general fund balance um as part of the previous funding our future um program money that was returned.

So you can't do that um without uh that money doesn't exist to allocate right now. Okay. So we would have to come back and you we you you could propose a budget amendment. That is what I would like to do. Okay. But the money and so it would be delayed in in implementation. The reason it's not available is because anything that was available in the previous budget was re recycled into the current allocation. There there is though money in funding our future fund balance in general. But that's basically just like increasing the pot which is fine.

Yes, that is what I would like to propose for $255,000. Okay. Um I think the question that I will have to that I generally supportive I would love to know how much money we have in the fund balance for for this uh account and to that question I'm hoping I was hoping to get 50 for uh rough heaven um from this amount. Um and that really is the only change I would like to do because it's it's money that is we're diluting a little bit of the the funds that we have in there. that um but I would you know I think expending that question about how much fund balance there is in

so I could pull up the latest budget amendment to try and get that figure um but I think it's in the um like $10 million range. I know that last year we balanced the budget with funding our future fund balance. So I would just throw out that caution. Well, this is the conversation I had with all of you last time that we are making decisions ahead of the bigger conversation and I wish that maybe next year we move back funding our future back to the budget so we can actually make these decisions that felt like a little you know disconnected from the general budget because they are right now we don't have the general budget in front of us but because of this is the this is what it was created by this process. So, we're following the process as it is in front of us. But I would love for you council members if you feel like maybe we should bring back funding of future back to the budget like it was every year sense. Um so we can make uh decisions as a whole. I would love I think it would be nice for administration to hear that. Um but now going back to your question because I think that's only fair to close that uh to your your proposal. I think we We do. We want everybody. How do you guys feel about the 255,000?

And I'm clarifying the funding our future fund balance is not the fund bal is not general fund balance. It it absolutely is. It's just we track it um we track it separately so that we can make sure we don't spend it on just regular general fund things. Yeah. And this 255 was from the uh unspent money of the of the funding our future programs from prior years. So yes, but it basically goes back towards that. So there's not like a pool of money necessarily. So I understand like the budgetary ask is out of the norm. Um but that is what I am proposing.

Right. Right. And I just want also just everyone to understand that's where that's where the magical number of $255,000 came from. But on the rough haven side of the house that was from funding our future they didn't apply to the funding our future funding that was applied to uh uh ESG right and I think I think if you I don't know that it would fit within the funding our f rough haven would fit within the funding our future categories to use funding our future fund balance that way even if they do like you know housing and homeless services and you know that's what homeless services is not in funding in your future, but housing is if but it could be.

So, I guess maybe we should like check on that one. But like, okay, let's close the one question. Any other thoughts about the the proposal that council member Young brought to the table and how do you guys feel about them and I can speak to it. Can I like have one minute?

Yes. Go ahead. So my why um is when looking at um kind of the various proposals I understand some of the feedback we've received related to first step house and their um you know approach of combining applications didn't fare well in the um kind of process and they probably would have been better served to keep them separate. But the larger issue for me because like a lot of people could make that argument and I don't want to go back into the space of like negotiating like what points got where and things like that because like we are where we are. Let's stick with that. The biggest issue for me is the fact that um they're receiving funding from the county and from other various areas for housing vouchers. These are case managers that make the delivery of those vouchers available. So, it's a question of being able to put personnel in place to be able to administer some of these other larger scale programs that ultimately support the housing needs more comprehensively um than just saying this is going for a single voucher and we're getting a return on that. We're able to see that money go further.

That's my why. Thank you. Um Okay. I think to show your feelings, I guess, is a next step. So, um, we're and it's just first step house, not the rough haven. Well, I'm asking for one question right now. Okay. So, we're not voting on rough haven right now, right? Second. No clarification. Yes, rough haven. I mean, it's uh it's first step. First step, first step. First step 255. Do we have any idea what that does to fund balance? Not that it matters. So, the fund balance for funding our future, the last budget amendment is 22 million. So, so it would just take that down. There's not a requirement for funding our future fund balance the way we have for general fund balance that it be 13%.

So, by doing this, even though it is general fund balance, we are not impacting that 13% general fund balance. No. Okay. Okay. Thank you. That that's what I was worried about. Okay. Wait. But I think, you know, I mean, I wouldn't be doing my job if I didn't flag that. There's always nuance, Jen. If you Well, that it's a slippery slope. If you didn't bring in nuance, I wouldn't. I can be quiet now. Hey, Chris. Grace has a question.

So, how do we I mean, I'm supportive of this, but how do we not make this an annual thing and a multiple how come somebody else doesn't do the same thing next year? And that's where I will say I do support council member or chair pu's um recommendation that we move this back into like the larger budgetary cycle like conversation because then I think we align the resources to be able to have more clarity on what the needs are and whether or not these things will impact the larger city budget and the plan for the next fiscal year. I also in my meetings told people that I understand the difference between trying to make up a gap in funding right now and having a year's worth of warning. And I've warned everyone that I've spoken to that CDBG is being suggested to be cut to pay for a voluntary war. So, um the the likelihood that we even have these funds next year is a high question. So, I've warned everyone. I think that is something that I would ask this office to do is to let every applicant know that the likelihood of this next year isn't very high. Um, but

yeah, I think staving off a crisis is in our best interest. And it's not their full proposal. I'll clarify that piece. So, they asked for significantly more in resources. So, this is a one-year bridge to be able to address the immediiacy of the need for the housing vouchers they already have allocated for these other entities. Yes,

I I want to support this. I just f want future me to not support whatever other good thing comes up next year when we add it back and we do it at a different time. Noted. But I'm just going to have to will that into the universe.

Yeah. No. And I think that I think your your hesitance about this making these decisions a bit in the blind to me. I feel like it's a little odd, but this is what it was proposed to us and this is how we're making the decision. So I think the administration, you know, um may like the other option a little better next year. Uh you know, bringing it all together. But in the past in this council supported moving general fund dollars to support some organizations. Um and we we did it. I remember making that happen. I've done it. Yeah. So you know this is not much. Yeah.

Yeah. We still we've done it. Um so it's not there is a president but there is already this does is not the president starter. Um so anyways we can close that chapter. Seems like we have uh enough feelings in the positive for that one just from a logistical perspective so there's no surprises. I think it probably will not appear on this spreadsheet. It won't appear on the CDBG log, but it will be we'll what we'll do just to make sure we don't lose the thread is include it in their motion that is adopting this that um there's an intent to include it in the next budget amendment.

Perfect. Thank you. Um the Okay, so I wanted to advocate for the question that I that I put up earlier about rough heaven about 50,000 but I you know I you know I do know that their success of their program really impacts the success of I mean they have quite a bit of a statistics about that the success of people staying in programs. So no one really is offering that service. uh people are not going into treatment or housing sometimes because not home their pets um and they fit uh a very space there and they're only asking for 52. So yeah.

Can you clarify what the street outreach is component because that isn't just for operations in their center. They're saying street outreach. Yes. Basically they're offering Okay. Maybe you guys have a better explanation but I know a little bit about it which maybe it's Oh, okay. I have this one. I forgot about that. Yeah.

Yeah. So, that would fall under uh the street outreach component. Um they offer services where they help people uh have shelter for their pet basically because often that's a huge barrier for people to get access to other services especially shelter, housing, medical care as the case may be. So these are super these are the most critical people.

Yeah. I mean that's what they're like really offering it to people that have pets and they are not accessing the services. So I would love to advocate for the same tool that we just unlocked. Um I I understand that this is not a forever thing. I think that will be very important if if if any of enough of you support this uh to tell them that this is not a commit commitment long term at all. Um, but you know, I would love if anybody has any other questions or thoughts. Chris has a look. Well, well, well. It isn't me from a few minutes ago.

I should have started it. See, I I I play it back. Insert previous comment here. Um yeah I don't um so what are we going to say next year to them? I mean we're saying that this year that this is like this is coming from a different bucket of money that we're not committing to like a long term but we we see the value of it so they can prepare for other funding mechanisms uh in case you know money is not available

I understand the desire because I have but I have a hard one this is coming from a different it wasn't in the competition with the same funding our future competition as the rest of them and there's competition and there's funding our future programs that uh applied for the funding our future funding that didn't get applied. So, and you know back to Chris points there's about a million plus dollars in that funding of future that would love to get funded but didn't get funded. And so, and I appreciate the program, but I also appreciate other programs at the same amount for the same same reason.

And I'm I'm just kind of concerned that we're end up with that. Okay, everyone wants another $50,000. Everybody gets their own pet product for 50 grand and then you're always now you're just snowballing on that. So, that's where my concern is. Council Carlson,

um, if you wouldn't mind reminding me, is there a a mandatory uh amount for uh funding our future? Does it have to be 50,000? We could say 30,000. We could say 40,000. and think about taking it from one of these other maybe Utah community action as an idea to help because I I agree with you council member that Ruff Haven provides a really critical service and I would love to think about how we might um with the existing um funds that are allocated maybe cobble together something if it's not even 50,000 maybe it's 30,000 council member um I believe Utah community action because it's an ESG part two you can't switch money from

there's a uh Utah community actions also funded with funding our future number sorry funding yeah the funding our future the 355,000 um that is part of their funding our future um Alison can you scroll down in the funding our future section sorry to answer your question about the funding uh floor the decision made by city council to set a floor 50,000 was just made for the HUD programs we have instituted that as sort of a soft policy, but previously we had done 30,000 and if council feels that's appropriate or even if the council feels less then that's you can make that decision at your discretion.

And maybe this is a question just for you guys. Is it accurate to say that if the council decided to fund that um program from funding our future dollars that the grant tracking um requirements would be less ownorous? Would they? That would be accurate. Yes. So it wouldn't I think the justification for the $50,000 kind of soft policy is that the effort it takes to track for federal grants is so much heavier of a lift that it has to be really worth it. Whereas funding our future dollars if they're a grant they're a grant obviously we don't just sign a blank check but

so we haven't really found the money yet but to maybe there there is an idea here that maybe we should explore. And Chris, I'm looking at you. No. Um I uh so what if since we you know there is a first step house and number three we reduce that by $30,000 um that that yeah number three um in ESG part one in ES that no no yeah that's

that's where rough heaven that's where rough heaven is. So yeah. Yeah. So this is three and five. So we're good. So we'll reduce that $30,000 from there. Move it to rough heaven for $30,000. And to uh council member Young's proposal, uh we support the 255,000 uh plus 30,000 from the fund fund balance. Change that to 285. 285. And we're not open to taking it from an existing allocation. So we're not drawing more from funding our future fund balance. Okay. Well, there you lost me there. Taking

I mean for instance reducing the amount awarded to Utah Community Action by 30,000 and reallocating it. But community action is an SG SG part two. No, underfunding our future number five on funding our future. Utah Community Action. So, it would essentially be using funding our future money to fund fund uh to fund uh Ruff Ruff Haven. Yes. So, rather than 355,000 in funding our future dollars to Ruff Haven, it would be 325,000

to Ruff Haven. Excuse me. Two uh two sorry Utah Community Action and 30,000 to Rough Haven. Sorry. So then we're not drawing from our fund balance even more beyond what we're doing for first step. That's what I think that's what confused me. We're still we're still doing the 255 from fund balance. Correct. That is done. We're not doing an additional 30 from fund balance. Well, that's that was a proposal, but I think that there's a proposal that is different here. So,

I sorry uh chair I I I do wonder though whether there is the question that um Jennifer mentioned earlier of whether funding our future money can be used for rough haven services. I think I mean it's a self-imposed right um adherence to the categories. If you can make a straight if you policy makers can make a straight-based argument that this is housing then I think that's good for and I and this is a discussion on the record. I think if if you all decide that this is a piece of housing then serves the goals of getting more people in housing in housing

wouldn't be the first time we changed 30 so 30,000 from line number seven and correct line number five under funding our future Utah community action because if we could scroll down on the screen that might be helpful Yeah, I keep going back and forth. Sorry. So, under funding our future, yes, number five. So, it takes that from 355 200. It reduces that by 30,000. And the confusion is I'm using the old list here. There are numbers. So, sorry about that. Uh, so I should I should be using

that's a different category. It is funding of No, you're right. is at the very end. Yeah, you're right. It's blue. So, anyways, it's my fault. And so, is there a straw poll for $30,000? 30 from 30 from taking 30,000 from what has been allocated to the Utah Community Action and instead in of funding our future dollars and instead allocating 30,000 to Ref Haven. I'm okay with that. I think I'm passing my tiara for redistribution on to Erica and Sarah. The peanut butter. We are spreading peanut butter.

Thank you for keeping me straight. Just a question. I want to reiterate the question here that we're considering the rough haven to be housing.

Yeah. I I the impact you know that you know this is not just you know about the animals is the success of the program. is about the success of their people. And this is why they're what I was saying is that their argument is no one is offering this kind of service, right? For people that are in the streets, uh, you know, under um, uh, they're experiencing homelessness or the they have some substance abuse, they're not getting into programs or housing because of the issue of their pets. Um, so this is what the the whole mission of their program is. Um, so that's why I think it fits uh into the into the fund. So any

I would just say so like every point in time I have ever done every single year we've been a part of this we're talking to individuals on the streets and in doing that survey work one of the number one questions about why are you not participating in a shelter is I can't I can't bring my animal. um and that that has created a barrier and I think this is looking to try and address that barrier to make those existing services more accessible without the other solution of you have to give up your animal. Mhm.

So there was a proposal on the table about moving those funds for $30,000 to support Rough Heaven. Um do you want to show your feelings? He doesn't have feelings. Oh, he does. He has feelings because he's got too many He's got too many of them. He's got too many of them. I do. Sorry. I've been completely lost between these two spreadsheets now. Um, okay. I think that's it. Is it Is it? Are we all totally clear? Clear as mud. Clear as mud. Clear as mud. Chris, how what do you want to move?

I do not. Okay. Um, does uh Alison, do you have any questions for us? Anything that is unclear? I have no more questions. If if this is the way you want it, this is the way it shall be. I um I do want to give you the last chance to for you to say if you prefer this new mechanism to separate uh the funding our future discussion from the budget if you prefer this here or do you prefer it to go back to what it was in previous years? Why did we move it again?

So I mean Tammy you can um jump up to the table feel free. I think the intention was to make it more transparent because this is at least been an open competitive process that was rated by the CDC board before it was kind of a general category that the administration would then kind of contract with organizations. Um and so I I think maybe you know hindsight being 2020 you could still keep an open competitive process but closer to the annual budget discussion. I I worry a little bit like I don't think there's a way to get it competitive and within the annual budget. So I think you guys are gonna the thing you'll have to wrestle with in the annual budget is the experience from this year taught you that there wasn't enough money to give to all the organizations. So the context that you'll have is should we increase the pot of money for this funding our future um allocation um and then having a competitive process kind of like the RDA's NOA like where it goes out kind of um you know middle of the budget year. I don't know if that's possible for the CDC IP board but I don't know what do you think? We would have to work that out with the CDCIP board, but we could definitely do an individual funding our future NOA. The thought behind um co- um administering it with the federal funds is that previously funding our future was issued through a um an individual RFP and not as many people were aware of that funding source and there weren't um a lot of applicants. So this kind of raised the transparency and also it was I I felt it was a little bit strange to have CDBG and funding our future funding essentially similar or the same programs but the council never saw what funding our future was funding.

So it was a little bit strange to have two completely separate processes. I'll also add just briefly that the timing for it was partially structured so that these could be uh viewed at the same time as the federal applications. Moving funding our future will separate the two where you you wouldn't be able to do something similar to what you did with rough haven where you'd be comparing the two different uh funding sources and programs. Yeah, the rough haven thing is a good example. I think there are pros and cons to both approaches and so

I I do think that there is a personally you know having the funding our future monies and the context of the budget or close to it I think it makes sense to me because we could in a rough year a rough year that you know in a tough year you know we could make decisions uh about those funds in a different manner right um and but but again none of these processes are perfect. I just think that this is a new process they started this year and and applicants have told us how complicated it was for them to to follow. So I just uh that that will be my advocating to like move it a little closer to I know that that sucks because you're separating them again. But yeah,

so just to clarify for myself. So could we move this into the same timeline we do CIP programs? So it would be basically we'd have their CRP for capital improvement projects for streets and then we'd have funed our future projects for these programs at the basically at the same time soon after the budget season. Is that

that would be a little bit complex because uh the department of finance administers the process with the CDCIP board for CIP and it's CAN and housing stability who does it for the federal grants and also um the funding or future housing funds are more related to um the federal grants than they are capital projects. So it would be okay

there's more alignment this way. So what if we say this since we don't know where to put it but certainly I struggle with this here is that we would love to hear from the administration of a different manner and when you know hopefully it lines up a little closer to something but you guys can tell us what the pros and cons of each option is is will that'll be better so then we keep what's the staff impact here for the different options yeah like is one easier than the other.

Um I think there's tradeoffs there. The other way an RFP went out through procurement. M so the the the process was administered by procurement and this the selection committee was comprised of Heather can chime in but housing stability staff um mostly it was um various finance and housing stability staff that comprised the committee for the RFP process. So it wasn't the CDC board? It was not. No, this is the first year for the CDICP board to review these applications.

But I think I think you could ask I think you could do I don't think it has to be the way we used to do it or this way. I think it could be the CDCIP board just at a different time in the year. Um so that it's not so far removed from your last year's budget discussion. I think that that that was a little confusing too. It's like are we dealing with future dollars or past dollars?

Um and so I don't know maybe you could think about like because like the RDA NOA, right? the RDA budget's adopted in um in June, that NOA goes out, you know, applications are reviewed and it's usually back to you guys, you know, or the NOA goes out by the end of the year. Usually, we could think about like if it made sense to do that and maybe you want to think about if you want it to be an open and competitive process. I I think I've observed that gets you guys better information when people have to kind of compete against each other for the money. Well, I just want to also say and I don't know if I agree with this um but um I so when we I just just go with it for a minute. Um when we did funding our future, you know, we we made a lot of promises that it would be in these categories and then we um have allowed it to creep a little bit. Jen, do you think would you agree?

Yeah. Oh, okay. A lot bit. Okay. We've allowed it to creep a lot. I feel like we've been Well, okay. That Yeah. Okay. Okay. We've allowed Okay. Look, the point is decisions were made. Um, passive voice

and I guess I feel like if we if our future was premised on that we were only going to use it in these ways. I think maybe having it go to a board of volunteers to determine whether we stick with that rule or not and how much weight they want to give it is maybe a gives the voters a little more voice than just the seven of us deciding whether or not we want to keep that commitment or not because I'm the only one that was here. Well, and this is remember this is one small portion of funding our future, right? Like the full funding our future budget is in the 50 to 60 million and yeah,

over the years we've added things like parks maintenance, um yeah, uh 911 911, fire. So, you know, but but you guys have that discussion at in the context of the budget. You make that decision and um it's transparent that way. But that 50 million50 to$60 million um budget doesn't go to the CDCIP board. Just this piece would. Right. I But I just I feel like the the opportunity for expansion is is very high. Yes.

Um with opening it up and putting it at a time where more um organizations are going to notice. And so it's it's only going to be more it's only going to get harder every year. And it's only going to get more competitive every year. And I feel like there's going to be an even stronger pressure to expand the scope. And anything that we can do to try to add resident input into that because it was, you know, this promise that we made, it makes me feel better. So that's why I'm saying I think I agree with what I'm saying. But uh Cow,

do you agree that we should allow them to give us a couple different options and the pros and cons? I do. Okay. So, let's let's that was the then we don't need to discuss it any further until they come out and then we come back. And I and I do I want to make sure that staff uh and administration administrative ease is one of the criteria when we hear about pros and cons. Dugan is on a rush. Um I uh I think that you know if you heard what we said was very clear not but you know we love to see something some options. Um but thank you for the work and putting that you know all your stuff put on this. Um thank you for allowing us to move things around and uh um following a very clear direction on this. So thank you.

Sure. I think we got what you were trying to get at so we can come back with some options. Thank you. Thank you. Um, council members, um, this, uh, there's, uh, reports from us, no reports from us and reports from the executive director. No reports from the executive director. Um, and there is a close meeting. So, I would like I need any someone to make a close uh meeting motion. Mhm. It's F. I move that we enter into closed meeting for the purposes of the deployment of security devices and advice of council and advice of council.

Nope. No advice. Council will not be advising just the deployment of security. Just the deployment. Okay. Just that one. Okay. Motion. And then who second? Okay. Motion by council member Petro. Second by council member Wharton. Council member Dugan. Yes. Council member Lope Chavez. I. Council member Carlson. Hi. I almost said Larson. Council Council member Wharton. Yes. I council member Petro. Yes. Council member Young. Yes. And I'm Yes. Uh this motion carries unanimously. Uh we are in a close meeting now.