City Council - Regular Meeting

Hello.

Thank you.

Thank you.

you

Thank you. you

Thank you. you you

you

Wow, that was loud. Welcome everyone to our June 11th, 2026 city council work session meeting on a Thursday because we have budget to discuss. Our meetings are public and you're welcome to join us in person or by watching from our council agenda page, Zoom or YouTube. We hope you continue to join us in whichever manner you feel the most comfortable. This is a work session meeting during which there is no public comment. Please join us on July 14 during our 7 p.m. formal meeting to share your comments. We, of course, welcome your feedback anytime by mail AND YOU CAN SEND THAT TO P.O. BOX 145476, SALEC CITY, UTAH, 84114. YOU CAN ALSO E-MAIL US AT COUNCIL.COMMENTS.SLC.GOV. YOU CAN ALSO CALL OUR 24-HOUR PHONE LINE. THAT NUMBER IS 801-535-7654. MEMORIZING ALL OF THESE THINGS RIGHT NOW. I'M EXCITED. COMMENTS WE RECEIVE ON AGENDA TOPICS ARE SHARED WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS AND POSTED ON OUR WEBSITE, SLC.GOV.COM. THE FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS FISCAL YEAR 2026-2027 BUDGET FOR UNRESOLVED ISSUES AND IT'S A FOLLOW-UP. our staff, Lehua Weaver and Jennifer Bruno, both directors, executive director here online. Available for questions, Mary Beth Thompson, chief financial officer. And how do we schedule this conversation? How do we go about this? Who wants to break the ice? Who wants to talk about all the genius ideas that you've been thinking about?

Mr.

Chair, really quickly, if you don't mind, we did receive some new, sorry, hi. We did receive some new information yesterday that I think is important to clarify from our conversation that we had on Tuesday, thanks to the attorneys and recorder's office team for really digging in and understanding the nuances of the new law. On Tuesday, we were under the impression that the Council was capped at the Mayor's property tax increase proposal. as of June 1st, because that was one of the last notices we sent out, we are now of the understanding that the council has until June 22nd to decide what that property tax, for lack of a better word, ceiling is. So that is another tool if you guys felt the need or want to increase over the mayor's property tax increase proposal. I suppose maybe 1 other piece of news is just the new growth numbers as as they are right now are actually in a good spot in terms of being relative to the mayor's recommended budget. So there's actually a little bit more than it is what is in the mayor's budget. But as we know, those aren't final until they're final. And as a conversations with the tax commission yesterday. Salt Lake City is complicated, so they are, they're needing a little extra time to kind of get those finalized. So. With that, I'll leave it to you to decide how to go through it. I have a. A slide deck we can walk through, but there's been tons of ideas thrown out today. I just sent to the front office and to the analyst team. And so maybe someone can print out maybe a spreadsheet version of all the ideas that have been thrown out today. And so, if that would be helpful council member young, I will email that to you right now. I'm not sure if that's, I'm not intending for that to be how your conversation is guided. And I would not be surprised if I've missed an idea or two. So please let me know if I have.

So Jen, ONE OF THE NEW PIECES OF INFORMATION THAT YOU HIGHLIGHTED WAS THAT WE DO HAVE THE ABILITY TO MODIFY UPWARDS THE PROPOSED TAX INCREASE IF YOU SO WISH, WHICH WAS NEW INFORMATION FROM WHAT WE UNDERSTOOD SINCE LAST MEETING. That's correct, yes, I think. Yes. Okay. Erica Carlson, council member.

So formal, Erica Carlson. I think before we get into, you know, talking about any changes to the budget, I feel like it's really important for me to at least clarify some values and some things that are guiding my thinking in response to the budget. One of those things that is really guiding my thinking and I think I don't want to speak for others, but the Prospect of a property tax increase is not something that I really think about lightly And it's not just a property tax increase It's a property tax increase that is coupled with an increase in public utilities and so These are necessary things that we have to invest in and I'm going to be looking to how can we mitigate the impact of some of those things by ensuring that, any programs that we invest in for the public, that there is really an opportunity for those programs to go to the neediest of individuals. And there is an income verification that I might be looking for to make sure that those programs are truly going to those who need the support, especially in this difficult moment of time. So I just wanted to offer that framing, Mr. Chair, and to my fellow colleagues, that I'm taking these things with a great sense of responsibility.

Any thoughts that come to mind to continue the conversation? Eventually, we're going to have to discuss some of these specifics, but .

I APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS AND I AGREE WITH YOU HERE. I MEAN, I THINK THE MAYOR DID A WONDERFUL JOB ON THE BUDGET. I THINK THE STAFF AND EVERYBODY LOOKED TO EVERYTHING VERY CAREFULLY AND DELIBERATELY AND WERE VERY SENSITIVE TO ALL THE NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY AND THE DEPARTMENTS. BUT I ALSO SEE THAT WE CAN TAKE ANOTHER FINER LOOK AT IT, WHETHER WE HAVE ADDITIONAL GROWTH ABOVE WHAT WAS ESTIMATED IN OUR BUDGET OR WHETHER WE HAVE A NEED TO, YOU KNOW, IF IT'S BELOW THAT NUMBER. So either way, I think we can take a look at some of the line items we have and possibly reduce that property tax side of the house and maybe shift some money, but also making sure, again, that we are taking care of INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING TOO. AND THAT FUND BALANCE. AND THAT FUND BALANCE. SO I'M APPRECIATIVE OF ALL THOSE SO I'M APPRECIATIVE OF ALL THOSE CONVERSATIONS. CONVERSATIONS. AND I APPRECIATE THE CONVERSATION AND I APPRECIATE THE CONVERSATION WE'VE HAD OVER THE LAST 48 WE'VE HAD OVER THE LAST 48 HOURS AS WE LOOK AT ALL THESE HOURS AS WE LOOK AT ALL THESE LINE DYNAMISMS AND TRY TO FIND LINE DYNAMISMS AND TRY TO FIND WHERE TO SHAKE IT FROM. WHERE TO SHAKE IT FROM. SO THANK YOU.

Yeah, you know, many of us been working through the budget and make notes. I know that, you know, we all have different ways of, you know, absorbing the information that goes through in the presentations, reading the book. and getting feedback from the community as well, and our own lived experiences. So it's a mix of all of those things. And over the several weeks, I made notes on things that I was curious about. Some of those are on this list. They're not all mine. Some of them are mine. Maybe I have. A FEW OF THOSE. BUT I WANT TO BASICALLY SINCE, YOU KNOW, CONSUMER CARLSON, YOU WENT THROUGH AND PRESENTED YOUR VALUES FIRST, I WANT TO FRAME THAT CONVERSATION THAT WAY TOO. YOU KNOW, THAT'S VERY SMART. AND I THINK IT HIGHLIGHTS WHAT LENGTHS I HAVE. AND THE ISSUE HERE, YOU KNOW, that I see as the impact on the community. And with all of the impacts they are feeling, I feel like it is, A RESPONSIBILITY FOR US TO TIE UP AS MUCH AS WE CAN TIE. AT THE SAME TIME, BALANCING OUR OWN PUBLIC SERVANTS IN OUR CITY THAT ARE PUTTING SO MUCH ON THE LINE AND WORKING SO HARD TO KEEP THE CITY GOING IS TOUGH BECAUSE IN MANY CASES WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SALARIES. and positions and FTEs. And what I suggested generally and many of these things in the list are one time or ongoing, but some of them are capital improvement type of savings. So not employees. Although I'm suggesting or exploring the possibility of reducing a very few amount of them. It's hard. It's a hard decision. And knowing what, for example, Denver has done or Las Vegas have done where they had to fire and let go. Let go really. Fire is not really the right term. Let go hundreds of employees because they are feeling the same constraints that we are. And they want to minimize the impact to future budgets and feeling the same pressures here. I feel like we need to make tough decisions this year. And if not, we're going to be in the same position next year. And it may be a harder one then. So that's how I'm seeing the budget. I am not saying that any of these things in this list doesn't have merit or they're not doing good. You know, what I'm saying is it's tough and I'm cutting, I'm suggesting or exploring the potentially of reducing projects or programs that we may not have the money to afford at the moment. So that's sort of the frame that I'm going through when I'm exploring these things. Council Member Pietro.

Thank you. And I know you and I have discussed this. We represent some of the highest concentration of people at risk for displacement, working class who are not able to absorb $6 a gallon gas and all the other things coming at them. If we cannot prevent an increase, what we can provide is predictability. So as I'm looking at this, I would really appreciate us not just doing band-aids for one year, but any cuts, any suspensions, anything that we decide needs to be enhanced, that we're looking at it with a lens of what does this do to us next year, and if possible, even the year beyond. My goal is for my neighborhood to provide maximum predictability so that if, for instance, we know water rates in our utility system is under constant stress, we may not be able to prevent increases. But I can tell you that I really want to see more private funding flowing into not just pet projects, but necessary structural work to ameliorate that. I can tell you that I want us to not do a property tax increase next year, which means ameliorating our dependence on general fund right now has to be a priority. So those are the sorts of guiding principles that I want us to be really deliberative about and make sure that if we have to ask neighbors to absorb a blow, that it's not just a Band-Aid to get through a tough budget year, but it's something that sets us up for maximum predictability EVEN PEOPLE WHO HAVE MORE SIGNIFICANT RESOURCES AND MANY PEOPLE IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD IF THEY'RE LIVING ON A FIXED INCOME NEED THAT KIND OF PREDICTABILITY.

Yeah, I don't think anybody up here wants to raise taxes. But part of the reason that we're in this situation, a major reason why, not the only reason, but that there are costs that come from... you know years of state budget cuts federal budget cuts and a lot of those are are in the areas of the people that are most vulnerable in the community and i i would love to be able to cut more but i don't see how that is possible with I think the price of doing that is having another tax increase next year almost certainly and also on top of like reducing our workflow asking employees to take a pay cut and the employees that are not proposed to get a raise like we're essentially asking them to take a pay cut by continuing without a cost of living adjustment so I I wish there was another option that allowed us to check all of those boxes and there just isn't. So rather than talking about reducing the cut or reducing, sorry, the increase, I would rather talk about how to make sure that this increase lasts more than a year.

I think that your thoughts go, and maybe this is how we can start coalescing about some ideas. Your thoughts regarding that, if we, you know, some council members, I include myself on that, have suggested additional reductions. And some council members here have told me that they want that not necessarily to impact THE TAX INCREASE OR REDUCING THE TAX INCREASE PROPOSED RIGHT NOW, BUT TO CUSHION THE GENERAL FUND TO MAKE SURE THAT NEXT YEAR WE'RE NOT SORT OF CORNERED YET AGAIN INTO TAX INCREASE, WHICH IS LIKE QUITE obvious in some regards. So while you're not saying that, I feel like there is a general connection there as far as you want to see that whatever tax increase we end up doing this year doesn't really continue to perpetrate, happen next year and year again. If there is no more general thoughts about this, any more thoughts about this, I will, maybe the way to go is let's go through this list that council staff was.

Mr. Chair, I'm sorry. Oh my God. My digital hand raised.

I am so sorry for not seeing you, Council Member Young. No worries. I acknowledge you. I know you're there, but I didn't see your yellow hand. Maybe the yellow hand could be a little bigger. I mean, the little window. will be amazing. But maybe we should put a screen in front of the table here for your face. So, Council Member Young.

No, thank you. I appreciate it. I guess I just wanted to add two things. One is just kind of a plus one to the topics that have been raised by my fellow council members. I have nothing but trust and admiration for the service that all of you bring in terms of representation of you know, the various communities. And I think we all share in that fact that, you know, times are very difficult in terms of both the economy and the pressures that we're seeing, you know, from things outside of Salt Lake City's control, while also recognizing that those impact our direct costs to maintain even the same level of service as a city. And working with each of you to try and figure out what that balance is just really does give me a lot of appreciation for the hard decisions that are being made here and the thoughtfulness that everyone has brought to the table. I also just want to agree with the statement of Councilmember Wharton related to future facing fiscal years in terms of staff compensation. And that when we do say that, you know, there is not a kind of general adjustment outside of those individual considerations related to market rate for the positions, we are effectively, you know, asking our staff to be able to do that. more with less, both in terms of rising insurance costs and their own kind of economic pressures that they're facing. And so I'm very grateful to the staff of Salt Lake City who are, you know, really leaning in and dedicated to the work and working with us to weather this year, but that that's going to be on the table in future years at the risk of otherwise losing staff and having attrition within that space. The last thing that I just wanted to make sure at least I'm being articulate about and accountable for is the fact that we do have an expectation that utility rates are not on a flat trajectory. It's something that I've heard from the Metro Water Board presentation. I've seen in our own analysis in terms of being able to continue to reflect the costs of the projects as it relates to the interest payments and things like that. And so that even from the property tax standpoint, as much as we can lean into not having to do that a year after year, I completely agree with. But that I do think that the landscape currently shows that we are on a trajectory to see moderate increases over time for public utilities in the future related to even the current infrastructure and commitments and projects that we have. And that that does factor in, like Council Member Carlson says, to the overall impact of the city services and decision. And just kind of keeping that on the radar. Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Young. Council Member Carlson.

I would like to, I know it's not in order, but I would like to go towards item number 45 on our list, which is a request around restoring the Hive Pass. And so, you know, so we're all on the same page. This was recommended to be cut in the mayor's recommended budget. And although I know a lot of folks really love this program, unfortunately not enough for really using it to justify the administrative and operational cost of it. I know some of my council members have changed some of their perspectives on restoring the Hive Pass, but I feel like the administration put a lot of thought into thinking about what should be cut, and I would just like to say I am okay with with that recommendation from the administration. I don't know if any other council members who are hoping we could save it want to speak up about this.

I wish we could save it. I think that maybe all of us wish we could save it. I heard from a lot of my neighbors, you know, that they use it about the value of it. And the concern here is, sharing the cost of something that is useful for a lot of families throughout the city um and you know and uh in a budget like like like the one that we have in front of us we have to make tough decisions and that might be one of them um i I might be in the minority on the issue, but I understand where you come from. I would love to see significant changes, you know, hopefully some of the things that maybe I brought to the table to fully commit to like, TO SAY WE'RE ALSO REDUCING OTHER THINGS THAT ARE, YOU KNOW, THAT MIGHT NOT HAVE THE SAME IMPACT. SO MAYBE WE CAN GO BACK TO ONE THAT IS THE EXCHANGE. I MISS IT.

AND I'VE BEEN ONE THAT HAS GONE AROUND AND CIRCLED ON THE HIGH PASS BECAUSE I THINK PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION IS SO IMPORTANT AND I'D LOVE TO HAVE FREE PASSES FOR EVERYBODY BUT I KNOW THAT'S A PIPE DREAM. but I also know that this program though hasn't grown but we've also got UTA's got other programs and I almost feel like we need to work with UTA on because we were spending a lot of administrative costs in this program that could have gone to the more passes so I'd really like to work with maybe UTA on this and not having us have too many too many projects and just maybe one program so I'm sad that we have to cut it but I also understand that it We also need to do it. So I'm with you and I've changed my, and I think it's a necessary but hard cut.

I THINK THAT TO YOUR POINT, THE OTHER PORTION THAT IS STILL IN THE PROPOSED BUDGET, WHICH IS THE PORTION THAT SUBSIDIZES KIDS TO TAKE ON THEIR PARENTS, STILL THERE.

RIGHT. AND THAT WAS STILL THERE. AND IT'S GROWING. THE NUMBER OF KIDS, WE COULD HIT OVER 800,000 TRIPS ON THAT ONE. AND THAT IS GROWING. AND THIS ONE WAS REALLY FLATLINED.

AND WE ARE NOT ADMINISTRATING THAT. THAT. THAT.

IT IS A PARTNERSHIP WITH THE IT IS A PARTNERSHIP WITH THE IT IS A PARTNERSHIP WITH THE FOUNDATION UTA AND THE CITY ON FOUNDATION UTA AND THE CITY ON FOUNDATION UTA AND THE CITY ON THAT ONE ALSO. THAT ONE ALSO. THAT ONE ALSO.

IT IS A GOOD COMBINATION OF IT IS A GOOD COMBINATION OF IT IS A GOOD COMBINATION OF PROVIDING SOMETHING THAT MAYBE PROVIDING SOMETHING THAT MAYBE PROVIDING SOMETHING THAT MAYBE IS NEEDED BUT WE ARE NOT IS NEEDED BUT WE ARE NOT IS NEEDED BUT WE ARE NOT ADMINISTRATING OURSELVES SO IT IS ADMINISTRATING OURSELVES SO IT IS ADMINISTRATING OURSELVES SO IT IS NOT COSTING MORE TAXPAYER I understand that. Any other thoughts on the high pass? Okay, I would like to jump to 31, which is the landscape exchange program, which I think it is, A good program. I mean, I'm not, again, and I'm going to preface this maybe every time that I'm mentioning something, but this is not a passing judgment on the program, on the goals of the program, on what is accomplished or what amazing work it does. But this is much like HIVE. So I think it feels similar to me, a program that, you know, exchanges, lawn mowers, and other, you know, I think that's what it is, really, equipment to electrical one. Yes, no council member, but Lehua.

Yes, just Lehua.

Almost, better than a council member, I would say.

I just wanted to translate the numbers because staff added a couple of items, so the line items changed for some reason. So this, you're referring to 31 on the old chart and 37 on the one just passed out.

So should we use the new one?

If you don't mind. I think that's what people are working from.

Let's throw away the small one. Sorry, there's a time.

I'm so sorry.

Council Member Young, can we make sure that Council Member Young has it?

Yes.

Yes, and I am sharing my screen just to make sure that at the very least it's on the screen. So I will send that updated version to council member. Yeah, this actually added an item that I had left off that council member young reminded me of so.

So we're talking about 37 then, which is reduce the landscape exchange program. And again, I think that it's a good program, but this is not the year to keep it. So I don't know if there are any thoughts about this or in favor, maybe torn or against it.

Can I ask a quick question? Sorry, I'm jumping in.

Please do that.

Apologies. Apologies. Thank you. So this is more a procedural question. I know we're approving the budget for this fiscal year and that that's the charge that we're tasked with. Have we ever considered like moving things where we're considering it like that one-time reduction so we're eliminating the funding for this next fiscal year but still keeping it on a future list is there a mechanism for that or is it like no you're making that decision and if you wanted to bring it back that would require council action in the future

I mean, just from my perspective, I'll jump in and then maybe Mary Beth, or the mayor's office could jump in. I, there's nothing preventing you from making your intent known and we could note that on any changes to say 1 time reduction. In fact, the mayor's recommended budget uses that language in relation to the 1 time reduction in the transfer for affordable housing. to the cra so i think that that's their intention was to just suspend it for this year and revisit it next year um i think it will take uh just institutional memory to me and and a review of this year's budget documents to make sure that it doesn't get you know accidentally fall through the cracks for next budget year but that can certainly be communicated

Thank you. So, Council Member Pui, I guess that would just be my question. Is this something that you would like to eliminate or would like to consider a one-year elimination? I'm just curious where you stand on that.

IT'S HARD FOR ME TO COMPLETELY IT'S HARD FOR ME TO COMPLETELY ELIMINATE WHEN I'M TORN. ELIMINATE WHEN I'M TORN. I PREFER TO SAY SUSPENDING THE I PREFER TO SAY SUSPENDING THE PROGRAM FOR THIS YEAR. PROGRAM FOR THIS YEAR. RE-EVALUATING AGAIN NEXT YEAR RE-EVALUATING AGAIN NEXT YEAR WITH WHATEVER BUDGET COMES TO US. WITH WHATEVER BUDGET COMES TO US. THAT WILL BE MY PREFERRED METHOD.

THAT WILL BE MY PREFERRED METHOD. THANK YOU.

Mr. Chair, I appreciate that and I look at this again I'M JUST GOING TO SAY THE SAME THING I SAID JUST LAST TWO SECONDS AGO. THESE ARE HARD CUTS. THE AIR QUALITY IS A BIG ISSUE. THE NOISE QUALITY IS A BIG ISSUE ACROSS THE CITY. AND I KNOW THERE'S ALSO A STATE PROGRAM FOR THIS. AGAIN, DO WE HAVE, ARE WE HAVING A PROGRAM, THE STATE HAS A PROGRAM? ARE WE ADMINISTRATING A PROGRAM THE STATE HAS? THE STATE'S PROGRAM SO WE'RE USING THE STATE'S FUNDS INSTEAD OF USING THE STATE'S FUNDS INSTEAD OF OUR FUNDS SO PEOPLE CAN STILL GET OUR FUNDS SO PEOPLE CAN STILL GET AN INCENTIVE BUT NOT TAKING IT AN INCENTIVE BUT NOT TAKING IT FROM THE CITY DOLLARS BUT FROM FROM THE CITY DOLLARS BUT FROM THE STATE DOLLARS. THE STATE DOLLARS. SO WE'RE PROMOTING THE STATE'S SO WE'RE PROMOTING THE STATE'S PROGRAM IN ONE WAY BUT NOT USING PROGRAM IN ONE WAY BUT NOT USING OUR FUNDS. OUR FUNDS. I THINK WE DID THE E-BIKES AND I THINK WE DID THE E-BIKES AND WE DID THE LAWN MOWERS AND WE DID THE LAWN MOWERS AND IT WAS LIKE WITHIN A DAY IT WAS LIKE WITHIN And I can see this happening again here. So I'd like to see it there, but I also, again, like to see how we can promote the state's program. So we're using their dollars, which has a bigger, DEBT FOR IT THAN OURS. SO, YOU KNOW, IS THERE A NEED TO FULLY CUT IT ALL THE WAY OUT? DO YOU CUT HALF OF IT AT THIS POINT? AGAIN, WE'RE HAVING HERE AND THERE'S, BUT I SEE A NEED TO CUT IT, BUT I'M NOT SURE IF I WANT TO ELIMINATE IT ALL, BUT I ALSO WANT TO SEE US PROMOTE THE STATE SO WE'RE SPENDING THEIR MONEY INSTEAD OF OURS.

I, too, feel the consternation around this program. I know people love it. And I think it's hard to cut something that people really like and is a tangible benefit to them. But some of the things that are going into my thinking regarding this is a reality that there is a state program that people can apply to to participate in. And the other reality that there is not a income requirement for this program. And what's really important to me is that if we are subsidizing this, that it's really going to the neediest of individuals for whom this could make the difference for them to transition to electric equipment from gas-powered equipment. So I am definitely open to the proposal of pausing. I don't know if that's a technical term. Reducing finding that balance.

I would like to maybe propose, you know, a draft of a legislative intent that is in my mind regarding these things, which is that we study, you know, other organizations MAY HAVE SIMILAR PROGRAMS. ALSO PARTNERSHIPS WITH PRIVATE SECTOR. I KNOW THAT HAS HAPPENED BEFORE IN SIMILAR PROGRAMS WHEN THEY DID THE SPRINKLER CONTROLLER WHICH I THINK WE SHOULD DO IT AGAIN. BUT ALSO ADD INCOME REQUIREMENT TO PROGRAMS LIKE THIS. SO WE ARE HELPING PEOPLE THAT you know, they need it. And they need it the most. I think everybody will take a couple hundred dollars, you know, extra. But it will be fantastic if we can prioritize those that need it the most. And they cannot afford to replace their equipment. And we can help subsidize those. So maybe that's something that could be used. We can form that idea a little better and maybe staff can help me into a legislative intent.

Yes, we'll work on drafting that based on this conversation. Does that mean the funding would stay or it would come out with that legislative intent? Yes. Okay.

Yeah, I'd like to keep the option open to maybe not fully cut it, but let's look at what would come out at the end of the day here. I THINK MAYBE TO THAT QUESTION WE COULD ASK WHAT IS THE ADMINISTRATIVE COST OF RUNNING THIS PROGRAM AND IT MAY NOT MAKE SENSE. BUT I WILL SAY TO YOU THAT

One of the, when I'm comparing, comparing is never fair, especially on these things, but comparing Hive to this, we're talking about users getting a pass they use throughout the year, you know, and, you know, exchanging a lot more, right? And to me, one, I personally have a bigger weight. Both of them are valid. Both of them are useful. But I lean towards one more. So if I have to keep something, I prefer to keep it on Hive, right? And I'm not sure it's... So that's why I'm using Hive as this filter to judge. Am I being irrational about this? I agree with you. I wish I could keep it, but I'm open to that. Let's see maybe how we go through the cuts. But it seems like many of us have shared general interest in it. Any other thoughts on this?

sorry mr chair for the it was hard for me to hear because i'm not in the room does that mean i um should i back it out for now and then we'll put it back in or should we just maybe highlight it to come back later

I think that maybe I received enough council members' information to say that we probably should remove it. Okay, great. So mark it as that now and then we can go back to it. We are all here, we'll all remember this conversation. Maybe unfortunately. Any of you have the courage to pick one of yours in this list?

I'M GOING TO BRING UP NUMBER 23, THE DRONE PILOT PROGRAM. I THINK THE DRONE SYSTEM AND THE DRONE PROGRAM HAS BEEN VERY BENEFICIAL FOR THE CITY. I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT. WE HAVE A NUMBER OF DRONE PILOTS OR QUALIFIED INDIVIDUALS WHO CAN FLY THE DRONE AROUND. If we had the money, this would be great. I know this is 10 months because I think the ongoing cost is more than the 136, but I can also see us saying, let's review this at January after six months of the budget, after a few months of the tax, the sales tax, maybe a budget amendment and other things to see where we are in fund balance to bring it back. BUT I WOULD LIKE TO REDUCE THAT BY HALF, SO FROM TEN MONTHS TO BY HALF, SO FROM TEN MONTHS TO FIVE MONTHS AND TAKE A LOOK AT IT FIVE MONTHS AND TAKE A LOOK AT IT AT THAT POINT AND WE CAN BRING IT AT THAT POINT AND WE CAN BRING IT BACK ON OUR BUDGET AMENDMENT. BACK ON OUR BUDGET AMENDMENT. IT'S NOT A BIG CUT, BUT IT IS IT'S NOT A BIG CUT, BUT IT IS BECAUSE I THINK IT'S A WORTHY BECAUSE I THINK IT'S A WORTHY PROGRAM, BUT I ALSO DON'T THINK PROGRAM, BUT I ALSO DON'T THINK WE'RE IN DESPERATE NEED AT THIS WE'RE IN DESPERATE NEED AT THIS TIME.

Thank you. So I think I just had a clarification question about this. My understanding was that the request for the drone pilot funding, some of that was in infrastructure, not in operating costs. And so if we reduce it by half, I don't know if that achieves a feasible five-month effort. And so I guess I'm just seeking clarification on... whether it's for operating costs, so we can go down to a factor of five months, or if it's infrastructure related, in which case it may just make more sense to hold on those infrastructure improvements to achieve the same outcome.

The 136 is for the FTE itself. And then... But we can confirm that. That's what's in the budget book, but we'll confirm that unless Michael Sanders is in the room and could clarify. Sorry, Michael, to put you on the spot if you don't.

He's coming on down. Great. Thanks. Thank you.

Yeah, so the $136,000 is related just to the drone pilot. The infrastructure cost is related to the other line item for the real-time crime center.

Got it. Okay. So if we, Michael, if I can ask a follow-up. So then if we're reducing the FTE component, does that impact then that infrastructure ask in terms of like a similar reduction?

I'd have to ask the chief to get back to you on that. I believe the infrastructure cost is mainly for like drone repairs and things of that nature. I don't know if they actually, what they need in terms of infrastructure 100%, but it's mostly repairs and perhaps another drone dock, but I'll check in with the chief.

And I guess that's my question. If we can get clarity around the cost of the additional drone dock, that would also be a space where it's just not an improvement. We can make it this time. And I think maybe a little bit different than the FTE approach. So thank you for that.

I WILL OPEN TO DISCUSSION ON THIS. I AM TORN BECAUSE I WAS SHOWN EVIDENCE THAT, YOU KNOW, THE DRONE PROGRAM WILL SAVE US A LOT OF MONEY. AND IT'S SAVING US MONEY ON FTE'S FROM THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. AND FOR THOSE THAT HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE CONCERN ABOUT THE know the use of data and all that the city is looking into improving the the policies and whatnot and the records and uh around that um but also it reduces interactions with police officers uh you know for when it's not needed um so there is a lot of efficiencies and other jurisdictions are seeing uh a lot of efficiencies with this so i want to make sure that we keep an eye on it i'm open to TO DISCUSS THAT, I WOULD LOVE MORE INFORMATION ABOUT WHY TEN MONTHS. COULD WE REDUCE THAT TO LESS MONTHS? COULD WE REDUCE THAT TO PART TIME OR OTHER VERSIONS?

Thank you. I would love to hear a little bit more about what would be the impact if we, to Councilmember Dugan's suggestion, we started this position in January and we saw what the impact of it was. And to Councilmember Young's question about the infrastructure, do they go hand in hand? open to learning more about what the right balance is on this. I am not, just to be clear, I'm not open to cutting it totally. I would like to still maintain funding, but maybe we can do some budget math, budget magic, and reduce when that funding is appropriated. Hopefully that makes sense.

Yeah. I think we should ask a lot more questions to the police department. And we are looking for efficiencies to continue the program, to keep expanding the program. I think it seems like we have been talking about this. We're interested in if there is any way that they can potentially keep growing without the need of a full pilot. Are there reductions in there that they can, or efficiencies that they can find as an option? And to Council Member Young, about the infrastructure. Could we reduce that instead of the FTE?

Okay, I just did look at the staff report one more time and saw that one of the line items is for the drone dock specifically, and it's $250,000, a little over $250,000. It just says that it's related to ongoing costs, so I don't know if it means a new drone dock, and I don't know specifically if it's like one drone to one drone pilot. So I'll follow up with the chief.

AND WHETHER THAT'S PART OF THAT 397 OR. IT'S SEPARATE.

YEAH, IT'S SEPARATE. SO THERE'S A 397 FOR THE REAL TIME CRIME CENTER AND THEN THERE'S A 252 THAT'S SPECIFIC FOR THE DRONE DOC.

AND CHAIR, IF I CAN JUST ADD ONE OTHER ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATION. SO I AGREE WITH YOU IN TERMS OF THE EFFICIENCIES THAT WE GET RELATED TO REDUCING ADDITIONAL FTE NEEDS VERSUS UTILIZING TECHNOLOGY IN WAYS THAT ALLOWS US TO save money for places that we don't necessarily need that police interaction. I think the other piece that I consider in terms of prioritizing maybe a reduction in the infrastructure as opposed to the FTE, when you adjust that FTE level, that is oftentimes harder to maintain staffing for because now all of a sudden you're either offering somebody, you know, a a time limited position or you're changing somebody from an ongoing position to time limited with the point of review. Sometimes that means that we don't necessarily get the same expertise and or experience in those use cases just because they're a little more like, I'm not sure that job is going to continue. And so I lean towards infrastructure so that we can still get top quality individuals who are participating in this program.

That's a good frame. I was wondering why one or the other from this conversation. So that helps me understand what your train of thought is. I think that we have some questions for the chief about this, and we need some creativity. I think that we're looking for some creativity to see if there is some option to grow for less money. So we want to do both. So it seems like, what is the proposal for Jennifer to Mark? Do we want to put half of that in there?

Yeah, my thought was to delay it. So you're going to delay and basically delay this cost of five months, from ten months to five months. And because I don't want to cut the drone pilot program, but I also want to make sure We have drone pilots that are qualified, but they're also flying the drone so that they're very comfortable flying it and using it. A lot of part-time drone pilots, then you end up with safety issues, you have other kind of issues because you don't have enough experience by actually operating the machinery and the equipment. And so let's look at that, but let's just delay it really is, the point here is delay it, and let's see how it works, and then we bring it back.

So by delaying, you mean not putting any money on the bucket?

No, no, no, it'd be half that.

No, like half a year, so start the funding in February.

Yeah, whatever six month is, yeah. February, for five months. Because it's 136 is for 10 months. Okay. And that's usually how we do an FTE, we do FTE for 10 months, so I would just cut it in half, make it five months.

Okay. Ah, perfect. Anybody else wants to speak to this or bring, have the courage to bring their own?

Well, since we're here, the next line item 24 around cameras, supplies, and equipment. I have a question regarding this line item. How much of this goes towards repair and replace versus repair, replace, and purchase new equipment? And so I would love to get an understanding of how does that break down financially? And to name, I have a slight preference towards repair and replace at this point in time.

You know, I struggle with that because public safety is our core, one of our core services and this has been a tool that has helped us big time to reduce hot spots in the city. It has, I've seen it with my own eyes and my own street. And I don't know if this is the place that we should compromise, but I think having an idea of how this money divides into these three pockets, I do struggle with cutting public safety, especially when we have good data that proves that it's effective. So I struggle. But this is where I see the value of doing this tightening up of our belts if we cut other pieces of the budget that seem Less important is not the right word, but less urgent or less impactful. Or they have a positive impact, but it's more limited. So if we are able to make some of those, then I understand maybe next in line is not buying a new one. So I work through Explorer. So getting more information will give us the actual number.

Is that how you expect that?

OK. That's $397,000. We'll see what that looks like. Council Member Carlson?

Sorry. The last item is number 25, which is a leadership development program. And I would love to explore not cutting this totally but maybe reducing the cost of it from $100,000 to $50,000. And what's informing my perspective on this is that I saw just across the board, many departments, police department included, but everybody really tightening belts around a lot of different things. And I saw some instances where leadership development and other departments were, you know, either cut or paused or delayed. And so I felt like this might be one of those areas where we could reduce the investment of it and see if that can help alleviate some of the weight. I know it's not a lot, $50,000, but, you know, I feel like over time all of these things really add up.

I'm supportive of that.

That's what we're doing.

Okay. I do want to be careful not to undermine. I spoke with Councilwoman Carlson earlier. We are unabashedly pains in the neck when it comes to our public safety apparatus and our police force demanding a lot out of them in terms of professionalism, how they show up, how they handle creative situations, how they are innovative and forward looking. And so I don't, especially because we do rely on recruitment from former military, I don't want to inadvertently create a situation where we're expecting a culture that we're not investing to cultivate. And so I would like specific information on how we're cultivating that if this contributes to that, I am really apprehensive to cut it. I think we're asking men and women to come off the streets of Fallujah and to recognize Salt Lake City as something different. And I'm so thankful for the people who keep us safe and who are willing to do that work because it is not my calling. But I want to make sure that we are equipping them, especially if we're going to be trauma informed about everyone else, we have to be trauma informed about our own staff.

Yeah, I struggle with it too. And I think that maybe for many of us have been in the council where we were losing police officers left and right and we had some issues retaining them and morale was, we have some issues with morale. I will struggle with sending some mixed messages there. It not only impacts the force itself and the recruitment and the retention, but it impacts how they interact with the community. So I'm open to explore it, but I want to make sure that if we end up doing that, that it's carefully cushioned.

VERY VALID POINTS BECAUSE LEADERSHIP TRAIN IS SO VALUABLE FOR ACROSS THE BOARD. IT'S KIND OF SOMETIMES HARD TO QUANTIFY BUT YOU CAN ALSO SEE THAT THE LEADERSHIP IN THE POLICE DEPARTMENT IS FANTASTIC AND OUR STAFFING LEVEL IS GREAT. MORALE IS GOOD AND WE'RE SEEING A LOT OF PRODUCTIVITY FROM THAT. THE LEADERSHIP TRAINING IS STILL THERE AND THAT'S WHY I THINK THE IDEA OF THIS REDUCING IT BECAUSE WE KNOW IT IS VALUABLE AND MAYBE WE CAN FIND SOME GRANT MONEY TO OFFSET SOME OF THAT FUNDING AND THE POLICE CHIEF CAN LOOK FOR THAT BECAUSE THIS IS THE KIND OF TRAINING THAT KEEPS OUR LEADERSHIP STRONG WHICH THEN KEEPS OUR CORE VALUES STRONG WHICH KEEPS OUR BOOTS IN THE GROUND STRONG, TOO. SO I THINK THIS CAN STILL BE A PLUS AND IT'S NOT REALLY A MINUS IN THAT CASE.

Yeah, open to discuss. I will have more information. I think it's really good.

Mr. Chair, if I could just share really quickly, since this is the first item we've touched in funding our future. So this particular line item was funded with the funding our future category, which is that extra sales tax that the council levied. Um, several years ago, at the time, the council committed to only spending those dollars on certain categories. Those are the categories at the top. Their housing transit, public safety, infrastructure and parks maintenance. So that's why we keep it tracked in a separate column. So, as we go through this list, we will figure out sort of what the balance is of everything. You don't have to figure out how to balance everything and funding our future. That doesn't need to be. uh balanced the same way the general fund needs to be balanced um although obviously you have to have enough money to pay for all the things you want to pay for um but i just wanted to make sure to flag that for everyone

Thank you. Council Member Dugan. All right, I'm just going to go down the list. Number 28, the use of seasonal employees, a new property tax proposal. And again, I'm not reducing wanting to cut this all, but I'm just trying to look at some of the trimming. We're asking public lands to do a lot, and they've done some tremendous work. And I appreciate all the work they've done for my district on the parks and everything else and taking all my calls of trimming when I need it trimmed. because I have some... I HAVE SOME NEEDS UP THERE SOMETIMES TO DO SOME OF THIS KIND OF WORK, BUT I ALSO LOOK AT THIS TIME, HEY, WE'RE NOT REDUCING OUR WATERING, SO MAYBE WE NEED TO REDUCE OUR CUTTING OF THAT LAWN, AND SO IS THERE A WAY TO REDUCE SOME OF THAT, AND MAYBE IT'S ALREADY IN THE BUDGET, BUT REDUCE SOME OF THE SEASONAL EMPLOYEES THAT ARE DOING THE SEASONAL WORK IN THE PARKS, KEEPING THE GRASS LONGER, NOT CUTTING ALL THE AREAS, AND JUST TRIMMING THAT BUDGET. YOU KNOW, WE'RE USING THAT, WE'RE GOING TO SLICE IT IN HALF. THAT'S JUST AN EASY NUMBER TO USE. I'M NOT SURE IF IT'S A FULL HALF BUT HOW CAN WE REDUCE THAT NUMBER BY, YOU KNOW, EVEN IF A HUNDRED GRAND, WHAT DOES IT LOOK LIKE AS FAR AS THE MAINTENANCE OF IT AND CUTTING THE GRASS AND MAINTAINING THE STUFF THAT WE CAN DO WITHOUT REALLY AFFECTING THE TREES AND THE OVERALL OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS?

ANYBODY ELSE? SEEMS LIKE THERE'S ONLY THREE. OKAY.

COUNCILMEMBER CARLSON. THANK YOU FOR THAT SUGGESTION, COUNCILMEMBER DUGAN. I ACTUALLY WOULD LOVE TO HEAR A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THIS, YOU KNOW, UNDERSTAND, SO IF IT IS REDUCED, WHAT WOULD BE THE IMPACTS? I DIDN'T SEE AS MUCH, AND IT COULD HAVE BEEN THAT I MISSED IT IN THE BUDGET, BUT WANTING TO UNDERSTAND MORE OF WHAT TYPES OF THINGS THIS WOULD FUND.

Right. And it talks about the new properties and we have new properties and we also have new stuff coming up. We got Allen Park coming up. We have other things coming up. So I'd like to get maybe a little more. My mistake of not asking these questions two weeks ago on public lands, but I'm asking them now.

Okay. The staff knows what we want from this. yes yes yes okay sorry thank you no i guess we're going through the list in order um so there is version 29 uh oh you know that's you who's 29. is there more people to speak to 29 okay

I didn't specifically request this one, but when I ask my neighbors if they've seen park rangers, the Cottonwood Dog Park people are the only ones who report that they did, and the function that they observed was picking up dog poop. As I still don't have what success looks like for this program or what a metric of success is, It feels like a place where we're not getting impact and a concrete ROI, at least in my district. I know District 3 is going to come for me real quick as soon as I say that. And I understand that. But it's a hard one for me to justify with my neighbors. And it's one that I hear a lot of static over. But I did not request this one. I'm just riding the coattails of other people who did.

Anybody else want to speak to it?

I do because we, I would rather see maybe like a shift in focus if that is the concern than eliminating the program because For me, this saves us a lot of money in terms of calls to the county for animal control. This saves on calls to police for issues that are happening on the trails. It helps with a lot of the camps in my district and calling in nonprofit partners to come and answer those calls if we eliminate these positions i think that we're just going to see more calls to the non-emergency line as opposed to um so i know i i also have a not officially a constituent, but I'll call them an honorary constituent that is frustrated with this item and doesn't feel like it's generating the return that is necessary. I don't, I understand that criticism. And so I think that there's a way that we can adjust that in terms of what programs they're focusing on as opposed to eliminating the position. I do think this is one of the alternative response models that we initially rolled out and that we have said that in past budgets we have expanded. I don't want to go back on that.

Thanks.

I struggle with it because I don't know if cloud watching is an alternative response. But I do believe that some of the functions do fit a space that is an alternative response versus calling the police. But there is no data to back it out as far as I know. And I would love to base these decisions a little more with some information. None of the proposed here are eliminating the program altogether though. They're like reducing it. So I felt like maybe reducing it and rescoping it to keep the things that you value, that we all value, might actually accomplish the same thing. And maybe the cloud watching portions of it can be removed. but the parts that are essential as an alternative response are more enhanced. So we still see the value as an alternative response. But I would love to get more information. I DIDN'T PROPOSE 29, BUT I PROPOSED 30, WHICH IS ELIMINATING THREE POSITIONS. SO TWO PARK RANGERS AND ONE MANAGER. THAT IS $100,000, $105,000. AND THAT IS, AGAIN, I THINK THAT WITH YOUR IDEA OF RESCOPING SOME OF THE PORTIONS, I THINK WE CAN STILL SEE THE VALUE IN OUR STREETS.

Well, I guess the concern I have about, and I appreciate you clarifying, yes, we're not eliminating the program, but we would be laying off some employees. And I feel like the data argument goes both ways, that if this were neutral and we weren't laying somebody off, then I could say, OK, we need more data before we expand it. But we're saying we don't have the data to justify keeping these positions. The other way of saying that is that we don't have the data to eliminate the positions either. And, you know, these are individuals who are you know, currently work in our city. I don't want to just eliminate them based on anecdote. And if we want to, if we're going to talk about doing it based on data, then I think we have to acknowledge the lack of data cuts both ways. And so if we're going to do it by anecdote, then I would be happy to offer many anecdotes that to counter the, you know, the cloud watching or the, uh, wildfire or wildflowers concerns.

So I want to see if I can step because I'm noticing I'm getting a little confused myself here So I wanted to just like step in and clarify a couple things In the mayor's recommended budget. There is a recommendation for the reduction of three park rangers. That's correct. Yes Yes Okay As I think about this issue, if you've got a reduction in, let's say, frontline staff, it makes sense to me that there may be a corresponding reduction in either lead or supervisorial staff because what is within their scope of responsibilities has decreased. And my question is not reducing the program. My question is, what is the right balance with the already proposed reduction in park ranger frontline staff, a corresponding reduction in supervisorial or lead positions so that the organizational structure matches?

I can't answer that question, but we can certainly pass it on.

Actually, I believe Director

KIM IS HERE.

I WOULD LOVE TO FURTHER ASK. WHAT I'M NOT INTERESTED IN THIS MEETING IS NECESSARILY TO HAVE A BACK AND FORTH WITH ADMINISTRATION. I WOULD LOVE TO GET FEEDBACK, QUICK FEEDBACK OR TOP OF LINE FEEDBACK BUT ULTIMATELY DEEPER QUESTIONS ANSWERED IN WRITING IF POSSIBLE. I WOULD REALLY APPRECIATE IT. Because I think this is a really good, it feels like a safe space for council members to, you know, express their mind and then, like, get actually good answers. No, they've never been bad. But, like, more answers that will not influence, you know, to be ashamed to say. It's hard. And I will say... I would like to preface this conversation by saying that I still value the program. I think there is a lot of amazing things that they do. But maybe my question to the administration to add to that is, if we are shrinking the things that they do, and one of those may be... And I'm not saying there's no value in cloud watching, bird watching, wildflower, and understanding nature, and valuing, you know, putting value in our public spaces. And there is a lot of great value into that. But when I'm cutting, you know, transportation passes because we don't have the money, again, they don't compare to me. You know, I have a struggle to find one versus the other. But if there is a way of reducing the scope of the work, could the program continue with less people, with a few people? Kim, if you really want to, I would love to have you. But you can always answer the questions after.

I would like to provide a more thoughtful response by Friday, is that what I heard? But I do just want to mention, I appreciate the reference to our cloud watching program. It was one of, actually, our most attended programs. So, Salt Lakers, some of them, at least, did enjoy that. But some of the supervisor duties that go beyond just direct supervision, like payroll, things like that, they're actually developing our interpretive programs. And that workload, we wouldn't think would change with a reduction in staff. So, we're happy to provide a more comprehensive response to the questions, but I appreciate the thoughtful dialogue. Thanks.

Thank you. Thank you. And I I Appreciate I mean my frame of work my frame of seeing is like can we find some savings? So I'm gonna try to find that comes member Wharton.

So sorry, so What was the answer to that that you're gonna be able to? Get us some more

I'm happy to answer the question that I understood to be what, with the reduction, what is the appropriate balance between supervisors, lead, and frontline staff? And then with the reduction proposed in staff, what does the programming shift look like? And how we might change patrol hours, interpretive programs that are offered, things like that. So the council has that information as you're making the decision.

And when would we be able to get that?

I will do my best to get it Friday. Okay, thanks.

Thank you so much. That's a lot of work. MAYBE WE ALL NEED TO DO SOME CLOUD WATCHING.

FOR THE RECORD, I DO LIKE THE CLOUD WATCHING. I MAY BE THE ONLY ONE, BUT BEING A STUDENT OF MEDITATION AND MINDFULNESS, I SEE THE VALUE IN IT.

I RECOGNIZE I'M IN THE MINORITY. BUT I THINK WE HAVE TO ACKNOWLEDGE WE ARE IN A NEED TO HAVE BUDGET, NOT A NICE TO HAVE BUDGET. ARPA IS GONE. AND OUR NEIGHBORS ARE EXPERIENCING INFLATION AT THE HIGHEST RIGHT NOW IN SEVEN YEARS, ACCORDING TO TODAY'S HEADLINES. And those working class people who we invested millions in thriving in place to not displace are literally on the line with our decisions here. So understanding what you said, we don't think the default is to ask neighbors to continuously shoulder more burdens. I love to live in a place that has nice to have things. We have to be very serious about what we're doing.

Council Member Young.

THE PROPOSAL IS TO REDUCE, SORRY.

THE PROPOSAL IS TO REDUCE, SORRY.

YOU NEVER INTERRUPT ANYBODY. YOU NEVER INTERRUPT ANYBODY. IT'S OKAY IF I GIVE HIM THE IT'S OKAY IF I GIVE HIM THE TIME. TIME. HE NEVER DOES IT. HE NEVER DOES IT. I'M ALWAYS LOSING THE CHANCE FOR I'M ALWAYS LOSING THE CHANCE FOR HIM TO SAY ANYTHING. HIM TO SAY ANYTHING.

PLEASE LIKE COUNCIL MEMBER PLEASE LIKE COUNCIL MEMBER WHARTON GO. WHARTON GO. I'M HAPPY TO GO AFTER. I'M HAPPY TO GO AFTER.

I UNDERSTOOD THIS TO BE THAT I UNDERSTOOD THIS TO BE THAT THE PROPOSAL WAS TO ELIMINATE THE PROPOSAL WAS TO ELIMINATE THESE AND PUT THAT MONEY

We haven't gone to that place.

Okay.

To where the money's going.

I feel like that's kind of, isn't that kind of integral, though, to the question?

I mean, the two options are,

reducing the tax increase or or uh you know put it into our general fund and um i mean we're never compelled yeah we're never compelled to spend money if the state's any example we don't even have to spend it on our statutory responsibilities however we're going to spend on our statutory responsibility but we're never compelled to spend money so i think for me i've discussed this with several of my co-counselors As I'm looking at these decisions, I'm looking at this from a lens of not only what does it do to this year's budget, but what's the likelihood that in the next year we will be in another position where we're having to make really hard decisions. Are there decisions now that I can make? So I've disclosed to everyone, I think, except my new colleague, that my predisposition is to take anything that we are able to save this year and reduce our reliance on one-time funds from the general fund to make sure that next year we are mitigating the gap that we have to cover.

And are in the same position Okay, but But that makes me feel like it's being framed as like This one line item is what's gonna? make or break either having to do a tax increase having to do a second tax increase or or make or break one households budget And recognizing that all of these things add up, I do understand that. But even the aggregate of all of these numbers on this column, we're talking about a $13 million structural deficit.

No, our structural deficit is not $13 million.

It's probably much lower. Sorry, $18 million. So I... I'm going to use, well, no, I'm not going to use that phrase. I was almost going to use my favorite budget phrase, penny wise, pound foolish, but I'm not going to this time. Sorry, Lindsay. Oh, she's not here. So I, yeah, I guess I would want to understand more about like how, like these particular cuts and these particular amounts, like what do we get for the cut?

Yeah, Council Member Young.

Yes, and if I can just, I guess, add to the request from Director Shelly, I know that you guys have a really great website for park rangers where you are kind of breaking it down by those core six core activities you've identified for rangers. I guess I had two questions. One is with the reduction in FTEs impact the allocation of how that time is being spent against those six core activities and are those are the reduction of fte specific to certain parks or is the intention for it to be a pool that's been absorbed across the city if we can just get clarification on those that that would give me the information i think i'm looking for to help inform my decision you're getting a thumbs up from director shelley

I would love, you know, any information. I know how impressive that department is. And I think that the argument of rescoping some of the work and how that could potentially benefit the program as well, like to keep it going, but doing it in a different way. BUT I THINK ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT THIS COUNCIL ASKED FOR A LITTLE WHILE, AND I THINK THEY'RE THERE, IS ABOUT THE DATA AS FAR AS ALL THE ALTERNATIVE RESPONSE, YOU KNOW, TOOLS THAT WE HAVE IN THE CITY. ONE OF THOSE SUGGESTED TO FIRE TO EXPAND THE THIRD CHAT TEAM. So to me, you know, when we're talking about what it does, potentially we could save some money and put towards a chat team that we actually have more evidence of their direct impact, not that the impact of park rangers is bad. But, you know, I think that we could potentially subsidize the creation of a third chat team, which I think that to me is something that we all value. And it, you know, and so I'm hoping that maybe we can find some funds to do that. I'm not, I didn't add the chat team here. I don't know who added it, Council Member Young.

So, I want to make sure we give credit where credit's due. It's also council member. And again, I think to council member, you just spoke very elegantly to it as we think about what the needs are in our city and how they are more diverse. you know, than some of our surrounding municipalities. The addition of those social workers really makes a difference, you know, and not just in terms of anecdotally being able to see it, but also really looking at it in terms of expectations of a general city safety response and recognizing that there are emotional and psychological impacts that also need to be attended to in the same way we attend to if somebody, you know, has had a major injury. And so I appreciate that we have the existing kind of paramedic side of the team that's already available. So really what we would be looking to do is to fund two social workers that would complete that into a full chat team

DOES THIS AMOUNT REPRESENT ANY PPE OR OTHER THINGS THAT THOSE SOCIAL WORKERS WILL NEED OR IS THIS EXCLUSIVELY FOR THEIR SALARIES?

THE ESTIMATE CAME THROUGH SALT LAKE CITY FIRE AND SO I WOULD NEED TO FOLLOW UP ON IF THERE'S ADDITIONAL OPERATIONAL AND EQUIPMENT COSTS. IT'S A GOOD QUESTION.

CAN WE ASK THE ADMINISTRATION WHY THEY DIDN'T PROPOSE AN ADDITIONAL CHAT TEAM? I'm not necessarily opposed to it, but I assume if the administration had the opportunity to consider it, maybe I'm missing something.

We would have loved to. We couldn't balance by adding it. That's all it was.

But you also see the need.

It was just a matter of. Great program. We were trying to balance the budget.

Rachel sent me a text saying that we aren't cutting the HIVE program because we don't have money, but we're cutting it because there is very small ROI for the cost. And the second one is on the alternative response models. There is some data that came to us, so we're going to review it. So thank you.

Thank you.

Any other items that we want to talk about?

Have we talked?

Did we talk about number 36?

OK. So I want to go on the record. I didn't propose any of these increases or decreases. I am low maintenance this year. However, I've talked to some other council members who are looking at the food microgranting program. And I do believe that there could be a cost savings there. However, I would like to propose that it's just a reduction. So we've done $58,000. And it's been typically 250 for individuals. And then community programs could get between 1 and 5,000 to promote food growth in individual contexts. Super highly supportive of this this year. But I would like to take it down to just 20,000. And I would like it to be up to 200 households eligible for 25 a month for the four growing months to help absorb the anticipated increase to water bills so that would be june july august and september have them send a picture of the boxes where the where it's growing but i want to encourage people to grow food i am worried with a hundred percent crop failure and rising fuel costs about the availability and the price, if available, of food later on. So I would like to make $100 flat grants available to subsidize the increase with a special emphasis on those who exist on fixed incomes or who are low income. So I had two senior women in my neighborhood tell me they weren't going to grow gardens this year because they were worried about it. And then the rest of that money to be either reappropriated or just returned to the general fund.

when you say appropriate to the go ahead go ahead jennifer sorry so it would be twenty thousand dollars administered by sustainability for the program you just described and then 38 000 sorry 20 000 to the program you just described and then 38 000 to the general fund

Yes, and Jen, you know me, I would hate to be accused of legislative overreach, so I would never tell you that sustainability has to do it if you found another home for that money. Just that I would like it distributed for those purposes.

I had a short conversation about this because I look at the micro food going this is a program that we want people to have put food on the table that they have and I also understand that the public utilities has a you know a program to support people to help pay for their their water bills and that's increasing but I also this is the balance of on that funding side and also it's going from 250 down to 100. can we ask sustainability to DO YOU HAVE ANY, CAN YOU TELL US A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE MICRO PROGRAM?

THANK YOU. I DON'T WANT TO BE IN ANY OF THESE DISCUSSIONS YOU'RE HAVING. VERY TOUGH. I JUST WANT TO SAY THIS PROGRAM IS ONE OF OUR KIND OF LEADING EDGE AFFORDABILITY PROGRAMS THAT WE HAVE IN OUR DEPARTMENT AND I BELIEVE IN THE CITY AS WELL. taking the tools of the toolbox away for this food resiliency program would be quite devastating. We do know that over 30% of the people who did apply for it are using it to change out turf grass, to put in gardens, to do water irrigation, drip irrigation for their gardens. There's a lot of concern about the impact of water. SO THAT'S VERY MUCH IN LINE WITH ALSO THE APPLICATIONS THAT WE ALSO THE APPLICATIONS THAT WE ALSO THE APPLICATIONS THAT WE RECEIVED FOR IT. RECEIVED FOR IT. RECEIVED FOR IT. ALSO THE HIGH NUMBER OF PEOPLE ALSO THE HIGH NUMBER OF PEOPLE ALSO THE HIGH NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT SHARE THEIR FOOD WITH THAT SHARE THEIR FOOD WITH THAT SHARE THEIR FOOD WITH THEIR NEIGHBORS. THEIR NEIGHBORS. THEIR NEIGHBORS.

IT'S A BIG MAJORITY OF PEOPLE IT'S A BIG MAJORITY OF PEOPLE IT'S A BIG MAJORITY OF PEOPLE THAT ARE KIND OF USING IT TO THAT ARE KIND OF USING IT TO THAT ARE KIND OF USING IT TO HELP BOLSTER THEIR BUDGETS HELP B

I think it was a flat. It's flat for, yeah. And I would say the residential impact of this program is hard to overstate from our perspective. Maybe understate, sorry. But yes, it's a flat 250.

So maybe if you would just, do you think that reducing it to $100 would be?

So the original proposal as it came to me was to eliminate it altogether or suspend it for a year. I don't feel comfortable with an elimination or suspension at this point. But I do feel comfortable with tapering it this year, making it very focused on this one thing instead of buying the garden box or the soil. making sure that the people who have historically done it are able to continue and so that that that was my that was when the suggestion to cut it was brought to me this was my suggestion of repurposing and mitigating some cost

And then just reducing the flat fee from $250 to $100. Correct.

And that, to me, amounts to the four months that people will be watering gardens. That's what I'm expecting the increase to my bill to be, between $25 and $35 a month. So that would just allow people to have some stability through the growing months so that they could, if they had historically grown gardens, continue to grow them.

So Council Member Carlson and then Council Member Wharton.

NO. ARE YOU SURE? ARE YOU SURE? NO. NO.

OKAY. OKAY. OKAY. I'M INTERESTED IN I'M INTERESTED IN I'M INTERESTED IN COUNCILMEMBER PETRO'S IDEA. COUNCILMEMBER PETRO'S IDEA. COUNCILMEMBER PETRO'S IDEA. I DEFINITELY LIKE THE IDEA OF I DEFINITELY LIKE THE IDEA OF I DEFINITELY LIKE THE IDEA OF IT BEING MORE LIMITED TO FOOD IT BEING MORE LIMITED TO FOOD IT BEING MORE LIMITED TO FOOD OR MORE NECESSITY THAN SOMETHING OR MORE NECESSITY THAN SOMETHING OR MORE NECESSITY THAN SOMETHING ELSE. I think the theme for me is that I don't want to inadvertently make something worse or harder when we're trying to do the opposite. So can you talk about your thoughts on this proposal and is there a way to do that effectively?

In fairness, you just heard about it. So while I trust your brilliance, Sophia, I do acknowledge how unfair it is for us to ask that. I THINK WE HAVE SEVERAL MINUTES OF PASS SINCE YOU BROUGHT IT OF PASS SINCE YOU BROUGHT IT OF PASS SINCE YOU BROUGHT IT UP.

UP. UP. YOU WANT MY OPINION. YOU WANT MY OPINION. YOU WANT MY OPINION. NO PRESSURE. NO PRESSURE. NO PRESSURE. I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH THE I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH THE I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH THE INTENTION OF WHAT YOU'RE INTENTION OF WHAT YOU'RE INTENTION OF WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, COUNCILMEMBER PETRO. SAYING, COUNCILMEMBER PETRO. SAYING, COUNCILMEMBER PETRO. I THINK THAT WHILE THE I THINK THAT WHILE THE I THINK THAT WHILE THE ORGANIZATIONAL SIDE OF THESE ORGANIZATIONAL SIDE OF THESE OR Also really, really significant, I think that that residential site is where we feel like we're doing the most good in terms of helping people who are facing so much affordability challenges right now. And we hear that time and time again in the feedback we've gotten. And we included some testimonials in the responses sent to council last week, I think. I MIGHT SUGGEST MAYBE KEEPING THE 250, BUT MAYBE NOT DOING THE ORGANIZATIONAL GRANTS AND ADJUSTING IT DOWN FROM THERE.

IF I COULD JUMP IN. AS I UNDERSTAND THE PROGRAM, IT IS UP TO $250 FOR RESIDENTS AND THEN GRANTS OF THE SIZE OF 1,000 TO 5,000 FOR ORGANIZATIONS. And I would like to keep the emphasis of the program on residents and individuals, and rather than grant towards organizations, instead see can we reallocate some of that towards our public utilities assistance fund.

Can we clarify if it's up to 250 or just? I was under the impression it was just 250.

It's just a flat 250. Yeah, yeah. And I would say that we do have people that have asked us to use the funding for water. We do point to that program. And then this is just to help them, perhaps, with other things.

I'm okay with that. If we increase the amount, we decrease the impact. So if we do choose to increase the amount, I want some parameters around it for those who are on fixed incomes. I'm very worried about my seniors. I need people who are on fixed incomes to be prioritized. I need families living multigenerationally who have a high water burden because of the number of people in their households, and it needs to be restricted to food. I'm you can let grass die. You know, it doesn't look pretty I've done it. My yard is terrible. Just let grass die You don't have to have green like when when we're talking about prioritizing money like this.

Yeah food Yeah, absolutely quick clarifying question. So you wouldn't want it to apply to water because then people might use it for grass and IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING?

NO, THE POINT OF THE WATER SUBSIDY WAS TO GROW THE FOOD. SO ORIGINALLY IN THE ORIGINAL THING IT WAS TO LIKE, YOU HAVE TO SEND IN A PICTURE OF THE GARDEN THAT HAS THE FOOD GROWING. YOU KNOW, SOME LIKE LOW THRESHOLD KIND OF BARRIER THAT DEMONSTRATES WE'RE NOT JUST GROWING ZINNIAS BECAUSE SOMEONE HAS AN INTENSITY FOR THEM.

GOT IT. ABSOLUTELY. AND THAT'S IN THERE ALREADY, BUT WE HAVE RUN INCOME VERIFIED PROGRAMS BEFORE AND I FEEL CONFIDENT WE COULD DO THAT.

I'M NOT UPSET WITH A HIGHER AMOUNT. I DO WANT US TO MAKE SURE IT GETS TO THE PEOPLE WHO NEED IT THE MOST, THOUGH, AND NOT JUST THE PEOPLE WHO ARE MOST CONNECTED TO CITY INITIATIVES AND KNOW THAT CLICK 250 IS THEIRS.

SO I THINK THAT MAYBE THAT GOES BACK TO THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT TO MAKE SURE THAT MANY OF THESE PROGRAMS THAT GO DIRECTLY TO to have an income requirement. I think that we should apply that throughout unless the administration feels differently. I just do want to clarify something that I sometimes forget, but we are awfully on the administrative side of things and I, you know, we could say you don't have the money, sorry, or we can say the only way you have the money is if you do these things. So we could share some ideas as far as like how a program maybe, what we are trying to accomplish with the program, but we're sort of changing things. And the administration may choose not to use that money because they don't want to, they can't, or they have a different, or they disagree. But, you know, I think those are all good ideas and I love them. I will love them. YOUR DEPARTMENT'S THOUGHTS INTO THEM. WE'RE TRYING TO SQUEEZE FROM ALL THE PLACES. WE DON'T KNOW SPEAKING ABOUT THE VALUE OR HOW USEFUL THEY ARE OR HOW GREAT THEY HAVE BEEN. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TOUGH DECISIONS MOVING FORWARD. ANY OTHER THOUGHTS ABOUT THIS ONE? THANK YOU.

So, was that a majority of council support on that? It's in the property tax proposal. So, or the way it would be reduced from what I understand is with the general fund contribution towards the fund. UNLESS YOU HAVE OTHER IDEAS.

I WILL SAY THAT THERE'S MAYBE THREE COUNCIL MEMBERS THAT HAVE EXPRESSED OPINIONS IN FAVOR OF REDUCING IT. I DON'T KNOW.

COUNCILWOMAN YOUNG TEXTED HER SUPPORT. I'M SUPPORTIVE. I'M HERE.

Oh, I'm okay, I'm, yeah. Five, okay. I'm a tentative yes.

Tentative yes. Do you mean to cut the cloud watching?

Too soon.

Too soon, too soon. I know he will not like that. Who brought the, that's 42, right? That was similar to, you mentioned, you spoke to about 40, right?

I have not spoken about 40, but this was actually Councilwoman Carlson's suggestion, so I don't want to take your thunder. Oh, so sorry.

Well, and I think what I ended up doing was just putting that into the notes on 36, but maybe, sorry, Councilmember Carlson, I didn't mean to interrupt.

Oh, no, no, it's okay. No, I think that, just to clarify, What we talked about previously, I just have a desire to increase the assistance that we're offering for this public utilities assistance program. Because this is an income verified program, Salvation Army administers it, and it goes to the neediest of folks. to help them pay the increasing cost. So I think we're okay with not discussing this because we already talked about it.

But the comprehensive proposal then would be to take the original $59,000, pare it down to whatever we decide, like maybe we say $25,000 since $250,000 is easy for them to do. That's 100 households. And the remainder would then, instead of going to fund balance, would go to the public utilities assistance to bolster that. So that would be $34,000 if I'm doing something like that.

So we're still spending the 58 grand, we're spending partial food.

We're just focusing it really on the water aspect of people's lives.

And the food grant would go to individuals, not groups or institutions. Great.

So 33,000 would go to the, so 25,000 would go to the public utilities assistance grant. Sorry, I have to do the math backwards because it's like a negative expense. So patience while I try to do that math. And then you would spend it from the property tax increase proposal. Okay.

Good on this then. We, several of us mentioned the IMS Innovation Program. I do see the value on it, but I also think that maybe that's a way of reducing some of our costs. It's a one-time money. It's not ongoing. I know that there was some information that came to us about this. I don't know who can speak about it. Any information from staff, from our staff, about the IMS Innovation Program?

No?

MAYBE NOT. I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY ELSE WANTS TO SPEAK ABOUT POTENTIALLY REMOVING. WHO? OKAY. ANY COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO WANTS TO SPEAK TO IT?

I am a little bit agnostic on it. I could be convinced to suspend it and to delay the implementation of it for a year. If I see it implemented, I want to, again, I get that we're getting into administration, but this is the only time we really control if we have any meaningful say. I want to make sure that the innovation is innovation that is meaningfully beneficial to our constituents, to either their engagement with the city, the ability to get access to a resource, their ability to be connected to the things they need to weather the storm that we're going through. That's, if we're going to innovate, I really want it to put, and I'm not sure how to do that, to put parameters on it to make sure that the innovation is one that is in the interest of efficiency and effectiveness.

Anybody from the administration wants to speak to this? Anybody that wants to.

And I think you have this information, but I want to make sure you received it. While it's a new program, it wasn't new money. And so by taking this, you would be taking more than 5% from IMS's budget. And so I don't know, Zach, though. I'll let you speak to the program.

Yeah, for sure. And a couple of things. One, I fully recognize this is a tough sell in a tight budget year. And the returns are nebulous, and I fully admit that. The Denver Peak Institute, when they implemented it, saw something like a three to one return in their first year and a five to one return in the years after that. But those are really difficult numbers to calculate, and they can't be guaranteed. My feeling is that empowering staff has really great results. You tend to have people with good ideas that don't necessarily have the ability to bring those ideas forward and gives them a forum to do that. That said, I fully recognize this is a tough one.

Since you've looked at other models, I love the numbers 3 to 1 and 5 to 1. Those are inspiring. Can you give an example of what a return looked like?

Gosh, that's going to be a tough one. I didn't bring any examples with me.

And if you want to email me later, just...

I do remember, so I went through this training years ago, and there were generally things, and this is where it gets a little bit nebulous, and I want to be very transparent about that. Some of their calculations were things like constituent time, as they were able to reduce wait times in lines. And so that's not going to be a direct dollar savings to the city. But you do have greater customer satisfaction. You do have greater engagement and efficiency in folks walking away, not quite as negative about the experience they had paying a bill or going after a business license.

I mean, this is why I'm agnostic, right? Like, I mean, this is a need-to-have year, but oftentimes scarcity mindset leads us to not invest in things that could... If we can... give predictability to our neighbors, and be the one level of government that doesn't make them want to become an anarchist. I feel like preserving institutional trust at any level is a good investment, right? So this is why I'm a little bit agnostic about it. And I'm not sure what the matrix for good decision making looks like on a program like this.

SPEAKER 1.

Council Member Carlson? I think my question is that given the fact that the returns might be nebulous, we don't yet know what they are, I'm curious what might be the impact if the allocation were reduced by half instead of $200,000, $100,000. How would that, if at all, lead to a reduction in possible anticipated outcomes from this program?

So it would be, since you want to cap the funding in each of these, because you want these to be small, innovative ideas, and you cap the funding at, call it $25,000 or $35,000, you're just going to approve fewer programs. And that might be beneficial. That might mean that we come back halfway through the year and say, look at the great work that was done, and we've been able to accomplish these things. Some of them have monetary value. Some of them have ROI, but it's non-monetary. do you want to increase the funding or bring it back up to that $200,000 to do more work? I like the idea of reporting the results. And we may come out of this six months, eight months, 12 months from now and say, we actually didn't accomplish much. And the ability to pull back and kill the program if it's not actually delivering I think has value.

I would love to explore, you know, different iterations of this funding, short of, you know, removing it. You know, but could you, what can you do with 100? Is it something that just doesn't work, right? Or maybe there is an explanation that you can give us that keeps some of it, but maybe not all of it. scrape from other places.

And I think, you know, maybe I might propose that we go through the initial funding round and depending on how it pays off, come back to the council and say, this might be worth additional funding throughout the year.

Councilman, would be true.

That's almost exactly what I would love for any pilot program to come with really clear metrics. I don't expect anyone to prognosticate accurately. I anticipate, but I would like to know what we're aiming for for success. And then even if we accidentally hit a different positive outcome, I'm not going to be like, oops, that wasn't the one we wanted and cut it. But especially if we're asking for this to be an ongoing thing, I would really love to see clearer parameters for what we're aiming for, what success will be, and then an engagement around if we achieved it or not to see if whatever we decide is something that we should continue.

What I would say is that I would think that each ask should have its own definition of success, right? So what I found, frankly, the county, one of the challenges we had was we demanded it be a monetary ROI, and that severely limited the request, and frankly, it limited them to things that we would have done anyhow, right? If you knew that you were going to get a two or three or five X return on your investment, that's not even a budget proposal. That's just the way we do business. Yeah, thank you.

I like that. Any other thoughts? Thank you. Thank you, thank you.

So Mr. Chair, is it okay if I put in a $100,000 cut in that one? With the understanding that as Jill clarified that this is existing money in the IMS budget that is being repurposed, so this would just be increasing the reduction to IMS from the general fund for operations.

Yes, and I would love to hear that information from staff about a pilot program and how it will look like. It might guide this decision, but yes, let's put that one for now. Pending, it's all pending. Nothing is final.

So maybe a legislative intent for that mid-year report on the pilot program.

I like that.

Can we request? I'm not sure how this fund is going to work. I would like to know before the mid-year what the goals are so that when we hear at mid-year, we can see. But I don't know how the program's going to work. So that might be too in the weeds. But I don't like reverse engineering metrics. I've written enough grants that you should be a little forward looking on them.

the goals could be provided in writing so that the council is just aware of what those are?

Well, and I think Zach's point is really great. We don't know where the innovation necessarily is going to come from. We don't know if it's going to be in business licensing or if it's going to be where it is. So I don't want to be unnecessarily restrictive, but if there's a way to set parameters for rigor in setting a trajectory for success and a metric for it, just some kind of general framework for that, I would be deeply interested in something like that.

Gotcha.

Mary Beth.

SO JENNIFER SAID I WAS ALLOWED TO COME UP IF I WANTED TO MAKE A STATEMENT. SO THE 200,000 SITS IN THE IMS FUND, NOT IN THE GENERAL FUND. GENERAL FUND IS ABOUT 65%. SO IF YOU'RE GOING TO TAKE 100 FROM THE GENERAL FUND, IT'S GOING TO REDUCE THE FUNDING IN IMS MORE THAN DOWN TO JUST $100,000. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? BECAUSE IMS HAS 200,000. YOU'RE SAYING WE'RE GOING TO TAKE 100 FROM THE GENERAL FUND SO WE'RE GOING TO REDUCE IMS BY 100,000. THAT MEANS IMS WILL NOT HAVE $100,000 TO DO THIS INNOVATION WORK WITH. THEY'LL HAVE LESS. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE A STATEMENT ON THAT.

I THINK MAYBE SAYING THAT WE WANT TO, HOWEVER THE MONEY LANDS UP, WE WANT AMS TO HAVE 100,000.

SO THAT WOULD BE A $65,000 REDUCTION IN THE GENERAL FUND.

BUT, YOU KNOW, LET'S WORK WITH THAT PREMISE. IT'S ACCOUNTING. I'M JUST THANKFUL FOR MARY BETH.

DID WE TALK ABOUT NUMBER 37 YET?

uh... week

Council Member Pietro, anything else to add about 37?

I think at this point, anything that I'm suggesting or supporting, I would like to be suspensions, not full cuts. And I would like there to be a revisiting. And to go along with what you were talking about earlier, Council Member Pui, I would like a legislative intent around any sort of voucher we give out as a city. I'm not convinced that our vouchers have accomplished what we say we want them to accomplish, which is to inspire transitions to cleaner energies or to lower emissions. And instead, what I think we inadvertently do is just enable people who were already on a trajectory towards those things and make it more affordable for them. So I would like any time we provide a voucher for anything from the city to find out how do we achieve that goal Or I would like to be corrected if I'm wrong about that being our goal. How do we achieve our goal through a voucher program of actually incentivizing a change in behavior instead of just enabling one that was going to happen anyway? And that's not exclusive to this. This is to any voucher that we do. It's the food voucher. It's all of it.

I like that. I agree. CIP, a section of CIP reductions. That's what we're doing.

Yeah, I'm on the 43, I think I would say we need to keep that. And 45, I'd say we need to keep that because I'm always talking about deferred maintenance and I don't want to cut any deferred maintenance because deferred maintenance means it's going to be more expensive the next year when we need to do that deferred maintenance. BUT ITEM 44, AGAIN, YOU KNOW, IT HURTS ME BECAUSE I'M A BIG PROPONENT OF THE TRAIL SYSTEM. BUT IF WE'RE LOOKING AT, YOU KNOW, SOME IDEAS HERE AND WE JUST FOUGHT HARD TO WORK ON OUR TRAILS PROGRAM AND GET OUR TRAILS UNDERWAY BECAUSE THEY'RE LOVED TO DEATH. I ALSO THINK THAT BACK TO THE DEFERRED SIDE OF THE HOUSE, IS THERE AN OPPORTUNITY TO REDUCE THIS, NOT ELIMINATE THIS, BECAUSE THE TRAILS ARE, THAT'S WHERE I SPEND SOME OF MY TIME. AND I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO DO SPEND A LOT OF TIME OUT THERE. WE KNOW, AGAIN, WE LOVE THEM. SO I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE POSSIBILITY OF REDUCING THIS NUMBER. THE OPPORTUNITY IF THERE'S FUNDING COME BACK THAT COMES BACK TO FULL.

I FEEL THE SAME WAY ABOUT THE I FEEL THE SAME WAY ABOUT THE URBAN TRAILS AND I KNOW IT'S BEEN A URBAN TRAILS AND I KNOW IT'S BEEN A COMMITMENT FROM OUR CITY TO DO IT. THIS IS NOT SAYING NO TO THE GOAL HERE. THIS IS NOT SAYING NO TO THE GOAL HERE. THIS IS NOT SAYING NO TO THE GOAL HERE. IT'S SAYING NOT THIS YEAR. IT'S SAYING NOT THIS YEAR. IT'S SAYING NOT THIS YEAR. IT'S SAYING LET'S CONTINUE THIS IT'S SAYING LET'S CONTINUE THIS IT'S SAYING LET'S CONTINUE THIS PROGRESS NEXT YEAR.

PROGRESS NEXT YEAR. PROGRESS NEXT YEAR. SO SAVING US $450,000. SO SAVING US $450,000. SO SAVING US $450,000. WELL, I WOULD LIKE TO KEEP WELL, I WOULD LIKE TO KEEP WELL, I WOULD LIKE TO KEEP SOME OF THAT.

SOME OF THAT. SOME OF THAT. I WOULD ONLY CUT HALF. I WOULD ONLY CUT HALF.

I WOULD ONLY CUT HALF And then I'm okay with the rest of them, keeping them. You're keeping them?

Yeah. When you read the Washington Square septic

YEAH, BUT THIS IS ONE OF THOSE THINGS AGAIN FOR MY DEFERRED MAINTENANCE. BOY, YOU HAVE AN EMERGENCY ON THE SEWER.

THIS IS WHAT THEY READ THE EXPLANATION AND SAID WE ARE PUMPING IT A LOT BECAUSE IT GETS FULL A LOT. YEAH. BASICALLY IT'S BEING USED MORE THAN HAS EVER AS ONE OF THE MOST USED PLACES. MY QUESTION IS CAN WE NOT MY QUESTION IS CAN WE NOT MY QUESTION IS CAN WE NOT EXPAND IT AND KEEP ADDING MORE EXPAND IT AND KEEP ADDING MORE EXPAND IT AND KEEP ADDING MORE MONEY FOR PUMPING FOR THIS YEAR MONEY FOR PUMPING FOR THIS YEAR MONEY FOR PUMPING FOR THIS YEAR AND SAVING US? AND SAVING US? AND SAVING US? IT'S ALMOST A MILLION DOLLARS. IT'S ALMOST A MILLION DOLLARS. IT'S ALMOST A MILLION DOLLARS. I KNOW THAT IT'S KICKING THE CAN I KNOW THAT IT'S KICKING THE CAN I KNOW THAT IT'S KICKING THE CAN DOWN THE STREET, BUT I WOULD DOWN THE STREET, BUT I WOULD DOWN THE STREET, BUT I WOULD LOVE IT.

LOVE IT. LOVE IT. WHAT I HAD HERE WAS THAT WHAT I HAD HERE WAS THAT WHAT I HAD HERE WAS THAT THIS PRO CITY GOOD BATTER MONEY EVERY YEAR SO IT ACTUALLY IT WOULD SAVE UP TO EIGHTY THOUSAND DOLLARS DECREASING SIGNIFICANT DECREASE OF EIGHTY THOUSAND DOLLARS TO ANNUALLY MAINTENANCE OPERATIONS SO IN A COUPLE YEARS YOUR RETURN ON EVENTSMENT ESPECIALLY IF IT'S AN EMERGENCY IS PRETTY HIGH IN THE FACILITY WORLD

THIS IS REPLACING THE SEPTIC SYSTEM AT WASHINGTON PARK, NOT SYSTEM AT WASHINGTON PARK, NOT SYSTEM AT WASHINGTON PARK, NOT WASHINGTON SQUARE. WASHINGTON SQUARE. WASHINGTON SQUARE. SO IT JUST SAYS WASHINGTON SO IT JUST SAYS WASHINGTON SO IT JUST SAYS WASHINGTON SQUARE.

SQUARE. SQUARE. SO I JUST WANTED YOU ALL TO KNOW SO I JUST WANTED YOU ALL TO KNOW SO I JUST WANTED YOU ALL TO KNOW THAT THIS IS THE PARK. THAT THIS IS THE PARK. THAT THIS IS THE PARK. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. SO IT SAYS DECREASE OF UP TO SO IT SAYS DECREASE OF UP TO SO IT SAYS DECREASE OF UP TO 80 GRAND ANNUAL MAINTENANCE 80 GRAND ANNU ON SOME PEOPLE, IF YOU GO TO BUSINESSES, THEY'LL SAY I WANT TO RETURN INVESTMENTS FOR YEARS, BUT THEY'RE ALWAYS SKEPTICAL. BUT WHEN I PUT MY SOLAR PANELS ON AND I GOT A RETURN INVESTMENT IN 10 YEARS, I SAID, YEAH, I'M TAKING THEM.

AND I'M NOT LOVING AGAINST EVER DOING IT. I'M SAYING, CAN WE DO IT NEXT YEAR? IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S GETTING FULL FASTER.

YEAH, I JUST DON'T KNOW THE COST OF THINGS, HOW MUCH IT GOES UP IN THE YEAR. It would be, I would keep it just for the deferred maintenance side.

Yeah, I, oh yes, go ahead, please, please, please, please, please.

I can never miss an opportunity to talk about septic. So it's not, it's undersized for the amount of use that we're getting, but it's also in a sensitive watershed area. So we don't allow dogs in that park as well. And so if it does overflow, there is a public health risk. So I just want to make that point for council.

Yeah, thank you.

Any other thoughts about this one from anybody? Jill.

I'll just share Kim correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the reason why this really was prioritized by the mayor's one of our it is the most used Park in the system by Mountain Dell and we are having to limit events there because of the septic tank so the park is we're having to close it down at times because of the septic tank.

My question for the ministration will be can we increase the pumping for a year. OR WHAT? OR POTTER POTTIES. OR POTTER POTTIES. OR POTTER POTTIES. CAN WE INCREASE THE PUMPING FOR CAN WE INCREASE THE PUMPING FOR CAN WE INCREASE THE PUMPING FOR THE YEAR AND KICK THE CAN ONE THE YEAR AND KICK THE CAN ONE THE YEAR AND KICK THE CAN ONE YEAR? YEAR? YEAR? IT'S ALMOST A MILLION DOLLARS. IT'S ALMOST A MILLION DOLLARS. IT'S ALMOST A MILLION DOLLARS. THERE'S ALWAYS A BUILDING THAT THERE'S ALWAYS A BUILDING THAT THERE'S ALWAYS A BUILDING THAT IS FALLING APART AND WE HAVE IS FALLING APART AND WE HAVE IS FALLING APART AND WE HAVE PLENTY OF THEM AND I WOULD LOVE PLENTY OF THEM AND I WOULD LOVE PLENTY OF THEM AND I WOULD

Can I provide this tomorrow as well? Yes. OK, that would be great. I think there would be, to Councilmember Dugan's point, there would be significant cost. And so I'd like to get those numbers for you so you can make the decision.

Thank you. WE TALKED ABOUT WASHINGTON, NOTT SQUARE, PARK. NOTT SQUARE, PARK. NOTT SQUARE, PARK. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. URBAN TRAILS. URBAN TRAILS. URBAN TRAILS. WE HAVEN'T TALKED ABOUT THE WE HAVEN'T TALKED ABOUT THE WE HAVEN'T TALKED ABOUT THE FACILITIES MAINTENANCE.

FACILITIES MAINTENANCE. FACILITIES MAINTENANCE.

THAT'S WHAT I WOULD KEEP BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT I WOULD KEEP BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT I WOULD KEEP BECAUSE AGAIN BACK TO THE DEFERRED AGAIN BACK TO THE DEFERRED AGAIN BACK TO THE DEFERRED MAINTENANCE ON THE FACILITIES MAINTENANCE ON THE FACILITIES MAINTENAN Just like our street stuff and the deferred maintenance, the price never gets lower. And I understand that we need here, but I also go, we have to balance that $13 million property tax increase and the price of this, though high, The return to the city and the community and the residents is very high also. And delaying it could be.

DO WE KNOW WHAT APPROACH BUILDINGS THERE ARE?

THAT WAS GOING TO BE MY QUESTION IS THAT IF WE, IS THERE A LIST OF BUILDINGS AND THEN I APPRECIATE THE PRIORITIES ONE THROUGH FOUR, IS THIS A LIFE AND SAFETY THING, A STRUCTURAL QUESTION, WOULD LOVE TO UNDERSTAND A LITTLE BIT MORE WHAT ARE THE BUILDINGS AND ANTICIPATED ALLOCATION OF DOLLARS TO THOSE FACILITIES?

And I know that administration is prioritizing all of them. Yes, go ahead, please. Kate might have some information. Sorry, what was that, Jennifer?

Oh, sorry. Oh, I see Jorge there, sorry. Yep, and then Kate emailed some information just right before the meeting that you probably haven't seen.

Jorge. All right. I will allow you, even without shorts, because you guys won today.

You'll have your turn. You'll have your turn. It's going up. I'm just kidding. Super exciting, by the way. I know it was. All right, yes. We shared a list with Kate. and it sounds like you received it as well. I can just speak for the amount of money that is on the table, 1.6 million. We have about $10 million of identified assets that need to be replaced across the city. Some of the priority ones that you will see in your list include assets in City Hall, as well as multiple fire stations. HVAC systems and fire stations are pretty expensive to replace. These are not repairs. These are the full replacement of the HVAC system. And you will see the estimated amounts of replacement for each one of those items. like to lock us into saying one, two, and three will be replaced, because through the year, once funding is available, we may need to shift a little bit. For example, if we have a catastrophic failure on an overhaul, overhead door, we will replace that immediately, right? It is in the list. We just bump it up. Same with HVAC. So we identify about 10 million for this coming year. You will see that many of those are way past their useful life. So if you have specific questions about those assets in the list, we'll be happy to expand more.

Will the department consider if we had to reduce the overall request, what will you give away? And I will not put you on the spot right now because I know that you probably need to look into it, but knowing full, THE RISK IS HIGH AND YOU MIGHT HAVE TO COME BACK TO US FOR A BUDGET AMENDMENT, WHICH IS NOT IDEAL BECAUSE IT'S FAST, YOU NEED THE MONEY IMMEDIATELY AND WHATNOT, BUT WOULD YOU CONSIDER MAYBE LOOKING INTO THAT AND IF YOU COME UP WITH AN ANSWER? I KNOW YOU'RE ALREADY DOING THAT, RIGHT?

THE FIRST THOUGHT THAT I HAD, only one council member remembers is the boiler, the infamous boiler. It was a catastrophic failure. It was the fair maintenance. We kept pushing it. We kept pushing it. It was a very expensive replacement, and it literally blew up in our hands. And so the disruption that it caused, I mean, I'm looking at fire stations with HVAC systems. If it was a catastrophic failure, it basically says during the summer it will be miserable and perhaps not even occupiable. So it is hard in good conscience saying, yes, we can push this to next year, but understanding that we don't have the full amount to begin with, and we try to prioritize and be nimble to those, we can certainly do the same. Thank you. And one more thing I would say is that over the last four years, we have been making huge strides on taking us out of that hole of the fair maintenance on the facility side. So this is, it will be just a step back, but we understand we will respond appropriately.

No, no, we're not passing judgment on the efforts of the department on, like, making good on years of, you know, the required maintenance. We really know how hard this is. So thank you for the effort. I appreciate the information. And, you know, hopefully you guys win some games. Good luck. Don't get used to it. I'm Argentinian, so I can't help myself.

Can I ask about number 50? Do we have the ability to negotiate our NLC membership?

Yeah, we can actually terminate it. I believe so.

Other cities have done it. We can terminate it. We can't negotiate it. Oh, you were asking if we can actually negotiate.

So this represents us terminating the NLC membership for a year?

Yeah.

That was raised as an option.

Yeah, and I also suggested what Denver did, which is terminating the mayor's conference on NLC as an option as well. IT SUCKS. WE LEARN A LOT OF THINGS FROM THESE CONFERENCES. I BELIEVE THAT THE MAYOR DOES TOO.

WE'RE SMALL LAKE CITY AND ALL OF US HAVE OUR REPRESENTATIVES NUMBERS IN OUR PHONE.

I WONDER, I WOULD LOVE TO SEE THE REAL IMPACT OF MAKING THESE THINGS HAPPEN. EVEN WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF THE CITY WOULD HAVE TAKEN A BREAK FOR A YEAR FROM THOSE TWO. Make sure that the other piece that is not here that I mentioned, which is the mayor's conference, is included. And I would love to talk to the administration, the mayor, staff, and the mayor itself. I don't want to overstep on what she might see a lot more value on her side than ours. Council Member Young is raised hand. Go ahead.

I was just wondering if this could be another one in that consideration space of a one-year, one-time reduction so that it's revisited next year in terms of being still on the list for discussion, just not this year when we are where we are.

Would we still plan a visit for all of us to the delegation, just not in coordination with the NLC conference? Or would we table that? Because the savings then is significantly higher.

Yeah, I think those are discussions. I mean, attending the conference adds registration fees to this membership cost. And travel expenses. And travel expenses. So potentially we could make a savings altogether for this one year as a pause. for all of these two conferences, but I think it's worth discussing as far as like, do we want to still do the, you know, visit? That's a different conversation, I believe, but I think it's worth to ask it. Any other thoughts about this?

Is there any, Mr.

Chair? Sorry, Jennifer.

Go ahead. It's so hard. Sorry, I don't mean to interrupt people. It's so hard. I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT THE CONFERENCE OF MAYOR'S BUDGET WAS MOVED TO THE MAYOR'S BUDGET. SO IF YOU WANTED TO CUT THAT, THAT WOULD BE IN THE MAYOR'S BUDGET.

I KNOW. I HATE DOING THAT. I JUST WANT TO ADD FEEDBACK BECAUSE WE'RE ALSO SACRIFICING OUR OWN NLC POTENTIALLY, DISCUSSING ABOUT NLC ATTENDANCE, WHICH THE MAYOR ALSO ATTENDS, AND I'VE SEEN HER WORK QUITE HARD IN THOSE CONFERENCES TOO. IT'S A TOUGH CONVERSATION TO IT'S A TOUGH CONVERSATION TO IT'S A TOUGH CONVERSATION TO HAVE. HAVE. HAVE. I WOULD NOT LIKE TO DO THAT I WOULD NOT LIKE TO DO THAT I WOULD NOT LIKE TO DO THAT WITHOUT THE ADVICE AND THE WITHOUT THE ADVICE AND THE WITHOUT THE ADVICE AND THE FEEDBACK FROM THE MAYORS AND FEEDBACK FROM THE MAYORS AND FEEDBACK FROM THE MAYORS AND THE MAYOR'S ADMINISTRATION. THE MAYOR'S ADMINISTRATION. THE MAYOR'S ADMINISTRATION. BUT YES, I KNOW THAT IT GOT BUT YES, I KNOW THAT IT GOT BUT YES, I KNOW THAT IT GOT MOVED TO THE BUDGET, TO THE MOVED TO THE BUDGET, TO THE MOVED TO THE BUDGET, TO THE MAYOR'S OFFICE BUDGET. So a tough conversation to have could potentially mean a lot of savings. We'd love to see what the overall savings could be between the registrations and the travel. I think it could be very useful.

Could I also see there's a significant increase to our Utah League of Cities and Towns?

You want to increase?

No, I think I saw in the budget that there was a significant increase to it. I would never want to withdraw from that league, but I would perhaps want to negotiate any increase with them.

We have tried that in years past. They stick very strictly to a formula. The increase this year was $8,000 over $245,000. So I can't do math in my head. It's based on your population, your sales tax.

Well, then I want to renegotiate how we handle the homeless mitigation fund during legislative session.

Actually, Jill could probably speak to the last time he asked the league to change the formula for how our dues are calculated.

I mean, for pension pennies.

Any other thoughts?

I WANTED TO, LINE NUMBER 47, SO AS I AM LEARNING, GOLF IS AN ENTERPRISE FUND THAT HAS BEEN SUPPORTED OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS WITH GENERAL FUND DOLLARS, THOUGH THE DEGREE TO WHICH IT'S BEEN SUPPORTED HAS CONTINUED TO GO DOWN OVER THE YEARS. I'M SEEING JILL. SORRY, JILL. AND I AM WONDERING, YOU KNOW, WHAT MIGHT BE THE IMPACT ON OPERATIONS, ON DELIVERY OF SERVICES, ET CETERA, IF WE DECREASE THE, FROM 500,000 TO ANOTHER AMOUNT TO FIND SOME SAVINGS. AND I'M LOOKING AT ALLISON. I KNOW ALLISON DID SOME, GOT SOME ADDITIONAL STAFF DATA THAT WAS SHARED WITH US AND ALSO DIRECTOR KELLY. BUT THIS IS TRULY A QUESTION.

They're all truly questions.

So the subsidy to Gall from the general fund, we completely eliminated this year, and it was a big hit. Originally, we thought we were going to phase this over three to five years, but we did it all in one year. That $500,000 that is left is to pay a debt on ESCO. Mary Beth could probably answer this better than I. ESCO was an energy efficient program that the city entered into a decade or more. We've been paying it off for that decade. We had general fund ESCO initiatives like at the Steiner Center and we had some at the golf course. We made a decision in building this budget that it wasn't fair to golf to have them pay this off. It ended up really not being what the city had hoped it would be. It wasn't something golf wanted to enter in. It was a city council at the time, and I hope I wasn't sitting there, but I might have been. We thought it was a great initiative citywide to save energy. So that's why we made the decision to keep paying it out of the general fund, even though the initiative was intended to help golf.

Thank you, Jill. To build on that, the $500,000 that are being reduced in the mayor's recommended budget will impact our CIP projects that go back into the golf courses as an enterprise fund. The revenue that they generate must go directly back into those courses to improve playability, player experience. So that could be something, for example, our Rose Park Golf Course Irrigation Program, or project could be impacted, cart path repaving, things like that that improve the golfer experience. So we would advocate for maintaining that 500 subsidy, if you will, for that ESCO because it does make a difference and it's to no fault of golf's for making that decision.

the last thing i'll add in making this decision is knowing that uh we greatly reduced the subsidy from the general fund this year completely and eliminated with the exception of this esco payment is we didn't want to impact golf's ability to be competitive with other courses because we want them to be self-sufficient so having those capital dollars to do constant maintenance on trails and things like that was really important to us

Thank you for that context. That's helpful. Sorry, one more question, sorry. What will it look like next year? Will it look like this again? Yes. Yes.

Mary Beth, does it go to 2030?

I think it goes to 2030. So this $500,000 is something we'll be paid not until then. The ghost of City Council's past.

And you say we can't bind future councils.

Oh, we do. With debt, we can always do that. Good information. I think that, to me, that was a huge accomplishment from the administration to reduce the subsidy, like huge. And I know it was hard to do.

Yes, hats off to the Gulf for what they've done with their capital improvements because they've done a great job with the courses and with reducing their debt. Yep.

Yeah, it's a hard thing to do. So I mean, the amazing work the administration has done, like reducing this budget is quite impressive. I mean, finding $13 million in savings, and it's just like really, really impressive. And we're going to have to find more savings next year. So any other items in the list or not in the list? Hopefully, there are not that many. NOT ON THE LIST BECAUSE WE ARE GETTING CLOSE TO THE END OF THE GETTING CLOSE TO THE END OF THE GETTING CLOSE TO THE END OF THE BUDGET BUT I HAVE ONE. BUDGET BUT I HAVE ONE. BUDGET BUT I HAVE ONE. BUT ANYBODY ELSE? BUT ANYBODY ELSE? BUT ANYBODY ELSE?

I GOT IT.

I GOT IT. I GOT IT. COULD I ASK JUST FOR COULD I ASK JUST FOR COULD I ASK JUST FOR CLARIFICATION ON THE NLC CLARIFICATION ON THE NLC CLARIFICATION ON THE NLC MEMBERSHIP? MEMBERSHIP? MEMBERSHIP? SHOULD WE LEAVE THAT AS IS OR SHOULD WE LEAVE THAT AS IS OR SHOULD WE LEAVE THAT AS IS OR WAS THERE SUPPORT TO MAKE A WAS THERE SUPPORT TO MAKE A WAS THERE SUPP

I think I would like to see what the true cost savings would be, including travel. I don't know. Would $12,797,000 in the general fund be nice to have when invariably the next fire or roof collapse or whatever is coming for us comes? yes do i think anything is going to cost twelve thousand dollars in the city no so i'm caught where chris was like is this a drop in the bucket that's meaningful enough is the membership give us more roi so i it's a hard i would actually appreciate um people with more insight than me helping me create a matrix on which i could evaluate this expense

Yeah, I agree. I think that maybe is the answer to you, Jennifer. I'm not sure that that gives you the clear direction. I will say, though, my experience, and maybe it's unfair to use it, to use my experience this year on NLC, but this year was significantly different than previous years.

I agree. From the conference perspective.

From the conference perspective, yes. And I would love to see what the administration are you know and the council Tell us we lose by losing this membership, and I know many cities have made this tough choice, but Maybe there are things that we are losing access to information that may be worth the money same for the with the mayor's conference I Leave that up to them. I will hate to to make a decision for for the for that side of the table but the The conference was very different this year. The impact, the members of the federal administration that came to the conference was very limited, if any. The attendance to the conference itself was very thin, probably the smallest conference I've seen in NLC in years. So I was shocked to see it die, but it makes sense when you have a federal administration that's not helping cities and not supporting cities that are seeing less value of going to DC to lobby for resources. So I wanted to put that in there because, you know, I also don't like to see some banners in some buildings that I wish they never existed. I don't like that there. So any other thoughts? Yes. OK, tree maintenance. And it's in public utilities, 136,000 public lands. Jesus Christ. Reduction that I would love to see if there is Could you do something with some little more money? Could you save some more trees and maintain more trees? I I I struggle with the maintenance of the trees. I'm seeing too many trees struggle and and they're so important for so many things and So if I can scrape some money from another cut and put it there, will that make a difference? I'm not sure that $136,000 is... Possible this year, maybe even zero is possible, but I wonder if You could see some value and some funding there and you don't have to come you can thank you Thank you. I I I am struggling with the tree reduction train maintenance reduction Okay, you're okay with that like exploring those questions we're doing we have some trees dying in yours and

Do you have an amount in mind, Mr. Chair, or should we just kind of leave it open and work with the department to figure out what might be impactful? Yeah.

If the department tells us we cannot do anything less than $136,000, I get it. But my hope is that they can tell us, for this amount of money and for this amount of money and for this amount of money, I can make this impact. Maybe. Again, I don't want to cross too, too far into administrative sides of things. I JUST THINK THAT IT'S EVERY YEAR THAT WE DON'T MAINTAIN AND OUR TREES DIE QUITE QUICKLY IN OUR WEATHER. I MEAN, THEY DON'T, YOU KNOW, THEY LITERALLY LAST THE SUMMER IF WE DON'T TAKE CARE OF THEM AND THEY'RE GONE. ANY OTHER INTENSE THOUGHTS, BUDGET, CHRIS WHARTON? NO? YOU'RE ADJUSTING YOUR MICROPHONE.

I guess what I'm struggling with is trying to just be strategic and among what everybody has expressed here today, because I do feel like we're to kind of contextualize what it is that we're trying to do. Because I feel like we share a lot of the same sentiments, but I'm not sure what the collective goal is with this discussion. Are we trying to... cut so that we can tell residents that we cut even further, which is not a bad thing? Are we trying to cut in one place to put in another place? um are we just is the purpose of this just to like be vetting and like really give our thorough oversight i think these are all worthy things i just my question is kind of the same that it was on tuesday is if there's a a goal of that like a specific goal that we can all be working towards i'm on board with that um but i kind of feel like we're we're getting a i don't know I just would ask what we're working towards as a group. Are we moving towards a consensus on something?

Council Member Pietra.

I'm happy to answer those of you that I've spoken to. My goal is to make sure that we're mitigating reliance on fund balance while shoring up that fund balance. There are always unforeseen things. Last year, it was a fire that took out four of our downtown restaurants. and that we could not sit by while they just suffered. And our fund balance is in no way in a healthy enough spot for us to absorb that. I anticipate we've already had a fire in your district. I do not anticipate an easy year. And so for me, every penny saved becomes the insurance. And I'm just really mad at myself that two years ago, I did not make the case with you all for that emergency savings account with the legislative parameters. I should have pushed harder, but I thought I was being a wet blanket. But for me, that's what I want to do is our fund balance is in no way healthy enough to be able to absorb any unexpected thing. So for me, that's where I'm going. And I found alignment when I've spoken to a few of you.

Is it to get to a specific number or just any increase in fund balance?

For me, any increase is sufficient. If we can justify that the indemnification against the likelihood of something coming is of greater value, like if the $13,000 for NLC is of less value than the possibility that we have that and it's meaningful later on, for me, that's a good metric. It's a really weird metric to try to operationalize for me.

OK. That helps me understand kind of where where we're going.

Our new colleague had her hand up.

Who else feels that way? What are your other goals?

Hello, colleagues. I've just been sitting here observing. Thank you for your patience while I get up to speed. And I really appreciate the thoughtful analysis. I think while these surgical cuts do add up, and I do appreciate trying to support fund balance it does feel like so much of this is at the margins and i guess i would ask council staff um what real difference is it going to make on the tax increase is it going to be two dollars per household um so that's kind of where i want to 50 cents We have a chart in the unresolved issues staff report. You guys are way well ahead of me. Sorry.

No, no, you're fine. It's, you know, in all the 10,000 pages of information we sent you on Tuesday night. So I'm just pulling it up here. Let's see. My computer will cooperate. Which it's not. Lehua, can you pull it up?

I'm not trying to diminish symbolism. I think it's important.

Yeah, I think we also want to look at it realistically, you know, in real terms.

What is this going to mean for our taxpayers?

Yep, totally. Oh, yes. Perfect. For $500,000 reduction, it's $4 a year or $0.37 monthly for an average residential, $12 a year or $1 monthly for a million-dollar commercial property. We say million-dollar commercial property, so commercial property owners can kind of easily do the math. Obviously, there's very few million-dollar commercial properties in our city, but...

That's helpful. Thank you so much. Council member young.

Yeah, I'm just going to revisit council member Wharton's question. Council member Wharton for me today was. More so about having a conversation before we get our final budget numbers in so that we are more like, we have a. A CLEARER KIND OF FRAMEWORK WITH WHICH TO OPERATE ONCE THOSE NUMBERS COME IN ON FRIDAY AND WE HAVE TO TAKE ACTION OR IDEALLY TAKING ACTION NEXT TUESDAY. SO I DON'T DISAGREE WITH THE OTHER FRAMINGS BUT I THINK FOR ME HAVING THESE CONVERSATIONS TODAY I'M HOPING ALLOWS US TO BE A LITTLE MORE EXPEDITIOUS IN BEING ABLE TO TAKE ACTION IF NECESSARY POST FRIDAY NUMBERS.

Thank you for the question, Councilmember Wharton. I think, similar to what Councilmember Pietro said, I, and maybe this is my general anxiety kicking up, but I feel like something could come that we are not anticipating, and I'm very worried that we will not have the fund balance to respond to those things. And so that's where my general anxiety is coming from. Related to that, I also recognize that the property tax increase is still a property tax increase, even if the amount is not there. Residents are still feeling the increased cost of public utilities, perhaps even more so. I feel more comfortable looking my folks on a fixed income in the eye and saying I went through line by line and maybe it was $4,000 or $2,000 but For me, it's a sense of integrity to say there are things I love, but I'm asking you to make some difficult decisions, and I'm willing to make those too. So that was what was behind mine. I understand it's surgical. I understand that in a budget of almost $500 million, asking about $25,000 or $50,000 is not going to change things. But for me, when I look at my residents and they tell me I'm looking at a reverse mortgage to pay my property taxes, I want to be able to at least say I did everything I could.

I THINK CONTEXT ON THE OTHER ENTITIES HAVE RAISED TAXES AND THEY'RE ABOUT TO RAISE TAXES. IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT. COUNTY HAVE DONE IT. IT'S NOT JUST THIS $4 REDUCTION ON THE TAX. I also, you know, the increases that are coming down the line as far as bonds, most likely for a library system that is looming in front of us as well. There is a lot of things coming down the pipe, and I feel like making those reductions now when it's tough and most likely it's going to get worse next year. And I think it is... It's all about all of these things, to me, that you mentioned. It's about saving and increasing our fund balance because, for example, we know from the presentations that most likely they're going to come back for gas and adjustment because they are budgeting on the, you know, with not that much cushion on there. They're going, the administration told us that they're going to ask most likely for more gas money. So we know that that's coming. We already have a fund balance that is very in the edge of things. So I am seeing as also as very much a role as council members and this is a different budget on how we've done it in the past. Because of how the law is and how the processes is a very different and uncomfortable and this is why it's creating some of these anxieties and I Fully aware that I might have made a lot of angry people in this meeting today but it is an opportunity to Sincerely talk about those four thousand dollars and two thousand dollars and twenty five thousand dollars and see if we can Painfully cut them. I don't find any joy and most of the things even on the cloud watching I sincerely do I know that it is value on those You know quality of living. I think they make our city worth more I I'm not saying that those things are worthless and WHAT I'M SAYING IS I DO HERE WITH AUTILITIES GOING UP AND, YOU KNOW, OUR GARBAGE FEES GOING UP, OUR TAXES GOING UP, THE COUNTY'S TAXES GOING UP, WE'RE MOST LIKELY HAVING TO DO A TAX INCREASE NEXT YEAR ON TOP OF THE LIBRARY HAVING TO DO A BOND. We are piling and piling and piling, and I want to try my best to squeeze a little more. I sincerely don't find, I think that this administration has proven incredible on reducing the budget I've never seen anything like this happen. I don't think any entity in the state have been able to reduce the percentage of money that this administration have reduced on their budget. It's incredible. And we're probably talking about, if we add all these things, maybe a million, million and a half, I don't know, depending. Not a lot of money, but I think the impact is meaningful symbolically. BUT ALSO TO TRY TO MAKE THE IMPACTS OF ALL OF THESE TAX

I appreciate everybody answering. And I ask that question genuinely. And my response is, when I say I think all of the reasons are valid, I think that I stand by that. And I guess my fear sometimes is that There is the false economy fallacy of putting so much effort or putting someone who might drive 15 miles to try to save 5 cents on gas, but the wear and tear to the vehicle, the cost to the environment, all of these things ends up not being, the juice is not worth the squeeze, so to speak. it for me it's better if we say this is the goal that we're trying to achieve and we know that like that the that this amount of cut will translate to a measurable difference in a resident's pocketbook whereas one that's like a you know I THINK THAT'S A GOOD POINT. I THINK THAT'S A GOOD POINT. I THINK THAT'S A GOOD POINT. I THINK THAT'S A GOOD POINT. BUT IT ENDS UP RESULTING IN US BUT IT ENDS UP RESULTING IN US BUT IT ENDS UP RESULTING IN US HAVING A BROKEN BOILER OR IT HAVING A BROKEN BOILER OR IT HAVING A BROKEN BOILER OR IT ENDS UP IN US CUTTING SOMEBODY, ENDS UP IN US CUTTING SOMEBODY, ENDS UP IN US CUTTING SOMEBODY, CUTTING A JOB OR LAYING SOMEBODY CUTTING A JOB OR LAYING SOMEBODY CUTTING A JOB OR LAYING SOMEBODY OFF, THAT'S ONE MORE PERSON OFF, THAT'S ONE MORE PERSON OFF, THAT'S ONE MORE I'm all for the cuts. But for me to support any proposal to make a cut, I need to know that it's going to mean something to the residents. And this is not suggesting that any proposal doesn't mean anything. That's just what keeps going through my mind as we go through one budget item at a time, is I'm like, OK, listening to the arguments on both sides. And I come to a conclusion about how I feel about a particular budget item. But then when we get to the end of the discussion, I'm like, OK, so where did we land on these things? Which were the things that we decided were worthwhile and weren't. So I guess that's where I appreciate the discussion. I learned a lot, but I also want to know what the culmination of it would be.

I'm a little lost, but I appreciate your thoughts. As far as what the goal is and if it's a meaningful impact, I think to me that's debatable. Maybe $4 to you is not, or to me is not, but for someone is. And I don't know if we're going to find agreement on that. But I'm seeing $4 in the context of all those increases and the cost of living increases. And maybe how I frame this is, even if I have the money to pay for all the things that was proposed in this budget, will I do it? And I will say that I still think that some of those changes are worth to make in that budget. And it is in my role, but it's also like I feel like there is some squeezing to do anyways, even if I have the money to pay for every single thing in there. MAYBE THERE ARE LESS CHANGES, BUT I THINK THAT THERE IS SOME ADJUSTMENTS FROM MY POINT OF VIEW.

YEAH, I DON'T DISAGREE THAT, LIKE, FOR ME IT'S NOT ABOUT, LIKE, IS $4 WORTH IT OR NOT. FOR ME IT'S ABOUT, LIKE, can we tie this to a measurable impact? Because $4, whether you make this much money overall or whether you're already strapped because your expenses are higher and your pay is higher, if you can't afford it, you can't afford it if you're already strapped. I don't want to get into a debate of like, well, a dollar to you is worth more than a dollar to me. I want to say this is why this particular cut helps us get to a greater goal that has a measurable impact on people's lives.

I THINK THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT COIN IS, SO YOU'LL NOTICE I HAVEN'T SUGGESTED THAT WE CUT THE PROPERTY TAX INCREASE. THE QUESTIONS AND THE CONVERSATIONS IN DISTRICT ONE HAVE TURNED TO HOW DO WE MAKE THIS INCREASE WORTH YOUR TIME? WHAT DO YOU NEED TO SEE? AND SO AS WE'RE LOOKING AT A BUNCH OF THESE CUTS, I KEEP GOING BACK TO THE NLC ONE, BUT I'M GOING TO CONSIDER THAT BECAUSE I THINK That could be a $13,000 buffer plus whatever the travel expenses are for whenever we have the pipe burst and we need to do some mitigation at a local restaurant so we don't lose the revenue. I don't know what's coming for us, but I know it always comes for us. Maintaining that responsiveness has to be a priority because we do need to. We have to make sure that the people who trust us to keep them employed can afford to live where they live and they're not displaced. We need to make sure that the neighbors who trust us with their dollars can still count on us to show up in the most basic ways. And so I think for me the other side of that coin is just saying how do we make sure that whatever dollar gets allocated is getting allocated in a way THAT IS MAKING, HAS THE GREATEST LIKELIHOOD FOR A DIRECT IMPACT IN THE COMMUNITIES THAT ARE TRUSTING US RIGHT NOW. AND SO I'M WITH YOU. I ACTUALLY DIDN'T SUGGEST ANY OF THE MOVING OF THE MONEY BECAUSE I THINK THIS WAS A REALLY done budget. But if we're going to pinch pennies, I think these are really necessary conversations. And I also think it's time for us to start disagreeing more on the public record and to let people see how the sausage is made. I think part of restoring trust in these institutions is allowing people to see that we don't agree. And I trust all of you to honor my dignity as I honor yours. But I think we need to have hard conversations. And we need to let people at least have an artifact if they're not tuned in right now, as only three of them are. But have an artifact to go back to to say, no, we did actually consider this top to bottom, front to back, inside out, in private, and in front of you. I think this over-reliance on never disagreeing and being unanimous could end up hurting us. So I think it's actually a really healthy exercise for us to have these kinds of conversations and to make sure people know all things were considered.

Do you think you and I should disagree more?

I mean, is that something that... As long as your adoration and love for me personally increases with proportion that we disagree on the public record, yes.

I want to meet the constituent that's watching and is like, Chris and Victoria are just too aligned on everything.

So I want to kind of circle back to what I talked about at the beginning in terms of values. One thing that has been, this is my first budget rodeo, and one thing that has been going through my head is that I got a demographics report and almost 20% of my seniors live in poverty. That keeps me up at night. When there's proposals like the budget we received where there are reductions in staff, I don't take that lightly. Both of my parents were civil servants. I had health insurance because they worked for the state or the county. I don't take those cuts lightly at all. I feel a deep sense of responsibility to the people of Salt Lake City and to be a responsible steward for every dollar. And I'm also very concerned about how we will be able to give our nonrepresented staff next year a raise because we haven't talked about that yet because they're not getting one this year. And so that's also on my mind as well.

Council Member Dugan.

I love this conversation. This is where we should be, having this conversation and looking at it. The mayor did a great job. The department did a great job on cutting things as much as we could. We also took a knife to this also. And yes, 1 13th possibly, maybe even less, of the property tax increase. PROPERTY OWNER, RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OWNER, BUT WE ALSO KNOW PROPERTY OWNER, BUT WE ALSO KNOW THAT WE COULD SEE A COUPLE THAT WE COULD SEE A COUPLE MILLION DOLLARS IN THE FUTURE FOR MILLION DOLLARS IN THE FUTURE FOR BUDGET AMENDMENTS FOR UNEXPECTED BUDGET AMENDMENTS FOR UNEXPECTED THINGS. SO THIS EXERCISE WAS GOOD SO THAT WE ARE ACTUALLY A LITTLE BIT MORE IN TUNE ON WHAT WE'RE SPENDING OUR MONEY ON, WHAT WE'RE SPENDING OUR RESIDENTS' MONEY ON, BUT ALSO GIVES THE DEPARTMENTS THE REALIZATION THAT WE MAY BE COMING BACK HERE IN FOUR MONTHS OR SIX MONTHS WHEN WE GET ANOTHER SALES TAX NUMBERS AND SAY WE MAY HAVE TO DO THIS AGAIN. and they should start be looking they should need to excuse me they should they need to look at their budgets now with the same vision on how we make sure that our fund balance stays at a level that our bond rating stays high so we don't have other expenses and that so maybe we can also look for the future to have a property uh a pay raise so yes these are these are surgical in nature but without this surgery WE WOULD HAVE A BIGGER PROBLEM IN A YEAR. I LOVE THE DISCUSSION AND I'M SO GLAD WE'RE HERE TODAY. I LOVE HAVING A THURSDAY AFTERNOON WITH YOU GUYS.

I will like, one of the things that I'd stress to me is the closure of the South Palace and the impacts on our sales taxes. Additionally, the Delta Center under construction through the summer and now having all of those people and all of those concerts and the sales tax impact. Excuse me? Yes, yes, South Palace, yeah. So all of those two things, I felt like the impact in this next year budget, it's going to be problematic. And so we are, I felt like making this little, Small little cuts now because I think I'm going to have to make harder decisions later. And I don't doubt that Denver and Las Vegas, they had to let off hundreds of people. They didn't make those easily. And I... WORRY THAT WE'RE HEADED THAT DIRECTION. AND CUTTING SOME PROGRAMS AND THE MAJORITY OF THE CUTS SUGGESTED HERE ARE PROGRAMS, NOT PEOPLE. IT'S OUR ATTEMPT TO MINIMIZE THAT BECAUSE THAT'S NOT WHAT WE WANT. SO I APPRECIATE THIS CONVERSATION. I APPRECIATE YOU, CHRIS, FOR BRINGING THAT UP. I THINK I GOT ALL THE FEELINGS OUT. I DON'T THINK ANYBODY REALLY IS MAKING THIS HAPPILY. I THINK THAT WE PROBABLY TALKED TOO MUCH. ITEM NUMBER TWO IS A TENTATIVE BUDGET ITEM THAT IS A STANDARD IN OUR AGENDA PER THE LAW WHICH IS THE FISCAL YEAR 2026-2027 PROPERTY TAX IMPACT SCHEDULE WHICH IS POSTED ON THE AGENDA AND AVAILABLE TO ANYBODY. THERE IS NO REPORTS AND THERE ARE REPORTS FROM THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR I BELIEVE.

Yes. With the new city council member, we were just hoping to schedule a time that works for the council to take a new group photo. And we can wait and check back with you on Tuesday, unless you all want to do it on Tuesday.

Let's get it over with. What time?

1.30. It would be just 30 minutes prior to whatever time your work session begins. If that works for you. 2 o'clock, so 1.30. Right now we're planning on starting at 2 o'clock, so it would be 1.30 if that works for you.

Your key part of the photo, she's saying. So if you can make it.

I can reschedule my documents. No, no, no. Well, it's a two, so I'm going to have to reschedule.

So, okay, then it works, you sure? Yeah. Okay, so get all glammed up. Chris, we'll start three hours earlier.

We'll take the color conversation to a text thread.

Yeah, we coordinate colors.

We might do the color coordination thing, although, yeah, I have thoughts. I think that concludes our work session for today. I appreciate everybody coming here, all department directors that participated and the ones that helped with text and the information, the administration being here as well. So see you on Tuesday. Thank you, everyone.