City Council - workshop

Music playing . . Oh, .

.

.

.

So, Oh. Oh. Oh. Thank you. Oh

THE AUGUST 18, 2026 CITY THE AUGUST 18, 2026 CITY THE AUGUST 18, 2026 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING. COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING. COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING. OUR MEETINGS ARE PUBLIC AND YOU OUR MEETINGS ARE PUBLIC AND YOU OUR MEETINGS ARE PUBLIC AND YOU ARE WELCOME TO JOIN US IN PERSON ARE WELCOME TO JOIN US IN PERSON ARE WELCOME TO JOIN US IN PERSON OR BY WATCHING FROM THE COUNCIL OR BY WATCHING FROM THE COUNCIL OR BY WATCHING FROM THE COUNCIL AGENDA PAGE. AGENDA PAGE. AGENDA PAGE. YOU CAN ALSO WATCH THROUGH ZOOM YOU CAN ALSO WATCH THROUGH ZOOM YOU CAN ALSO WATCH THROUGH ZOOM OR YOUTUBE You can join us tonight at the 7 p.m. formal meeting to share your comments. We, of course, welcome your feedback anytime. You can mail it to us at PO Box 145476, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84114. You can also email your comments at council.comments at slc.gov or you can call our 24-hour comment line 801-535-7654 comments we receive on agenda topics are shared with council members and posted on our website slc.gov slash council our first agenda item It's an informational update from the administration. We're going to welcome Weston Clark, Director of Community Outreach to give us that update.

GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNCIL. THANKS FOR HAVING ME. LET'S GO TO THE FIRST SLIDE, WHICH IS OF COURSE ALWAYS A REMINDER TO EVERYONE IN THE COMMUNITY TO GO TO OUR SHAPE SLC PAGE WHERE THEY CAN FIND OPPORTUNITIES TO ENGAGE ON TOPICS THAT INTEREST THEM FOR PROJECTS IN THE CITY. NEXT PAGE. Jumping into some planning updates, starting with some good news for Avenues residents. The Planning Commission recommended adoption of the Avenues Community Plan updates on August 12th. That is on its way to the Council. Likewise, the Central Community Plan update is transitioning from Phase 1 to Phase 2, which involves drafting the overall vision for the plan, big ideas, and policy framework based on public input received. Public engagement will continue on this as it evolves, so residents can go to SHAPE SLC for that to stay connected and sign up for updates. The Expanding Housing Options Initiative, which is hoping to bring more housing flexibility in the city and therefore more housing options, has a public hearing scheduled for September 9th with an expected recommendation from the Planning Commission the same night. THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY BENEFIT TEXT AMENDMENT IS A PRODUCT OF THE THRIVING IN PLACE TO INCLUDE COMMUNITY BENEFITS IN LAND USE CHANGES. WITH THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS ALLOWED TO MAKE SOME MODIFICATIONS TO ZONING RULES PROVIDED THE PROJECT MEETS CERTAIN OBJECTIVES RELATED TO IMPLEMENTING CITY LAND USE RELATED GOALS. This proposal will make those objectives more specific and link the community benefit required to the degree of modification being requested. This results in small modifications to zoning requiring a smaller benefit and larger requests requiring greater community benefit. This project is currently in its 45-day comment period. Next slide. Updates from Public Lands. The contractor working on Pioneer Park is making substantial progress on park improvements. The Ranger restroom building, iconic pavilion, and dog park shade structure are in progress. The basketball, pickleball courts, my favorite, have been poured. Playground equipment is installed. Next steps include playground surfacing, sport court surfacing, irrigation, and planting. Public Lands is planning for a ribbon cutting in November. Public Lands is collaborating with the mayor's office, transportation, engineering, public utilities, CRA, and planning on concept development for 500 west and from 50 north to 900 south. The project will reimagine the right-of-way, adding greenery, stormwater management, pedestrian bicycle infrastructure, and improved north-south connectivity. Traffic flow, business access, and parking will also be incorporated. The project team is working with key internal and external stakeholders, including existing businesses, residents, and developers along 500 West. The first public engagement event will be on Friday, August 21st on the Nine Line at 700 West in a collaboration with the WE project, the West East project block party. More information for that can be found on Shape SLC as well. Update on Fleet Block, on Wednesday, August 5th, the Salt Lake City Department of Public Lands hosted an open house to unveil the final vision for the Fleet Block open house, I'm sorry, the open space. The event was held at Central Ninth Market with approximately 80 people in attendance, including neighbors and community members that have participated earlier in the engagement opportunities. Feedback for the open space concept was generally positive with excitement about the extensive greenery and shading. We have a couple of park closures that we want to give some notice about. The Ida M. Cotton Park at 1815 South 300 East has temporarily closed. It closed on Monday, August 17th, to start construction on a series of improvements designed to better serve the neighborhood and create a more welcoming space. That park will reopen in spring of 27. And the Miller Bird Refuge and Nature Park in Yelcrest closed. will temporarily close on August 24th for approximately four months for trail improvements and historic structure preservation. Next slide. Notice for a great event, a free recycling event. This is part of an EPA grant with waste and recycling. City is offering free drop off of recycling, things like household hazardous waste, e-waste, cords, old computers. It's gonna take place on August 22nd at 19.95 West, 500 South from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. Next slide. WE HAD A REQUEST TO UPDATE THE WE HAD A REQUEST TO UPDATE THE COUNCIL ON THE CITYWIDE SURVEY. COUNCIL ON THE CITYWIDE SURVEY. SO I'M HAPPY TO GIVE YOU A BIT SO I'M HAPPY TO GIVE YOU A BIT OF INSIGHT. OF INSIGHT. SALT LAKE CITY HAS CONDUCTED SALT LAKE CITY HAS CONDUCTED CITYWIDE RESIDENT SURVEYS FOR MORE CITYWIDE RESIDENT SURVEYS FOR MORE THAN 30 YEARS. THAN 30 YEARS. OVER THE PAST FIVE YEARS SURVEY OVER THE PAST FIVE YEARS SURVEY TOPICS FOCUSED HEAVILY ON TOPICS FOCUSED HEAVILY ON PUBLIC SAFETY, NEIGHBORHOOD PUBLIC SAFETY, NEIGHBORHOOD QUAL The most recent biannual survey was conducted in the spring of 2024. It included 653 participants. While the survey provided valuable feedback, participation from Districts 1 and 2 particularly were low. The City used the Request for Proposals process as an opportunity to address this challenge and strengthen the survey methodology. A key priority was identifying a research partner with effective strategies for reaching residents who have historically been underrepresented in survey results, particularly Westside residents, renters, and Spanish-speaking residents as well. The city selected Probolski Research, founded in 1992. It is a women and Latina-owned market and opinion research firm. now the city and probolski research are currently finalizing the 2026 survey questions the process is focused on making the survey shorter more accessible and more useful for policy and budget decisions some of the key improvements include a shorter more focused questionnaire greater attention to privacy and participant experience removing unnecessary questions rather than relying on statistical waiting after responses are collected RESEARCH WILL FOCUS ON PRODUCING A REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE RESEARCH WILL FOCUS ON PRODUCING A REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE THROUGH ITS RECRUITMENT AND THROUGH ITS RECRUITMENT AND FIELDING METHODS. FIELDING METHODS. THEY HAVE UNLIMITED LANGUAGE THEY HAVE UNLIMITED LANGUAGE TRANSLATION AT NO ADDITIONAL TRANSLATION AT NO ADDITIONAL COST. COST. THE SURVEY WILL BE AVAILABLE IN THE SURVEY WILL BE AVAILABLE IN ENGLISH AND SPANISH AND THE CITY ENGLISH AND SPANISH AND THE CITY IS EXPLORING THE ADDITION OF A IS EXPLORING THE ADDITION OF A THIRD LANGUAGE. THIRD LANGUAGE. THE CITY IS ALSO TAR council members are invited to work directly with the council's survey committee representatives which is kira luke and lehua weaver to suggest topics and share feedback on the survey in addition to the feedback council members are sharing with lehua and kira throughout the process the committee will provide a final draft questionnaire to council members to review before it's finalized council members can expect a final draft for review in late august or early september THE REVISED TIMELINE IS DESIGNED TO ENSURE SURVEY RESULTS ARE AVAILABLE AND PRESENTED TO COUNCIL IN EARLY JANUARY AHEAD OF THE COUNCIL RETREAT. NEXT SLIDE IS THE LAST ONE. Just a couple of shout outs for some great work from the city team. The city traffic signal team was able to find efficiencies in some of their inspection processes which resulted in nearly a month of excess time. This allowed the team to focus on much needed maintenance as well as other special projects such as installing accessible pedestrian signals or APS buttons at traffic signals. Due to the extra time and some additional overtime, the team was able to install 320 buttons this calendar year, leading to around 65% of the entire traffic signal system covered with modern accessible pedestrian signal buttons. This is a key compliance element of the ADA standards. Full system coverage with APS buttons is estimated to be reached within the next three years. And also a shout out to the Park Ranger team, who recently served an important coordination role between Incident Command, the Public Lands Department, and the public to relay updated information about the recent fire at Parley's Historic Nature Preserve. They redirected visitors, educated them on what was going on with the fire suppression efforts, and it was very appreciated. Public Lands also increased the presence of rangers at Liberty Park after the shooting that took place there. ONE REGULAR VISITOR TOLD THEM THAT SHE WAS NERVOUS ABOUT ONE REGULAR VISITOR TOLD THEM THAT SHE WAS NERVOUS ABOUT COMING BACK TO THE PARK AFTER COMING BACK TO THE PARK AFTER COMING BACK TO THE PARK AFTER THE INCIDENT, BUT SEEING THE INCIDENT, BUT SEEING THE INCIDENT, BUT SEEING RANGERS THERE MADE HER FEEL A LOT RANGERS THERE MADE HER FEEL A LOT RANGERS THERE MADE HER FEEL A LOT SAFER TO RETURN. SAFER TO RETURN. SAFER TO RETURN. SO SOME GREAT WORK FROM CITY SO SOME GREAT WORK FROM CITY SO SOME GREAT WORK FROM CITY TEAM THAT WE WANT TO APPLAUD. TEAM THAT WE WANT TO APPLAUD. TEAM THAT WE WANT TO APPLAUD.

AND THAT IS ALL I HAVE TO

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I APPRECIATE THE UPDATE. I APPRECIATE THE UPDATE. I APPRECIATE THE UPDATE. JUST WANT TO GIVE A SHOUT-OUT TO JUST WANT TO GIVE A SHOUT-OUT TO JUST WANT TO GIVE A SHOUT-OUT TO ALSO THE PUBLIC LANDS AND THE ARTS ALSO THE PUBLIC LANDS AND THE ARTS ALSO THE PUBLIC LANDS AND THE ARTS ON DONNER PARK. ON DONNER PARK. ON DONNER PARK. I THINK THE WORK THEY'VE DONE ON I THINK THE WORK THEY'VE DONE ON I THINK THE WORK THEY'VE DONE ON DONNER PARK HAS BEEN DONNER PARK HAS BEEN DONNER PARK HAS BEEN FANTASTIC. FANTASTIC. FANTASTIC. I'VE WALKED THROUGH THE PARK A I'VE WALKED THROUGH THE SIDEWALK. SO JUST APPRECIATE ALL THEIR EFFORT SO JUST APPRECIATE ALL THEIR EFFORT ENGAGING WITH THE COMMUNITY ON ENGAGING WITH THE COMMUNITY ON DONNER PARK. DONNER PARK. THANK YOU ACROSS THE BOARD. THANK YOU ACROSS THE BOARD.

THEY'RE GREAT. THEY'RE GREAT. GREAT TEAM. GREAT TEAM.

VERY NICE. VERY NICE. AND THE SECOND THING, PROBABLY A AND THE SECOND THING, PROBABLY A MONTH OR SO AGO, I ASKED ABOUT MONTH OR SO AGO, I ASKED ABOUT GETTING A WATER UPDATE ON THE GETTING A WATER UPDATE ON THE CITY WATER USE. CITY WATER USE. IT WOULD BE NICE TO KNOW HOW WE IT WOULD BE NICE TO KNOW HOW WE WERE DOING AGAINST OUR GOAL LIKE THE UNIVERSITY AND THE OTHER LARGE INSTITUTIONS ARE LIKE THE UNIVERSITY AND THE OTHER LARGE INSTITUTIONS ARE DOING AGAINST THEIR GOAL BECAUSE DOING AGAINST THEIR GOAL BECAUSE THEY'VE SAID THEY ARE HAVING SOME THEY'VE SAID THEY ARE HAVING SOME GOALS AND I'D REALLY LIKE TO SEE GOALS AND I'D REALLY LIKE TO SEE HOW THE CITY IN GENERAL BUT HOW THE CITY IN GENERAL BUT ALSO OUR BIG WATER USERS ARE ALSO OUR BIG WATER USERS ARE DOING ON OUR GOAL BECAUSE IT'S A BIG DOING ON OUR GOAL BECAUSE IT'S A BIG ISSUE.

ISSUE. YEAH, THANKS FOR THAT REMINDER. YEAH, THANKS FOR THAT REMINDER. I DID GET THAT NOTE AND WE'LL GIVE I DID GET THAT NOTE AND WE

ALL RIGHT. APPRECIATE IT VERY MUCH. APPRECIATE IT VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

OTHER THOUGHTS, COMMENTS, OTHER THOUGHTS, COMMENTS, QUESTIONS? QUESTIONS? I HEARD YOU WERE EXCITED ABOUT I HEARD YOU WERE EXCITED ABOUT PICKLE BALL. Do you play pickleball? Maybe I should start now.

I teach lessons. No, I don't really, but I'd be happy to. That would have been amazing. I'm always looking for more people to beat.

OK, OK. I see how it is. So thank you for the update. I'm excited for some of the updates that you highlighted there infrastructure wise, 500 West is one that I'm looking forward to see how we merge all the goals of the area. I know we talked about this before, but I'm the most excited The opportunity to actually get more voices at the table with the survey, the city survey, to include West Side Voices. And I know that we had opinions about that last time. And I appreciate your administration reacting and really putting all the effort in getting that right. So that's a big deal to me. So thank you.

THANK YOU. I DEFINITELY HAVE TO GIVE A I DEFINITELY HAVE TO GIVE A SHOUT OUT TO HALEY LEAK WHO HAS SHOUT OUT TO HALEY LEAK WHO HAS BEEN WORKING HER BUTT OFF ON BEEN WORKING HER BUTT OFF ON THAT PROJECT AND TRYING TO BE THAT PROJECT AND TRYING TO BE RESPONSIVE TO ALL OF THOSE RESPONSIVE TO ALL OF THOSE REQUESTS. REQUESTS. SHE'S DONE A GREAT JOB. SHE'S DONE A GREAT JOB. THANK YOU.

Moving on to item number two. This is another informational item. This is a public utilities impact fee facilities plan. This is an analysis report and proposed increases. We're going to welcome to the table Austin Kimmel who's going to give us a brief INTRODUCTION. HE'S OUR POLICY ANALYST. HE'S OUR POLICY ANALYST. HE'S OUR POLICY ANALYST. HE'S OUR CHIEF ENGINEER. HE'S OUR CHIEF ENGINEER. HE'S OUR CHIEF ENGINEER. PLEASE DON'T GET HIM HIRED OFF PLEASE DON'T GET HIM HIRED OFF PLEASE DON'T GET HIM HIRED OFF SOMEWHERE ELSE. SOMEWHERE ELSE. I just read the thing. So don't go away. If Laura says don't go away, don't go away.

No offense to Jacobs, who are here. OK, OK, OK.

Awesome. All right. My mic does not.

Is it working? No, it wasn't earlier.

OK, I'm going to steal this one for a moment.

OKAY. THANKS, COUNCILMEMBERS. THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES IS PROPOSING INCREASES TO THE CITY'S UTILITY IMPACT FEES. IF APPROVED, IT WOULD BE THE FIRST UPDATE TO THE CITY'S WATER, SEWER AND STORMWATER IMPACT FEES SINCE 1999. IMPACT FEES ARE ONE-TIME CHARGES IMPOSED ON NEW DEVELOPMENT TO IMPOSED ON NEW DEVELOPMENT TO HELP PAY FOR NECESSARY UTILITY HELP PAY FOR NECESSARY UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE UPGRADES TO SERVE INFRASTRUCTURE UPGRADES TO SERVE THAT NEW DEVELOPMENT. THAT NEW DEVELOPMENT. THEY'RE PAID WHEN A BUILDING THEY'RE PAID WHEN A BUILDING PERMIT IS ISSUED OR WHEN A PROJECT PERMIT IS ISSUED OR WHEN A PROJECT CONNECTS TO THE SYSTEM WITH A CONNECTS TO THE SYSTEM WITH A UTILITY PERMIT. UTILITY PERMIT. CURRENT IMPACT FEES HAVE NOT CURRENT IMPACT FEES HAVE NOT BEEN UPDATED IN 27 YEARS AND WITHOUT ADJUSTING IMPACT FEES, OTHER REVENUE SOURCES WOULD OTHER REVENUE SOURCES WOULD SUBSIDIZE UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS TO SUBSIDIZE UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS TO SUPPORT NEW DEVELOPMENT. SUPPORT NEW DEVELOPMENT. TODAY, PUBLIC UTILITIES WILL TODAY, PUBLIC UTILITIES WILL PRESENT THE UPDATED IMPACT FEES, PRESENT THE UPDATED IMPACT FEES, COMPARISONS TO OTHER COMMUNITIES, COMPARISONS TO OTHER COMMUNITIES, AND OPTIONS FOR THE SEWER IMPACT AND OPTIONS FOR THE SEWER IMPACT FEE STRUCTURE AND OPTIONS FOR FEE STRUCTURE AND OPTIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION, INCLUDING PHASING IMP WE ARE SEEKING STRAW POLES AFTER THE PRESENTATION AND FOLLOWING THE PRESENTATION AND FOLLOWING COUNCIL DIRECTION AND INPUT THE COUNCIL DIRECTION AND INPUT THE ADMINISTRATION WILL DRAFT FORMAL ADMINISTRATION WILL DRAFT FORMAL LEGISLATIVE DOCUMENTS TO BEGIN THE LEGISLATIVE DOCUMENTS TO BEGIN THE FORMAL ADOPTION PROCESS FORMAL ADOPTION PROCESS INCLUDING PUBLIC HEARINGS. INCLUDING PUBLIC HEARINGS. WITH THAT I WILL TURN IT OVER TO WITH THAT I WILL TURN IT OVER TO DIRECTOR BRIEFER AND HER TEAM.

Great. Thank you, Austin. He pretty much gave most of my presentation there. So yes, I do have Lisa Tarfaly, our finance administrator, Jason Draper, our chief engineer. Both of them were instrumental in working to get this impact fee analysis and facilities plan conducted. It's a very labor-intensive process, financial and engineering. And then we also have our Jacobs Engineering Consultants in case we have any highly technical questions on their process that traveled here today. And then Christine Beidel and our Deputy Director Jason Brown as well. Christy's been really involved in talking with the development community and one-on-one conversations and following through with them with their questions and feedback. And she can provide any summaries of what we've heard as well today. So next slide, please. So just a quick agenda here. We want to talk a little bit about the state statute governing our impact fees and the purpose and need. the actual analysis, some examples we've pulled together that show the impact on different types of new development, and then, as Austin mentioned, a discussion and straw poll around a couple of different choices that we want to move forward with on our impact fees. Next slide, please. So just real quickly, the state code and methodology for developing impact fees, not just utility, but all impact fees is found in the Impact Fees Act. And this process followed both the requirements for the IFFP and the impact fee analysis. And just to point out that Utah code does allow for impact fees for water, wastewater, water and stormwater systems specifically. Next slide, please. Purpose and need, as Austin mentioned, impact fees are a one-time charge for new development and projects requiring increased capacity. This fee is typically collected at the time of connection or at building permit. and why now it's a good time for us to update our fees. They have not been updated in nearly three decades. We're experiencing a lot of growth and change, and we want to make sure we're keeping up with the rate of change. And impact fee laws have also recently changed over the years, and we want to make sure we're in compliance with those. And we did complete an impact fee facilities plan and the impact fee analysis at the end of the calendar year 2025, and that's the analysis that we're bringing forward here. Next slide, please. So on our impact fee analysis, we have our water impact fees, which are based on meter connection size to the system. The sewer impact fees, we're presenting two different options, and we'll do a straw poll later about what options we might want to move forward with. One is based on meter size, similar to water. And the other is based on the number of dwelling units for residential properties. The latter is the way we currently charge impact fees. But as we'll discuss later, we really think going to a water meter size connection is probably most appropriate now. And then stormwater impact fees are based on lot size per quarter acre of lot size. Next slide, please. THIS IS A COMPARISON FOR THE WATER UTILITY IMPACT FEES ON THE EXISTING IMPACT FEE FOR THE DIFFERENT SIZED CONNECTIONS AND THEN THE IMPACT FEE THAT IS SUPPORTED BY THE IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS. A couple things to note about this information. First of all, you'll see that the impact fee analysis recommends the impact fee to be a lot higher than it is currently, and that's really reflective of the amount of time that's gone by since we've updated impact fees. And then the second thing I'll note is meter size. So typically three quarter inch and one inch meters serve single family residential properties. Anything above that is commercial, industrial or institutional. We see a lot of multifamily properties, apartment buildings and kind of larger multifamily properties in the three inch range, sometimes four inch range. So just to give you a sense of what it means when we talk about meter size and what kind of properties that includes. The much larger meters, 6 inch, 8 inch, and 10 inch, we don't have a lot of those on our system, but those are usually associated with very large industrial or institutional uses. We gave an example previously that the state correctional facility has a 10-inch meter connection or two. Next slide, please. We've compared our water impact fees to adjoining communities and similar communities in other states. And so this is just a comparison for the three quarter inch impact fee. The bar on the left of the screen is our existing impact fee. You can see it's on the very low end in that comparison. and our proposed or the impact fee analysis supported impact fee is kind of around the same scale as others nearby. This comparison data was collected between March and December 2025, so some of those impact fees might have already changed since then as well. Next slide, please. And then for a two-inch meter, which is usually a commercial connection, this is a similar comparison for the water utility. Again, Salt Lake City's existing fees are quite low in comparison to others, and our proposed fees are in the range of other communities around the Wasatch Front, as well as we have Grand Junction and Denver in there as well, and then Washington County. Next slide, please. For the sewer utility impact fees, the first option that we're looking at is to base our sewer impact fees on meter size. This would be a change to how we currently base impact fees based on equivalent residential unit on a per dwelling basis. The basis for meter size on a sewer system and a water system really makes a lot more sense because it is that potential capacity that that connection to the system represents. So for this option, all residential, single family, and multifamily, as well as commercial, industrial, and institutional would be on the same rate structure for impact fees, and that's based on that meter size. Next slide, please. The other option we looked at is to kind of mirror how we currently assess impact fees on that per unit basis. And so we would have a residential, the residential per connection fee, which would be $44,300. And then for multifamily, it would be 75%. OF THAT FEE PER UNIT. AND THEN FOR OTHER TYPES OF RECREATIONAL FACILITIES LIKE TRAILER PARKS, FOR INSTANCE, IT WOULD BE THE SAME PROPORTION AS A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENT. THE CURRENT RESIDENTIAL IMPACT FEE IS $545 PER EQUIVALENT RESIDENTIAL UNIT. SO YOU CAN SEE THAT COMPARISON AGAIN REFLECTS THE AMOUNT OF TIME THAT'S GONE SINCE WE'VE UPDATED THESE IMPACT FEES. Also, the current commercial impact fee is not based on connection size. It's based on the number of fixture units, which we feel no longer really makes sense with the types of new development that we have coming into our system. Next slide, please. When we compare to other permitting agencies, based on that meter size, you can see that for typical single-family residential new development, we are quite low in comparison. And again, similar to the water impact fees, we would be along the same lines as other agencies. neighboring communities as well as other comparable communities. Again we have Grand Junction and Denver in there as well as Wasatch Front communities. Next slide please. And really the same story when we look at a commercial connection like a two inch connection, we are very, very low and the new fees would bring us to a higher or to a more comparable connection fee or impact fee. Next slide please. Stormwater impact fees, the existing impact fee is $374 per quarter acre and the impact fee analysis would support up to $1,993 per quarter acre. And then the next slide shows again that comparison with other entities around the Wasatch Front. Next slide please. We've prepared a few examples of impact, the total impact fee for new developments. So we've compared a single family impact, a commercial example, and a multifamily example. These are all based on real life examples we're dealing with today. So for a single family example, a three quarter inch meter connection on a quarter acre property, which is kind of a standard residential property in Salt Lake City, the total impact fees with today's fees would be just under $3,000. And the total for the impact fee analysis supported fees would be just under $12,000. For a commercial property with a three inch meter on five acres of land, this is also similar to an example we have right now. The total would be $43,000 under the current fees and $165,000 under the proposed fees. And then we wanted to really look at the options related to multifamily. So we have a 200-unit multifamily development example with a three-inch meter on 0.36 acres. The current impact fee under the current fee structure would be a little over $133,000. ON THE OPTION WHERE WE WOULD JUST BASE THE WATER AND SEWER FEES ON CONNECTION SIZE, THE TOTAL IN THIS EXAMPLE WOULD ACTUALLY BE LESS OVER ALL IMPACT FEES THAN WHAT IT IS TODAY AND THAT'S LARGELY BECAUSE WE WOULD BE BASING THE SEWER IMPACT FEE ON CONNECTION SIZE RATHER THAN EQUIVALENT RESIDENTIAL UNITS. under the option where we would be basing this on equivalent residential units for the sewer charges you can see that the total would be magnitudes higher and in this case it would look at it would be at over seven hundred thousand dollars we think that may be problematic just in terms of equity and of the allocation of costs between commercial and multi-family and also from an affordability perspective. But we would definitely want to hear your thoughts on that. I would say that, again, the rationale of connection size on a water and sewer system makes a lot more sense than ERU. Next slide, please. So our impact fee development timeline, under state law, we had to prepare a notice of intent that we were going to be conducting the impact fee facilities plan and a notice of preparation of the impact fee analysis that was done in March of 2024 before we started our process. We completed the analysis in the fall of 2025 and presented that to our Public Utilities Advisory Committee at that time. Last week we participated in the Development Advisory Forum to get feedback from participants in that forum. That's a Salt Lake City convening effort. AND THEN AS WE MOVE TO THE FUTURE, WE WILL LOOK TO DATES FOR ADOPTION AND THEN IMPLEMENTATION OF THE IMPACT FEES. I THINK I WANT TO STOP, SHOULD WE STOP HERE OR JUST GO TO THE DROP? OKAY. STOP HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU FOR THE BRIEF AND THANK YOU FOR THE RUNDOWN AND THE PRIOR QUESTIONS. WE HAD A DISCUSSION ON THE LARGER UNITS HAVING TWO METERS, ONE SEPARATE FROM THE OUTDOOR AND ONE FOR INDOOR SO THAT WE COULD, IF WE HAD THAT TYPE OF ISSUE WHERE IT'S EASY FOR SOMEONE TO JUST TURN OFF THEIR OUTDOOR METER SO THAT WE'RE CONSERVING WATER. and uh where does is that still an option for that's always an option for for commercial developer yes but it's not a requirement and was there every discussion on the requirement of doing something of that nature of properties that are of a certain size

YEAH, SO WE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING THAT, THE REQUIREMENT FOR A SEPARATE IRRIGATION METER FOR LARGER PROPERTIES WHERE THEY HAVE A LOT LARGER LANDSCAPE AREA TO SEPARATE OUT THAT IRRIGATION PIECE AND THAT WOULD BE REALLY BENEFICIAL FROM A NUMBER OF PERSPECTIVES. IT WOULD HELP US GATHER MORE DATA ON WHAT'S BEING USED OUTSIDE ON THESE TYPES OF PROPERTIES VERSUS WHAT'S BEING USED INDOORS. We can require that as part of our development review, but it's not something that we are required to do.

WE COULD ACTUALLY DO THAT SEPARATELY FROM THIS PORTION SEPARATELY FROM THIS PORTION OF THE WORK. OF THE WORK. WE COULD HAVE A SEPARATE ORDINANCE WE COULD HAVE A SEPARATE ORDINANCE OR REQUIREMENT TO DO THAT OR REQUIREMENT TO DO THAT SEPARATELY FOR CERTAIN SIZE. SEPARATELY FOR CERTAIN SIZE. OKAY. OKAY. THAT'S RIGHT.

THAT'S RIGHT. YES. YES. OKAY. OKAY. DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD WITH THAT BECAUSE YOU'RE DOING WITH THAT BECAUSE YOU'RE DOING DEVELOPMENT REVIEWS?

Come on, come on. We definitely encourage irrigation meters that separating the flows is really helpful for us to get accurate sewer billing. And then we even talked this morning about it helps inform rates when we actually understand what they're using for culinary water versus irrigation. So we encourage that. And we do see a lot of developers, especially when they're working on larger sites that are already doing that. Yeah.

Thanks. I JUST WANT TO SAY THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS TO US. BRINGING THIS TO US.

OUR RATE PAYERS DON'T GET TO OUR RATE PAYERS DON'T GET TO DECIDE IF THINGS ARE PHASED IN DECIDE IF THINGS ARE PHASED IN OR NOT AND THEY HAVE NOT HAD OR NOT AND THEY HAVE NOT HAD THE BENEFIT OF RATES STAYING THE BENEFIT OF RATES STAYING STAGNANT SINCE 1999 WHICH MEANS STAGNANT SINCE 1999 WHICH MEANS THAT OUR RATE PAYERS WHICH ARE THAT OUR RATE PAYERS WHICH ARE NOT JUST SALT LAKE CITY NOT JUST SALT LAKE CITY RESIDENTS BUT RESIDENTS THROUGHOUT RESIDENTS BUT RESIDENTS THROUGHOUT THE VALLEY HAVE SHOULDERED THE DEVELOPMENT COSTS FOR SALT LAKE CITY BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT CITY BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT CITY BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT THOSE OTHER PLACES THAT WERE THOSE OTHER PLACES THAT WERE THOSE OTHER PLACES THAT WERE INCORPORATED AFTER US JUST BY INCORPORATED AFTER US JUST BY INCORPORATED AFTER US JUST BY VIRTUE OF THEIR INCORPORATION VIRTUE OF THEIR INCORPORATION VIRTUE OF THEIR INCORPORATION DATE HAVE A MORE MODERN RATE. DATE HAVE A MORE MODERN RATE. DATE HAVE A MORE MODERN RATE. SO THANK YOU. SO THANK YOU. SO THANK YOU. I KNOW THIS IS NOT GOING TO BE I KNOW THIS IS NOT GOING TO BE I KNOW THIS IS NOT GOING TO BE AN EASY LI WHAT THEY HAVE TO RAISE IS VERY HELPFUL. HELPFUL. I WHOLELY SUPPORT THIS AND I WHOLELY SUPPORT THIS AND DEVELOPERS ARE WELCOME TO YELL AT ME DEVELOPERS ARE WELCOME TO YELL AT ME BEFORE THEY YELL AT YOU. BEFORE THEY YELL AT YOU.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND THAT MIGHT BE IMPORTANT FOR AND THAT MIGHT BE IMPORTANT FOR ME TO ADD HERE THAT THERE'S TWO ME TO ADD HERE THAT THERE'S TWO COMPONENTS TO THE IMPACT FEE. One is for planned future projects, and then the other component is recruitment, which means that there are parts of our system where we have existing capacity that new development will pay their fair share to tie into. And then it also will help us in the future as we catch up on these impact fees to really keep pace better with the rate of growth with our capacity-related projects. Thank you.

Thank you. I was just following, I was just, you know, reading the documents that you sent and thank you for updating us through the week about this work. And one of the things that is the mantra of impact fees which is growth should pay for growth. That's right. It's not quite there right now with it, you know, 30 year, almost 30 year lag in an update. I WOULD LOVE TO ENSURE THAT WE SYSTEMIZE THIS SO IT DOESN'T SYSTEMIZE THIS SO IT DOESN'T SYSTEMIZE THIS SO IT DOESN'T HAPPEN AGAIN IN THE FUTURE. HAPPEN AGAIN IN THE FUTURE. HAPPEN AGAIN IN THE FUTURE. WE WOULD LOVE TO SEE HOW OFTEN WE WE WOULD LOVE TO SEE HOW OFTEN WE WE WOULD LOVE TO SEE HOW OFTEN WE PUT THIS INTO AN ALARM CLOCK SO PUT THIS INTO AN ALARM CLOCK SO PUT THIS INTO AN ALARM CLOCK SO IT POPS UP IN HOW MANY YEARS. IT POPS UP IN HOW MANY YEARS. IT POPS UP IN HOW MANY YEARS. THAT'S ONE. THAT'S ONE. THAT'S ONE. I'M WONDERING, SINCE WATER IS A I'M WONDERING, SINCE WATER IS A This may be too out of the box and strange, but if there is a way of, especially for the multi-unit development, where we can credit some or a portion of it or some of it if they don't put that much grass into their units in a way of like saying, Sure. You know, I might waive or credit you with this little teeny portion, but don't put that much grass into your development. I, unfortunately, I see a lot of multifamily home development that has They have the greenest, almost blue, how green it is, lawns that I've ever seen. And it's almost as a disconnect from reality. So I wonder if there is a way of using this tool as a way of incentivizing and turning the spigot on that issue.

We could certainly take a look at that. It wasn't something included in this impact fee analysis. But I'll say two things to that. One is if their choice of landscape reduces the size of the connection that they need to make, they will save on their impact fees. And then the second is I was doing a little bit of research earlier today, and I did notice that Washington County Water Conservancy District may have a program that's similar to that. So I wanted to look a little bit deeper into how that rationale fit with their system, something we could look at.

I APPRECIATE THE LOOKING INTO IT. I AM TRYING TO FIND WAYS THAT WE CAN INCENTIVIZE THIS ISSUE WHICH IS VERY HARD BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE MANY CARROTS TO GIVE NOR WE HAVE A LOT OF STICKS TO THROW. BUT I WOULD LOVE TO SEE IF THERE IS SOME CREATIVE THINKING, ESPECIALLY ON THE MULTIUNIT DEVELOPMENT.

AGREED.

ANY OTHER THOUGHTS,

I'M SO EXCITED THAT WE'RE DOING THIS BECAUSE IT'S OBVIOUSLY A LONG OVERDUE. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT ANY TIME WE MAKE THESE KINDS OF CHANGES, I THINK WE'RE GOING TO HEAR FROM DEVELOPERS AND FOLKS IN THE COMMUNITY ABOUT THIS. um you know adding to the cost of of home yes ownership or home building um creating residential units and i just want to make sure that we're on like very firm footing to explain that we're calculating this yes in a way that's you know very similar to any other city in utah that we're not making it harder to develop or more costly in Salt Lake City. DO YOU WANT TO JUST SPEAK TO THAT A LITTLE BIT? YOU DON'T NEED TO.

YEAH, JUST ON THE METHODOLOGY THAT WAS USED, WELL, THAT METHODOLOGY FIRST HAS TO FOLLOW STATE STATUTE, WHICH IS PRETTY PRESCRIPTIVE. AND THEN, YOU KNOW, WE SPEND A LOT OF TIME LOOKING AT OUR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, CALCULATING THE PERCENTAGE OF NEW CAPACITY AND EXISTING CAPACITY THAT COULD BE RECOVERED OR CHARGED. ALL OF THAT INFORMATION IS LAID OUT IN DETAIL IN OUR IMPACT FEE FACILITIES PLAN AND OUR IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS. WE'VE WORKED WITH EXPERTS IN THE FIELD FOLLOWING ALSO SECTOR STANDARDS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF IMPACT FEES. I'M NOT AWARE OF A LOT OF VARIATION IN HOW THESE ARE CALCULATED BUT I FEEL VERY CONFIDENT THAT THE METHODOLOGY IS VERY SOUND AND FOLLOWS STATE STATUTE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND I THINK YOUR OTHER AND I THINK YOUR OTHER QUESTION ABOUT OR STATEMENT QUESTION ABOUT OR STATEMENT ABOUT ENGAGEMENT. ABOUT ENGAGEMENT. WE DO HAVE AN ENGAGEMENT PLAN WE DO HAVE AN ENGAGEMENT PLAN AND PROGRAM THAT WE'VE BEEN AND PROGRAM THAT WE'VE BEEN WORKING THROUGH WITH OUR INTERNAL WORKING THROUGH WITH OUR INTERNAL COMMUNICATIONS TEAM AND OUR COMMUNICATIONS TEAM AND OUR CITYWIDE COMMUNICATIONS TEAM. CITYWIDE COMMUNICATIONS TEAM. I THINK ONE OF THE MOST I THINK ONE OF THE MOST BENEFICIAL PARTS OF THE PROGRAM BENEFICIAL PARTS OF THE PROGRAM THOUGH HAS BEEN THE ONE-ON-ONE THOUGH HAS BEEN THE ONE-ON And Chrissy's here to speak a little bit to that, if that's something that you're interested in hearing just at a high level, what we're hearing from the community now or sometime in the future.

Thank you.

SHOULD I DIVE IN?

SHOULD I DIVE IN? SURE. SURE. SURE. LET'S DO IT. LET'S DO IT. LET'S DO IT.

AS LAURA SAID WE DO HAVE A PLAN AS LAURA SAID WE DO HAVE A PLAN AS LAURA SAID WE DO HAVE A PLAN AND SO I'VE GOT SOME NOTES HERE AND SO I'VE GOT SOME NOTES HERE AND SO I'VE GOT SOME NOTES HERE TO SUMMARIZE WHAT WE'VE DONE SO FAR TO SUMMARIZE WHAT WE'VE DONE SO FAR TO SUMMARIZE WHAT WE'VE DONE SO FAR AND WHAT WE PLAN TO DO. AND WHAT WE PLAN TO DO. AND WHAT WE PLAN TO DO. AS LAURA KIND OF SPOKE TO, AS LAURA KIND OF SPOKE TO, AS LAURA KIND OF SPOKE TO, WE'VE FOLLOWED THE METHODOLOGY WE'VE FOLLOWED THE METHODOLOG So in all of our research, or all of our outreach, I felt really confident that the developers are following the conversation and it's very easy to communicate with them about it because we do have a very educated development community. We kind of started with developing a list of high frequency, high volume developers that we see in Salt Lake City. That's where I got to be involved because I'm day to day with the developers. We also tried to look at developers that are doing multi-family, commercial, We tried to look at larger, smaller, kind of get a good diversification of who we were talking to. I ended up connecting with 10 different developers personally over phone calls to let them know what we were doing, walk them through it, answer any questions over the phone. Those conversations were great, really fun to hear what everyone was doing in 1999 when we updated these fees. We got a lot of good feedback, kind of on both sides of the coin, which was helpful for us. We followed up with emails to let them know the link to the website and have them dig in. And then any questions we got back, we would follow up and then also update that website. So that was a really, they helped us develop our outreach tools as we went. We even had some developers that dug in and ran scenarios similar to what Laura presented to see how it would impact their actual real life projects. And that was super helpful as well. Laura also said on her slide that we did the development advisory forum meeting last week where Jason Draper presented. And we also got some good feedback and questions from that as well. And then Laura has also met with both Mill Creek and Holiday, or Laura or someone on the administration team. THAT WE SERVE OUTSIDE OF OUR CITY BOUNDARIES. CITY BOUNDARIES. CITY BOUNDARIES. THE FEEDBACK, IT WAS REALLY THE FEEDBACK, IT WAS REALLY THE FEEDBACK, IT WAS REALLY INTERESTING TO SEE AN OBVIOUS INTERESTING TO SEE AN OBVIOUS INTERESTING TO SEE AN OBVIOUS PATTERN WITH THE DEVELOPERS I PATTERN WITH THE DEVELOPERS I PATTERN WITH THE DEVELOPERS I TALKED WITH ON IF THEY DO WORK TALKED WITH ON IF THEY DO WORK TALKED WITH ON IF THEY DO WORK STRICTLY IN SALT LAKE CITY OR STRICTLY IN SALT LAKE CITY OR STRICTLY IN SALT LAKE CITY OR OUTSIDE OF SALT LAKE CITY. OUTSIDE OF SALT LAKE CITY. ARE DOING DEVELOPMENT OUTSIDE OF SALT LAKE CITY SEEMED A LITTLE SALT LAKE CITY SEEMED A LITTLE SALT LAKE CITY SEEMED A LITTLE BIT MORE PREPARED TO HEAR THIS BIT MORE PREPARED TO HEAR THIS BIT MORE PREPARED TO HEAR THIS NEWS ABOUT INCREASES AND NEWS ABOUT INCREASES AND NEWS ABOUT INCREASES AND UNDERSTANDING KIND OF AS THOSE UNDERSTANDING KIND OF AS THOSE UNDERSTANDING KIND OF AS THOSE SLIDES ILLUSTRATE THOSE DEVELOPERS SLIDES ILLUSTRATE THOSE DEVELOPERS SLIDES ILLUSTRATE THOSE DEVELOPERS THAT ARE DOING WORK IN DENVER THAT ARE DOING WORK IN DENVER THAT ARE DOING WORK IN DENVER THEY'RE USED TO THE HIGHER FE ARE CONSISTENTLY WORKING HERE, BUT ALSO WORK IN OTHER STATES. THOSE THAT ARE DOING MOST OF THEIR WORK HERE IN SALT LAKE CITY, I WOULD SAY WERE REACTIVE TO SEEING THE INCREASES, ESPECIALLY AT FIRST, BUT THOSE THAT TOOK THE TIME TO SIT DOWN, KIND OF WORK WITH ME AND TALK THROUGH THEM AND LOOK AT REAL-LIFE EXAMPLES, I THINK ONCE THEY KIND OF SAW HOW IT FILTERED DOWN, ESPECIALLY OUR MULTI-FAMILY WITH OPTION ONE, THEY WERE LIKE OH, OKAY, THIS IS MAKING A LITTLE MORE SENSE. MAKING A LITTLE MORE SENSE. AND SO I THINK WE HAD SOME GOOD AND SO I THINK WE HAD SOME GOOD COMMUNICATION BACK AND FORTH COMMUNICATION BACK AND FORTH THERE. THERE. THOSE ARE THE OUTSIDE OF SALT THOSE ARE THE OUTSIDE OF SALT LAKE CITY AND SEE THE DIFFERENCE LAKE CITY AND SEE THE DIFFERENCE AND HOW LOW WE WERE. AND HOW LOW WE WERE. THEY ALSO SEE THE BENEFIT OF THEY ALSO SEE THE BENEFIT OF THIS, GETTING AHEAD OF THESE THIS, GETTING AHEAD OF THESE SYSTEM-WIDE IMPROVEMENTS AND SYSTEM-WIDE IMPROVEMENTS AND HAVING THAT MORE PROPORTIONAL FEE HAVING THAT MORE PROPORTIONAL F WE HAD SOME INQUIRIES ABOUT PHASING WHICH LAURA IS GOING TO BRING UP. OPTION ONE WAS DEFINITELY PREFERRED FOR MULTIFAMILY. I THINK AS YOU CAN SEE IN THAT EXAMPLE, IT ILLUSTRATES THAT WELL THAT IT WOULD BE A VERY DIFFERENT SITUATION FOR THEM BASED ON WHICH OPTION. ONE OF THE THINGS WE DID AS ONE OF THE THINGS WE DID AS ONE OF THE THINGS WE DID AS WELL, EVERY TIME I TALKED TO A WELL, EVERY TIME I TALKED TO A WELL, EVERY TIME I TALKED TO A DEVELOPER IN PERSON EMAIL, DEVELOPER IN PERSON EMAIL, DEVELOPER IN PERSON EMAIL, ENCOURAGED THEM TO PARTICIPATE IN ENCOURAGED THEM TO PARTICIPATE IN ENCOURAGED THEM TO PARTICIPATE IN PUBLIC HEARINGS AND PROVIDE THEIR PUBLIC HEARINGS AND PROVIDE THEIR PUBLIC HEARINGS AND PROVIDE THEIR FEEDBACK TO COUNCIL. FEEDBACK TO COUNCIL. FEEDBACK TO COUNCIL. SO WE HAD A LOT THAT SAID, OH, SO WE HAD A LOT THAT SAID, OH, SO WE AS INFORMATION BECOMES AVAILABLE. AS INFORMATION BECOMES AVAILABLE. SO, YEAH. SO, YEAH.

SO, YEAH.

THANKS, CHRISTIE. THANKS, CHRISTIE. THANKS, CHRISTIE.

COUNCIL MEMBERS?

COUNCIL MEMBERS? COUNCIL MEMBERS? YEAH. YEAH. YEAH. COUNCIL MEMBERS' THOUGHTS? COUNCIL MEMBERS' THOUGHTS? COUNCIL MEMBERS' THOUGHTS? I, UM, IT WAS QUITE SHOCKING I, UM, IT WAS QUITE SHOCKING I, UM, IT WAS QUITE SHOCKING TO SEE THOSE CHARTS ON WHY TO SEE THOSE CHARTS ON WHY TO SEE THOSE CHARTS ON WHY WASHINGTON COUNTY HAS SUCH A WASHINGTON COUNTY HAS SUCH A WASHINGTON COUNTY HAS SUCH A G

Washington County Water Conservancy District serves water to a lot of communities in that part of the state, St. George and others. And there's just a lot of growth in that area. There's also a lot of stress. And I talk with the general manager in Washington County Water Conservancy District. We didn't talk about his impact fees. I know from our conversations that there's just a lot going on in terms of capacity projects that are existing and perhaps proposed in the future to accommodate that high rate of growth.

So one could say because the fee is not stopping the growth, because the growth is still happening. So I can see the argument that we are going to arguably slow down the growth of our city. But that's an example where that's not happening. So that to me was an interesting, quite an outlier for sure. Council members, any other questions? If no, we need to, oh yeah, Council Member Beecher.

Going along with what you just said, I get that costs are rising and that they rise for our neighbors, they rise for the city, and they rise for developers. I understand that and that none of us want to raise costs for anyone. However, I think it's more consistent with running a successful good municipality that we assess these and in good faith allow developers to know what the true cost of doing business is here than to artificially keep these rates low, allow them to believe that they're doing their part, You know, I know, we've all gotten calls from developers who've been frustrated because something didn't happen as planned or an expense came up or we've had to go ask the infrastructure bank to come in. This actually is us running this municipality well. This is us saying this is the true cost of growth. And while we've had other things that have taken precedence, developers, this is the true cost if you want to have the high return that comes with doing your project in a capital city that has a notable growth trajectory, even while the rest of the country experiences a recessionary experience. Our growth rate may have slowed. I just had a Natalie Gochner talk, so I'm really familiar with this. But we're still growing when other people are contracting. If the developers want to maintain any sort of ability to capitalize on it, this has to be our mantra and this has to be what we stick to. This is our good governance to finally address this issue and to make sure that the true cost of what it is to do business here is accounted for.

I think it's fair to say that in some way our current neighbors have been subsidizing this for the growth. So this will put the city in a better financial place where our current neighbors are now paying, having to be asked for more money to subsidize the growth. SO I THINK THIS MAKES A LOT OF SENSE TO ME. SO THERE'S A COUPLE THAT WE HAVE TO DECIDE ON.

WE HAVE ONE MORE PRESENTATION.

I JUST PUT SOME INFORMATION ON THOSE SLIDES IF WE WANTED TO PULL THOSE BACK UP.

But were you going to, excuse me, about the phasing in of the fee? Were you going to touch on that at all? Or was that?

The phasing?

Yeah, it's in this drop hole. So yeah, if we can advance another slide. So, this is the straw poll on the sewer impact fee structure options, and then we'll go to the phasing. And this is about whether we want the sewer fee structure for all residential and non-residential developments to be uniformly based on meter size. or whether we want to separate that residential development and base it on the number of equivalent residential units. As I mentioned earlier, we are recommending option one. It's more aligned, we believe, with the capacity potential associated with those connections. I think it'll be a lot more clear and easier to administer as well. WE INCLUDED OPTION TWO BECAUSE THAT IS THE EXISTING FEE STRUCTURE FOR SEWER IMPACT FEES. SO OPTION ONE WOULD PRESENT A CHANGE IN THAT FEE STRUCTURE. AND AGAIN, WE HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE IMPACTS FOR MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENTS UNDER THAT PER DWELLING UNIT IMPACT FEE CHARGE.

OKAY. SO SHOULD WE MOVE ON THE SO SHOULD WE MOVE ON THE STRAW POLE? STRAW POLE? OKAY. OKAY.

I'D LIKE TO PROPOSE A STRAW I'D LIKE TO PROPOSE A STRAW POLE ON THE SEWER IMPACT FEE POLE ON THE SEWER IMPACT FEE OPTION OF OPTION ONE THE FEE OPTION OF OPTION ONE THE FEE STRUCTURE FOR ALL RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE FOR ALL RESIDENTIAL AND NON-RESIDENTIAL AND NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT BASED ON THE METER DEVELOPMENT BASED ON THE METER SIZE.

SIZE. OKAY. OKAY. SO YOU'RE PROPOSING OPTION ONE ON SO YOU'RE PROPOSING OPTION ONE ON THE SEWER IMPACT FEE?

THE SEWER IMPACT FEE? YES.

YES. ON THE SE OK. So that goes unanimous on that one. Now, as far as the phasing or not of the impact fees, how are we feeling?

IF WE COULD PULL UP THE SLIDES AGAIN AND THEN ADVANCE FORWARD. SO THIS IS THE PHASED APPROACH TO THE IMPACT FEE IMPLEMENTATION FOR ALL OF THE IMPACT FEES, WATER, SEWER AND STORM WATER. THE FIRST OPTION WOULD BE NO PHASING, JUST IMPLEMENTING THE FULL IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS AMOUNT WHICH WE WOULD HOPE GOES INTO EFFECT IN And then we put two other options for what phasing could look like. One is to implement 60% of the total impact fee analysis amount through January 2027, between January 2027 through June 30th, 2028. So that would be a year and a half of that 60% and then the full amount July 1st, 2028. or option three would be to implement a greater amount, 70% of the impact fee analysis amount during that same time period. We put forward 60% or 70% just based on the rationale of wanting to catch up to what the full amount should be sooner because the longer we defer, the longer it will take for us to catch up with THE RATE OF GROWTH AND ALSO CATCH UP WITH THE EQUITY CATCH UP WITH THE EQUITY CONSIDERATIONS BETWEEN RATE PAYERS CONSIDERATIONS BETWEEN RATE PAYERS AND DEVELOPMENT. AND DEVELOPMENT. I DO HAVE SLIDES IN HERE ON WHAT I DO HAVE SLIDES IN HERE ON WHAT THOSE NUMBERS LOOK LIKE IF WE THOSE NUMBERS LOOK LIKE IF WE WANTED TO LOOK AT THAT TOO. WANTED TO LOOK AT THAT TOO.

MR. CHAIR? MR.

CHAIR? YES, GO AHEAD.

SO, JANUARY 27 THROUGH 28, ARE SO, JANUARY 27 THROUGH 28, ARE THOSE PROJECTS THAT ARE APPROVED THOSE PROJECTS THAT ARE APPROVED IN 27 OR THAT ARE COMPLETED? IN 27 OR THAT ARE COMPLETED? LIKE, WHEN DOES THIS FEE ACTUALLY LIKE, WHEN DOES THIS FEE ACTUALLY HAPPEN IN THE COURSE OF A HAPPEN IN THE COURSE OF A DEVELOPMENT?

DEVELOPMENT? YEAH, SO THAT'S AT BUILDING YEAH, SO THAT'S AT BUILDING PERMIT. PERMIT. AT BUILDING PERMIT, CORRECT. AT BUILDING PERMIT, CORRECT.

YES, SO THAT'S HOW THE IMPACT YES, SO THAT'S HOW THE IMPACT FEE LAW IS WRITTEN, IS THAT WE FEE LAW IS WRITTEN, IS THAT WE CHARGE THE F

Is this going to create a huge rush of people before January 27? Potentially, yes. And then they can't get through the process? Yes. Yes?

Potentially.

I do appreciate the thought of like tries of phasing it in. But I also, the contrary argument of that is we're asking our residents to subsidize, you know, the growth. And growth should pay for growth. And our residents have been hit with a lot of increases. So that to me is, I'm struggling with it. So I don't know.

SO I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS, SO I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS, BECAUSE I AGREE WITH YOU BECAUSE I AGREE WITH YOU 100% AND I THINK IT'S A VERY 100% AND I THINK IT'S A VERY FAIR ASSESSMENT TO SAY LIKE FAIR ASSESSMENT TO SAY LIKE EVERYONE ELSE IN THE CITY HAS EVERYONE ELSE IN THE CITY HAS REALLY STEPPED UP TO THE PLATE REALLY STEPPED UP TO THE PLATE TO MAKE SURE OUR INFRASTRUCTURE TO MAKE SURE OUR INFRASTRUCTURE IS WHAT IT NEEDS TO. IS WHAT IT NEEDS TO. I THINK THE ONE CONSIDERATION I I THINK THE ONE CONSIDERATION I HAVE IS ALSO THOUGH RELATED TO HAVE IS ALSO THOUGH RELATED TO SOMETIMES LIKE THE MONTHS OF SOMETIMES LIKE THE MONTHS OF FINANCING. and planning that go into some of these projects. And I would, I guess I'm hesitant to impact projects that are nearing that point of submission for their building permit without necessarily having, you know, the foresight to realize council might take this action. And so I don't know if that helps the landscape, but it's something that I'm also trying to weigh against the other needs.

Councilman Carlson and then Wharton.

I'm curious in your conversations with developers if there was any preference that surfaced among them as they think about how to make their projects pencil.

Yeah, certainly. I mean, this was brought up by developers and they inquired about the potential for phasing. Again, we kind of had that split where other developers were understanding and said, yep, we understand, raise it, let's go. And then, yes, the inquiry kind of from developers on could we phase this to help with that. I ALWAYS POINTED OUT WE HAVE THE 90-DAY PERIOD AND THAT WE ALSO GAVE NOTICE AND THAT THIS HAS BEEN ONGOING AND THAT WE'VE BEEN FOLLOWING THE PROCESSES AND THE RESPONSE FROM SOME WAS, YEAH, YOU'RE RIGHT. AND SOME OF THE OTHERS WAS 90 DAYS DOESN'T COMPARE TO THEIR FINANCING SCHEDULE AND THAT'S I THINK PART OF THE REASON WHY WE'RE PRESENTING THE PHASING IS FROM THAT FEEDBACK.

AND DIDN'T WE HEAR FROM AT LEAST ONE DEVELOPER THAT IT'S SOMETIMES THE FINANCING IS AN 18-MONTH

YEAH, SOMETIMES FINANCING IS YEAH, SOMETIMES FINANCING IS LOOKING 18 TO 24 MONTHS OUT. LOOKING 18 TO 24 MONTHS OUT. AND SO THERE WAS DISCUSSION AND SO THERE WAS DISCUSSION ABOUT JUST THAT 90 DAYS IS SUCH A ABOUT JUST THAT 90 DAYS IS SUCH A SMALL, YOU KNOW, PIECE OF THAT SMALL, YOU KNOW, PIECE OF THAT OVERALL FINANCING PERIOD.

Yeah, and I think that the other thing that leans me to look at maybe like option two or three would be specific to like, you know, I think it's one thing to ask, you know, some of the larger entities that have, you know, multiple projects and larger revenue sources to be able to shoulder some of these pieces. But my very specific concern is about some of the smaller You know groups who are working on more of a like site by site development effort and just their ability to be able to come up with those funds quickly and that's I guess my concern.

SOME OF THE LARGER DEVELOPMENTS, EVEN WITH SEEING THE LARGE EVEN WITH SEEING THE LARGE INCREASES IS A SMALL AMOUNT INCREASES IS A SMALL AMOUNT INCREASES IS A SMALL AMOUNT OF THEIR OVERALL BUDGET AND OF THEIR OVERALL BUDGET AND OF THEIR OVERALL BUDGET AND THE SMALLER DEVELOPMENTS, THE SMALLER DEVELOPMENTS, THE SMALLER DEVELOPMENTS, OBVIOUSLY IT HITS HARDER. OBVIOUSLY IT HITS HARDER. OBVIOUSLY IT HITS HARDER. THERE'S ALSO A DIFFERENCE, TOO, THERE'S ALSO A DIFFERENCE, TOO, THERE'S ALSO A DIFFERENCE, TOO, IN HOW DIFFERENT IN HOW DIFFERENT IN HOW DIFFERENT DE THEIR FINANCING IS KIND OF GUARANTEED THAT 18 MONTHS THEIR FINANCING IS KIND OF GUARANTEED THAT 18 MONTHS BEFORE WITH A LENDER AND SO BEFORE WITH A LENDER AND SO CHANGES LIKE THAT CAN KIND OF CHANGES LIKE THAT CAN KIND OF CAUSE AN IMPACT AGAIN IT REALLY CAUSE AN IMPACT AGAIN IT REALLY DEPENDS ON THEIR OVERALL PROJECT DEPENDS ON THEIR OVERALL PROJECT AND GETTING HIT WITH A SYSTEM-WIDE AND GETTING HIT WITH A SYSTEM-WIDE IMPROVEMENT DURING PERMITTING WOULD IMPROVEMENT DURING PERMITTING WOULD CERTAINLY BE MORE DISRUPTIVE TO CERTAINLY BE MORE DISRUPTIVE TO THEIR FINANCING CONSUMER WARTEN AND THEIR FINANCING CONS

I'm trying not to ask the same question another way, but I just don't know what I don't know in terms of how financing periods work about things like this. I would be more inclined to give like a longer or like a long runway at the beginning and then expedite it. Do you think that WOULD THAT BE A WISE WAY TO DO? WHAT DON'T I KNOW ABOUT WHAT I'M ABOUT TO SAY THAT I PREFER?

I'LL GIVE YOU MY THOUGHTS ON THIS. BECAUSE I THINK WE'RE IN THE SAME BOAT THAT WE MAY NOT KNOW WHAT WE DON'T KNOW ABOUT HOW ALL, I THINK THERE'S WIDE VARIABILITY IN HOW ALL DEVELOPMENT IS FINANCED AND THE PROPORTION OF THE IMPACT OF THESE TYPES OF FEES. And because of that wide variability, and because also the philosophy of, I just think it's On a change like this, keeping it a little more incremental might be better because of the things that we don't know. And so while I would love to see us move right into that full fee because we need to catch up, because I'm worried about the risk that impact fees have been part of the legislative discussion for quite some time now. because I'm worried about the equity. I would also be really concerned by impacting some of these smaller developers disproportionately in the process. And at the end of the day, it's a partnership between the city and our development community, and I feel like phasing it in to give them a chance to catch up to this would probably be the most appropriate. I am also really happy just to move forward with catching up with with these and You know the the downside of not doing it is we have a little bit more time probably built in to complete some of these larger capacity projects and we're deferring a little bit more of that recruitment, but as long as we move YOU KNOW, WITHIN THE NEXT COUPLE OF YEARS TO THAT FULL IMPACT OF YEARS TO THAT FULL IMPACT FEE, WE WILL CATCH UP. FEE, WE WILL CATCH UP. THAT'S MY OPINION.

THAT'S MY OPINION.

PETRA? PETRA? I ACTUALLY THINK WE SHOULD immediate, but we should have a variance option. Because like they said, some people can have their financing secured 18 months. And I do think that's disproportionately unfair to them. But we know well and good that that's not everyone and that other projects come together much more quickly. And I don't feel like creating a permission structure for my neighbors to continue. My neighbors had no choice. They all had to step up to the bat and find $45 more a month. This is not us asking them to create more unicorn farms. This is water. It is urgent. It is necessary. We're asking for something so structurally and basic human survivability important that I don't feel like this is irrational. So what I would rather have is do it immediately and create some clear parameters for variances for those for whom they can prove this is actually an onerous burden that would impede a project in any meaningful way. and have a way for them to revert to what was agreed to originally. But I would rather have to deal with that than to continue to have low rates that are artificially suppressed and then surprise people who are in the planning process who, before we get to permits, we have to say, oh, sorry, we were wrong because we didn't account for it. Get the system right. This is not some culture war agenda. It's water. Just get it right.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. In your presentation, you said impact fee laws have changed. Yes. Can you just give me a quick snapshot of that and what our action kind of means in the scheme of things?

I would probably defer to our legal team to give the full rundown, but I think like on a big picture level, I think it's become much more specific around notice requirements and implementation requirements. than it used to be, the timing of the expenditures under the impact fee facilities plan limited to six years. A lot has changed since 1999, and I don't know that we've tracked all of the changes to that part of the statute since then, but Jen, it looks like you have some.

Just in general, I think the theme is that they've gotten much, much more heavily regulated. And I think the theme of the legislature is they don't love impact fees. And so they want the city to be as accountable and transparent as possible when even thinking about potentially maybe kind of doing them. And so... There's a very, very, very high level of scrutiny that we design our impact fees appropriately, that we're spending them appropriately. We refund them if we don't spend them within a certain period of time. And so we actually track them on an accounting basis differently than other money that comes in. So yeah, just very highly regulated. It would be the theme. And I think several of us who've watched it over the years have frankly been worried that they'll eliminate it as a tool altogether for cities to have.

The state legislature is currently doing an audit. The Office of the Legislative Auditor General is also currently doing an audit on the implementation of impact fees. And there will be a report this fall on that, I believe.

OK. So that's helpful to know, because rushing into something may be triggering. And I don't want us to cut off an option for us to accommodate the growth and for developers to pay their fair share. So thank you. Thank you.

I will say that I agree. It's always the fear of the legislature, right? There's always the theme of, like, are they going to take this tool away? They would really need to run the city to, you know. I think that there is a lot of, I mean, every city repents on them. So I think every city will rise up and say, Hell no. But we cannot count on that, right? I think I relate to the issue of phasing a little bit too. I struggle with it a lot. I wonder if the issue that I'm seeing here is that we're concerned about mostly, correct me if I'm wrong, about multifamily development. Is that true? Like are we mostly concerned about multifamily development?

So I'm concerned about like, the individuals who maybe have realized that their retirement isn't what they thought it would be. And so they've bought a property to be able to hopefully turn around or something along those lines. And so that's the use case, I guess, I'm specifically concerned about. Not necessarily a large scale, again, one of the big names that we see often in the city. knowing knowing that those those projects tend to be because they are self-funded just you know or they have a bank line of credit related to some of the construction aspects and things like that um that those those can have a larger impact and surprising people with that i think is is where I'm having a, like, how can we best approach this? Still recognizing the need.

That's good. Chris? I'm thinking about situations, one in particular, but I know that there are others where we have a developer that is doing something that's really filling an important community need. And they've already come to the city asking, showing us like, we're so close, the margins are so thin on making this happen and asking for some kind of impact fee waiver or something like that. And having that all of a sudden, I DON'T WANT TO THWART OUR OTHER EFFORTS TO MEET NEEDS THAT ARE ALSO URGENT BY BRINGING THOSE TYPES OF DEVELOPMENTS ONLINE. So that's why I'm leaning towards a phased-in approach, but I want to, I understand the urgency. So. Carl, thanks.

I see both sides of this. This is really difficult. And you don't want to inadvertently harm development that we know we need, whether it's deeply affordable housing, whether it's family-sized housing. At the same time, I know that developers are putting together capital stacks that are incredible. They're pulling money from here, pulling money from there, just to get a project to pencil. And so I understand the equity argument. And we should have had that equity argument 30 years ago before we got here. But I'm glad that we're doing it now. And just hearing from my colleagues, I think I'm leaning towards option two, a phasing approach.

Any other thoughts? Dugan? I appreciate it, because I've bounced around all three of these options before and even again today. And I see all of them, just like I see all the side of it. But I also think about... WE HAVE UNTIL JANUARY. THAT'S WHEN IT STARTS GOING UP. THAT'S WHEN IT STARTS GOING UP. EVEN THOUGH IT'S ONLY FIVE EVEN THOUGH IT'S ONLY FIVE MONTHS, THERE'S STILL SOME MONTHS, THERE'S STILL SOME TIME THERE. TIME THERE. IT MAKES THE DEVELOPER FOCUS IF IT MAKES THE DEVELOPER FOCUS IF HE'S GOT SOMETHING CLOSE TO DO HE'S GOT SOMETHING CLOSE TO DO THAT NOW. THAT NOW. AND I WAS MORE ON THE OPTION AND I WAS MORE ON THE OPTION THREE, BUT I CAN GO OPTION THREE, BUT I CAN GO OPTION TWO OR THREE BECAUSE THEY'RE TWO OR THREE BECAUSE THEY'RE VERY CLOSE TO EACH OTHER. VERY CLOSE TO EACH OTHER. BUT AGAIN, BACK TO THE POINT OF BUT AGAIN, BACK TO THE POINT OF THAT'S WHY I'M LEANING MORE TO THE OPTION 3 SIDE OF THE HOUSE. THE OPTION 3 SIDE OF THE HOUSE.

JUST A PLUG FOR THE INCENTIVE JUST A PLUG FOR THE INCENTIVE FOR ZERO ESCAPING. FOR ZERO ESCAPING. IF YOU COULD EMBED THAT SOMEWHERE IF YOU COULD EMBED THAT SOMEWHERE TO ENCOURAGE CONSERVATION, THAT TO ENCOURAGE CONSERVATION, THAT WOULD BE GREAT.

And the question that I asked earlier about if it was multifamily, the issue, I was wondering if COMMERCIAL WAS SOMETHING THAT WE WERE OKAY WITH, LIKE MAYBE IMPLEMENTING IMMEDIATELY. AND WE CAN IMPLEMENT COMMERCIAL, GET THAT ONE OVER THROUGH, AND THEN LEAVE SINGLE FAMILY AND MULTIFAMILY AND DECIDE IN WHICH OPTION WE FEEL OKAY WITH THAT. IT SEEMS LIKE WE SEE SOME HEADS SHAKING AND THE POSITIVE. SO BASICALLY SAYING COMMERCIAL, IMPLEMENT FULL RIGHT NOW, GO AHEAD, AND THEN LET'S DECIDE WHAT TO DO WITH single family and multi-family.

OR JUST SAY SINGLE FAMILY, MAYBE? JUST SAY SINGLE FAMILY, MAYBE? BECAUSE I THINK BACK TO BECAUSE I THINK BACK TO COUNCILMAN YOUNG'S POINT ON COUNCILMAN YOUNG'S POINT ON THE SINGLE FAMILY SIDE OF THE THE SINGLE FAMILY SIDE OF THE HOUSE, THAT WOULD BE THE SMALLER HOUSE, THAT WOULD BE THE SMALLER GUY, BUT THE MULTI-FAMILY GUY, BUT THE MULTI-FAMILY WOULD BE A LITTLE BIT.

WOULD BE A LITTLE BIT. THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. LEAVE THAT ONE. LEAVE THAT ONE. SINGLE FAMILY AND MULTI-FAMILY SINGLE FAMILY AND MULTI-FAMILY LET'S DELAY, LET'S CHOOSE. LET'S DELAY, LET RIGHT NOW ON COMMERCIAL.

RIGHT NOW.

RIGHT NOW. SORRY. SORRY. SORRY.

I THINK WE WOULD NEED SOME LEGAL I THINK WE WOULD NEED SOME LEGAL I THINK WE WOULD NEED SOME LEGAL ADVICE ON THAT BECAUSE WE WOULD ADVICE ON THAT BECAUSE WE WOULD ADVICE ON THAT BECAUSE WE WOULD BE POTENTIALLY ARBITRARILY BE POTENTIALLY ARBITRARILY BE POTENTIALLY ARBITRARILY TREATING ONE GROUP DIFFERENT THAN TREATING ONE GROUP DIFFERENT THAN TREATING ONE GROUP DIFFERENT THAN ANOTHER AND THAT COULD AFFECT THE ANOTHER AND THAT COULD AFFECT THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FEES. I UNDERSTAND THE INTENT BEHIND I UNDERSTAND THE INTENT BEHIND IT FOR SURE.

IT FOR SURE.

I THINK THE SAME IS TRUE FOR I THINK THE SAME IS TRUE FOR WHAT COUNCIL MEMBER PETRO WAS WHAT COUNCIL MEMBER PETRO WAS ASKING ABOUT EARLIER. ASKING ABOUT EARLIER. WE NEED TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT WE NEED TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT ESTABLISHING A WAIVER REQUEST ESTABLISHING A WAIVER REQUEST PROCESS BECAUSE THAT'S THE PROCESS BECAUSE THAT'S THE FOUNDATION OF SEVERAL where the most defensible fee is where every single development is treated exactly the same. And that the total cost of the system is divided equally by every unit essentially that feeds off the system.

So we think it's not possible. That's the legal, the quasi-legal advice right now, right? Yeah. Yeah, yeah. Okay. So let's ignore all of that. So I'm trying. So option number two and option number three, I heard several twos. Are we okay with that percentage? It basically delays the implementation, the beginning of the implementation, and then it gives more time for people to get used to this.

I'LL MAKE A STRAW POLL AND THEN WE'LL FIGURE OUT IT. MY STRAW POLL IS THE TWO-YEAR PHASING OF THE PROPOSED IMPACT FEE, NUMBER TWO. OPTION THREE, IMPLEMENT IT UP TO 70% FOR THE FEE TO DO FROM JANUARY. THAT'S THE TITLE. I'M SAYING OPTION 3 WHICH IS I'M SAYING OPTION 3 WHICH IS I'M SAYING OPTION 3 WHICH IS UP TO 70% OF THE FEE FROM UP TO 70% OF THE FEE FROM UP TO 70% OF THE FEE FROM JANUARY 27 TO JUNE 30, 28. JANUARY 27 TO JUNE 30, 28. JANUARY 27 TO JUNE 30, 28. FULL FEE AFTER JULY 1, 2028. FULL FEE AFTER JULY 1, 2028. OPTION THREE.

JUST OUT OF CURIOSITY, WHY JUST OUT OF CURIOSITY, WHY ARE YOU PULLING THREE INSTEAD ARE YOU PULLING THREE INSTEAD OF TWO?

OF TWO?

WHAT ARE YOU HIDING? WHAT ARE YOU HIDING? I'M JUST LIKE, WHAT? I'M JUST LIKE, WHAT? TO ME, IT'S A DISTINCT. TO ME, IT'S A DISTINCT. SO VOTE NO AND DO OPTION TWO.

SO VOTE NO AND DO OPTION TWO. THAT'S WHAT I'M DOING. THAT'S WHAT I'M DOING. I'M ALSO THINKING I WANT TO GET I'M ALSO THINKING I WANT TO GET TO THE POINT WHERE WE HAVE THE TO THE POINT WHERE WE HAVE THE FEES UP SOONER AND 70% DOES FEES UP SOONER AND 70% DOES THAT.

I, so to your point, and the reason, I'm willing to call the vote, but let me get to the question that I want to get to. The reason why I was trying to get in conversation here was some of us might like the percentage more, you know, we like the 70 over the 60, and some of us I think might like the delay. Right. The beginning implementing it, MORE THAN THEY CARE ABOUT THE MORE THAN THEY CARE ABOUT THE MORE THAN THEY CARE ABOUT THE PERCENTAGE. PERCENTAGE. PERCENTAGE. SO YOU'RE PICKING 70 AND MY SO YOU'RE PICKING 70 AND MY SO YOU'RE PICKING 70 AND MY QUESTION TO YOU WILL BE DO YOU QUESTION TO YOU WILL BE DO YOU QUESTION TO YOU WILL BE DO YOU LIKE THE PERCENTAGE AND IS LIKE THE PERCENTAGE AND IS LIKE THE PERCENTAGE AND IS THAT ONE OF THE MAIN THINGS?

THAT ONE OF THE MAIN THINGS? THAT ONE OF THE MAIN THINGS? I LIKE THE PERCENTAGE BUT I LIKE THE PERCENTAGE BUT I LIKE THE PERCENTAGE BUT BOTH ARE STARTING THE SAME DAY BOTH ARE STARTING THE SAME DAY BOTH ARE STARTING THE SAME DAY WHICH IS JANUARY OF 2027. WHICH IS JANUARY OF 2027. WHICH IS J I'M JUST SAYING THAT COME JANUARY 2027, I'M SAYING THEY PAY 70% OF IT AND THEN IN JULY OF 2028, THEY PAY 100%. SO THE START DATE IS THE SAME FOR BOTH OPTIONS.

IS THAT WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE? SHOULD WE CALL THE VOTE? SHOW YOUR FEELINGS.

SO HE'S PROPOSING 70.

HE'S PROPOSING 70.

BECAUSE THE START DATE IS THE BECAUSE THE START DATE IS THE SAME FOR BOTH OF THEM.

SAME FOR BOTH OF THEM. SAME FOR BOTH OF THEM. 70%.

70%. 70%. WELL, THAT'S WHAT I WAS WELL, THAT'S WHAT I WAS WELL, THAT'S WHAT I WAS CONFUSED. CONFUSED.

CONFUSED. YES, I'M PRETTY SURE.

YES, I'M PRETTY SURE. YES, I'M PRETTY SURE. I THINK IT'S OPTION 3 THAT'S I THINK IT'S OPTION 3 THAT'S I THINK IT'S OPTION 3 THAT'S ON THE SCREEN RIGHT NOW IS WHAT ON THE SCREEN RIGHT NOW IS WHAT ON THE SCREEN RIGHT NOW IS WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING.

YOU'RE PROPOSING.

OH, YEAH, LOOK AT THAT.

THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. I THINK OPTION 3 IS WRITTEN WRONG UP HERE.

SORRY, THAT WAS A TYPO. THAT'S A TYPO.

THEY'RE BOTH THE SAME. THIS IS WHY WE WERE CONFUSED. I APOLOGIZE. I READ THAT. I READ THAT I KNEW THAT WAS A TYPO. I SHOULD HAVE SAID THAT WAS A TYPO, BUT I READ THAT AS A TYPO. SO BOTH START DATES ARE JANUARY 27.

Thank you for embarrassing all of us. We're embarrassing all of us. Six, seven.

Six, seven, right. It's officially dead. It's officially dead.

That was not intended.

The only difference is percentage. So there's a straw poll on the table for 70%. Please show your feelings right now. Okay. That was harder than it should have been. And it's my fault.

That's my fault for not catching that typo. Sorry about that.

Yes, no, I think, you know, I think some of us maybe catch that maybe it was a delay, you know, implementation. Thank you.

Thank you so much for the discussion, everybody.

Okay. ITEM NUMBER THREE, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOLLOW-UP. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOLLOW-UP. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOLLOW-UP. WE'RE GOING TO WELCOME KATE WE'RE GOING TO WELCOME KATE WE'RE GOING TO WELCOME KATE WHEREIT, COUNCIL POLICY WHEREIT, COUNCIL POLICY WHEREIT, COUNCIL POLICY ANALYST TO GIVE US A LITTLE ANALYST TO GIVE US A LITTLE ANALYST TO GIVE US A LITTLE INTRODUCTION AND FACILITATE THE INTRODUCTION AND FACILITATE THE INTRODUCTION AND FACILITATE THE CONVERSATION. CONVERSATION. CONVERSATION. I KNOW THAT I BOMBARDED

Looking forward to being here with you today. We have about half the applications to go through, although several of those were not recommended for funding, so we may be able to slide through those ones a little bit quicker. A lot of you sent a lot of questions. Included with the staff report is 14 pages of responses to questions. I think a good place for us to start would be looking at those questions. There's a couple that I got after those responses came in that I wanted to just point out. Council Member Pui, you asked about project number 39. And the breakdown, the itemized breakdown on those active transportation user improvements include 104, 404,000 for a HAWC improvement at the Jordan River Trail and California Avenue. Speed table on California Avenue, $117,000. A bulb out at traffic circle intersection for $17,000. And raised crosswalks on Glendale and Navajo for $197,000. Okay, go ahead.

No, no, no, I'm interrupting you.

OK. There's been a couple of questions about shade that came in after. Trees, if they are part of another project, are eligible for park impact fees. Shade structures, we are still looking for a response on that particular item. Questions on the responses that you received to your particular items?

Go ahead.

I'm looking at page 49, at least of my PDF, number 16 of the administrative responses to some of the questions. Number 16 is a demolition of Colfax and Odyssey House. Okay. Well, this isn't even being recommended for funding, so it's fine. Never mind.

Okay.

Let me ask, because I was just trying to sort through life while you were talking about the questions I asked, so it's my fault that I didn't catch. My question to you was, there was the city, through CIP we paid for a study on California, where all the schools are. THAT WE FUNDED THAT THROUGH CIP. CIP AND THE STUDY CAME UP WITH A BUNCH OF RECOMMENDATIONS TO MAKE GLASS CROSSING SAFE FOR KIDS. LARGEST SCHOOLS IN THE CITY. LAST YEAR WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY MONEY. IT CAME AS RECOMMENDED FROM THE ADMINISTRATION AS UNFUNDED. IT WAS A TOUGH YEAR. 76,000. But we found money from our side, I mean from our side, from multiple places to fund a portion of it. So your answer was how far have they gotten and how much are they needing to finish that?

So the overall ask was $485,000. They received just over $76,000 to fund it. So there's a pretty good gap there still. Just looking at the active transportation improvements suggested in project 39 from this year, it seems like there may be some overlap with that speed table at $117,000.

So basically there is a lot, 330,000 left from that one cache. And I think that they made a little improvement in one of the intersections. And this is, to me, a pet peeve of mine for all of you. is that we fund the study, the study comes back with recommendations, and then we're like, let's move on to something else. And I'm like, well, that money, Jesus. So it's really one of the most frustrating things you can do to me. So I know that this is a tough year, but I hope that if we have any money that we can try to get closer to that project. Any other thoughts, council members? We're all doing math, it seems like.

OK. And if we don't want to go through the questions right now, we can start at where we were in the log. I think that seems like a good spot. And just throw out questions if you have any questions about the responses we received. The administration was incredibly thorough with the answers. Several of you asked about the water irrigation improvements. There's an answer on that for number 18. LOTS OF QUESTIONS. DOG PARK CITYWIDE, THERE ARE DOG PARK CITYWIDE, THERE ARE DOG PARK CITYWIDE, THERE ARE SIX. SIX. SIX. THERE'S ONE IN D6 ALREADY. THERE'S ONE IN D6 ALREADY. THERE'S ONE IN D6 ALREADY. I DON'T THINK THAT ONE MADE IT I DON'T THINK THAT ONE MADE IT I DON'T THINK THAT ONE MADE IT IN THE QUESTIONS BECAUSE IT WAS IN THE QUESTIONS BECAUSE IT WAS IN THE QUESTIONS BECAUSE IT WAS SENT OUT ALREADY. SENT OUT ALREADY. SENT OUT ALREADY. AND, YEAH, OKAY. AND, YEAH, OKAY. AND, YEAH, OKAY. SO WITH THAT, WE'LL GO AHEAD SO WITH THAT, WE'LL GO AHEAD SO WITH THAT, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND GO TO THE FUNDING LO Yeah, project number 31 is where we got to last time. This is open, clean park restroom program, a new bathroom. There was a question about why this one is only $568,000 when item number 31 was about $1.1 million. Project number 31 was for a new bathroom and a renovation of another bathroom. And this is just one bathroom. So that's why there's a difference. Yeah. Bathrooms are expensive. Questions, comments on that? Great. Let's go to the next one. Projects number 32 and 33 were not recommended for funding. They were departmental projects. So keep going to project number 34. This is the Wasatch Hollow Dog Park. It was recommended for funding and is a constituent application. The Wasatch Hollow Community Council voted in favor of this to transform a half acre into an off-leash dog area within the park. It will enhance safety and usability of the park for all visitors. So as I mentioned, there are six dog parks within the city. This would make it seven. And there is one existing dog park in D6. Okay. Next up, we have... Projects 35 through 40 were not recommended for funding. I would like to point out, if I could read my handwriting. So in general, I think we can go ahead and pass those unless there's any questions or comments. Council Member Crescent.

Just to reiterate, I think you guys are probably sick of me talking about this crosswalk. But in project 37, that is where there's a request for a crosswalk at West Temple and Mead Ave with some road striping and solar powered LED crosswalk. I would love if we can find $40,000 that we can put into Vision Zero CIP to fund just the crosswalk part of this application.

do you have any suggestions already from where it could come now or maybe later let's keep going okay let's do it there there was a suggestion for a location i believe you said in the meeting last time and i wrote it down i'll in for forty thousand dollars and i will find it while we're discussing another item and bring that up um texas avenue is in this area but it is also covered by the street reconstruction so we're covered there If that's it, we can go to project 41. Great. This is new park lighting to improve safety and access and extended play at the sports fields. This was recommended for funding by everyone using park impact fees. OK. Project 42. This is for a constituent application for sport court lighting around the popular pickleball and tennis courts and was recommended for funding. That's a constituent application. Okay, projects 43 through, this is going the distance.

May I, I know that we probably need, asking more questions at this point is a little tough, but it occurred to me, if you go to 42, the lighting on pickleball, is this also the tennis courts? Yes. Is there any savings if we delayed one portion of that and we did, pickle, and then we didn't do tennis. And again, I want to, but we're trying to figure out if it is spreading the peanut butter a little bit.

Likely there will be minimal savings if you couple them both together just for mobilization and getting one contractor on site, but I don't foresee significant challenges to separating that out. I think we can, if it's phased, we could probably prepare for another second round of implementation if needed.

So I wonder if I can shave a little bit from there eventually, you know, so I will work on that. Okay, thank you.

Great. OK, let's keep going. Several of the next ones were not recommended for funding. So if we want to keep going, we can start back up with project number. Pages are stuck. Project number 75. So this is the Glendale Park. It was added by the mayor. It is recommended to receive $6 million in park impact fees. And we'll continue and or complete the phase two. portion of the Glendale Park. It will also increase the project contingency for this. There were many suggestions from you about potentially talking about this amount and possibly decreasing this to go elsewhere. With that said, TREES, IF THE OVERALL COST IS OVER $50,000, WOULD, AND IF THE TREES WERE PART OF ANOTHER PROJECT, WOULD BE CONSIDERED A PARK IN FACT FEE ELIGIBLE ITEM. SHADE STRUCTURES PARKS IS STILL LOOKING INTO.

THERE WAS AN IRRIGATION ONE. WOULD THAT BE CONSIDERED PARKS OR NOT?

YES.

IT WAS THE WATERWISE.

IT WAS NUMBER 18. I THINK THAT WAS NUMBER 18.

WE CAN NOT USE IMPACT FEES FOR UPGRADING OR REPAIRING. WE CAN USE IMPACT FEES FOR NEW THINGS. THIS IS WHAT JENNIFER WAS TALKING ABOUT HOW RESTRICTIVE THOSE IMPACT FEES ARE. where you can use them for new things, new amenities, and that really is it. So if, yeah.

Yeah, sorry. Parking batteries would not work for that. Sorry. That's ridiculous.

That really is. See, this is one of these things that we should track on as the legislature, especially maybe for this one issue. for the one issue of water-wise, maybe we should ask the legislature to allow us for this one thing, use. Yes, Young.

Yeah, so this is an unsolicited comment. I really like this project, mainly because I do feel like the neighbors have been very patient with the city when it comes to action related to the park. And I know that there are lots of reasons why it has taken us a little bit to like get up and going. But to me, it really does speak to our investment in this being the regional park that we want it to be by continuing to provide the resources that are necessary for us to continue to advance as opposed to back to Chair Pui's earlier comment, having a plan, and then moving on to something else. Great.

Okay.

Thank you. You're doing fantastic.

Yeah. I just like giving time for more comments. Sorry.

I just did a question about the Glendale Park. Do we know how much is set aside for contingency?

One second.

That is a great question.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Thank you. For construction contingency, we are required to have 10% to go out to bid. And so we would have 10% construction contingency. And then we would also have some project contingency to cover other unforeseen project costs. So currently, that would be around $2.8 million for construction contingency. IT'S A LARGE PROJECT.

THAT'S A GREAT DEAL OF THAT'S A GREAT DEAL OF THAT'S A GREAT DEAL OF CONTINGENCY FUNNY. CONTINGENCY FUNNY.

CONTINGENCY FUNNY. THAT'S ACTUALLY VERY, VERY THAT'S ACTUALLY VERY, VERY THAT'S ACTUALLY VERY, VERY STANDARD AND ACTUALLY BEST STANDARD AND ACTUALLY BEST STANDARD AND ACTUALLY BEST PRACTICE. PRACTICE. PRACTICE. OH, NO.

OH, NO. OH, NO. I JUST WANT TO UNDERSTAND. I JUST WANT TO UNDERSTAND. I JUST WANT TO UNDERSTAND. FOR SURE. FOR SURE. FOR SURE. THE BIGGER THE PROJECT THE THE BIGGER THE PROJECT THE THE BIGGER THE PROJECT THE MORE WOW THAT NUMBER IS. MORE WOW THAT NUMBER IS. YOU KNOW, THE ONLY, THE ONLY, YOU KNOW, THE ONLY REASON I WILL ENTERTAIN MYSELF AS AN INDIVIDUAL THAT REPRESENTS THE AREA SHAVING SOME OF MONEY HERE IS IF WE ACTUALLY SHAVE THROUGH A LOT OF DISTRICTS AND THEN WE CAN PULL MONEY TOGETHER. BUT I AM NOT GOING TO SACRIFICE THE ONE AMENITY THAT WE PROMISE THE WEST SIDE THAT THEY'RE GOING TO GET. SO, YEAH.

I'm not in favor of, we've made this promise and we should keep it. Has it always been our plan to take PARK IMPACT FEES AT THIS LEVEL? THIS DOESN'T FEEL LIKE A THIS DOESN'T FEEL LIKE A DEPARTURE TO ME. DEPARTURE TO ME. IT FEELS LIKE FORMALIZING A IT FEELS LIKE FORMALIZING A PLAN THAT WE'VE ALWAYS HAD FOR PLAN THAT WE'VE ALWAYS HAD FOR FINANCING GLENDALE PARK. FINANCING GLENDALE PARK. IS THAT TRUE?

IS THAT TRUE? WE HAVE USED IMPACT FEES IN WE HAVE USED IMPACT FEES IN THE PAST. THE PAST. ORIGINALLY THE PARK WAS FUNDED ORIGINALLY THE PARK WAS FUNDED THROUGH BOTH BOND AND IMPACT THROUGH BOTH BOND AND IMPACT FEES AND THEN THERE WAS A TIME FEES AND THEN THERE WAS A TIME WHERE WE SWAPPED SOME OF THOSE. When we originally estimated what we thought it would cost to build this out, this was back in when we were working through master planning and visioning. And at that time, I think we estimated the project to be between $45 and $50 million for build out. And this is within that. OK.

So it's proportionate to the original plan. So I'm not in favor of cutting it at all.

Great, so vocally here, three of you are not in favor of adjusting that number at all.

We're straw pulling the negative.

Perfect. Let's look at number 76, the bike racks. I think there's a little bit different opinion on this one. This is a mayor-added project to add bike racks. These are going to be in places that are requested by businesses and constituents throughout the city as needed. There's typically a waiting list for these, just so you are aware.

And this is one of those that the mayor recommended, but CIP board didn't.

SO THIS ONE WAS ADDED BY THE MAYOR AFTER THE CIP BOARD HAD MAYOR AFTER THE CIP BOARD HAD REVIEWED PROJECTS. REVIEWED PROJECTS. THIS ONE AND GLENDALE PARK. THIS ONE AND GLENDALE PARK. THEY DIDN'T GET A SAY ON THIS. THEY DIDN'T GET A SAY ON THIS. JUST ADDED AFTER THE FACT.

JUST ADDED AFTER THE FACT.

YES. YES. COULD YOU SPECIFY WHERE THESE COULD YOU SPECIFY WHERE THESE BIKE RACKS WOULD BE GOING?

BIKE RACKS WOULD BE GOING? IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING, LYNN IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING, LYNN MIGHT COME UP AND CORRECT ME, MIGHT COME UP AND CORRECT ME, BUT CONSTITUENTS AND BUSINESS BUT CONSTITUENTS AND BUSINESS OW

LYNN JACOBS, OUR TRANSPORTATION DIRECTOR. YEAH, THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT, KATE. SO THIS IS A COMMON REQUEST WE GET FROM BUSINESS OWNERS AS THEY SEE AN INCREASE IN ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION USERS AND CYCLISTS COMING TO SUPPORT THEIR BUSINESS, THEY STRUGGLE OFTEN TO FIND PARKING FOR THOSE BIKES. SO WE REGULARLY GET THIS REQUEST. WHEN WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO FULFILL IT IN THE PAST, IT'S INCREDIBLY SUCCESSFUL. We don't have specific locations identified. This just gives us the ability to be responsive to those business needs as they come up.

I'LL JUST ADD THAT I'VE HAD TWO CONSTITUENTS CONTACT ME ABOUT THIS SAYING THAT THEY WANTED TO DONATE THE BIKE RACK OR MAKE A DONATION TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN AND LIKE THE CITY I GUESS HAS TO LAY THE THEY CAN DONATE THE BIKE RACK BUT WE HAVE TO LIKE LAY THE FOUNDATION OR SOMETHING SO I THINK THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF ONE WHERE WE CAN GET A LOT MORE THAN 50,000 GET A LOT MORE THAN 50,000 WORTH OF VALUE BY PUTTING THIS WORTH OF VALUE BY PUTTING THIS SMALL-ISH AMOUNT TOWARDS IT. SMALL-ISH AMOUNT TOWARDS IT. IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S EASY TO IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S EASY TO DONATE AND IT COULD BE AVAILABLE DONATE AND IT COULD BE AVAILABLE CITYWIDE. CITYWIDE.

I ALSO WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT I ALSO WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT BECAUSE THIS IS FUNDED WITH THE BECAUSE THIS IS FUNDED WITH THE PROPERTY TAX, WE WOULD NEED TO PROPERTY TAX, WE WOULD NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE COULD MOVE THAT MAKE SURE THAT WE COUL

Any other thoughts? Thank you. Thank you, thank you. Chair?

Yes, go ahead. On 42, the Glendale, I mean, I would love to divert some of that money to trees. I don't think we need to all of it, but she said that we could phase in and there might be some savings there. I'm open to delaying some... Our urban forest is really needing some care.

By the way, this pickleball courts are the most used in the city right now. And they are, you know, the pickleballers are paying tents of constituents of mine. And I have a great deal of appreciation. By the way, they are the ones who made this happen. After the plan design for the park was done, it didn't include them or included them in different phases and a smaller amount of them and they organized AND THEY REALLY OPENED UP THE CITY TO SAY LET'S BUILD IT AND CITY TO SAY LET'S BUILD IT AND CITY TO SAY LET'S BUILD IT AND THEY'RE TAKING CARE OF THEM. THEY'RE TAKING CARE OF THEM. THEY'RE TAKING CARE OF THEM. THEY'RE ACTUALLY HAVING THEY'RE ACTUALLY HAVING THEY'RE ACTUALLY HAVING INTERNATIONAL COMPETITION COMING INTERNATIONAL COMPETITION COMING INTERNATIONAL COMPETITION COMING OUT NEXT WEEK THERE. OUT NEXT WEEK THERE. OUT NEXT WEEK THERE. SO THEY'RE VERY, VERY CAREFUL OF SO THEY'RE VERY, VERY CAREFUL OF SO THEY'RE VERY, VERY CAREFUL OF THIS. THIS. THIS. I DO THINK THAT WE CAN SHAVE I DO THINK THAT WE CAN SHAVE I DO THINK THAT WE CAN SHAVE SOME. They will understand what we're trying to do, but I will struggle with cutting it all together.

Mr. Chair, I'm wondering, do we have a sense of the breakdown of costs for pickleball versus tennis? I mean, not to fuel a pickleball-tennis rivalry, but could we prioritize the pickleball courts? And then with the savings, support some of the things Council Member Napier-Pierce is talking about in my crosswalk. I didn't have any of that.

In terms of a cost estimate, I think the footprint and the lighting would be very similar between the tennis and the pickleball. But with the additional mobilization, we would probably need about $500,000 to do one or the other set of courts.

So that gives us a little wiggle room there. So do you think that we could just strut ball this right now? No? OK. Young?

Well, so I guess I'm wondering, can I bring up a different project that is also funded with park impact fees? Because maybe that's a better option.

Can I? Yeah, bring it up.

Is that allowed? OK. So can we go back to number 31? So I have a lot of questions about this one. And it's not going to be a surprise. But a lot of it has to do with the fact that a couple rounds of CIP ago, we funded a restroom study that my understanding is is still in process. And so I guess I'm having pause on allocating additional money without the outcomes of a study that's a couple years old and wonder if there is another way to potentially use some of those park impact fees related to some of the other pieces that are being discussed. I don't know.

Tell me where I'm wrong. Yeah. Oh, I can comment. I'm not sure if there's a specific question. I'm sorry. You're correct. There is a restroom study that's funded. It is informing design of the several restrooms that you all funded over the past two years. And so recommendations. COMING FROM THAT ARE GOING TOWARDS THE DESIGN OF THOSE RESTROOMS THAT ARE ONGOING RIGHT NOW. THE STUDY HASN'T BEEN OFFICIALLY COMPLETED. WE'RE WORKING ON LEVEL OF SERVICE ASSESSMENTS AND THEN THERE WAS A BUDGET AMENDMENT THAT KIND OF EXPANDED OUR SCOPE TO ALL CITYWIDE PUBLIC RESTROOMS. WE'RE FINALIZING KIND OF THAT PORTION OF THE STUDY RIGHT NOW. THE OUTCOMES OF THE RESTROOM STUDY WOULD INFORM THE DESIGN OF THIS RESTROOM AS WELL. BUT YEAH, WE DON'T HAVE THAT EXPLICITLY TO SHARE WITH YOU RIGHT NOW.

And I guess I'm thinking about it in terms of not to say no never, but if we don't have that information that we've already funded to be able to inform, maybe this just isn't the top priority today until we have some of those outcomes and the funding would be in a more immediate use case potentially elsewhere.

So you're basically saying, let's put a pause on this for this year.

I'M VERY OPEN TO CONSIDERING I'M VERY OPEN TO CONSIDERING PUTTING A PAUSE ON 31 AND PUTTING A PAUSE ON 31 AND LOOKING AT IF THERE ARE LIKE LOOKING AT IF THERE ARE LIKE IT IS PARK IMPACT FEES SO IT IT IS PARK IMPACT FEES SO IT CAN'T GO ANYWHERE. CAN'T GO ANYWHERE. BUT IF THERE ARE OTHER NEEDS IN BUT IF THERE ARE OTHER NEEDS IN THE PARK IMPACT FEES SPACE THAT THE PARK IMPACT FEES SPACE THAT ARE A HIGHER PRIORITY RELATED TO ARE A HIGHER PRIORITY RELATED TO SPEED OF IMPLEMENTATION THAT SPEED OF IMPLEMENTATION THAT COULD BE CONSIDERED. COULD BE CONSIDERED. I DON'T HAVE ANYWHERE I WANT I DON'T HAVE ANYWHERE I WANT

So we have a little park impact fees. I think that I wonder if there is any project that is funded with multiple sources. And then we can be eligible expenditure. And then we can supplement and swap the funding, I guess.

Wasatch Hollow Dog Park.

Unless the use that you are putting the money to is parks impact fee eligible, such as trees.

OK. So the trees one.

Tell me this. Does it have to go to a specific project on here or just generally trees?

It would be a council added item, which is not unprecedented. We try and get as specific as we can so that the administration knows how to spend the money once you actually approve the thing. And so we might want to be more specific about like,

you know new trees in every regional park or new trees in all park strips or i don't know council yes go ahead uh number 10 has 450 000 coming from general fund but it looks like we are creating new trails with it um so that might be a place to park some of this money and free up unrestricted funds to put elsewhere

So would that one apply, urban trails?

It looks like it's the design of the Red Butte Creek Trail and construction of active transportation gap. So it looks like it's creating new stuff. I would need someone who

THIS IS THE ONE I WANTED TO PUT A PASS ON, BY THE WAY. PASS ON, BY THE WAY.

IF YOU MOVE THE GENERAL FUND IF YOU MOVE THE GENERAL FUND PIECE THAT WOULD BE FINE BUT THE PIECE THAT WOULD BE FINE BUT THE RESTRICTED PROPERTY TAX PIECE RESTRICTED PROPERTY TAX PIECE WOULD HAVE TO STAY.

WOULD HAVE TO STAY. THAT'S WHAT I WAS SAYING.

THAT'S WHAT I WAS SAYING. SO SWAPPING.

SO SWAPPING.

TAKING SOME OF THE MONEY SO TAKING SOME OF THE MONEY SO THAT ADDS 450,000 FROM AN THAT ADDS 450,000 FROM AN UNRESTRICTED POT THAT CAN THEN GO TO UNRESTRICTED POT THAT CAN THEN GO TO OTHER PRIORITIES WITHOUT OTHER PRIORITIES WITHOUT

THE FULL AMOUNT ON THIS ONE IS COMING FROM THE RESTRICTED THE FULL AMOUNT ON THIS ONE IS COMING FROM THE RESTRICTED PROPERTY TAX CATEGORY. PROPERTY TAX CATEGORY. IT WAS RECOMMENDED FROM THE IT WAS RECOMMENDED FROM THE GENERAL FUND.

GENERAL FUND. THIS IS RESTRICTED.

THIS IS RESTRICTED.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. SORRY ABOUT THAT.

SORRY ABOUT THAT. MAYBE SINCE YOU'RE UP HERE, MAYBE SINCE YOU'RE UP HERE, CAN YOU CONFIRM WHETHER OR NOT CAN YOU CONFIRM WHETHER OR NOT PARK IMPACT FEES COULD GO Never mind, it's restricted funds. It doesn't matter.

Well, maybe to this and for the staff that may be in the room, for the public lands, you guys, are there any projects that you can think of, maybe you can help us with this, that is using multiple sources of funding and they have restricted, they have, that we can swap parking pack fees to free money that can be used in better ways.

I THINK WE WOULD HAVE TO DEFER THAT ONE. THAT'S GOING TO TAKE A LITTLE BIT OF HEAD SCRATCHING AND BRAIN POWER. WHAT ARE WE TRYING TO FLY?

There are two things I love. I love the irrigation, the water-wise irrigation. I guess that's not feasible because it's an upgrade, not something new. So my second choice would be trees. Our urban forest seems to be in trouble.

So if it's for enhancing the urban forest, that would be parks impact fee eligible.

So we could potentially fund that portion of the program. So how do we feel about this suggestion? I think it was 31.

YES, IT'S 31. ALSO, I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT ALSO, I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT THAT PROJECT NUMBER 22 THAT PROJECT NUMBER 22 HAS BOTH ROAD AND PARK HAS BOTH ROAD AND PARK IMPACT FEES. IMPACT FEES. THAT'S THE PARKS LEGAL THAT'S THE PARKS LEGAL COMPLIANCE 2010 ADA STANDARDS COMPLIANCE 2010 ADA STANDARDS FOR ACCESSIBLE DESIGN FOR ACCESSIBLE DESIGN PROGRAMMING. PROGRAMMING. SO THAT ONE, IT'S IT'S SO THAT ONE, IT'S IT'S TRANSPORTATION RELATED. TRANSPORTATION RELATED. THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE THE OTHER

So we're swapping, you know, a restricted fund for a different restricted fund. For a different restricted fund. But if it applies to roads. So much math.

Did you get your 40,000? No, not yet. Okay. We found where that's at. Thank you. AND THEN I LOST IT. AND THEN I LOST IT. BUT IT'S ON THE SECOND PAGE IN BUT IT'S ON THE SECOND PAGE IN THE FUNDING LOG WHERE YOU THE FUNDING LOG WHERE YOU RECOMMENDED IT.

RECOMMENDED IT.

I'M JUST ASKING FOR A CROSS I'M JUST ASKING FOR A CROSS WALK AT WEST TEMPLE AND MEAD WALK AT WEST TEMPLE AND MEAD AVE WITH FLASHING BEACONS. AVE WITH FLASHING BEACONS. PROJECT NUMBER NINE.

PROJECT NUMBER NINE. LAST TIME YOU RECOMMENDED LAST TIME YOU RECOMMENDED $40,000 FOR THE CROSSWALK FOR $40,000 FOR THE CROSSWALK FOR MEAD AVENUE.

It was a part of a larger constituent request, but I don't think we can fund that larger constituent request. But I just want to prioritize that crosswalk piece. And because it's less than 50,000, that's why I want to put it inside of Vision Zero.

Oh, yeah. I'm fine with that. Let's draw a poll of that so we can get it out of the way.

OK.

SO PROJECT NUMBER NINE ADDING IN THE MEAD AVENUE CROSSWALK INTO THE MEAD AVENUE CROSSWALK INTO THE MEAD AVENUE CROSSWALK INTO THAT PROJECT AND ALLOCATING THAT PROJECT AND ALLOCATING THAT PROJECT AND ALLOCATING $40,000 SPECIFICALLY TO IT $40,000 SPECIFICALLY TO IT $40,000 SPECIFICALLY TO IT WITHIN PROJECT NUMBER NINE. WITHIN PROJECT NUMBER NINE.

WITHIN PROJECT NUMBER NINE. RIGHT, BUT WHERE WOULD THAT RIGHT, BUT WHERE WOULD THAT RIGHT, BUT WHERE WOULD THAT EXTRA $40,000 COME FROM? EXTRA $40,000 COME FROM?

Oh, that's a good point. There's funding our future. Would you like to take from there? I'll take it from wherever I can get it.

Oh, you're saying taking it out of just the bucket. So what's that total project cost?

No, I don't think it's clear. Are you saying that no new money, but they must use some of the $2,300,000 for your crosswalk? Are you saying the crosswalk? is going to be added into this and we're adding it to, so it will now be 2,340,000. Either one. EITHER ONE?

EITHER ONE. EITHER ONE. MY ULTIMATE GOAL IS TO GET MY ULTIMATE GOAL IS TO GET THIS CROSSWALK FUNDED. THIS CROSSWALK FUNDED. SO AS WE'RE LOOKING AT FLEXIBLE SO AS WE'RE LOOKING AT FLEXIBLE DOLLARS TO SUPPORT THAT, I'M DOLLARS TO SUPPORT THAT, I'M CURIOUS ABOUT ITEM NUMBER 11 CURIOUS ABOUT ITEM NUMBER 11 WHICH IS ANOTHER LIGHTING WHICH IS ANOTHER LIGHTING REPLACEMENT ITEM. REPLACEMENT ITEM. THAT'S $564,000 FROM THE GENERAL THAT'S $564,000 FROM THE GENERAL FUND. IS THAT ELIGIBLE FOR IMPACT FEES OR NO?

IS THAT ELIGIBLE FOR IMPACT FEES OR NO? IT WASN'T RECOMMENDED FOR IT WASN'T RECOMMENDED FOR FUNDING BY THE MAYOR. FUNDING BY THE MAYOR.

I DON'T THINK THAT WOULD BE I DON'T THINK THAT WOULD BE IMPACT FEE ELIGIBLE. IMPACT FEE ELIGIBLE.

WE DIDN'T IDENTIFY A MINUTE WE DIDN'T IDENTIFY A MINUTE AGO A ROAD FUNDING. AGO A ROAD FUNDING. IF WE SWAP THE FUNDING FOR IF WE SWAP THE FUNDING FOR I'm losing my track. So if we stop the bathroom, if we put a pause on the bathroom, and then we go and use the funding.

Project 22.

We'll go to 22, and we swap the ADA funding for the one quarter and the fifth of fifth self taxes. That will free us, that will give us 486,000 of money that we can move around. And that could give you, what, you're 40.

Not following that. Did you guys follow? Sorry.

Well, we talked a little earlier about stopping the bathroom. Okay. So then that bathroom is.

That frees up parks impact fees. Correct.

We put it here to complete this money.

The $800,000. Okay. And then we have. $486,000. But you'd have to find a transportation. That's what I'm just saying. Okay.

Great. She needs transportation for $40,000. Okay, so who followed this? Well, it's funding it. It works. So you said...

Okay.

I'm going to propose that we just add in mead without additional money and they need to find a way to make it work within that $2,300,000 pot. I understand that we have a bathroom study pending, but this is one bathroom. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE FUND THIS. FUND THIS. THE CDC IP BOARD THOUGHT THIS THE CDC IP BOARD THOUGHT THIS WAS WORTH FUNDING IN SPITE OF WAS WORTH FUNDING IN SPITE OF THAT. THAT. THERE HAVE BEEN TIMES WHERE I'VE THERE HAVE BEEN TIMES WHERE I'VE BEEN IN A SALT LAKE CITY PARK BEEN IN A SALT LAKE CITY PARK WHERE I FEEL LIKE I WOULD HAVE PAID WHERE I FEEL LIKE I WOULD HAVE PAID $500,000 TO HAVE A WORKING $500,000 TO HAVE A WORKING BATHROOM. I FEEL LIKE WE NEED TO MOVE FORWARD INCREMENTAL PROGRESS ON I FEEL LIKE WE NEED TO MOVE FORWARD INCREMENTAL PROGRESS ON THAT. THAT. I WOULD NOT SUPPORT TAKING THAT I WOULD NOT SUPPORT TAKING THAT MONEY.

MONEY. I WANTED TO TAKE THE MONEY I WANTED TO TAKE THE MONEY TO AT LEAST PART OF IT TO FUND TO AT LEAST PART OF IT TO FUND THE ROAD THAT WE STUDY AND THE ROAD THAT WE STUDY AND STARTED AND WE DIDN'T FINISH STARTED AND WE DIDN'T FINISH BY THE SCHOOLS. BY THE SCHOOLS. SO THIS IS WHY I WAS LIKE MAYBE SO THIS IS WHY I WAS LIKE MAYBE THIS IS A GOOD OPPORTUNITY OF THIS IS A GOOD OPPORTUNITY OF FUNDING ALL THESE THINGS AND FUNDING ALL THESE THINGS AND TRY

WHICH ONE WAS THAT?

I THINK NOW IT'S A NEW I THINK NOW IT'S A NEW I THINK NOW IT'S A NEW ITEM. ITEM. ITEM. GLENDALE SAFETY CROSSINGS OR GLENDALE SAFETY CROSSINGS OR GLENDALE SAFETY CROSSINGS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. SOMETHING LIKE THAT. SOMETHING LIKE THAT. BUT BASICALLY WE'RE SHORT $300,000 BUT BASICALLY WE'RE SHORT $300,000 BUT BASICALLY WE'RE SHORT $300,000 FROM THE PREVIOUS YEARS.

FROM THE PREVIOUS YEARS.

FROM THE PREVIOUS YEARS. BUT WHERE? BUT WHERE? BUT WHERE? WHICH? WHICH? WHICH? SO IT'S NOT ON THAT LIST? SO IT'S NOT ON THAT LIST? SO IT'S NOT ON THAT LIST? SO IT'S FROM LAST YEAR. SO IT'S FROM L It has a lot of overlap with . It's 39. Yeah.

But Glendale is talking about a lot of things in there. But what we did two years ago is we funded a study through CIP that told us all of these crossings by the school on California need to be safer for the kids.

Yes.

And last year we didn't have any money for it, but we found $70,000 out of the $400,000 that required. So what I was trying to find is, a little money to get a little closer to another intersection out of the 400. So if I can get another 70 to give to this project, that's why I was moving around money that was for roads.

BUT WHAT IF THIS IS GOING TO GO TOWARDS A BATHROOM IN YOUR TOWARDS A BATHROOM IN YOUR DISTRICT?

DISTRICT? I HAVE A RESPONSE TO THAT.

I HAVE A RESPONSE TO THAT. WHICH IS THAT WHAT I HAVE SEEN WHICH IS THAT WHAT I HAVE SEEN AND THE REASON I HAVE CREATED AND THE REASON I HAVE CREATED THIS MESS TEAM IS THAT WE We are all waiting on this really exciting, wonderful, informative bathroom study, which is then going to allow multiple projects to move forward. And I'm really excited about that. With that said, because we're still waiting on those outcomes, in the interim, we have been taking resources that are very limited and very competitive and putting them towards bathrooms that have yet to be realized. So it's not a no, never. But it is like, do we want to hold on to money For, like, as we're awaiting that outcome in that process, when there are other needs that seem to be more higher priority and emergent, and then once we have the outcomes, that's when we can actually scope these projects related to the bathrooms to be both what are we getting, cost effective, all of that good stuff, best practice.

Yes, and my answer to your question is yes, I do think we should still move forward and not wait because we have a CDC IP board that we charge to look at all of these to rank them. They put a lot of time and effort into them. Even though we've spent a significant amount of time too, they put months and months into them. I don't want to change it last minute. Yes. Unless I know of a super compelling reason.

And the counter argument I would make.

That they considered both.

See, but I don't know that to be true because I can tell you, like the bathroom study was a constituent application coming out of D7. So I am very familiar with that. And that request is multiple years old, having not been realized yet. So is it clearly stated in all of the previous projects that are recommended for bathroom improvements, which I agree we need, that it's like, we're going to do this, but not until this other action happens first. And that's the part that I don't feel has always been clear. And so then I get phone calls as a council member for District 7 related to bathrooms that have been funded. And I'm in the process of explaining why those aren't happening because we're holding off on this piece. And so I am not, I cannot say with certainty, but I am not clear that the need of the project is being reflected in relationship to the other processes that have to occur before that project can be delivered on. If it's just coming forward that our bathrooms need help, yes, I agree with that. But in terms of being like, but this money won't actually be implemented until these other actions occur, that part I have not clearly seen represented and that is a new piece of information worth considering.

I appreciate that. And I appreciate the extra analysis and distinction. I probably will. Because I know how much time the CDC board puts into this and how seriously they take their job. And part of what we are asking them to do is to do that work for us. IN A WAY THAT IS REPRESENTING IN A WAY THAT IS REPRESENTING ALL THE DISTRICTS AND THAT ALL THE DISTRICTS AND THAT IS NOT KIND OF LAST MINUTE US IS NOT KIND OF LAST MINUTE US TAKING FROM HERE AND PUTTING TO TAKING FROM HERE AND PUTTING TO THERE BASED ON INFORMATION THAT WE THERE BASED ON INFORMATION THAT WE HAVE WHICH I THINK IS GOOD. HAVE WHICH I THINK IS GOOD. I'M NOT SAYING WE SHOULD NEVER DO I'M NOT SAYING WE SHOULD NEVER DO THAT OR WE SHOULD ALWAYS JUST THAT OR WE SHOULD ALWAYS JUST BLANK SLATE ADOPT WHAT THEY BLANK SLATE ADOPT WHAT THEY WANT BUT IN THESE MOMENTS WHERE WANT BUT IN THESE MOMENTS WHERE WE'RE TRYING TO KIND OF DO IT WE'RE TRYING TO KIND OF DO IT IN WHAT

So, Chris, I think this argument, we can, you know, split this argument in multiple ways. They're all very reasonable, really. I think what I struggle with, and I said it at the beginning of the discussion, is when we see, you know, we funded through the board recommended a study, for example, that recommended a bunch of things. and then we are not paying for it. So then, so at some point we need to start making decisions and say like we need to start making good on the things that we are telling the community or, you know, and I understand the CDCIP board is looking at this a snapshot of projects in front of them, but there is a long list of projects that we funded studies for that we didn't make good on. So this is why I think that all of these arguments could be, you know, to sit in a good way and to make case for us. I am trying to find money for safe crossings for kids. And it doesn't mean that we have an emergency and a bathroom is less important. I know that it isn't when we're in that situation. It's actually quite urgent. But I'm trying to, that's my argument to the community. So, Council Member Petro.

Can I also, I think, The brilliance and the frustration about CIP is that it is public dollars that we subject to private will after hiring subject matter experts who have told us how to prioritize certain things like street crossings. And so I'm struggling with things like I definitely want your community to be safe. But that project has gotten a disproportionate amount of time, attention, and resources from the city because you have really great community leaders who have stepped up. I'M NOT CONVINCED THAT WE'VE DONE ENOUGH DUE DILIGENCE TO SAY THAT A SIMPLE CROSSWALK PROTECTS YOUR NEIGHBORS CROSSING AT A PLACE WHERE THE FREEWAY ENTERS THE CITY. SO IT FEELS LIKE WE'RE GOING TO PUT A BANDAID ON A BULLET HOLE IN A SIGN TO PEOPLE SAYING WE HEARD YOU INSTEAD OF DOING THE ACTUAL WORK THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE, WHICH IS TO SAY IF WE HAVE NOW LET THE PRIVATE WORLD dictate how we spend this public dollar and we have created a new park that was not part of any plan previously but is now an important asset to the neighborhood what does safety actually look like and so i'm struggling with these things as well i mean half a million as far as i know is one bathroom So it's not like we've allocated enough to even do a ton over there either. So I'm really struggling with where the better part of wisdom is on all of these things because I'm not saying you don't need a crossing. I am saying the need for the crossing has been manufactured by the urging of people who are very skilled at making their case and have created something beautiful. I don't know that our solution now makes it any safer, and I don't know that we're prioritizing things in accordance with actual needs. And I do think we're in a time where actual needs have got to trump preferences in the city. This is a need-to-have moment, not a nice-to-have moment.

Well, point of order, Mr. Chair.

I did make a straw poll.

So let's just vote on that, and then we can talk about the other things. The straw poll was that we're going to say that they need to fund a crosswalk out of the existing amount. So they just need to find a way to work it in there by either eliminating one or cost saving somewhere else. Anyone in favor? Show your feelings. GREAT. LET'S MAKE IT HAPPEN.

LET'S MAKE IT HAPPEN. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. NEXT ITEM.

NEXT ITEM.

I THINK THE NEXT, BECAUSE I I THINK THE NEXT, BECAUSE I THINK THE NEXT, BECAUSE I THINK JENNIFER JUST HIGHLIGHTED THIS TO ME. JENNIFER JUST HIGHLIGHTED THIS TO ME. JENNIFER JUST HIGHLIGHTED THIS TO ME. WE CAN SPIN ON THE BATHROOM OR WE CAN SPIN ON THE BATHROOM OR WE CAN SPIN ON THE BATHROOM OR NOT. NOT. NOT. I THINK IF WE PUT A PAUSE ON IT I THINK IF WE PUT A PAUSE ON IT I THINK IF WE PUT A PAUSE ON IT THEN IT ALLOWS US TO MOVE IN THEN IT ALLOWS US TO MOVE IN THEN IT ALLOWS US TO

SO THE STRAW POLL WOULD BE DO YOU WANT TO PAUSE ON 31 TO FREE UP THE STRAW POLL WOULD BE DO YOU WANT TO PAUSE ON 31 TO FREE UP THAT MONEY?

THAT MONEY? I WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE A I WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE A STRAW POLL. STRAW POLL. DO YOU PAUSE ON PROJECT 31 SAFE DO YOU PAUSE ON PROJECT 31 SAFE OPEN AND CLEAN PARK RESTROOM OPEN AND CLEAN PARK RESTROOM PROGRAM, NEW RESTROOM, AND PROGRAM, NEW RESTROOM, AND CONSIDER A REALLOCATION OF CONSIDER A REALLOCATION OF THOSE FUNDS?

THOSE FUNDS? SHOW YOUR FEELINGS.

Before that's finalized, finance let me know that with that one project with the transportation amount.

We can talk about that later. We have a proposal to pause this bathroom. So we have four ahead.

OKAY, SO NOW YOU HAVE 568,000 OKAY, SO NOW YOU HAVE 568,000 IN IMPACT FEES TO DISCUSS. IN IMPACT FEES TO DISCUSS. THERE ARE SOME OF THE PROJECTS THERE ARE SOME OF THE PROJECTS THAT WE DISCUSSED THAT THE CHAIR THAT WE DISCUSSED THAT THE CHAIR DISCUSSED MOVING THINGS FROM ONE DISCUSSED MOVING THINGS FROM ONE PLACE TO ANOTHER TO FREE UP PLACE TO ANOTHER TO FREE UP FLEXIBLE DOLLARS ARE NOT, IN FACT, FLEXIBLE DOLLARS ARE NOT, IN FACT, ABLE TO BE MOVED AROUND. ABLE TO BE MOVED AROUND. THERE'S A 60-40 REQUIREMENT FOR THERE'S A 60-40 REQUIREMENT FOR THAT ITEM. THAT ITEM. SO IF YOU REDUCE ANY OF THE SO IF YOU REDU

So out of the $568,000 in impact fees, it could potentially fund, this is new trees. So how much money, is there public lands here? Yes. Yes, there is, obviously. You know, do we have an amount that we want to put on trees? Is that something that we? I don't know if anyone else.

I do. I share your passion for trees. I just want to make sure I'm on the same tree train. Is there a particular... YEAH. IS THERE A PARTICULAR PROJECT IS THERE A PARTICULAR PROJECT RELATED TO TREES OR JUST TREES RELATED TO TREES OR JUST TREES IN GENERAL? IN GENERAL?

I THINK BECAUSE IT'S USING I THINK BECAUSE IT'S USING IMPACT FEES WE WOULD NEED TO BE IMPACT FEES WE WOULD NEED TO BE SPECIFIC IN ADDING AN ITEM THAT SPECIFIC IN ADDING AN ITEM THAT SAYS EXPANDING THE URBAN SAYS EXPANDING THE URBAN FOREST BECAUSE WE CAN'T USE PARK FOREST BECAUSE WE CAN'T USE PARK IMPACT FEES TO REPLACE DEAD OR IMPACT FEES TO REPLACE DEAD OR DYING TREES.

So do we know, do we remember how much, I know the administration, the mayor has a program for 1,000 trees on the west side. Do we have an idea of how much money they spend on that to give us some reference point?

I will probably have to defer to our urban forestry team, but we can get that to you in writing. I will say I think one of our biggest challenges with adding to our urban forest is the lack of irrigation to new trees that go in. And so sometimes, new irrigation though, sometimes tree-specific irrigation can help our urban canopy survive.

It is true, but this is what I learned. WHAT I LEARNED, IT COULD BE FOR NEW IRRIGATION LINES. IT COULD BE FOR NEW IRRIGATION LINES. IT COULD BE TO CREATE AN IT COULD BE TO CREATE AN IT COULD BE TO CREATE AN IRRIGATION LINE ONLY FOR THE TREES. IRRIGATION LINE ONLY FOR THE TREES. IRRIGATION LINE ONLY FOR THE TREES. THAT'S A GOOD THING FOR BOTH OF THAT'S A GOOD THING FOR BOTH OF THAT'S A GOOD THING FOR BOTH OF THE GOALS YOU'RE TRYING TO THE GOALS YOU'RE TRYING TO THE GOALS YOU'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH. ACCOMPLISH. ACCOMPLISH. SO IT JUST CANNOT BE A SO IT JUST CANNOT BE A SO IT JUST CANNOT BE A REPLACEMENT. REPLACEMENT. REPLACEMENT. YES, MANY NEIGHBORS STRUGGLE WATERING THOSE TREES, ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY ARE YOUNG AND THAT'S WHEN THEY ARE BRITTLE AND WEAK. BUT THE CITY COULD ACTUALLY FOCUS ON AREAS THAT WE ARE ACTUALLY WATERING ALREADY AND THEY HAD SUCCESS ON THAT, QUITE A BIT OF SUCCESS. SO I THINK THE MORTALITY RATES OF THE ORIGINAL TREES WERE crazy. Now they're like being more strategic about planting them and they're getting good success. So I will be, this maybe accomplishes two of the goals. It's the trees and then trying to chip away at the upgrading the water, the water resilience of these trees with new irrigation lines.

It is.

Yes.

I APPRECIATE THE TREES BECAUSE I'M ALSO ONE OF THE TREES, BUT USUALLY WHEN THE CIP IS, IT'S A PRETTY SPECIFIC AREA BECAUSE WE'RE ASKING FOR TREES AND WE ALL WANT THEM.

You have too many on your side. No, I'm not starting that. I will say that... And I'm not even asking for my area. I don't want to restrict, because maybe you do, but I would be okay if there are in your part of town. It's just as long as we are moving towards the goal of actually creating...

WE HAVE A BUDGET FOR NEW TREES. WE WENT THROUGH A BUDGET PROCESS WE WENT THROUGH A BUDGET PROCESS AND APPROVED THE BUDGET IN JUNE AND APPROVED THE BUDGET IN JUNE FOR THE URBAN FORESTRY FOR THE FOR THE URBAN FORESTRY FOR THE PROJECTS THEMSELVES. PROJECTS THEMSELVES. AND I WANT MORE NEW TREES BUT WE AND I WANT MORE NEW TREES BUT WE ALREADY HAVE A BUDGET FOR THAT AND ALREADY HAVE A BUDGET FOR THAT AND THAT PROBABLY CAME WITH SOME OF THAT PROBABLY CAME WITH SOME OF THE IRRIGATION AND SOME MORE THE IRRIGATION AND SOME MORE THOUGHT. I WANT TO PROMOTE THE TREES BUT I WANT TO PROMOTE THE TREES BUT THERE'S A PROCESS WHEN WE GO THROUGH THERE'S A PROCESS WHEN WE GO THROUGH HERE ON THE BUDGET SIDE OF THE HERE ON THE BUDGET SIDE OF THE HOUSE, ON THE TREES SIDE OF HOUSE, HOUSE, ON THE TREES SIDE OF HOUSE, ON THE TREES SIDE OF HOUSE, THOSE TREES ARE ALIVE AND THOSE THOSE TREES ARE ALIVE AND THOSE ARE MOVING FORWARD AND THAT'S ARE MOVING FORWARD AND THAT'S WHAT WE DID THROUGH JUNE TO WHAT WE DID THROUGH JUNE TO APPROVE THE BUDGET. APPROVE THE BUDGET. SO NOW WE'RE SAYING WE'RE GOING SO NOW WE'RE SAYING WE'RE GOING TO ADD TREES AT THE LAST MINUTE ITEM NUMBER 31 ON THE BATHROOM SIDE OF THE HOUSE. SIDE OF THE HOUSE. I LIKE THE $40,000 GOING TO I LIKE THE $40,000 GOING TO VISION ZERO BUT THE OTHER SIDE OF THE VISION ZERO BUT THE OTHER SIDE OF THE HOUSE WE'RE AT THE LAST MINUTE THE HOUSE WE'RE AT THE LAST MINUTE STRAW PULLING AND SPENDING A LOT STRAW PULLING AND SPENDING A LOT OF MONEY HERE ON MOVING FUNDS OF MONEY HERE ON MOVING FUNDS AROUND FOR PARK IMPACTS. AROUND FOR PARK IMPACTS. THERE'S A LOT OF PARKS IN HERE THERE'S A LOT OF PARKS IN HERE THAT WE COULD FUND WITH THAT

but i'm not sure where else that money's gonna go and so i'm i'm carson um i love the trees i love the trees let it not be let the message not get construed i want more trees i think that's a priority for our city but uh council member dugan as you're talking about we did have a process in the budget where we talked about urban forestry and not wanting to be hasty in making a decision that we haven't fully talked through. Where these trees would go, what they would look like, what's the irrigation associated with that.

That's all fair. I was not here during that budget process, so I will be next time. Fair enough. Fair enough.

And I'll be on your team next time.

The thing is, even during the budget process, we didn't ask those questions either. We didn't ask where they're going to be. We didn't ask those. So it's also unfair to say that we We need that information to approve the budget because we didn't ask those questions then. But I think to your point, I think the administration had a plan. We trusted that they had a plan and they knew where to put him. And so I think that the question that I have on the table will be could the administration use this money wisely for new trees and new water irrigation tables, lines that are water wise. That to me is the ultimate question. If the question is like we, it's a lot more than we thought, you know, we can handle, then it's different for us.

Yeah, what I would say is, and these are all great questions and a really good discussion. And I think everyone has brought up some really good points because even as we have funding to purchase these trees, in talking with our urban forestry division, we've learned that it is difficult to find location sometimes based on the irrigation needs, whether there's not a close irrigation tap or whatever. So what we've been doing in the recent past is coordinating closely with them through these new projects that are coming online to be able to coordinate and really offset some of the costs that would otherwise have to go towards these trees in these new parks. And we're able to plan for them and actually provide irrigation as part of the design. So we're trying to get ahead of that while offsetting some of the project costs and allocating that to other amenities within these projects. And so we would love to entertain something like that. If we had additional funding, we could look at maybe some of these projects that are coming online or in design that we could maybe use some of that money to purchase the trees and offset those costs to put towards other amenities within these projects. That's one option. I'm not saying it has to be the final option. And then, yes, I think we could work closely with our urban forestry division to identify other areas outside of new projects that could use new trees.

Mr. Chair, can I propose a straw poll? Yes. I'd like to put the $568,000 back on item number 31 and be done with this. It's a process. It's gone through the process.

I mean, we voted on this. Why would we re-vote on that?

Because after we voted on it to free up the money, now we can't decide what to do with it.

No, I think we can figure out how to deal with it.

I want to vote on it. I want to put the money back, and I want to be done with CIP for this year. I THINK WE HAVE THIS MONEY TO SPEND, WE HAVE A PROPOSAL THAT'S BEEN RECOMMENDED, LET'S PUT THE MONEY TO THAT PROPOSAL AND MOVE ON.

I HOPE THAT WE HAD THAT CONVERSATION WHEN WE WERE NOT FUNDING THE PLANS FROM CIP FOR PREVIOUS YEARS TOO. I STRUGGLE WITH THAT ARGUMENT. HOW DO YOU GUYS FEEL?

PUTTING THE MONEY BACK? YEAH, WE GOT FOUR.

YEAH, WE GOT FOUR. YEAH, WE GOT FOUR.

THAT'S FOUR.

THAT'S FOUR.

THAT'S FOUR. LET'S BE DONE.

LET'S BE DONE. LET'S BE DONE. YEAH. YEAH. YEAH. SO, IT WENT BACK. SO, IT WENT BACK. SO, IT WENT BACK. YEAH. I will send all of the comments on these crossings to you so you can handle it. So again, I will say that this is, to me, it's a disingenuous for our city to keep on funding studies and then funding pieces of things while we fund studies and then wasting our resources that way. Then forgetting, because it's a different CIP, so what happened before is not important to us. And that's really unfair.

And I genuinely, just to speak to that Mr. Chair, I don't mean that to be like flippant my straw poll or anything, even though like you might have thought that if you tuned in right at that moment, one might have. But I share that frustration. THERE ARE ALSO LOTS OF PROJECTS THERE ARE ALSO LOTS OF PROJECTS IN MY DISTRICT THAT THERE WERE PLANS IN MY DISTRICT THAT THERE WERE PLANS THAT WERE NEVER ACTED ON OR WE TOOK THAT WERE NEVER ACTED ON OR WE TOOK SO LONG TO ACT ON THEM THAT THE SO LONG TO ACT ON THEM THAT THE PLANS ARE OUT OF DATE AND THEN WE PLANS ARE OUT OF DATE AND THEN WE HAD TO FUND A NEW PLAN. I 100% share that frustration and I don't mean for to like in any way to like cut off that conversation by the proposal that I proposed and I do think that we need to fund.

I agree. I agree and I don't think that the bathroom is like you know the places I'm dying on, right? I don't want to ever die in a bathroom really. But I will say that you know at some point we need the courage to say we really need to stop funding STUDIES OR WE'RE GOING TO GET CUT UP ON THE PREVIOUS STUDIES. CUT UP ON THE PREVIOUS STUDIES. CUT UP ON THE PREVIOUS STUDIES. I AGREE. I AGREE. I AGREE. THERE'S GOING TO BE DECADES OF THERE'S GOING TO BE DECADES OF THERE'S GOING TO BE DECADES OF STUDIES THAT WE DIDN'T FUND BUT STUDIES THAT WE DIDN'T FUND BUT STUDIES THAT WE DIDN'T FUND BUT CAN WE ACTUALLY MAKE GOOD ON A CAN WE ACTUALLY MAKE GOOD ON A CAN WE ACTUALLY MAKE GOOD ON A STUDY THAT WE ACTUALLY FUNDED STUDY THAT WE ACTUALLY FUNDED STUDY THAT WE ACTUALLY FUNDED NOT TOO LONG AGO FOR SAFE STREETS NOT TOO LONG AGO FOR SAFE STREETS NOT T

I THINK THE OTHER THING WE NEED TO STOP DOING IS LOOKING LIKE WE'RE TRYING TO FIND A PLACE TO SPEND PUBLIC MONEY BASED ON CREATIVE PUBLIC INPUT INSTEAD OF RESPONDING TO THE ACTUAL NEEDS OF THE CITY WHEN OUR NEIGHBORS ARE INCREASINGLY ONLY SPENDING THEIR MONEY ON THEIR NEEDS.

Thank you, everyone. I appreciate the discussion. It was good. We survived it. We will lick our wounds and move on like every year. So board appointments, number four. Thank you so much. Kate, you survived that too. You need a drink. So board appointments, parks, natural lands, urban forestry, and trails, peanut. Advisory board, Regan Hale. Are you in person? Oh, yes. Hello. Welcome. You put yourself through all of that. So welcome. Please, I'm going to have to step. I'm sorry. We have a guest in front of us. Can you tell us briefly why you want to join this board?

Sure. My name's Rae Young. I've worked kind of in land management adjacent professional roles for the better part of the last decade, and now find myself in a professional role that's a little bit more adjacent to that. I am an enthusiastic user of a lot of the spaces under the purview of the Peanut Advisory Council, and so I'm excited to bring kind of a combination of my professional experience and enthusiasm for these spaces TO DISTRICT 7 AND THE CITY IN GENERAL.

THOUGHTS? YES.

WE ARE SO GLAD TO HAVE YOU. AND I REALLY DO APPRECIATE ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE ARE FORTUNATE TO HAVE IS SOME OF, YOU KNOW, NOT JUST THE BEST PARKS, BUT WE HAVE AN INCREDIBLE REGIONAL PARK. In Sugar House that we're looking to really replicate in the Glendale area. And I'll just tell you that that park needs some love and attention when it comes to how we work with other people. municipal authorities on being able to fund what those needs are so i hope that you bring that voice of advocacy and our amazing leaders of the city have always been such a champion for that park um but it would be great to have a strategy on how we get our neighbors to be equally invested in keeping it as great as it is great thank you

I will say this is, the peanut board is one of the most impactful boards in our city and there's a lot of boards but this is one of those that really make a big difference in our city so I'm excited that you're joining us. So you are going to be placing the consent agenda tonight and you don't have to be there and the administration will reach out to you after the IN THE NEXT WEEK OR SO TO TELL YOU WHAT THE NEXT STEPS ARE.

GREAT.

THANK YOU SO MUCH.

THANK YOU ALL.

BOARD APPOINTMENT FOR RACIAL EQUITY AND POLICING COMMISSION, AVERY MCPHEE.

HI, THAT'S ME. I'M SO SORRY.

NO, YOU'RE GOOD. WILL YOU TELL US BRIEFLY WHY YOU WANT TO JOIN THIS BOARD?

Hi, yeah, I would like to join this board because I think my skills can be useful and be really serve the public good. I was reading over the duties earlier, and I noticed that one of the duties is to interact and receive public input on how to be better. And I love talking to people. So I think I'd be really good for this job. And I think that I want to use my skills to help my community. And that's how I want to do it, by making the police force more diverse and using my gifts in a way that benefits others.

Thank you. Council Member Carlson.

Hi, Avery. I think I might recognize you from somewhere. Would you be willing to share a little bit about your past involvement in city government and learning about how to make an impact locally?

Oh, I would love to. So the past 2025 to 2026 school year, I was part of the Youth and Family Division's Youth City Government Program, which is a program that allows teenagers like me who are in high school to interact with the government officials and learn about government operations. And joining that opened up so many doors and opportunities for me, including allowing me to speak before you all here. I also got to work with a lot of cool people. And I also got to learn a lot of things about public policy.

Wonderful. Thank you so much for stepping forward to serve the city again in this respect. And I'm delighted to see that you've put your name in the hat here.

I can feel Representative Angela Romero winking at us right now, smiling about this. So thank you so much, Avery, for your willingness to serve. You're going to be placed in the consent agenda for tonight. So you don't have to attend the meeting. And once we approve the consent agenda, as we approve it generally as a group, the administration will reach out to you soon to tell you about the next steps.

Thank you.

Thank you for being here. Port appointment number six, Racial Equity in Policing Commission, Nicholas Pensari. And is he in person? Nicholas, welcome. Put the microphone close to you. Push the button so the green light is on. And then tell us briefly why you want to join.

Yeah, hi. It's good to see all of you. My name is Nicholas Pensari. I am a resident of Salt Lake City. I'm involved in the criminal justice system. A big part of why I want to be involved in this work is I love this city. I also, as someone who works in the system, understands the historical baggage that we carry. A big part of what I try to do in our system is bring best practices to our office. And one of the things that I feel like I could be valuable is bringing best practice to our police department. Another part of something that I cherish deeply is community involvement and community engagement. AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT STOOD OUT MOST TO ME ABOUT THIS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT STOOD OUT MOST TO ME ABOUT THIS COMMISSION IS HOW MUCH THE COMMISSION IS HOW MUCH THE COMMUNITY IS VALUED, THE DIALOGUE COMMUNITY IS VALUED, THE DIALOGUE THAT GOES ON, ALL OF THAT WORK. THAT GOES ON, ALL OF THAT WORK. SO, AGAIN, I'M JUST HAPPY TO SO, AGAIN, I'M JUST HAPPY TO SERVE AND WANT TO BE PART OF MY SERVE AND WANT TO BE PART OF MY CITY GOVERNMENT.

CITY GOVERNMENT.

I JUST WANT TO SAY THANK YOU I JUST WANT TO SAY THANK YOU FOR YOUR APPLICATION. you know, not that long ago had a room full of candidates who were trying to fill a vacancy. And a lot of those candidates, you know, had a lot of talent and they had a lot to offer and it made the decision really difficult. And I always say, I hope that those people will come and get involved and give back in another way to the city. And you don't always see those candidates come back. So I'm really glad that you did.

HAPPY TO BE HERE.

HAPPY TO BE HERE.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR PUTTING YOURSELF THANK YOU FOR PUTTING YOURSELF THANK YOU FOR PUTTING YOURSELF IN THIS SITUATION AND GIVING IN THIS SITUATION AND GIVING IN THIS SITUATION AND GIVING YOUR TIME AND TALENTS TO MAKING YOUR TIME AND TALENTS TO MAKING YOUR TIME AND TALENTS TO MAKING OUR CITY BETTER. OUR CITY BETTER. OUR CITY BETTER. YOU'RE GOING TO BE PLACED ON THE YOU'RE GOING TO BE PLACED ON THE YOU'RE GOING TO BE PLACED ON THE CONSENT AGENDA AS I WAS SAYING CONSENT AGENDA AS I WAS SAYING CONSENT AGENDA AS I WAS SAYING BEFORE. BEFORE. BEFORE. WE'RE GOING TO BE APPROV

Awesome. Again, thank you for all your time and have a great rest of your day.

Thank you. Council members, number seven had a family emergency. We're going to remove George Leboeuf from the consent agenda tonight. So moving on to board appointment number eight, Liz Jerger. I don't know. I need help. Lisa? Liz?

Yes. Yeah. Hi, it's actually Jaeger. Um, yeah, it's German, but it's spelled very uniquely. So everybody has trouble with it. No worries.

Um, tell us what you want to join us.

Um, so I work for preservation, Utah. I'm their historic properties manager just recently. Um, I've worked with the organization, uh, since 2014 and I have, um, a certificate in historic preservation. So I feel like, um, my skills could be well used, but also, um, it's, it's like, um, an important part of my job, I think to contribute to the city and County building. Um, I used to be in charge of scheduling the historic tours for the building. And now we've, um, moved that to somebody else and, um, I will be, um, I'm anyway, I'm doing the easements and the loans instead now, but it's it's more this is serving on this committee is more adjacent to my current role with the organization. I also wanted to note that I, my office is in District three, but I live in District five. I don't think that necessarily matters. But it I am within city limits just Thank you. As a note.

Thank you for that clarification. We, for a little while we asked the administration to list that. So we are thankful that we have that listed. We will make the note. I think that there shouldn't be a problem with that. Liz, thank you. Jaeger, I think I learned that word in college. Yes. And thank you for putting for yourself and this, you know, volunteering your talents and time for this historic building and ensuring that it stays here forever. We also need, personally, I think we need people that understand the value of it, but at the same time understand the needs of a, you know, of a changing city. That's, you know, me loving you already. So, thank you, Liz. Any thoughts? Okay, you're going to be placed on the consent agenda tonight. You don't need to attend our meeting. We're going to be approving the consent agenda tonight, and then the administration will reach out to you soon to tell you about the next steps.

Okay, great. Thank you so much.

Thank you, Liz. Item number nine, council members, is a resolution for the amendment to the interlocal agreement with Salt Lake City Library related to the tax increment. This is a written briefing. If you have any questions, You can raise those now, or you can email staff about those. We talked about it earlier today on the CRA portion of the agenda, so we know what this is. So any thoughts? We can move on? OK. STANDING ITEMS, REPORTS FROM CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR? NOTHING. AND I DON'T HAVE ANY REPORTS FROM ME. MAYBE I DO, BUT I WILL TURN THE TIME TO JENNIFER FOR REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a couple. Just wanted to remind the council about the West Side Council meeting that we've been putting together at the Utah State Fair Park. This is a meeting we do every year in the community. We've been trying to keep the tradition going. So it will be on September 22 at the Utah State Fair Park. And just because of technological issues and trying to keep things simple, there will be no virtual option to join. So plan on joining that in person if possible. OH, AND THEN THE NEXT ITEM IS COUNCILMEMBER PUGHY WAS INVITED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE COUNTY'S BEHAVIORAL HEALTH AND JUSTICE ACTION PLAN TEAM. FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO HAVE BEEN IN THIS SPACE FOR A WHILE, THIS IS ESSENTIALLY THE CONSULTING FIRM THAT'S TRYING TO IMPLEMENT THE MIAMI MODEL HERE, KIND OF LOOKING AT THE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH Over overlapping with the justice system. So this is going to be a board to Kind of figure out how those systems can work best together and Mr.

Chair, you can chime in with anything else you've learned about it or no, I I attended the first meeting today and our mayor Ehrman Hall is leading co-leading it with our County Mayor and AND TYLER CLANCY FROM THE STATE. SO WE DON'T VOTE AND THE REST SO WE DON'T VOTE AND THE REST OF US DON'T BUT WE PARTICIPATE OF US DON'T BUT WE PARTICIPATE IN THE MEETING AND HELP MAKE IN THE MEETING AND HELP MAKE SURE THAT WE IMPLEMENT THE SURE THAT WE IMPLEMENT THE POLICIES THAT THE CONSULTANTS POLICIES THAT THE CONSULTANTS ARE HIGHLIGHTING FOR US TO ARE HIGHLIGHTING FOR US TO CHANGE. CHANGE. I'M EXCITED TO BE PART OF THAT I'M EXCITED TO BE PART OF THAT SO I WILL REPORT BACK WHEN I SO I WILL REPORT BACK WHEN I HEAR WHAT THEY WANT US TO CHANGE HEAR WHAT THEY WANT US TO CHANGE OR IMPLEMENT. is there anything else executive director no there is not closed meeting today um and this adjourned the work session for today august 18th so we're going to meet on the formal at 7 pm thank you everyone bye