City Council - Regular Meeting

Madam Chair, we're ready whenever you're ready.

Well, once we have a quorum. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Would you go right over there?

All right, welcome everyone. This is the Sandy City Council meeting of Tuesday, June 2nd, 2026. We have on our agenda tonight one information item. One, two, three, four council voting items, several public hearing items, and a consent calendar to approve. We will be taking public comment on the council voting items and the public hearing items. So we will welcome your comments on those agenda items. If anyone would like to speak, there are blue cards in the back of the room. We sure would appreciate it if you'd fill those out in advance and give those to Dustin over here. We'll also have a general citizen comment period that will start at some point after 6 p.m. I'll try to weave it in whenever we are between agenda items after 6. We always start our meetings off with a prayer. Ms. Christensen, would you please? Okay.

Our dearest Heavenly Father, we are so grateful to be gathered together this evening. Please bless us so we'd be able to make good choices and decisions for Sandy's residents and its employees. Please help us to listen and understand those discussions that we are having so that we can have clear minds when we are discussing them. We are so grateful for all of our blessings, and we love thee with all of our hearts, and we say these things in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, amen. Amen.

And we'll do the pledge now, so if everyone will rise.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

All right. Next item is introductions. Dustin, will you lead us off?

Of course. Thank you, Madam Chair. My name is Dustin Fratto. I'm with the City Council Office. Mr. Cadell, who is Council Legal Counsel, will be here shortly.

Chris Edwards with the Council Office. Chris Nickel, District 3. Marcy Hausman, District 4.

Brooke Christensen, District 1.

Cindy Sharkey, at large. Allison Stroud, District 2.

Brooke D'Souza, at large.

Aaron DeKaiser, at large.

Shane Pace, city administrator, I'd like to ask for your, what do you call it, permission. Mayor Zoltansky is at the U.S. Conference of Mayors tonight and will be for the next few days, so that's why she's not in attendance.

Thank you.

Lynn Pace, city attorney.

All right. I'm going to recognize that we have two staff members doing the work of four tonight. So we'll try to be understanding. I might move a little bit slower. I'll be looking to you guys to make sure you're ready to move on, I think, in some cases. Don't hesitate to stop me if you just need a little more time to put a finishing touch on something before we move on. Okay. The first item on our agenda is a possible redevelopment plan and information for Scott Cadell Park in Sandy. So Mike and also Casey the both of you or who's going to present this to us tonight.

I'll be doing most of the presentation tonight in case you'll kind of fill in as needed here too. Thank you council. It's a pleasure to be with you tonight. So staff we were asked in the planning department to come up with a proposed conceptual plan for the redevelopment of this park. And prior to presenting that portion of it, I wanted to walk you through kind of the background and what led to our design and layout. And that starts with our general plan update that we did. And part of that general plan update was the station area plan for each of our track stations. The Scott Caddell Park is immediately located to the south and west of the historic Sandy Track station and platform. And so as part of that, we were required by the state to adopt a stationary plan for each of those stations. So I'll walk through some of the guiding principles that were established with that. and the intent behind those. So their overall development build out goals were to increase the availability and affordability of housing, promote sustainable environmental conditions, and enhance access to opportunities, and increase transportation choices. So those are the overriding goals that we're trying to accomplish. And then this image gives some examples of that type of infill development that could be created within that district. that's in character with the surroundings. So with that, you can see the radii around the half mile radius around the track stop. The little train logo there in the middle icon shows where the platform is located in the district relative to where we're looking at. There were several big move areas or areas of change or opportunities that were identified in that. One of those is highlighted that we're going to discuss tonight, which is the Scott Caddell Park. With that park, it's located a little pocket park within the neighborhood. It's sitting down below at the same grade as the homes that are to the west. The tracks platform sits up a bit higher in grade and elevation. There's also a canal that runs nearby there. So those pictures kind of give some context to what we're dealing with and what we're looking at. Because of that configuration and the visibility or lack thereof in that park, there have been some problems that have been created with the proximity to the tracks. It's attracted some nuisances due to lack of visibility and eyes being on that property. So this was identified as an opportunity to assemble that and reconfigure that property with some other land that the city has acquired over time, whether that was from UDOT with remnant parcels that were from the 90 South expansion several years ago, as well as some other properties that the RDA has purchased with the intent to build new affordable housing in the district. So with that park development plan, this shows kind of how the master plan showed reconfiguring that parcel and reshaping the open space into a more linear fashion that puts it up higher near the tracks, gets better visibility, and then surround that area with development. And these are some of the objectives that we wanted to achieve with this plan. and unlock the development potential and economic value, as well as creating affordable housing that would increase the density directly adjacent to the station and maximize the investment that's already been made in this public transportation system. So this gives kind of a rundown of what the ownership of this property is in its current condition. So the areas in green are city park land or open space properties. The areas that are grayed out with the red lettering, those are all right-of-way areas. So that's public right-of-way that could be vacated as part of this process, because they're not necessarily needed or utilized roads. In several instances, those roads don't connect back out to 90 South or don't go east and west anymore because of the tracks line. But historically, that's where the original town plat of historic Sandy placed those roads. And we've got the labels of the street names on there as well. The properties in red were donated to the city by UDOT. They were remnant lands that they didn't have any real marketable value. It's mostly kind of a hillside. As I mentioned, 90 South sits up about 10 to 12 feet above 8960 South, to give you some context to that. The tracks platform as well sits up higher than the rest of that area, just to put it into perspective. The RDA and the areas in that lighter orange are properties that the city has acquired over time. Some of those homes have been demolished, I believe, the last one. They've all been demolished. So this is an area from last year. But since that time, those homes have been demolished as well. And then this also identifies a potential purchase for that property that's just off the side, that's that darker orange, that could be added to this total configuration. So all in all, this kind of shows a zoomed in version of what the master plan showed and some of the inspiration that our consultants identified as how that could be reenlivened, reinvigorated and reconfigured and reutilize that park in a different shape. So it takes that My clicker's not working. Is it working? Oh, there it is up top. So it takes the original square. It's kind of dying on me, so sorry. It takes that original square, splits that in a more linear fashion. The parcel's also bisected by the canal. That's where you see all that vegetation and growth is along that canal corridor. And they envisioned wrapping that around with additional housing. So we followed true to suit in that in our proposed redesign. So let's focus first on the redesign of that park. We took some of the inspiration images from the master plan and showed how that could be put to use in this. So along this path, there's also the Porter Rockwell Trail. that runs parallel to the tracks all the way up and down the tracks line in Sandy and goes all the way into Draper. So we propose to keep that Porter Rockville Trail there, flank it on either side on that lower portion with some active use of a community garden. And then as it comes up and bridges across the canal, there's a connection to the tracks platform itself. Further down, because that Port Rockwell Trail is used by a lot of active recreation users, joggers, Sorry, we're getting an echo. And other active users, joggers, exercisers, we thought to put in some exercise equipment so that people can utilize that for that purpose, kind of turn it into a circuit run and activate that space. And then relocate the playground and other things up higher so that The amenity is still there, but in a more visible spot that wouldn't attract the nuisances that it's attracting further down. And then creating kind of that gateway feature that's showing in that image there. Not creating a permanent shade structure, but giving some shade, giving some visibility and focal point and covering the trail with that type of a trellis structure. And those are some of the ideas that staff has had as how that could be reutilized and reconfigured. So moving on to the housing portion and the development. So some of the guiding principles that we had with this were starting first with the missing middle housing toolkit. That's something that we've been discussing with the council staff over the last year or so and looking at how we can find missing middle housing opportunities. And the state of Utah has provided this missing middle housing toolkit for municipalities across the state to implement that missing housing. It's typically typologies of homes that aren't currently being built in the market either because of the markets not providing it or zoning doesn't provide it and doesn't allow for it. So one of the typologies that we identified as we looked at this was this cottage development that's shown kind of on that right hand side. It shows the both plan view as well as a three dimensional depiction with small cottage style homes in the front. and then a townhome duplex or fourplex that would be placed behind it. All of those homes would front onto a courtyard with parking back behind. And so in that site plan view that you see there, the areas in gray, you can see the depiction of the cars. So that parking could be either in garage or in a carport or just surface parking, depending on the layout and configuration and how much space you have. But the idea is to kind of tuck the parking in a unified space, have it be fed through an alley, and you kind of detach the cars from the houses. And this provides parking at a much more efficient cost, because providing garage parking does increase the total cost of a home. Certainly a desirable amenity in a lot of homes, but it definitely drives up that cost. So if we can deliver something in a different configuration that still adequately addresses the off-street parking requirements, especially with proximity to tracks and reduces the total number of parking stalls needed, this is a good fit for that property. So the images to the left of those diagrams show some examples in Utah that utilize this cottage-style courtyard housing. So they're fronted onto this unified walkway or parkway, depending on how much space you've got. And they kind of have a shared front yard. It shows some examples there on the bottom left of some of the style of homes that you could have. So they wouldn't all have to be cookie cutter, the same look and feel. They could have variation. And just like the rest of the neighborhood, that is not cookie cutter. It is very eclectic. It has a mix of different designs and styles. So we're proposing that that configuration also contain housing that has unique and different shapes and architectural styles that blend in with the neighborhood. Like I said, we wanted to take advantage of the transit, reduce that parking total on site, One other big concern was stepping down the scale and massing as it approaches the neighborhood. So up against 90th South, I think that's where it's appropriate to put more density, more massing up against that heavy corridor. Plus it would provide some screening and audible noise issues from 90th. It is a busy roadway. And then fronting some of those taller units as it steps up the hill, those units could also step up. So you could step up to a townhome or twin home configuration that shows those images in the middle to a three-story product up along 90th South. And they give some architectural examples of what those homes could potentially look like. But the overall thing that this does that we wanted to ensure is improves connectivity, access, and eyes on the open space. Because that's one of the number one reasons why Scott Caddell Park doesn't function well, is there's not enough eyes and natural observation to keep the negative behaviors away from that area. So this would reverse that by putting a lot of eyes and observation onto that site. And this is a graphic kind of illustrating how that would be laid out. So the cottage homes, the small scale, single story, maybe a bonus room up above, would be those units that wrap around the existing neighborhood street. So the context and the scale of massing of the homes would be much smaller there. And then those units back behind that courtyard would be twin home units, so two story twin homes. with the parking tucked up underneath. So that could be in a garage or open carport style configuration, depending on the cost targets that we're trying to hit there. But all of the parking for those six units would be provided, shared, back behind on an alley. So that's those dark gray or black colorations. That's the alley that would service those units. And then the units that face onto 90 South or face onto the canal, the canals shown in blue here, they would face onto the city right-of-way or the UDOT right-of-way of 90 South and create a pedestrian street along on a walkway parallel to the canal that would exit out to that bridge and then you could cross the bridge and get into the TRAX platform directly there. There would also be a bisecting path from 8960 South that would provide a direct connection up to that TRAX corridor. So even the neighborhood would benefit from this from getting greater connectivity. And then as it steps down closer to the neighborhoods, we'd step down with twin-story townhomes and then, again, three-story townhomes that would be on the periphery of the project. The total site area of this proposal, including the park, is 4.15 acres. The development site would be three acres. The total revised park area remains about the same. It's 1.15 acres. So we just changed the shape and configuration, but the total square footage of that park didn't adjust much. This proposal contains 61 units, 21 cottage homes, 16 twin homes, and 24 townhome units. And the drive to get this project at an affordable price means that you build small. There's a lot of townhomes that get built out there, but they're all 3,800 square feet, two-car garages. That drives that price very high. In Sandy, we can't get townhomes that are under $500,000. because they're built with an attached garage and quite large. By building homes that are smaller, that would accommodate a range of different family sizes, it gives young couples a step into the housing market. Young families or people that don't have kids or maybe starting out their families, an opportunity to enter the market at whatever price point and home size that meets their needs. So the average size would be about 1,000 square feet, including any basement, bonus room area. Some of those cottage homes that are shown there are anywhere from 600 to 900 square foot footprint. And again, that's footprint. So you could have basement. You could have bonus on top. Or you could just have a single level, main level living. So maybe even for someone that's downsizing, that wants to live and stay in the neighborhood and live close to tracks, and doesn't want to have to maintain a yard. This would be an ideal situation for them. Like I mentioned, all of the parking is concealed, tucked back behind. So underneath these units, that's where the parking would be stored, in either single-car type garages or carports or surface. So it's showing a mix of those types. And this gives it without all the labels on it, so you can kind of see the details of what that looks like. The white paths are leading up to those front door entries. So again, in each of those little cottage courts, starting from the west side, there's six units that would front onto that cottage court. And then as it wraps around, we lose a little bit of depth. And so we go back to just single family homes that would face onto that and face the other homes that are across the street. And then back behind them are twin homes and then stepping up to the three-story townhomes. Now that's involving all of that in total 4.15. Now that's including one piece of property that the city doesn't currently own. If we did not buy that home, that's what is affected. Essentially those same six units that we were showing, I'll flip back, those six units there on that west side, whoops, wrong way, wouldn't be there but everything else could get built. So even if we didn't acquire that, you could still get 55 units on that remaining property. The total square footage is now 3.85 acres, sorry not square footage but acres, and that's what we're showing there. Again, you'd lose a parking, but generally speaking, you have about the same configuration one way or the other. Let's see. I think that concludes our presentation there. I guess if there are questions or implementation strategies that we want to discuss, we're happy to discuss that as well.

Ms. Nichol?

Would this be a PUD HOA type situation?

Yes. So this would be common area. So pad lots, similar to townhome developments, or even we've done single family homes on a pad. So they didn't own a lot, but they own the ground underneath their home. So they're able to build within that pad that's designated. And then everything else around them is owned in common. So you'd have a shared maintenance HOA type of situation.

be to take care of the landscaping, maintenance, that type of thing?

Correct. So that would handle the sharing of the parking, the maintenance of the alleys, as well as the walkways within the development.

And we're thinking about this as a for sale product, right?

Correct.

OK. Thanks.

Miss Christensen. OK. Show me where the Puerto Rocco trail goes along 90th.

So that is along 90th. Porter Rock Road runs north and south. It runs parallel to the tracks.

It doesn't go down a little bit further?

Mm-mm. OK. Well, you see the crossing there? You used to have to cross all the way down at 300 East. But we've improved that so that you can now directly cross north and south right there.

Aren't you glad I even noticed that, you guys? OK.

So yeah, you can see where the crossbars are there for the crosswalk.

So here's Brooke's thoughts, Kate. Sure. I don't think garden boxes are a good idea at all. We're just asking for them to be vandalized and destroyed, as well as the pergola type thing. It's cool. It's beautiful. We have a community garden a couple streets up. And the residents love it. And it looks really bad all the time. It does. It's like a hodgepodge of craziness. And it's amazing, but we do not want that there, in my opinion. If it's a park, is there a bathroom?

I don't know. I don't know if there are bathrooms there now. Are there?

There are, yeah.

Yeah, I don't know. That would be a question for parks as far as how we implement that.

If it's a little pocket park that's a couple streets down further tracks, I don't think you need one. But minimal things there would be the best.

We didn't contemplate that in this plan.

OK, good. It's a problem area.

I wasn't sure if you were wanting that as an additional amenity or not.

No. I love the cottage style ones and having different looks to them. I think that's amazing. Is there an option where they can not be an HOA where they can own their own ground and put up a fence for their kids because otherwise I think we're eliminating families from the area.

You can still put up fences in between HOA. It's just how the CC&Rs are written.

It depends on how you're configuring that. The idea generally is to keep things open. And you're having shared space. Depending on how you want to configure that, there are options to have a small area that's a fenced area that is for the dog or something like that to let them out. I lived in a townhome that didn't have fences. Grew up with kids there, and we had a shared backyard. We had dividers that separated our patios, but it wasn't fully fenced.

No, I would just highly recommend people being able to put up fences here. This isn't... It's my neighborhood, but it's not the neighborhood you want to not have a fence for your kids or your dog. There's too much traffic, and there's too many people going back and forth. You'll want to... People will want a fence.

So... Councilmember, there are HOAs that I'm aware of. My in-laws live in an HOA in Daybreak. They do have individual fences around their lot lines and their properties. So that is a possibility, yeah.

Cool. And show me the parking. So I get the parking underneath the two and three story ones, like the cars, right? Underneath the yellow. I'm assuming each unit will have like two parking spots for those?

They would have at least one assigned to each unit.

And they're underneath?

They're tucked underneath those duplex and fourplex.

And so would that make the heights of them roughly the same height as those just east on 90th, you know, the newer ones, right past 30th, the really nice ones?

The ones that Garbett built in front of the church? Yes. Yeah, those are two-story units.

So but with the elevation being lower, would they be roughly?

So from 90th South, they would be viewed as a two-story unit. But in fact, it's a three-story because of the tuck under parking. The ones that would be just across the alley, so the ones that face onto those courtyards, would be two-story. So the parking would be one level, and then above it would be the living space above.

OK. And then where's the parking for everyone else?

that's shared amongst those units. So the entire alley.

So in 61 units, there's 61 parking spots.

There's 100 stalls.

But who gets it? How do you, like, how are they, just every unit gets one and then it's first come, first serve after that?

Probably, or depending on how the HOA wants to manage it. But overall, that's, you know, with the proximity to tracks, the smaller size units, you're not getting large families with multiple cars. You're getting one, maybe two cars in a family in this type of unit configuration and unit size.

I think we should try and put two parking spots. I don't know anyone, two people who live in a house that don't both have cars usually. And street parking is already a problem in this area. So just a consideration. How long would we want to do their deed restrictions for ownership?

That really just depends. I mean, there's a few ways you can do that. You can do a development agreement. And it depends on the incentive. I mean, to incentivize affordable housing, that's why the RDA owns a lot of property. The property that UDOT gifted the city could be used as an incentive as well. But that's where you as a city council and an RDA board You can control that. It depends on the incentive, the write-down, the gift of the property. You can control the deed restrictions on those. Now, there are tools out there on a scenario like this. It's called a HOPS, Home Ownership Promotion Zone. If you create one of those, it has to be 60% at affordable housing. It has to be deed restricted for a minimum of, I think, 15 years. There's some restrictions. So it really depends on how you're incentivizing the mixed housing here or the affordable housing. So that will be up to you as a council and an RDA board, depending on the proposals that you get on the property, the mixed income you want, the affordability, all those things. You have control over that through you and the deed restriction.

Okay.

Thanks. Yeah. Mr. Souza.

Thank you. So overall, I really like the concept that you guys have. I like the mix of housing. I like the staggering of heights. I think that the layout was very thoughtful. I have to agree with Councilmember Christensen on the garden boxes. I'm a gardener. I think everybody should have a garden. Conceptually, it's amazing. But the practical application of that in these situations make it really difficult to maintain. At least that's been my experience as I've driven around. I think that I watched, I think, A Neighbor of Shames, that Jenny Lynn Court. And they have some garden boxes there. When those houses were first built, I was very excited. They've never been used and they just hold weeds now. And so I worry from like a city standpoint, I guess one of the questions is, is this park city park for everybody or does this park belong to that neighborhood in the HOA? What's the intent behind this park?

Yeah, the intent is to have this be a city park and then work with a nonprofit group that would help manage the community garden portion of that. So the rest of the land around it would also be maintained by the city.

Okay. And, you know, again, area-wise, I don't know. I just, I don't, like I said, I love the idea. I like the concept. I'm just not sure that the practical application is... going to translate, and maybe here even makes it a worse translation, just in terms of maintaining those or...

The community garden, you mean?

Yeah. Yeah. I mean, you don't want to fence it off, but at the same time, you don't want it vandalized and you need the produce to mature, right? Anyway, so I have concerns about the garden boxes specifically. I guess my other question is, what comes after this? So this is an information item just to say, hey, we're kind of, like, what is the purpose of this? When does it come back? At what stage does the council slash or RDA board weigh in on what?

So you beat me to what I was going to say. So you were thinking what I was thinking. I was going to say, keep in mind this is a conceptual, you know, it's just a concept. But I think it's a good roadmap that you can put out to the development community saying, look, this is something that we're looking at based on our planning department, based on our general plan, our housing workshop. We've taken all of that input Mike has and put it into this plan. We put it out there. That doesn't mean the development community is going to come in and say we're going to build exactly this. But I think it gives them something that – you as accounts RDA board. If you do, it gives them something to, a guideline, a roadmap of look, this is something we can support here. That's why the garden boxes, Who knows if somebody's going to support that. That's some thoughts and ideas that were put into it from input from staff that thought would go well here. Bottom line, this is a concept. But we wanted to show something to the development community that, look, this is something you can do here. And to you specifically as a council, that can be built here that would match the general plan in that. It's up to you as a council on if you're comfortable with this. and putting that out to my suggestion would be um i think the next steps we would look out is it may be good to go through a request for proposal process this is a road map this is something that you can support this thought, not exactly this and let, let the development community come in and based on kind of this roadmap of what they would build there and develop. Okay. And put that out for proposal.

Okay. Um, and so the, the housing portion is what's going to be developed. The park is city, right? And so I'm just thinking even conceptually, like the garden boxes or any of that shouldn't really play into. the development aspect other than this is park area yet to be developed. I'm assuming that the city's gonna be responsible for developing that from a cost standpoint, right? Or are we trying to get developers to help us develop that park?

That's exactly both. But I would say that that could be part of the proposal, is they are going to, as a developer, again, that's where the incentives and the land comes in. If you're going to partner, this is where you control the land as a city council and RDA board and the mayor administration. You get to control what goes there. So you can partner with a developer saying, look, we want, based on the proposal, we want you to make improvements to this park. based on the proposal, or they may have another proposal saying, you know, we don't see a park necessarily fits there. You as a council can go, look, we have a park in main street that we would like to see improved. You know, something that effect is as far as the trade off, look, you can maybe build more homes here, more density as a trade off to a park. So it's really up to you. Again, this is conceptual.

Okay.

So you can control whatever you want to control.

That's really helpful. Thank you for explaining that. And then the last question I think that I have is regarding that holdout property over on the corner. Without divulging any specific information right now pertaining to that, is there a number? Or is that person is not willing to sell at all? What is the likelihood of that property being developed as part of this?

There's a potential possibility there. No numbers have been discussed, no offer, no anything. We just know that there may be a possibility that we're pursuing.

Okay. And so this is just kind of feedback on the concept plan to use to create an RFP that would come next. Is that what this item really is? Okay. All right. Well, outside of the garden boxes, I like it. Thanks. Ms. Stroud?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Love the idea of that step up, that housing using that gradual, starting with some of the smaller homes and then working up to that density. Same concerns with the garden boxes. Being a city park, am I missing, do we have parking for it?

For the park?

Yes.

It would just be along the street, just like it is now. That's where the parking is for that park now.

So it would just be in front of the cottage homes along the side?

They'd walk to it along the Porto Rocco Trail. It's intended for a neighborhood park. So most of the time, people frequenting the park of this size for this purpose is not to drive your car to it, but to walk to it.

And I think, I mean, typically when I've been by this park, there's probably two or three cars that are there. I mean, it's not a significant amount. And that's where I guess with the garden boxes, and if we don't go that route, then there'll probably be fewer people. But still, I guess looking, and some of it, as well as, the reduced parking. I mean, 100 stalls, I do agree. Even when you have smaller unit sizes, when you have two adults, there's often two vehicles. And to have that cut down pretty significant, if there's 61 units, that's 1.2 and I think we have I mean it you know for incentives right now did we do away with up to the 1.8 the reduction on that because it was just problematic you know I think that there's we've seen problems in the past with not having enough parking you know so I If there's a way to try to get in a few more stalls, I think that that would be very helpful in trying to reduce the amount of cars that are parked on the street overnight if we ever get snow again. When the snow comes out and we get the plows out, because that seems to be a pretty common Concern and complete, you know, especially down in historic but you know in a lot of areas so increasing that but also some of those concerns with the Garden boxes a beautiful idea. Love it. Love the concept plan. Just not sure if right here is You know the the most ideal spot for it Loving this idea of partnering and moving forward, the for sale, that component and the variety of housing options, see what it does for us. Thank you.

Ms. Houseman.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the clarification that you're just looking for feedback on the concept in general, many more steps ahead. So I will just share that feedback that it's, I think it's a phenomenal concept. I think it is a great repurpose of the space. I think it addresses a lot of needs. So I thank you for being kind of creative and thinking out of the box. The one question I have that hasn't kind of already been asked or addressed is how did we engage with the Cadell family and This is a reconfiguration of the park, you know, named in Scott Goodell's honor and obviously the park's still existing. It's just a reconfiguration. I just would love to hear how they were folded into this.

I think Council Member Christensen can answer that. I can also answer that too. I've had some discussions with Tracy and I know he's had some discussions with his dad. You know, that is something that we want to make sure and keep in consideration of that park. I've had some specific discussions with Tracy on making sure that We keep whatever goes there as name or, again, going back to that, there's a tradeoff and there's another park as a tradeoff put into Main Street Park or something like that. That park's maybe named after Tracy or after Scott. But, yeah, that's heavily in consideration and we've kept that in mind. I don't know if you have anything to add.

Yeah, I've talked to Scott as well and he is completely and totally fine with the redevelopment because this park is such a problem in our neighborhood. And so there are a few things he would really like in return, like the big rock and the tree that he planted for his grandson.

If the park goes away?

You were building right over that part of it. Yeah, if the park goes away. And so he's totally fine. We even talked about maybe naming the pavilion at Main Street Park after him because his family built it. And so he's good.

Can I ask for Mr. Cadell as well?

That would be good, yeah.

I think Councilmember Christensen did talk to my father about it. It's an emotional thing because my father worked with Shane on this a long time ago and they were able to get that property donated for the park. My father talked about the like the greatest blessing in his life, other than his family, was when the mayor announced that that park would be named after him. I mean, it meant a lot to him. And so I've talked to a couple of you about some ideas on how I think it could work. I actually think, and of course I've talked to Casey about this, I actually think that we should go bigger than what he's suggesting. And he knows I think that. And as a person that lives there, and I think there's a way to deal with sort of the family politics. And it isn't just a family issue, too. There's people there that really love my dad and really appreciate that that's named after him. And it is true. I remember last year at the Heritage Festival, Martin and I happened to be talking, and Shane. And I talked a little bit about the ideas that I had for it. And Martin said, how? The timing is really good because today we just plunged a bunch of needles out of the bathroom because there's a lot of drugs there. And it's interesting because I used to live right over there. And the track stop there has created a real problem for that area right there. I think it'd be really great to find a way to fix that. And perhaps I could share with some ideas offline I have. But I like, I love this personally. I know that there's some, let's just say that I'll have to, I'll be busy.

Bringing people along.

Yeah, bringing people along. And I will say this too. I'll be busy bringing along some community members on this, too. I think this could be a little bit of a challenge for Brooke. I personally think it's fabulous. And maybe you and I can talk about my dad offline.

Thank you. That's really, I feel like the other questions I prepared were sort of asked and answered, and especially the clarity around this is a concept. In general, Council RDA Board, how do you feel about the reconfiguration? And if I'm understanding you correctly, this would be a bit like a public-private partnership. We own the land. We partner with a builder through the RFP process. We agree. Okay. So there would be all kinds of continued collaboration and oversight. So for now, I think green light, keep exploring. I would love to hear more of what bigger means, but that certainly can be the next presentation. So if all you need from us is keep moving in this direction, then that's what I'm saying. Keep moving in this direction. Thank you.

Mr. DeKaiser.

Thank you. This is an awesome plan. And I like the garden boxes. I think it'd be a great amenity for the community. There are plenty of nonprofits, as you mentioned, that manage gardens all around the valley. And they do really well. I would imagine the one that's in disrepair is not managed by a nonprofit. So I think that's really cool. And if it becomes a problem, we'll change it. But I think that's neat. The trellis, the open no fence concept I think is really cool. And also minimal parking. We really, on something like this near transit, need to reduce those parking requirements I've mentioned before. The literature might even advocate for zero. So for me it's a little bit on the high end but I appreciate that we're making an effort to reduce those parking requirements. My only remaining question is just to clarify the acreage of the park. There is a slide that says that is one point four five. So looking at the assessor parcel map it looks to be about one and a quarter. I just wanted to know if it was one or the other. And the Caudill family should be happy because it's going to increase.

Mayor your mic is on. But yeah and you can get back to me on that too. Where are you seeing the other acreage?

It's on the map with the exercise equipment. It says 1.45 acres.

Oh. Yeah, that was an acreage that was shown in the general plan. It's not actually accurate. So it may have either been a typo.

But I measured it. It's 1.15. Awesome. Thank you so much.

so i think that leaves me i really love this plan i really like a lot i really like the mix of housing styles if we were to include all of them trying to shoehorn as much as we could into this small area four acres and they were all identical i think that would be a problem i think we are adding high elements of charm by having different kinds of housing styles here. When I first read it, I had to sleep on it, on this idea of 600 square feet. And I realize it says minimum. I feel like it's a little bit of an experiment. I might feel a little more comfortable if we could eke out a little more square footage. We are in the ballpark of tiny homes, right? And that may or may not be a good thing. I like the idea. To me, this is a wonderful and a beautiful test case. I think it's a great location for this, too. I have heard so many stories about community gardens gone wrong that I think I'll add my vote into let's do something else there, okay? But on the parking issue, at 100 stalls for 61 units, I can't imagine a scenario where we aren't forcing some on-street parking onto 8960 South and 120 East. I don't know what the perfect ratio is. I would also be supportive of any kind of plan that rolls forward, if there is any possibility. And it sounds like it's all shared parking, right? Because even when you talked about the parking under the units, we're not talking about enclosed garage spaces.

Yeah, there could be a mix. It depends on how it's implemented. It could be anywhere from just a carport style where it's open air, suspended, with living space up above. It depends on price point, right? Because if you add more parking, it drives up the cost. If you add more garages, that drives up the cost. So it depends on what price point we're trying to hit and what level of attainability we're trying to hit. And also getting back to your square footage and footprint size, that's the other idea behind that, is if all you need is 600 square feet with an unfinished basement that gives you some room to grow, that allows you to get into a house that is at an attainable level that otherwise you'd be forced to buy something much bigger at twice the cost or three times the cost.

here's the thing we are leaving a very important discussion for another time right and that is what do we want the prices of these units to be and so you know if we want them to be three hundred thousand dollars maybe we say Yeah, we don't care so much about parking. We're willing to really give on that. But if because of the market, they're going to be $600,000, then that's a whole other thing, right? So part of the discussion that we're leaving out about what is our projected price point and what is the city going to do to get us there? Are we going to sell land at below market rates? Are we going to donate land? Are we going to retain the land and make this a community land trust? What tools are we going to open the door to for developers to also do their part to get tax incentives or whatever it is homeowners to get benefits. There is a huge discussion about the financial side of how we get where we get to. But I do tend to be worried about the parking. but I'd worry about it less and I'd be more willing to compromise if I knew what our projected or what our target price point was. So if we can't answer that question now, it's just something I'll continue to look for. And I really like enclosed garages. We hear this at LPC all the time. An enclosed garage costs $30,000. But what we're talking about for the most part is carports, ones that are pretty skillfully, I think. They're not just, sounds like not standalone carports.

No, this is tighter than some of those concepts. These would be tucked under, but maybe not fully enclosed, depending on how we want to configure that.

Mike, do you know what the density is as proposed?

So three acres of development, 61 units, so roughly 20 units an acre. So the interesting thing is that's typical what you get for a walk-up apartment complex. But notice the design is different. Notice how the design is being complementary to the neighborhood rather than detracting from it. And that's what we've been trying to achieve with this missing metal housing type of ideal is getting a different product at the same potential density as an apartment complex.

Not only that, as owner occupied, not rental.

And that's the other key there. We're not getting condos built, unfortunately, in the market right now. So even if they were stacked apartments or condo flats, that's not a product that can be financed and mortgaged. But this type of a product can. And we can get homeownership in an area that needs homeownership. And we need more investment in an area like this and more opportunities for first-time homebuyers, downsizers, et cetera.

It's a bold plan. It's something so different than anything Sandy has, right? That's why it's missing. I find it very, very, very interesting. I mean, if we were talking about building it 10 times this size, I would have maybe some fear and trepidation about the demand, the application, all that kind of stuff. But I think it's a wonderful test case. And 21 units that might be somewhere between 600 and 1,000 square feet, 21 units of it. It'll be very interesting to see how much demand there is for that type of housing. And then also on a look-back basis, how long people stay there. Is it a true starter home? Is it senior housing? How does it fill what kind of need? I think it'll be very good information for us going on long-range planning. Where is Jake Warner when you need him?

Madam Chair, if I may. That's the beauty, I think, when you say test case. That's the beauty of this area and the ownership being the RDA and the city and the donated properties. Because I think this is unique in the fact that we have a lot of tools at our disposal to actually get what we're all talking about in this scenario. So it's a test case, but I think it's a great test case where we can hit, like Councilmember Hausman said, I see this being a true public-private partnership and something that I think can be looked upon throughout other communities in the state on something if we do it right here. Again, there's some beauty to the situation.

Ms. Christensen has one more question.

Okay. I was just pulling up the aerial shot of Scottsdale Park, and there is parking there. I've parked in it. That's why I...

Along the street?

No.

There is a little slot parking.

Is that what... In your presentation, there was something called a parklet. Is that, like, what this is?

It's like a slot parking right in front of the park. Don't do that.

It's right off the street, though, right?

On the north end of it, there's actually, I mean, it cuts in from the street. Yeah, that's what I mean.

It's on-street parking. It's formalized on-street parking.

It's just missing the lines. But it doesn't stop the snowplows from coming through. It's designated parking. It's deep enough to fit a minivan right in there. Yeah.

The intent behind this plan, and it's not showing bulb outs and things like that, but you can do that because these streets are also quite wide. Most city streets are 52 feet. The streets in historic Sandy are 60 feet wide. So that can accommodate park strips, and it can still accommodate on-street parking within that space to allow for the snowplows to get through without clogging up the street. And so it is designed to accommodate on-street parking. I'm talking about the off-street that would be provided as 100 stalls. I haven't tallied up how many on-street parking stalls that could be there. But the nice thing about this is the only driveways are the two inlets and outlet of that alley. Everything else is front doors and walkways. So you're not blocking somebody's driveway by parking on the street either.

Except the people that live across the street.

there's enough room that they could still back out and not cause a conflict.

No, but it's illegal to park behind someone's driveway.

If it's in a designated spot that still allows for 24 feet of street, there shouldn't be a conflict there.

So what I'm saying is I like how it is at Scott Caddell Park that there's a place where you can pull in and there's still a little tiny park strip and not park strip all the way down. If there was a lot of that, then I would feel much more comfortable with the parking situation. Yeah.

You're talking about protected parking or islanded off designated stripes.

Yeah, not just like parking on the side of the road.

Right. No, I agree. That would be, we'd want it controlled. We'd want it designed and purposeful so that we're not creating conflicts with the neighbors and creating problems.

And I think, so on that north side, because there's some multi-housing there that they're often using, those four to five stalls, but actually I think there are some on the west side as well. You know, that's more for people that are coming to the park, but that north side, because once again, there's just, and that multi-housing, you know, they're looking for more stalls than what their housing unit provides, so they are using that park parking.

Yeah, even though there is parking behind that unit, those multiple units, like they still park there. So be aware of the parking, please.

Sure. We appreciate the feedback. Just don't get caught up, again, hung up on those details because I think Mike's done an excellent job, and he's spent a lot of time doing an excellent job on this, of just showing kind of – what can happen and I think it's a great plan but again I wouldn't get caught up in some you know all the details because I think some of this is naturally going to change because that's the market we're in with housing affordability again the public private partnership of you're going to have to have some trade-offs with the density if you want that affordable housing because they're going to have to have more units in here to make it pencil so there is going to be some give and take and there's going to be some things that change so I wouldn't get caught up too much into the all the details here.

Talking about that target for affordable, that makes me wonder how we could acquire this additional lot and not... It's counterproductive possibly to the goal, right? Because you'd be buying something at today's market rates and adding it to this mix and maybe driving up the cost, but...

True, but that's the beauty of the RDA. I mean, we look at the benefit, not only in economic benefit, but we look at quality of life benefit. So if you're creating more housing affordability, more housing options, getting rid of blight, getting rid of the issue in the area, I think that there's a value to that.

And I'll agree with that we're talking about you know the conditions that exist today in this area and hopefully this is a plan to completely change all of that right. Which I'm I'm hoping to we leave the park in there because it's on the Porter Rockwell trail provides a feature for people using that maybe a starting point for people using it. It would be a nice addition right there, and the houses adjacent would use it too. So I'm hoping we leave that pocket park there for the use of the people. I'm hoping that winds up being the case. Anybody else with any more comments before we move on? Looks like not.

Great feedback. Thank you so much.

Thank you, guys. All right. It is after 6 PM, so we will do general citizen comment. I have a couple of cards here. And so Darren Butler, let's have you come on up.

Great, thank you. Darren Butler, I'm the manager of the Sandy Library. Just wanted to let you know about a couple of things coming up at the library. This coming Saturday, we have Read to a Dog. So if you're feeling insecure about reading, you can come and read to a dog who's not going to judge you. So that's really great. We also have, from Salt Lake County Health Department, we have They're giving away some free handgun safes. So they're, I can't remember her name. Alyssa, who's the suicide prevention coordinator, is coordinating this event. And so it's kind of a first come, first serve. They've done it at some of the other branches and they've gone really fast. So come early. It's at one o'clock on Saturday. And then we discovered a few weeks ago that we have a leak. And so the library is going to be closed June 8th through the 10th for some repairs. So we can't be in the building, so we have to close for those repairs. And I think that's mostly it that I wanted to share. Thank you.

Thank you. Mark Mason-Taylor, come on down.

Okay, so I'm actually resident right next to the Scott Cowell Park. I'm just a couple blocks away. And so I don't know what they told you, Brooke, but last summer with that house that was up, they told me that, and I remember it, the city will have to drag us out dead to buy that house. So I don't know what's going on. Okay, so there may, there may not. The second thing, and I was just coming to listen to see what happened to it, but this is actually kind of my sphere of influence. I'm heavily involved in community gardening, believe it or not. I run a co-op, and Wasatch Community Gardens is typically the one that's the community garden that we're referring to. The issue is there are more than enough community gardens in the valley The problem that they have is actually the next step up. And that is farming, urban farming. So there are two organizations, Meals on Wheels, believe it or not, and also the International Rescue Committee, which works with refugees. But they need... Medium-sized plots, so instead of community garden boxes, thinking of like two to four farming plots where people who run a Thai restaurant or something actually and have a Thai import license to import seeds into the United States need to grow. The great thing about these arrangements is not only would they run it for us, but they would also give us grant money. And we have someone who used to run, there is something called Seniors Lunchbox, which basically you grow food for seniors and then provide it to them. she used to run the whole program for salt lake city and that was absorbed into wasatch community gardens so we have the expertise here to do something like that and it also works with the historic nature of the area which we don't really talk about the farming there you just have to learn about the sugar beets or something like that but that is something that would be much more effective than fill a gap in the community garden. So just food for thought. And then I have one more thing, but it's not important. Oh, Cindy, my house is actually about 1,700 square feet. basement and floor, and it's one of the largest in the area. So the 600 square foot actually fits in really well with the area. It's apparently the 1920s, so I had 100 years. So thank you.

Thank you. All right, that's all the blue cards I have. Destin, let's invite our online audience.

Of course thank you Madam Chair. If you're joining us virtually this evening on Zoom and you'd like to comment on any city business this evening just go ahead and click the raise hand button on your screen. I'll call your name in the order in which you raised your hand and you'll have three minutes. Madam Chair, I'm not seeing any hands raised.

All right. I'll close general citizen comment, and then we'll go back to the agenda. We're on item number two, which is our vote on the Utah retirement system tier two public safety rate pickup. Do we have any questions for Katrina? Katrina, do you want to introduce this in any way, any new information you'd like to share or anything?

I don't have new information but I'm happy to just quickly introduce it if that's okay. So what you're voting on tonight is the resolution to pick up the employee portion of the contribution for our tier 2 police and fire employees. Currently the city pays 4.73%. That would be the employee's responsibility if we had not picked that up. The Utah retirement system has increased that rate to 5.98%. So we are requesting that we pick up that 5.98% on their behalf. As a reminder, we are already paying 5% for fire and 5.58 for police. So it's really just an additional 1% for fire and an additional .4% for police.

Any questions? All right. This is a voting. Oh, go ahead. Oh, comment. Go ahead.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate you sharing that last little bit of what we're currently doing. I think that's really, really helpful. I guess I don't know if the right term is stacking, but just helping the public understand when we talk about compensation, there are so many pieces of it. So I appreciate you noting that. If we did not do this, this is something employees, you know, would have to pay. So as we think about COLA, we think about our sworn employees, like we think about all of the things we've been talking about. This is another layer of trying to take care of our employees and seeing the full breadth of what we're doing. So thank you for just saying this is, you know, in addition to. I appreciate it.

Anything else.

If we're ready I'll make a motion to adopt.

We do need to take public comment. We're not ready. Yeah. So I have no blue cards. If anyone would like to provide comment on this item just make your way up to the podium. And Dustin if you'll let the online participants know that they can raise their hand to do the same thing.

Of course. Thank you Madam Chair. Again, if you're joining us virtually and you'd like to comment on item number two on this evening's agenda, just go ahead and click the raise hand button on your screen and you'll have three minutes.

I don't see anyone do you. I'll close public comment on this item and very coincidentally I've had two council members who have signaled that they're ready to make a motion on this. Mr. DeKaiser why don't you go ahead.

Thank you Madam Chair. Motion to adopt Resolution 26-60C.

Second. Okay I have a motion and a second. Any discussion on that motion? I see nothing. Ready for a roll call vote.

Mr. DeKaiser. Yes. Ms. Christensen. Yes. Ms. D'Souza?

Yes.

Ms. Stroud?

Yes.

Ms. Nickel? Yes. Ms. Hausman?

Yes. Ms. Sharkey? Yes.

Madam Chair, that motion carried 7 to 0.

All right. Moving on to the next agenda item, that's item number three. This is Council Member Stroud making her second reading.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So we talked about this last week. There was a couple of questions that were brought up. One of them, if we looked at either the CPI, so the Consumer Price Index, or the Municipal Cost Index, or the Municipal Price Index, depending on the name of what it is, I don't have a strong Preference on which one to look at if the council does if that's gonna make somebody or you know make somebody feel more comfortable About you know voting for a yes on there. We could look at that. Mr. Kelly, you know as indicated I mean both of them You know, he would be fine with I think you know to keep in mind You know that this would be something that you would just want to maintain and continue using one or the other of them And this is primarily to add in just as an informational item. Another question that was brought up, how would this be helpful in the budget? And we hear department heads that stand up and will say, due to inflationary rates, this is why this line item, we are increasing it from last year to this year. And this would give us something to be able to look at and to have as a part of the budget, also for residents to be able to look at. and see that the city is doing each year, in the last 35 years, there's been three property tax increases. And each year, the city does an excellent job looking at where we can find more efficiencies, if there's any redundancies, if there are any areas that we can try to save money, even though inflationary rate may be going up. But we're looking at this. We're providing it. It's being provided to the council. It's being provided for a longevity historical document and for residents to look at. Any other questions or concerns?

Ms. Nichol. What is the main difference between the two?

So we have the CPI. So one benefit of the CPI is to be able to look at it and say, this is something that residents are more familiar with. The municipal cost or the price index, that is usually taking out. So the CPI could be used for groceries and more of household items, versus the municipal cost index is often more looking at oil and gas and tires and vehicles. That's kind of the difference between the two. The primary target for the CPI is the individual household versus local cities and county governments. more applicable to Sandy, we could use both of them, have them both in there, you know, of looking at that. Once again, the CPI is just something I think is more familiar to people.

The category, the municipal versus the other one, I can't remember the name of it, you just said it, the residential?

Just CPI, Consumer Price Index.

Yeah, but the two that we're looking at, which one we're trying to calculate from,

So either just using CPI, which is familiarity, comfort, and understanding, versus the municipal cost index or municipal price index. OK.

Isn't one higher?

So often the municipal price index or the municipal cost index is a little bit higher.

So using the other one could be better. It's a little more conservative. Or realistic to the way that we're using it. Yes.

And if somebody was to Google it, they may find kind of a discrepancy in that. And if we use the other one, then just an explanation of what it is, why it was used. Maybe we could have both of them in there if that is more comfortable.

I'm comfortable with the one you proposed. I mean, you explained to me like that.

Ms. Hausman.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for looking into the municipal index. I still prefer that one simply because if we're looking at the cost of our ability to do business, it makes sense to look at the inflation of the very things that we are paying for, but I'm not going to have heartburn over it. I just appreciate you looking into it. It feels like that's more apples to apples, but it's not something I'm going to, you know, sleepover. But the one thing I have been thinking about since we were last together and discussed this, regardless of the index we use, is there any time where you would see if this analysis were conducted, it would not kick back a recommendation to increase taxes? It would not say no additional revenue is warranted? Or do you... Do you predict that by definition of the index and what it is supposed to analyze, it will always kick back and say, you need some more revenue because you've seen by this index you were looking at, things are costing more.

My hope with this is it's not to come with a recommendation. It's just included with the budget to say, hey, this is what inflationary cost was over the previous 12 months. And so it wouldn't come up with a recommendation. That would come from either a mayor's tentative budget or a council deciding to then pursue some sort of tax increase. But this would not be bringing any sort of recommendation forward. It's just additional information to be included with the budget.

I think for me, I would almost need some type of a if-then statement, some type of a qualifier. And I took a stab at it, so I'm just going to kind of read what I've got here. I wonder if we could say, thinking, sorry, I'm looking for my notes here. It feels a bit like, one directional, so I'm taking a stab at what it could look like just to address what I'm feeling like. It feels like we're sort of, even though you're saying it's information, I don't want to repeat myself. So what if, what if the ordinance were to ask the analysis to present the gap of net new growth and state that maintaining current service levels is only one policy option, not the recommendation or something to that effect. Like we are We are providing the information, but there could obviously be many more decisions that are made, many more options that the analysis is just one piece of what is being factored in, in terms of if the index were to show we do not have as much purchasing power, which I predict it always will. It will always show we don't have as much purchasing power. I just don't want it to feel like, well, then the default is we have to raise taxes. I know you're saying it's information, but what could it look like to say to residents, and though because of this analysis, we are seeing less purchasing power, You sort of have said it could be there, but I haven't seen in the ordinance an example of what that would be. You've said, oh, we could certainly include, and here's all the places we've cut, and here's where we are finding efficiencies so that we're not having to do a property tax increase. I sort of need to be, part of what we're adopting here is the analysis will likely reveal that we have less purchasing power and side by side with that analysis are all of the many steps that we will take before a property tax increase is considered. For example, something language around that it would, would help me feel like we're not adopting something that language is thrown into the budget and it starts to just, even though that's not your intent, it starts to feel like we are, We are simply saying property tax increases is inevitable. That's sort of what this still feels like to me.

And I mean, it really, there is no intent of saying this is what it is and this is why a property tax increase is inevitable or is going to happen. in this, what I was looking for, I'm not looking for a recommendation to do a property tax increase. And so I think having some of that language of saying, oh, and to even bring that up is almost, it's like it's trying to take this down that road and trying to, and I don't want to say force the issue, but it's maybe to encourage that. It is primarily to say, residents, we are doing more with your tax dollars. We are aware of inflationary issues. Here it is for you to look at as well and to not be trying to lead an administration or a council down a path to look at increasing property taxes. We've got this thick, a couple hundred pages of information, and this is just adding a piece in there of saying, this is what it is at this snapshot at this time period, and not trying to push a council or anybody thinking that this is the direction that you should be headed. And I get a little... And I understand what you're saying, but I would prefer in the document that we receive, unless there's a property tax suggestion coming from the mayor that would be presenting it, is that we're not reading about that anywhere in the budget book. That it is just, here is a piece of information. That's purely what it is. What a council opts to do with that at that point is up to them. But to say, it's not to do this, it's not to do that, that almost puts that idea out there that that is what the purpose of this is. And I'm trying to stay away from that as a purpose. This is just informational item.

I'm just sharing my perspective on this, that it Even if it isn't your intent, it is causing me a little bit of – I'm a bit of a quandary. I'm not feeling like it will be interpreted in the way that you are saying. And we can disagree. I'm just giving feedback as to why. I appreciate you looking into the municipal. I just don't know that this will – actually do what you're hoping to accomplish. I'm concerned that it sends a signal that you're vocalizing that is not your intent. And I agree. And I just have this worry that it could potentially spark something that we're not actually hoping. We don't want it to spark, but it could. So I'm still uncomfortable with it. I mean, there's seven. I'm one of seven.

Ms. Christensen. I'm still fine with the CPI. I think it's great. I kind of think of it like the salary survey. Just because we get a salary survey that says we're 6% behind in all of our non-sworn people like we did this year, doesn't mean we have to do a tax increase. It's just information to know where we're at. So I don't know. That's kind of how I look at it.

Mr. Sousa. Thank you. So I don't know that my questions and my thoughts have changed too much from the last time this was presented. I was trying to understand, kind of maybe like others, how this information is helpful. How do you anticipate it being used, even by yourself? I do feel like Information without context isn't necessarily helpful. And I think that there probably should be some context as to why it's included or what it's intended to show. I had asked for trying to understand what we were voting for. I have become aware of as a council member is we write all of this legalese in ordinance, and then the application of it is maybe a little bit different than we had thought when we were looking at all of the legal language in the ordinance. Because this is an ordinance, more than just like a simple request, I guess I may be personally scrutinizing it a little more heavily. But I was hoping that I could get some past, I don't even know what this budget year is. It would be helpful for me if I could we had received some information even as it pertains to this budget. This is what I'm presenting. If we were to have applied it in this current budget, this is what it would look like. That would be really helpful for me to understand the intent behind the ordinance and the legal language that was given. So I agree. Transparency is super important. I love information. lifelong learner here. But at the same time, like I said, I don't feel like information without any context or application is useful. I think it actually could potentially be more harmful because it creates confusion potentially. Because it's not already in this budget, I feel like this ordinance came back really rushed, and I had asked for some things, and I hadn't gotten it, and we hadn't talked since then. And so I don't feel any different than I did last time. I want to understand and I want to support, but I don't feel like I have the information now to be able to do that.

And I could say, I've been working on this for a while. And there were some people that were out of town. And it was just because the goal was to try to get it into this, get it hopefully heard and approved before this budget came out. And it just didn't. I think Mr. Fratto can attest to that, that we tried and just didn't, things just didn't line up. But to answer how would it be helpful, I think you kind of asked your own question there as well. I'm not sure what even this year is with the inflationary rate. Well, if it was in the budget, we could look at it. That's not what I was asking. Oh, well, I thought you said I didn't even know what this year was. But if it was in the budget, then we could say, oh, the inflationary rate was this. And we've had department heads stand up here and say, well, this is going up due to inflation. And that's, OK, well, what was the inflation? It went up by $10,000, or whatever that item was. Do those match up? That's, well, inflation was 2.8%. Inflation was 2.1%. It was 3.6%, or whatever it was, is to be able to look at that and say, OK, but you're now asking for $9,000 more. And you're saying that this is due to inflation. Can you explain that? Or, OK, you're only asking for $1,000 more. You've made some cuts in some other areas. But to have that in there of saying, this is what it is, and when a department head then says, due to inflation, that's why this line item increased, is to have that.

So I think one of the things that, again, as a council member and looking at budgets over the last four or five years now that I think makes this even more difficult is the idea that you want to show something as a percentage, the CPI, but we don't have percentages represented in our budget like we would the CPI. It's great that it's $9,000 more, but in terms of a percentage, what does that equate to? And how does that bump up against this CPI? I also, I guess, have the same thoughts of, what? I know I get into the weeds a little bit. That's just me and the way that my brain works. But in thinking about, again, how is this going to be useful, if we're looking at CPI in terms of groceries, kind of the council member or houseman's point, I don't know that that's useful. It's not apples to apples. It doesn't translate in the same way. And so it's information, but it's not information that I think is as good as maybe other information. And so I would like to look at providing information and making the budget more useful for both the public and for us. I just don't know that I feel like it does with the information that I have. And so because this budget's already passed, Enacting this can't go until next budget it it would be really nice to maybe get an example Like like I had asked for last time of like maybe how it can be how it would be applied Because like I said, I do want to support it I just feel like I'm really blind with this and I I know it's like a simple thing, but I take the responsibility of You know ordinances and providing information to the public really seriously. I And that's an example which is, it's math.

I mean, you know, and I know in my budget book I can look and I will actually take from last year to this year and I'll do a percentage. I mean, that's, and I have to do the math to it because it's not provided in that aspect. It's just provided.

I can also do a Google search and do a CPI, but you want to provide it. And so I guess that's, I feel like my concerns are being dismissed and I don't know that that's your intent, but it feels...

It feels a little dismissive and that's and I think the way that the budget is laid out It's not laid out from you know last year. We have the actual you know We have what was budgeted we have the actual and then we have this year of what the request is They don't have a percentage on every line item of what it's going up or what it's going down It would be great to include that and make that a requirement personally and that I mean I We could do that. That's separate from this. But that could be a request of... And so the items, when I hear this, and I hear a department head say due to inflationary costs, that's, I mean, oh, well, let me do the math then real quick. Let me do a little bit of division and figure it out. But that way it is provided. That's the number that we're looking at for the previous 12 months. It's in the document. It's there for historical context. And that's... it wouldn't be for every single item because a department head doesn't stand up here and say, well, every single one of my budget, my line items have gone up due to inflation. You know, we haven't had that. There are some that they say do and some that they go up for other reasons that, you know, if it's software that just the licensing has gone up or, or sometimes they decrease in certain areas. So it primarily, and that's where it was hard to look at because I'm going, well, you know it's when a department head stands up and says this item you know due to inflationary costs so let me go back let me look at it and then I can compare and yes it would be doing math and that was probably be something else what you were asking for is something that they would need to add another column in you know into the budget book you know or certain items but that's I mean for me once again I'm running the math on it fairly often you know trying to see Well, how much more? What's the percentage this year that they're asking for more in this area or the decrease? One of the two. Okay.

Well, and, you know, I get that. And so I'll go ahead and move on. I wish that I could get some more information to help me really understand what that would look like so that I could be in a place of support. Thank you.

So I'm in exactly the same place I was last time we brought this up. We do get a presentation on CPI. We do know that. It comes every budget. If what you're wanting is math that says, because of inflation, we lost a million dollars in purchasing power this year, it just— I don't know how it could be for the purpose of anything else than justifying a tax increase but it won't for me. So I. But I do I do worry about that that is the appearance that it gives. I don't know, I have a hard time caring too much about this. It's just, I'll support it, but I do worry about the appearance it gives. I don't know what value it has. It has very little to me. Apparently it has a lot to you. I think we could ask this question without making it an ordinance. I'm a little worried that making it an ordinance gives it a heightened level of seriousness that maybe is not important or it doesn't deserve. I don't know why we couldn't just ask for it and get it. But anyway you've chosen this route. Those are all my comments. That's it. Any other comments on this. Any other. This is a voting item. So our policy says we take public comment on it. I don't have any blue cards on this item. If anyone would like to feel free to make your way up to the podium and what we'll ask is that you fill out a blue card afterwards. Would you do that for us. We'll need that for the minutes.

You have three minutes to make your comments. My name is Laurie Wilson. I'm a retired professor of communications from BYU. My specialty is public relations. I understand entirely what you're trying to do. You're trying to make things transparent. And I understand that when they come and say, we need 9,000 more because of inflation, then your question is, How much is that actually inflation? And how much is it that you're just asking for more? I think the transparency is critically important. It's important to you as a council. It's important to me as a citizen. But I think there's some confusion here because there's a difference between the ordinance that is requiring in the budget to show. And I agree, it should be the municipal because you're not transparent if you're using the CPI. And you can explain to people what the difference is between the municipal and CPI. But there's a difference between the ordinance and how you present the analysis. you're trying to communicate the analysis and if you communicate the analysis in such a way that you that you say this is how much inflation is and you allow people to draw their own conclusion that you're going to raise taxes because of that then that's what they're going to think but if you if you present the analysis and say these are our options and one of them is to raise taxes, then everybody's going to jump to that one. So in the analysis is where the problem is. The communication of the analysis needs to be, and I don't think you should put it in an ordinance, but communication of the analysis is this is how much inflation has affected our budget. And these are the things we propose we will do to counteract that. And that doesn't have to be a tax increase. Thanks.

Thank you. Lori, don't forget to fill out one of those cards for us, please. Thank you. Pat Jones.

I'm so grateful I have an opportunity to come and make a comment. I thought I won. I really did, I thought. Because I did not see a public hearing described there. Anyway, I was telling my friend, this should not be in the ordinance. And I'm surprised that for the third time, I mean, you council member beat me to it. It should not be in the ordinance. This analysis can be produced every year when the council asks for it. It can be requested when it's in a criminal situation, crime. We are innocent until we are proven guilty. For an ordinance, a regulation, it's the opposite. It's a crime if we speak up against it or do anything against it. Well, it's not a crime, but you know what I'm saying. It's more difficult for the residents to voice their opinion because it is a justification right there. Inflation goes up almost every year. We know that. almost every year, and cost of items, products and everything, it goes up, after it went up, it doesn't go down, rarely does it go down again. The manufacturers will stay right there most of the time. That's the reality that we live in. And so why should it be in the ordinance? That's all I have to say. You council members can get this analysis every year. You can ask for it every year. Thank you.

Thank you. I have no more speakers on this item. Dustin, can you invite our online participants?

Of course thank you Madam Chair. If you're joining us virtually this evening and you'd like to comment on item number three on tonight's agenda just go ahead and click the raise hand button on your screen. Call your name in the order in which you raised your hand and you'll have three minutes to comment. Not seeing any raised hands, Madam Chair. All right.

We'll close public comment on this voting item and bring it back to the council.

Madam Chair, I have a question.

Sure.

So thank you to the two commenters on this. What seems like a relatively easy thing, it's obvious in our constituents' mind it's something different. So I have to ask the question, why did you choose to put this in ordinance rather than just ask for the report?

So last year, we asked for it and got it. Mr. Kelly was great to present it. A lot of this, I think, you look back historically. So to have it with a comprehensive budget document to be able to see, what was inflation five years ago? What was it 10 years ago? What was it 50 years ago? And it would be included so you don't have to look for another going online, trying to find another agendized item. that talks about it, or another presentation. It's just included with the budget document itself. And putting it in ordinance, so I've spoken with administration, and administration didn't have concerns with this, and was amicable and said, no, this actually, it does show residents that we are making cuts in other areas, spoke of it favorably, but that doesn't mean that the next administration would do the same. So to have this in ordinance where it's saying this needs to be presented in a comprehensive document that is given to a council, the council, each year, and then it's there historically as well. So to make sure that it does happen each year and to be tied with the document so that it is there and it's all together.

So my thoughts are possibly, and I'm not making this motion to table the item, to see what one of the reports would look like to give residents a better idea of what the report will look like and the information it contains. And maybe slow this down a little bit and explore how this is affecting us and the residents so we can actually see the report. Because I've never seen a report like this either. So that's just an idea.

And I appreciate it. I think we go ahead, we take it, and then we request it. And that's a good idea, is to request what it looks like. But then we can also, I mean, if we are unhappy with it, it does give us time to say, let's go back to the ordinance, and then we can adjust the ordinance if necessary. But that way, it is making that request to administration. Let's produce this. Let's figure it out. Let's look at it. And it gives us time between now and next year to look at it as well.

It's kind of to your point. Having it in ordinance is really the only way that we know we're going to get it, right? We can request things multiple times. We request things, and we don't get it from administration. So I see your point in wanting to also put it in ordinance form. So I see it both ways.

So I think we have a few council members who have voiced a request and are you saying no to first coming back with another second reading to show what a report would look like and gain the support that you're looking for that way? What do you think about that?

I'm thinking that we take a vote on it, and then we request it. And if we don't like what it looks like, then we can add to it and change from then. I mean, that way it may, I mean, to see what they're coming up with, and then modify the ordinance from there. But they have to go by, then they're looking at this, this is the outline to it, saying, here, let's do this, and then we can change it. change it if necessary after we see it, but let's get it in so that they have a clear request of what the expectation is at this point, and then make those changes later if we're not liking it. Does that work?

Do you want me to make a motion, or do you want to do it?

Well, I'm asking Ms. Nichol.

Just with my thought of tabling it, It continues it to a point to get other people more comfortable with it, to see what it would look like, the way it integrates with the budget, the way we would all interpret using that information. Before we pass tonight, I think that would change my mind on why I initially thought I was going to come and vote yes for it because of the public's input. I would have to change my vote to a no on it. simply because I think it garners more thought and more explanation.

And I think that would probably be a request. I'm not sure if the mayor is still online, if she's willing to work with this, because this would just be a request and it doesn't have to, you know, versus in an ordinance, then it does require them to do it. And I'm not sure if she's still available online.

What I'm hearing is I am here if you'd like to hear. Hold on just a second. What I'm hearing from council members is a request of you to put to get this a sample report together now and attach it to a second reading so they get a better understanding. It sounds to me like

Yeah, and that's and but I'm not the money man, you know, mr. Kelly So I I would be looking because he's the one that puts together the budget and so I would be looking for For something that he would be putting together to make sure you know if he's going to be doing this in the future You know, so I'd be requesting that of him. So that's where I think you know that that the mayor would need to allow me to make that request of him. So if Mayor, if she's willing to let us do that.

Another way to look at that is have staff propose a document as well and then go to administration and see if that is something that they can work with, the framework they can work with. So I mean, I don't know that, I understand your concern and thought about Brian's time and I appreciate that. But we could put together our framework of what it would look like and then work with administration as well or any other way. I think that sample is critical.

I'm thinking my vote is along those lines, too. If we have council members who are not unreasonably asking for just a little bit more information to get a comfort level here. I'm feeling supportive of that point of view too. And also taking into consideration the public comments that I think were germane to this conversation as well.

And that works. And I think, you know, once again, it's just asking, I mean, to make sure, you know, Madam Mayor, if that's okay, if I work with Mr. Kelly, with council staff, they're busy right now as well, you know, of coming up with stuff. So, you know, Madam Mayor, is that okay if I can work with Mr. Kelly to try to bring something back?

Sure. We're here to serve it. We've discussed this, and I think it does promote transparency. It's data. It's not policy. So how the council chooses the data points like interest rates, inflation rates, CPI, construction costs, all of that changes every year with every budget. So we are happy to provide that to the council for you to use as you see fit.

Thank you, Mayor.

Yes.

I thought I heard somebody else. No that's fine. We can work on getting that. OK. You know hopefully in the next week or so.

OK. So we'll bring it back for another second reading.

Do you need a motion on that or is it a table or continuation. What do you need or just not vote on it.

You can make a motion to table it or you can just not take action. Not taking action is fine.

To continue it would be we've already closed the public comment on it though right.

It'll come back for another second reading on the calendar, so we will take another public comment. Okay.

All right. Cool. Okay. Thank you.

All right. Giving these guys a second to catch up there. All right. Moving on to agenda item number four. This is Councilmember Hausman with her second reading.

It's the night of second readings. Thank you, Madam Chair. Colleagues, before kind of open discussion on this, I just want to anchor us in what the ordinance is, why it matters. We spent a lot of time talking about it, both here and in chambers, but also outside of this. So I really appreciate all the conversation. I kind of want to just provide a summary of where this ordinance stands. So as we know, Chapter 4-8 is, at its core, about institutional parity. In the council mayor system, just like ours, both branches conduct official governmental communications, such as ordinances, public hearings, budget matters, constituent engagement, et cetera, are all legislative functions as much as executive functions. This ordinance ensures that the council has communications capacity comparable to what the mayor's office already has. That's the principle in everything we're building within this ordinance is sort of the structure that supports that principle. So since introducing this, the ordinance has absolutely become stronger and better. And I appreciate everyone's input on that. It's better because of the conversation. the back and forth, and the feedback, and even the pushback. All of it, I feel like, has made it better. In the packet, you noticed two versions of linings, edits. That was intentional, and I think I shared that with all of you. earlier but essentially one color reflects the adjustments that have been made in response to feedback that you as my colleagues have shared the other color represents the feedback received from administration and legal analysis etc so hopefully you saw the evidence of a product that came out of true collaboration feedback even even sharpen and sharp questions and an effective pushback so hopefully that That helps even those who are following this conversation at home understand that. I want to just acknowledge that, in particular, the administration definitely pressed on where advice and consent appropriately belongs. Taking that question seriously is kind of what Actually brings us to two possible pathways tonight. I'll get to that in a moment But these questions that have been brought have received multiple rounds of legal review I just want to hopefully you've all had a chance to read the memo that mr. Cadell provided and earlier today. Thank you, Mr. Cadell, for that. So we've had a lot of legal analysis. I'm just going to summarize and then I'll ask Mr. Cadell, you know, tell me if I got something wrong. But essentially what he concludes is the ordinance provides institutional accountability, it provides transparency, and provides some coordination over official municipal communications while also preserving executive authority. That is really important to everyone. I understand that. So working hard to balance that. Mr. Cadell also indicated that on both legal and sound policy grounds, the ordinance as it stands is appropriate. So that's sort of my quick summary of what he shared. And so with that in mind, I'd like to ask that tonight in our conversation, we treat the legal questions as having already been examined. We've examined it, and I'd like tonight's conversation to be focused on the structure. which I think is the appropriate focus for tonight. So that's what I want to talk about tonight. It's clear through many conversations I have expressed that my interest, and I think it's a shared interest for several of us, is establishing appropriate advice and consent over this function, the function of this. Currently, it's described as a division. I'm going to bring up Mr. Cadell's other path in a moment. But that's what I'm trying to establish. I think it's important that there is appropriate advice and consent, because this director position, whether it ends up division, department, whatever, is affecting departments across the city. Large, widespread impact. So I think it's appropriate to have advice and consent. So the path, Mr. Cadell in his memo did introduce another path. It's not in the current. Version of the of the ordinance, but I felt like it was appropriate to sort of bring that forward The path was you know, of course the ordinance currently is focused on division level But as I mentioned to all of you when we were first debating over this Mr. Fratto and I We really wrestled. It was, is this division? Is this department? And where I landed was division because that provides far greater flexibility to administration. So I just, again, want to reiterate that, that I carefully weighed and I thought, let's go with division because it allows for that flexibility. In some additional analysis sense, there's obviously department is an option and that was a pathway Mr. Cadell presented. With that option comes some additional complexity and increased cost, but it's a path. It's a path. And with department being a path, advice and consent comes with it automatically. I really, excuse me, I really don't have, I mean, obviously initially I had a preference. My preference was division to try to allow administration to have as much flexibility as possible. But we have, I have heard from several that advice and consent seems to be the thing that is is is raising questions and so you know departments on the table too i'm willing i don't have a stake which path i just wanted to at least stay tonight in our conversation um that is also a possible path and and please give me feedback on if that's if that's what you would Um, prefer. So, um, I don't, I wouldn't say if, if our conversation tonight takes us in the direction of the right path, being the department, I'm not, I'm not sure that it is appropriate to just adopt the department tonight that might warrant further conversation. But I am looking for direction as to, I want to propose the ordinance the way it stands. I think it is sound. I think it is well-researched. I think it provides the flexibility so administration can do what, you know, the division can go wherever administration wants and it doesn't increase costs the way department level would. But I do believe that it is appropriate of advice and consent. So we have a couple of pathways. I really want to hear from the group what your thoughts are. I do intend to consider the ordinance as is, and I'm open to discussing a path that takes us to the department instead of the division approach as well. So that's kind of where I am. I could land either way. However, I do think advice and consent is critical. So that is where I am.

Ms. Nichol.

So I'll share my input first on the division or department. I believe division is the correct way to go on this one, simply because of the unknown costs and, well, not simply because of that, but because of the unknown cost in one. But I think that, you know, advice and consent is something very important. And this particular communication person has, or in communications, have been the cause of angst, I'm not going to lie, between administration and some council members. And I think it's critical. From day one when we started doing the budget workshops, we all identified trust was the number one issue that is holding this council back. And this is a way, I think, we build consensus. We have a say in people. that gives us ownership, right? We take an ownership in that. We inherently trust them. Otherwise, there's trust to be built, and that could be more detrimental. And particularly with this division department on this particular item, I really want to have a true trust going forward.

I will add my comments. I would prefer division as well because of the flexibility that you spoke about. I think that is giving deference to the role and keeping it under a department that is unchanged, basically. I think advice and consent. is an important aspect of this. I find the legal discussion that we've been having about advice and consent to really be a very interesting but more but a very very important one. I am I only remember this is my seventh year on the council. My tenth year with the city. I only remember one case where advice and consent has been denied. And by the way the council the council told that person beforehand that they and the person recommending them that they weren't going to get approved and gave them the opportunity to withdraw the nomination. Right. So I only know of one case in all of these years where it's been denied. So the issue of any kind of exposure or risk of someone being denied, I don't see that as the issue. I see the issue as one of being able to build consensus and build agreement, of working together, of collaboration, of cooperation. We get a chance as council members to interview candidates that are up for advice and consent. It gives us the opportunity to get to the same position that the mayor and the administration have in the interview process of coming to a conclusion that this person is a good candidate. It is helpful to the goal of a city that is collaborating, seeing things the same way, coming to understanding. So any place we can provide advice and consent, I believe it's helpful all the way around, especially to the candidates who are being interviewed. They get to understand who the legislative and budgetary body are. There are so many benefits to be gained through that process. If I understand this correctly, and please tell me if I'm wrong, we have two attorneys in this room who are on the city payroll who have come to the conclusion that advice and consent for this person, if this is structured as a division, is compliant with law. Is that correct? We have both Tracy and Lynn who have indicated that it is compliant with law. Is that correct?

Excuse me, that is my opinion.

Lynn, we have something in writing from you, I believe, that indicates the same.

Yeah, my legal opinion says that the statute is not explicit on either authorizing or prohibiting.

All right. So it appears to me that what happened was because we had two legal opinions of trusted sources within the city that said, yes, this can be done, that for some reason a decision was made to go outside at taxpayer expense to get another opinion. I wonder how many times we would have done that before we got the contrary opinion that we got. But anyway, I am comfortable following the guidance of the attorneys that we have. And so I would support setting up a division. And I do also believe that advice and consent is an important a beneficial, a natural consequence of filling this position.

Ms. D'Souza. Thank you, Madam Chair. Similar to last time, my comments and opinion on this hasn't Changed I I overall see this as the council exercising its oversight Authority I Just in looking at the budget alone the communications division is eight hundred and thirty seven thousand dollars You know, it's a significant sum of money just for that one cost center. And so, you know to me it's not I anyway, it's not budget dust as has been mentioned in the past. Right. And so, um, to me that, that signifies the level of importance that we, uh, as a city are giving, given this particular department, I do think division, I do think it's a very important component to what we do. Um, I overall support the policy and. I don't have a problem with what's been proposed under it being a division. I asked you the question after the first time, why did you propose it as a division instead of a department if the pushback is because of advice and consent being a division and not a department? And so I respect the deference that you attempted to show, and I support that overall. But at the same time, I personally could go either way. If that does seem to be the biggest concern for council members and some would feel better if it were more distinct in department versus division, I am flexible that way. But overall, I feel like this is good policy. I appreciate the work that you've done, not only with the council, but with the administration. And those are my comments. Thank you.

Mr. DeKaiser.

Thank you. Well I really appreciate all the time you've put into this. For me just like I texted you however many weeks ago. The issue is is what problem are we trying to solve. And I haven't really seen like a communications failure that I think rises to the occasion to warrant this level of oversight and reporting requirements, things like that. And two, I don't know if it got resolved in that meeting and maybe you have an answer to this, but we're already working on communications capacity at the council office. So to me, I just don't see a need. And I am really cautious about treading more and more onto the executive side. I think one thing that was interesting in the legal memos is they all kind of identified as the baseline where city council or mayor council form of government and the separation of powers is super essential. And so to me, this is just kind of a creep in that direction with more oversight, more reporting requirements, requirements for press releases, things like that. And I think fundamentally, the I thought the analysis from all attorneys was great, but I most aligned with the outside one in terms of the intent of the legislature. And for me, that's because there's a limiting principle. And that is that statute says these are the positions that have advice and consent. I just don't know where it would stop. Today, it's the communications director. Tomorrow, it's another division director. And so I just don't know where that would end up going. And that would just be at our discretion. And so to me, I align mostly with that outside legal opinion, interestingly. Not that the others are bad, just as I look at it and what the legislature probably intended, they were aware of divisions in bureaus and they didn't put those in for advice and consent. So that's where I'm at. Thank you.

Ms. Stroup? Either way.

And that's, you know, I appreciate the amount of work that you've done with this as well and kind of gone back and forth. You know, there's been a lot of changes. You know, I get back, you know, with Mr. DeKeyser, you know, that last little part of where, you know, it's that sticking point for me. You know, we've got... 30-ish other kind of number two or division level employees. And I view all of them as equally important. Not all of them are as public facing, but their jobs are equally as important. And I just look going, OK, if we're going to do it, and I think I brought this up before, if we're going to do it for one, then Why wouldn't we be doing it for all of them? Instead of isolating, saying, well, this division level and this division, but that's it. So I am not seeing the need to make sure that we start including all division level employees in there. Um, you know, I, I, it's, you know, I think we're good with that department head level, um, and trust, you know, department heads to be able to select the people, you know, beneath them. That's, you know, like you look at, you know, chief McConaughey or, or chief Nyberg, I, I would definitely not feel comfortable, you know, interviewing and saying, oh, well, you know, I'm going to give you advice and consent, or I'm going to decline advice and consent, because I don't know about the fire service or police department. I have to trust them to be able to make those decisions. And at this level, it does fall under, whether that falls under the CAO or the mayor, but we have to have that level of trust that that person is able to find them at a division level instead of that department head. like everything else in here of what you've done. And I think that it is something that needed to be brought forward and needed to be clarified and added in there. But I'm not at that point where we need to be isolating which division level employees that we need to be providing advice and consent for.

MS. Ms. Christensen.

I'm a similar opinion, like I really like this. The part that gives me heartburn is advice and consent. And so I don't want to, it is a really important position and I understand the reasoning. I just don't want to add more than we need to unless we have some sort of process in place to streamline or adjust our advising consent process that would make a really clear way we do things to eliminate some of maybe the trepidation or nervousness that employees might feel having to go through this process. So that's where I'm at.

Thank you, Madam Chair. That's everyone, right? We heard from... Okay, so what I'm hearing, I heard three that are like prefer division. The three of you sounds like you prefer department. I still prefer division. You prefer division? Without advice and consent. OK, well, that's not on the table for me. Advice and consent, I feel strongly about. So you're fine with division, but you don't want advice and consent. That's not going to, I'm not changing that. So Councilman Stroud, Councilman DeKaiser, your preference is department because that comes with advice and consent. Councilman Stroud, you said you don't like the picking and choosing which division people are advice and consent or winch or not. So would you support then the path of department? Because then we're not debating. It's automatic decision.

I would like to see what that would look like I don't think creating a department where there's two people that are in it you know so that's and I think I think I sent this to you in a message is that you know to look and say you know if we're going to create a new department what all does that look like but you have a if you have a department head you know we have a couple of smaller departments within the city you know City Council office being one of them and then RDA and RDA is animal all by itself but you know what if you're going to create a new department what does that look like you know how many people you know because that's obviously we're dealing with budgetary items and looking at salary so what does it look like but I mean that's yeah I so I would be willing to explore what that looks like you know if we are creating a brand new department you know I am comfortable with it staying at division and I would not like to pursue because I just don't think, I don't like opening that door. But, you know, I mean, that's, I, it's always, it's information. You know, I mean, I, I have never shunned a council member for trying to find more information, you know, and to look into explore an option on, you know, in that direction.

So the reason I went with division was because of the very complexity that you just described. I wanted to defer to administration. They can decide where this division goes, but It's, I thought you were indicating that your hangup is advice and consent at the division level.

And it is. And it is. So I would be.

So you're a no regardless. Department won't get you to a yes.

No, I'm not saying no on a department. I'm saying that's, you know, I would be, if you want to do some research and bring that back of what the department itself would look like, if there's something to be able to combine it to make it more of a substantial department.

So to be honest, if I could interrupt, sorry. I think that actually steps into executive lane, which is what Mr. DeKaiser is just saying we need to avoid. I feel like what is in the ordinance, aside from, yes, the salary would be different because a department head is paid more than a division director. So, yes, there's financial, but responsibilities, all the reporting, everything that's in here, I would apply to the department. So, yes. Everything you're asking for, I feel like is up to the executive side to determine. I am very comfortable with what I've put in terms of whether it's a division who's providing this or a department that's providing it. I think there's real clarity around what it would look like. The clarity you're asking for would have, in my opinion, would have to come from administration because they're the ones that would need to establish what are we going to put. So that's why I am saying it's far more complex, and I would prefer division because of the flexibility it provides with administration. But I wanted to make sure we had time to explore that pathway because Mr. Cadell did bring it up. Mr. DeKaiser, so department, does that alleviate your concerns with advice and consent?

No. And as a council member, I'd be really, I think we should be really careful about, like to make it a department, I'd want to ask like budgetary questions, workforce questions, whether the department has risen to the size that it would need to be a department or the division be a department. But to me, like to create a mechanism for advice and consent making it a division. I don't think that follows like the organizational needs of this of the city. And that's what should determine whether or not it's a department instead of like the level of oversight that we want in terms of advice and consent. So.

So I respect that. The problem I'm trying to solve is The angst seems to be around advice and consent. So I was trying to solve that problem. The two of you, it sounds like, well, Mr. Bekaiser, it sounds like you're saying, no, that actually doesn't solve the problem for me, which is fine. That's honest. I think I'm ready to make a motion. I feel like department feels not actually like it's potentially solving the problem that is giving people heartburn. Oh, sorry. Never mind.

Mr. Sousa, go ahead. Thank you. I just wanted to ask a question. And I think I might already know, but I don't want to assume. I want to ask. There's a lot of conversation. I'm hearing it too. Initially, I kind of read it the same way. I'm hearing these additional comments. Is there... Is there a possibility that you might remove the advice and consent for division and continue to look at what a department looks like? So in passing what you have minus the advice and consent portion, but then continue to look at whether or not the department makes sense? I just wanted to ask.

I think it's a great question. I think it's an appropriate question. My answer is no. I feel like this ordinance in its current state reflects a whole lot of collaboration back and forth. But removing the advice and consent is changing the policy entirely. That is something I feel very strongly about what could end up happening is to Mr. Kaiser's point we operate as a division and then there is some perhaps groundwork laid for what actually makes sense for this to be a department so it could move in that direction but I'm not comfortable removing advice and consent but I think it's a great thank you for asking.

Madam chair may I make a comment please.

OK.

Thank you. This has been a this has been a big deal on both sides and there's been a lot of a lot of discussion back and forth. I appreciate greatly Councilmember Hausman taking our comments following up on them and talking with with Martin and then working with Dustin to make a number. You've made a number of changes. Those changes are all positive. You added some of the language that we suggested. We appreciate that. The issue on the advice and consent. Our mayor feels strongly about this issue. That's why she went out and got a second opinion. Well however a second opinion is the same as the type of opinion you get every week by Mr. Caddell who is on contract. That's a second opinion. So it's no different than that. Now I don't know where the mayor will go after you've taken the vote that you're going to take. It is an important issue for her. She does feel like that it does erode her executive authority. There are fears about when does it stop? Does it go to another division head? Every time we have a division head leave the city is the council going to add that to the ordinance? So I think it's fair to say that I, you know, I read all three opinions I read Tracy's opinion after the third opinion. Frankly I love them all. OK. I really do. I think I think this is this is an issue that you know it's obviously a gray area. There is no case law associated with this. I would hate I would hate this for this to go as far as that we end up creating case law for this. I appreciate Tracy's idea that you make it a department. The communications division or office currently has four individuals, four FTEs in it. It's already larger than the economic development department. So I don't have concerns about it becoming a department because it wouldn't be much different than what our economic development department is that has three FTEs in it. It does solve this conflict between the mayor and the council and allows us to move on. I don't know how Mayor Zlatansky would feel about that. She's online. If you allow her to comment on that, she could provide you some feedback on that. I actually really support the council's idea about creating upgrading your position and creating a communications director. That is very needed for the city council. And I think when you've done that I think you'll see it'll be easier to use the communications office division or department whatever it is. I think it'll make it easier for you to do that. And I think it's good that the mayor's office has a PIO. The city council has a PIO or communications director. Our police and fire have PIOs. That's all very helpful for our city because what do we want? We want to provide transparency to our citizens. And I think all of that accomplishes it. And I think if if we can get past this I think then we we keep moving forward and I think the communications coming from the mayor's office the council all the departments will be enhanced because of this. So I would encourage you to either consider the possibility of a department or reconsider making it advice and consent. Thank you for the time.

Thank you. All right. So you had asked whether you could make a motion. I'm going to remind you before you do that, you're entitled to do that. This is a voting item and we'll go to public comment. So would you like to make your motion before we take public comment or do you want to wait until after?

I can wait after. And Mr. Pace asked if it would be possible for the mayor to respond. I would just ask that it be kept within the conversation that I don't want to relitigate. I don't want to debate the legality of this. What I'm looking for is the same feedback I asked for from my colleagues, which is there's two possible pathways, division, department. I was curious to know interest in the department pathway. That's what I'm interested in hearing from the mayor. And Mr. Pace said she'd be willing to give her perspective on that specific thing.

I'm happy to have the mayor's input if she'd like to give it. She is online.

So thank you, council. Thank you, Councilmember Hausman, for your work on this. I think it's really important the purpose behind this is stated as communications parity and I fully support that. I think it's kind of untenable for one branch of government to be responsible for the communications of the other and then we've got core city functions that should not fall under politicized appointment process and advice and consent. So the way we've run the communications division is just that. So if now with the council having their own communications staff, mayor's always had a PIO, I think creating a department separate with advice and consent, that's a good solution. and kind of takes the constitutional test out of it, and we can resolve it and move forward. So like Mr. Pace said, that's what Mr. Cardell cited, that's a solution, but it does have a budget impact that the council will have to address. If you want it for this budget cycle, that's something that the council would have to grapple with. If you want to put something in motion for next year or reopen the budget, that's another way to address it. But I think that solves the separation of powers conflict, which... is really kind of at an impasse. And I think more communication is important. Our presidents are always hungry for more communications with communication. And it gives a kind of clear chain of command how staff matters are handled. And I'm really concerned about bleeding advice and consent and expanding advice and consent to the division level in the city. Thanks. Thank you.

Do you want to comment?

Ms. Christensen, go ahead. If that is the preference of the administration, then I'm game for department head. Department head.

Yeah, and then if I could just want to clarify that the council maintains their communication staff, the mayor's office has the PIO, communications staff, and then this creates a new department that's directed by a department director that receives advice and consent. That's workable.

If the administration's okay with it, then a department head's solution is okay with it, just so you know.

Madam Chair, if I could hear, does that... I'd love to hear reactions from everyone before we take public comment.

Oh, I'll go. I am still leaning towards division because we are right in the middle of a budget. Also, there's debate whether it's a good time to do it or a bad time to do it. There are some other budget considerations that are being talked about within council members. And I think that division, keeping it division at this point, is still the best way to go on this.

I don't see it as the impasse that the mayor has characterized it as. I do believe we have a solid legal opinion on the question about advice and consent for a division. However, I mean, I'm just giving you my point of view. If what it takes to bring council members around to support is making it a department, then I would support that as well.

I said I was fine either way, so that's still the case.

I'd love to hear from Councilman Stroud, Councilman DeKaiser.

Well again I have pause like I want to understand more about why we would make the communications department department I understand the FTE you know they have four of them so that would be justified. But I don't know anything about the increased cost of that or what that would look like. And so again if the reason to do it is advice and consent I just don't think that's a good reason to make a division a department. And yeah, I would want to know if there is a fiscal impact, what other impacts there are. I just don't know what that would entail.

Same as what I said before. I'm more than happy to look at what that looks like and always encouraged to have more information. Same comment as before. Looking at it in that direction, I don't like the division level advice and consent, but more than happy to see what that looks like as a department head.

You know, I'll just wait for public comment. All right.

I don't have any blue cards on this issue. If any commenters in the room would like to, if anyone in the room would like to comment on this, they can make their way up to the podium. And Dustin, will you invite the online participants?

Of course. Thank you, Madam Chair. Again, if you're joining us remotely via Zoom this evening, and you'd like to comment on item number four on this evening's agenda, go ahead and click the raise hand button on your screen. I'll call your name in the order in which you raised your hand, and you'll have three minutes. Not seeing any hands raised, Madam Chair.

All right. We'll close public comment on that item and bring it back to the council. Ms. Hausman.

Thank you. This has been a really good conversation. My question is for Mr. Cadell and Mr. Freddo. So in looking at the current language, it says, an ordinance amending chapter 4-4 and adding chapter 4-8 of the Sandy City Municipal Code codifying the division of communications. With tonight's conversation and the path of department emerging, Would the language just simply change and say codifying the Department of Communications and defining the functions and duties of the department? And again, those edits would flow through the document. Do you see this needing? Obviously, there's the budget question. I understand that. But in order to pass the ordinance, do we have to have all of the other questions answered, or is it Is the goal accomplished of creating the department, which this policy is about, is that accomplished by just some tweaking here?

I'm happy to provide my opinion. Madam Chair, may I have the floor? Yes. So departments are not defined within their own sections within Title IV. There's a section where each department is listed out and its functions and duties are outlined. And so it would be out of the norm to add this new chapter that's defining the functions and duties of a department. It would be out of alignment with the code. And so if the council decides to go the department route, my recommendation is that you table it so that we can readjust that. That would be my recommendation. If Mr. Goodell has a different opinion, I'd love to hear it. In terms of the financial part of it, I don't view that part as overly difficult. I think that the only, if we were an apples to apples tradeover of the current communications team into being a department, there'd be some increased salary costs. for the director, assistant director. I can't think of any other additional costs unless there's new programs or something like that that you want to add in. But if it's an across the aisle change, then those would be the financial costs, the changes.

Thank you, Councilmember Hausman, for asking my input on it. It's been a really interesting project. This is what I agree with Dustin. I think that you've done the work on the policy. But I think in terms of the presentation of the same, I think we could present the same material, but it would have to be, we'd have to go back and look at it and make sure it's in alignment with the way that departments are created within the city. Your question is a good one. It is, can we resolve this this evening? My answer to that, if you want us to explore or even bring back the policy in a department form, I would recommend that you don't do that without us going back. And I don't think that any of the content would be that much different, but the way that it's presented in the code is significantly different. And we'd want to go back and renumber it and put it in the right section and give you our best work, which I think we could do rather quickly. Um, as you know, I normally don't weigh in on policy considerations because that's your decision. It certainly isn't ours. We're just here to try to staff and help you accomplish your goals. But it's really interesting. A conversation I had with Shane about this, when we were starting to work on it, he told me about how things were, uh, when he was here the first time that there was a person who had communications responsibilities in the mayor's office. And that's how it was when he was here the first time. And the world is way different now. And for me personally, I see the communications staff as just as important, if not more important, than the other departments, personally. I think that there's the inner city communication, the intercommunication, the intercommunication outside of the city. I think there's so many moving parts. I love the idea of having a policy concerning communications. I personally also think a department is sends a stronger message about how important this is. Now, that's just me. I obviously are the policymakers, and you'll decide. And we're happy to do whatever you think is best. My opinion is that as is, it holds up. Now, we don't know. Maybe the mayor doesn't think so, and she can exercise her discretion and veto this ordinance. And then where would that leave us? Let's just have this conversation. Where would that leave us? Then it comes back to you at the next meeting. You'd have to consider it. And you essentially have to have a super majority to override that veto. If you're working towards a consensus, a department Sounds like it brings you closer there. So anyway, that's my sense of it. It does resolve one other thing to mention. I have a tremendous amount of respect for Lynn and his opinion on this issue, on all legal issues. And he and I do agree. Mr. Hall does raise a legitimate argument. I'm not saying he's wrong. And I have a lot of respect for him. But I have a different opinion. moving it to a department removes that from the equation completely. Now, I think you can do it without with the division. I do. I really believe that. I wouldn't tell you that. And I really don't have any qualms about it. But if you want to remove that issue, the department matter settles it. And we've heard the mayor on the record say that, essentially say that she wouldn't veto that as well. So that's something that you should probably consider.

May I make one additional comment? So the section where we've defined departments is within 4-4. And obviously, we've noticed 4-4 on our agenda as the section being amended. So I mean, I had an idea in terms of how we might incorporate it tonight. If you would like me to do to have that discussion I would ask that we take like a five minute recess so that I could pow wow with Tracy and Lynn and just see if it's a possibility or not because I just want to give you that kind of do that due diligence before I say no it needs to be tabled. So that would be my request if you're.

I'm agreeable to a recess to do that if you'd like to.

Say one more thing so that it comes into play when they recess. Thank You madam chair Before you powwow wait, I have more I want to drop in I like that. We're already thinking about Thank you. Thank you for the brainstorming. I love thinking outside the box. Another thought I had as Mr. Cadell was talking is, and it was triggered by something Councilwoman Nichols said, which is timing. I am trying to be sensitive because I did want this to happen within this budget cycle. But a thought I had is the language of the ordinance, advice and consent doesn't even come into play until we're talking about a new person. So we're already talking down the road as is. This is not applying. Advice and consent will not apply to anyone in a current position. So we're already talking down the road. There's a future, whether it's a division director that we land on or department head. So again, just to make sure everyone understands, We're already talking about down the road advice and consent. So that's why I'm wondering.

Can I interrupt? Yeah. So if you make it a department, statutorily department heads receive advice and consent. And so the position is going to be going to need advice and consent. It is retroactive then. Well.

It's whoever is in, because we're putting, we're moving someone from their current position. There is not currently a department.

There's not a communications director right now. So that person. Right, because you're creating a department. Yeah. Because it'll be a new position. You don't have the department.

Part of why I stayed at the division level, guys, was to, I wanted to allow flexibility, and I wanted to not affect people in current positions. I didn't want to cause anxiety and have someone have to go through advice and consent. I was forecasting down the road for a new person. Oh, this complicates things.

Madam Chair, can I ask Mr. Pace a question?

Does he?

Can I ask Mr. Pace a question? Is there currently a communications division director?

Currently there's not. Currently what we had proposed in the budget was taking half of the current PIO position and putting it over into communications. and trying to combine those two positions. We don't believe that's in the best interest of anybody now because of the full time position you're trying to create that that should that that should that positions should stay a full time PIO position in the mayor's office and that a new person be hired for the communications director.

So what's going to happen, whether it's division or department, that will be a, quote, new position, new person, advice and consent.

Correct.

Okay. Thank you for that. I like the idea of an intermission.

Can I ask a question? I mean, intermission, fine, but like. Is next week too late? I mean, there's five people that are willing to do this. Is next week, waiting until next week, a bad idea? Because then we'll also have more budget, not that it's going to change anything, but we'll have more information and budgetary information. Fine, either way, I'm just checking.

I just want to hear, like, I want to... Yeah I want to break and let them deliberate but I do think it needs to happen this budget.

Can I give us perspective on that question as well. Madam Chair is that OK. We are running up against a wall in terms of amending the budget. And if we're going to make this change it would be much the sooner the better. So if we can make it happen tonight that would be my preference just for that reason.

I see it that way too. Hey by the way I don't know like we have We have had current employees that have been subject to advice and consent when they were promoted into another role. So I don't know that this is anything to cause anxiety or concerns. Anyway, I just wanted to add that. It's almost 8 o'clock. It seems like a good time for a short recess anyway. Let's try to keep it as short as possible if we can. Thank you. Recording stopped.

Recording in progress.

All right. Welcome back, everyone. We're ready to resume the city council meeting. Ms. Hausman, we're still on your item.

What would you like to do? Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to make a motion. All right. I move to amend chapter 4-4 of the city code to create a new department of communications as substantially set forth in the text included in the city council packet with minor wording and formatting revisions as needed to implement this motion. Second.

Okay, are we going to specify those changes or this is adequate?

I'm happy to. So essentially, as I wondered, it really is just very minor changes to the language that is already set in here for divisions. We're basically just changing it to be under 4-4 now instead of 4-8. It's now department. And this will all be sent out before a signature is gathered. But so we're just changing division to department. Everything else is the same except striking at the very end. The director of communications is no longer that whole advice and consent thing is no longer needed because it's now a department. Is that correct.

Yeah. Yeah. Madam chair you are. I'm sorry council member Houseman you got it correct. So we'll strike the advice and consent section at the bottom. We'll change the title so that it fits within chapter 4 dash 4 dash 5 of our municipal code which is where we've defined the functions and duties of our existing departments. The language will not change. There may be some changes in the numbering because the numbering within that chapter is a little bit different. But that's really it. The only substantive change is just that striking of the advice and consent at the end because it's no longer needed within the chapter.

So we're not modifying or amending the ordinance that was in the packet 26-48 at all. We're substituting with what we just read, OK?

Yeah, the only thing we would change on the title of the ordinance is just that we're not adding a new chapter 4-8 any longer. It's all just amending chapter 4-4.

Which was publicly noticed. So we are able to do this tonight.

OK. All right, we have a motion and a second. I guess I started the discussion on the motion. Is there any more discussion on the motion?

No. No, I have. Oh, OK. Go ahead. Please. So I will be a no on this, because my request was to bring it back for me to be able to look at, which included the budgetary impact. So that's, I mean, that's, if I could see the budget at where you're going to pull the money from, because it is ongoing money, I mean, that's, I just, I wanted to see that. Knowing that this is, it's going to be an impact. Out of $180 million, not. super significant but even as we go through items and amendments you know trying to find $50,000 is still trying to find $50,000 so that's I mean if this if we'd had time to look at it but that's I don't have time to look at it I don't I mean seeing all this you know it could have looked different but that's that's why I wanted I mean Love the fact that you're looking through and trying to find this I just Until I actually see it and can weigh it out and to ask questions to it.

I've got wait Understand I just for the record My preference was division to to allow greater flexibility and to avoid the costs that will come with us moving to department I am choosing this path because I'm trying working to build consensus on across what I've heard, including from administration. Administration has indicated that their preference is absolutely department level. So they are making that recommendation knowing it will cost more. And because that is the recommendation coming from administration, that's why I'm going this direction. So I acknowledge there will be a cost increase. I know there will be a plan for that. I'm sensitive to it, but I'm also trying to build consensus across what I'm hearing from my colleagues and from administration.

MS. OK. We have a motion and a second, and we're ready for a roll call vote. MS.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Ms. Hausman.

MS.

Yes. Ms. Nichol.

Yes.

Ms. Sharkey.

Yes.

Ms. Christensen. Yes. Ms. D'Souza.

Yes.

Mr. DeKaiser.

No.

Ms. Stroud.

No.

Madam Chair, that motion carried 5-2.

All right, okay, we're moving on to agenda item number five. This is Councilmember D'Souza with a proposed budget amendment. For clarity, we're hearing this, guys, to decide. And the vote will be on whether we like this proposal enough to add it to the short list of proposal amendments that will take up at a later date, the 16th.

Thank you, Madam Chair and council colleagues. As the council liaison for the senior center over the last few years, I had a chance this last, in our most recent meeting this last month, to go over the mayor's budget proposal for the center. During that conversation, they mentioned that they had a concern with an item that they felt needed to be in there for I was going to say longevity, that's not the right word, but insolvency really isn't the right word, but I think you get where I'm going with it. I'll continue. I've concluded that here in the budget amendment proposal that I've shared with you guys this evening. This amendment is simple, in my opinion anyway. It would create a dedicated $5,000 annual equipment contingency line item for the senior center funded by reducing the community engagement line in the non-departmental cost center by that same amount. This does not increase the overall general fund budget. It is only a reallocation of existing dollars. The reason I'm bringing this forward is because the senior center isn't just a recreational facility, right? It provides daily services, meals, transportation support, health and wellness programming, and social connection for many of our older population. In 2025, the center served 6,731 meals, which was a 5.5% increase over the previous year, and had approximately, well, I guess they have it not even approximately, it's pretty accurate here, 1,413 annual individual participants in 2025. They also provided 42 classes or activities per week and supported nearly 9,500 volunteer hours. Those services rely on functioning equipment. That includes commercial kitchen appliances, fitness equipment, audio-visual systems, and other facility-related items that help keep programming running. What stood out to me in the tentative budget is that the senior center had $14,000 in actual equipment spending in 2025. but received $0 in the equipment line in 2026 and proposed to receive zero in the tentative 2027 budget. So this amendment is intended to create a small, predictable, transparent amount that can be used when equipment needs arise. One of the things that came up in the conversation was the equipment needs that they have are typically larger ticket items, like a commercial stove, the ice maker. Even a treadmill that had to be replaced was like $6,000, right? When I reviewed the community engagement spending that I'm proposing as the funding source, I noticed that it seemed to be an appropriate place to move money from. The line item had supported a number of various things, such as receptions, meals, recognition items, flowers, gifts, swag, stickers, awards, and some materials. And so when we're making budget decisions, especially in a tight year, I'm looking to decide which dollars I think might be flexible versus which ones might have operational need. And so in my view, the $5,000 senior center equipment contingency is a higher priority than preserving the full amount of that particular discretionary spending line. I just want to be clear, too, that this is structured to not be a use it or lose it line item. So if the full $5,000 is not needed in a given year, the remaining amount should be carried forward into an equipment or capital need for the senior center. That could help build towards larger future needs, such as larger equipment replacement or other capital improvements. So the city is responsible for the building and maintaining the building, and the county is responsible for the programming. One of the other needs that they said they will have in the nearer future, and they're trying to figure out how to make this work, and there's some things up in the air that may help reduce costs, but they're gonna need a new transportation vehicle for the seniors. The current vehicle has 90-something thousand miles And they have specific needs that will need to be wheelchair accessible and whatnot and so Anyway, just to kind of give an idea of some of the overall needs that they have again, this is meant to be a modest amendment and I View it reasonable and responsible and I would like to have your support in this So I am available to answer any questions that any of you may have Miss Christians, okay

The funds you want to put it into, if we put it into equipment, an equipment fund, can we pull it back out if we need it for anything? Is it like more like general fund? If we put it into capital projects, we can't pull it out for general fund items if needed. But if we put it in equipment, can we do that?

So it would be in the – let me just hurry and pull up my area.

Council Member D'Souza, I'm happy to address that if you'd like. Okay, go ahead. So the proposal – It says to put the funding initially into an operating equipment fund. And so in this fiscal year, yes, you could move it somewhere else if you needed to. However, let's say at the end of the fiscal year, the senior center doesn't use the money or they only use a portion of it, and you decide to carry it over into a capital project or into equipment management. At that point, you can't necessarily pull it out the next fiscal year and put it back into an operating expense. But you could move it into a different equipment need or a different capital need.

I think their preference would be, so I'm trying to deliver on their area of expertise and what they had asked for. And so initially, it was within that cost center, which falls under parks and rec, right, into what They were asking for an equipment contingency line item that would feed into equipment at the end of the year. I don't know that that's necessarily necessary. I think it would be OK to put it in the equipment. And so even after I have written the proposal, I think maybe it makes sense to put it directly into equipment. But with the idea that they're trying to build that up, I asked what amount would be appropriate for equipment. And he said, this was also a conservative number, but $15,000 or $20,000. And so I'm asking for five this year and to build up.

And I'm not opposed to this. I just am trying to figure out the best way to do it so that it's not stuck in a capital fund that we can't get it back out for equipment or something else that we need. And I don't see in the, and I might be missing them, but in capital projects, like specific projects they're saving towards. So I'm wondering if, because Brian, isn't that the way we normally do it? Don't we have like a specific project, like we need, I don't know. Something come on like under like facilities like do you know what I'm saying? And so but once we put it in the capital projects, yeah, we can put it to a different capital project We can't pull it out of the capital projects for something else Yeah, we don't recommend doing that.

Yeah, if it's for equipment I would just put it in how it's listed here is the equipment and it can be carried over It would be carried over into equipment management. It's just like any other department. It's an operating line item for equipment. If they don't spend it at the end of the year, their total balance can come back as carryover, whether for equipment or capital.

And it can stay there until the next year. We put another $5,000 in the old $5,000. And then if, like, let's say they decide they really need... I don't know, something that's not equipment, can they move it to something else they would need? Or does it have to be a piece of equipment?

No, we would put it in the equipment management fund, and it's not right. You have the legal authority to move money out of there, but it's... Difficult. Well, it's just misleading to investors that are looking at our financial statements. If we're putting transfer money from the general fund to equipment management and then we're moving it to capital and then we're moving it back.

Yeah.

So we don't recommend it. You could do it, but once it goes to equipment management, we'd like it to stay there.

Unless there's like extenuating circumstances in some extreme situation. Okay. So I'm fine with that. It doesn't bother me. I just want to be able to... Once we hit a spot where they've purchased the things they need, then we maybe don't need to fund it. And if they had a list of what they needed to purchase, It's more of a later question, but I'm fine with it overall. Sure. Does that make sense?

Yes. And part of it isn't that there is, like, that was kind of why I kind of, I initially called it equipment, like, contingency. Yeah. Just because it's, something breaks and it needs to be replaced. It's not like they know that it's going to be, they're not going to replace stuff before it's broken. No. Honestly, right? I know. Like, they're going to wear the whole thing out, it's going to break, and they're going to be without some service. Yeah. That's kind of the situation. We're trying to create a more efficient process for them to have their service needs met, equipment needs met. Dustin, did you have a comment?

Madam Chair, may I? Yes. All I was going to say is, Council Member Christensen, you had asked, well, what if they have an expense? Can they take money out of the equipment management, et cetera. And my answer is if the benefit to putting it is an operating amount initially, and you do that every year, then that's operating money, right? And if there is another need that's not an equipment, then maybe they could spend it that year up to that amount. And if they do have an equipment need, that's what they can use equipment management at that point as well if that's where That money is carried into.

Thank you. And then my other question is, where in special programs and non-departmental, which of the lines do you want to pull it from?

It was community engagement. I think it's like, wow.

The $13,000?

Yes. So it would reduce it to $8,000.

OK. And our ambassadors get paid out of, or paid, their money comes out of that line as well? So it would reduce our ambassador money from- Does it?

No.

It does not come out of- The ambassador has its own line. Do they? Yeah.

Yeah. When I was looking through it, trying to understand what gets used, it is very miscellaneous. Oh, it's below it.

Sorry. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Then I'm fine with that.

I'm fine with it, too. Any other questions? Go ahead. Mr. Epp.

What if, so I know a couple of years ago, they were able to get, I mean, it was like there was carpet issues. I got, when I was on there, I got some money for tables and chairs. do we have to use equipment contingency? I mean, if that's kind of the, I mean, maybe it's something else where it's just more of a contingency. So if they needed, unless we consider tables and chairs equipment, but if they needed something, blinds, whatever they felt, do we, Are we restricting it to being equipment, if it sounds like that's kind of an investor issue?

I think that it makes sense to be open with that. I guess it depends. I'm not approving the items that come through and what gets deemed equipment versus what doesn't. I know that they have to be fairly specific with what They purchase because the city is responsible for specific things, right?

And I'm totally fine with them being specific. I just didn't know if we were restricting that to be specifically equipment, if we are calling it equipment contingency, if it was just something else where it was, hey, we need a new couch in here because this other one, I don't know, whatever it is, if that's – Are we limiting them to equipment if they really need something else?

Maybe. Can I phone Brian? Yes. Phone a friend. Does it make sense what I'm asking? It does, yes. And I appreciate the question.

It's not restricted. The way it's listed on the memo here, it's just equipment. Even though the language talks about its contingency, if it goes into an equipment line item, It's just equipment and that could be used for, and they're accountable for the bottom line of their budget. So if they don't need equipment that year but they need other stuff, They could overspend the other line item and drop from that. Okay. If whatever's not used at the end of the year, we'll drop to fund balance and come to you as carryover proposals. Okay. Could go to equipment.

That's why I just wanted to make sure that if they were thinking they needed something that's not necessarily equipment, that they could still use that money towards it. Yeah.

And furniture, we usually do categorize as equipment. We spend that out of the equipment line item, but... A lot of their building needs we cover out of our municipal building capital account, like the carpet and other improvements for their building that we've done.

No, that works.

Any other comments? All right. It is listed as a council voting item, so we will call for public comment if there is any. I don't have any blue cards. Dustin, do you want to invite our online participants?

Of course Madam Chair. If you're joining us this evening and again if you'd like to comment on item number five on tonight's agenda please go ahead and click the raise hand button on your screen. I'll call your name in the order in which you raise your hand and you'll have three minutes. Madam Chair first up is Graham Tinneas. Graham I'm going to allow you to begin speaking. Please remember to unmute yourself. You'll have three minutes. Oh, well, Graham, I don't see his hand raised anymore.

Okay.

Now, let's try again. Okay, Graham, just unmute yourself and you should be able to talk. Graham, it does not look like your microphone's working. I'm not getting any audio coming through. You're welcome to send an email, and if you'd like to, to citizencomment at sandy.utah.gov.

And this is also the equivalent of a first reading so he'll have another chance if he wants to. OK. All right. I will go no more. I'm not seeing any more hands. OK. I will close public comment on this item and I'll bring it back to the council. Once again council we're not deciding to enact this we're deciding whether it goes on the short list.

So do we need to make a motion? Yes. OK. Can it be as simple as I move to put this amendment on the short list?

Yes, it can. I second. Good job. Good job. All right. We have a motion and a second. It was Brooke and Marcy.

Ms. D'Souza?

Yes.

Ms. Houseman? Yes. Ms. Sharkey? Yes. Ms. Christensen? Yes. Mr. DeKaiser?

Yes.

Ms. Stroud?

Yes.

Ms. Nickel? Yes. Madam Chair, that motion carries 7-0. All right.

Thank you. Okay, we're moving on to our three public hearing items. The first one is the new one that we added, which is a public hearing for compensation for our elected officials. Katrina, do you wanna maybe introduce this one?

Yes, thank you. So as you indicated last week, we held the public hearing for executive municipal officers' compensation as required by state code. The council requested additional information on the specific positions as well as information regarding elected officials which is the first item here. So again just requesting information on pay and allowances for elected officials. As I review this information, I just want to go over the assumptions. So I'm using 2080 hours as I'm determining annual salary, not the 2088 hours, which is in the budget year. That number does change each year, whereas an annual salary is typically considered 2080 hours. The second assumption is that, as you are aware, council members rotate being the council chair throughout the year. And they receive three additional hours paid each week while they are chair. In order to have more of an apples to apples comparison between fiscal year 26 compensation and what is proposed with fiscal year 27, I did pull those council chair hours out of 26. And then the fiscal year 27 salary information reflects a 2.5% COLA, which is 2.5% above what is shown for fiscal year 26. So I want to just go over benefits. I did not provide specific benefits for each position, but this is what is included in the budget. So we have two types of benefits. We have variable benefits, which are budgeted as a percentage of pay. Variable benefits may increase if pay is increasing, or they may increase because the actual variable benefit rate itself is increasing. The items listed here are what we budget as variable benefits. Medicare is not changing between 26 and 27. The retirement rate is going to either stay the same, decrease or increase, depending on the position. And then workers' compensation for all positions is going up slightly by 0.1% in fiscal year 27. And there is no change to the last two. So no change to unemployment and no change to disability. Our fixed benefits are budgeted as a flat dollar amount. These are typically tied to insurance. And of course, it's going to vary based on what election somebody makes for their insurance. These are the fixed benefits that are budgeted. Our health insurance, as you know, is going up 7.9% in fiscal year 27. So to give you a dollar amount for that, so in fiscal year 26, the health insurance could cost anywhere between about $7,300 and $20,000. In fiscal year 27, after that 7.9 increase, it's going up to about $7,900 to $22,000. Again, depending on somebody's election. For our dental insurance, the amount that's going up is just the administrative fee that we pay our vendor to process the claims. So it's literally $3 employee. There's no change to the waiver credits. There's no change to the benefits consultant fee. There's no change to the health equity account fee. Health equity is the company that manages our HSAs and FSAs. There's no change to the proposal for the HSA contribution. or for the life insurance. The amount budgeted for the on-site clinic is proposed to go up a little over $51, and the EAP is proposed to decrease a little over $12. So again, as I said, the benefits are not shown in the subsequent slides. So this is a list of our elected officials. The first column, of course, is the position. The second column is the type of compensation. You can see included here might be pay, vehicle allowance, or phone allowance. And the next column is the compensation for fiscal year 26. And then the last column is compensation for fiscal year 27. As I said, we applied the 2.5% COLA to the fiscal year 26 rate. Council policy is that the 2.5% COLA is what council members or the mayor would be eligible for in fiscal year 27. The Justice Court judges compensation increases governed by the state, and that will be the average of employee increases, which we will not know until later in the month. But for example here, I just applied the 2.5% COLA. So any questions on this?

That was great information. Thank you for putting that together in such a short period of time. Our legal analysis is that we need to hold the public hearings separately. So we will go ahead and act on this one, and then we'll go to the next one. Although, of course, you guys, on this one and the next, we are not taking any vote or any action. The requirement is just for a public hearing. So... I will open the public hearing on the information that we just presented on compensation for elected officials. I have no blue cards on this item. If anyone would like to comment, they're free to make their way up to the podium. And Dustin, if you'd like to invite our online participants to participate.

Of course thank you Madam Chair. Yet again if you're joining us virtually this evening on Zoom and you'd like to comment on tonight's public hearing item number six on the agenda go ahead and click the raise hand button on your screen. I'll call your name in the order in which you raised your hands and you'll have three minutes to comment.

I'm seeing no takers. Will we close the public hearing on this one? Or do you want to close them all together at the end? Should we close the public hearing on this one?

Yes.

I'll do that then. All right. We'll move on to the next public hearing, which is for executive municipal officers. Katrina. Okay.

This is very similar to what you just saw, except it's a different group of employees. This is the executive municipal officers, which are defined by state code as being the CAO, the deputy CAO, department heads, assistant or deputy department heads, and then division heads or deputy or assistant division heads. Similar assumptions here, so I'm using 2080 hours to determine annual salary, not the 2088 hours that's included in fiscal year 27 budget year. Compensation has been increased by 2.5% to represent the COLA for fiscal year 27. And then these employees would be eligible for merit pay. However, as that merit pay has not been determined yet, nothing is included in these slides to reflect that. These employees are eligible for the same benefits that we just saw for elected officials. So I won't go through the list again. But these are variable benefits. And then these are fixed benefits. So I've broken these out by departments. Same columns here. So the first column is the position. The second column is the compensation type, which would include pay, possibly vehicle allowance, and possibly phone allowance, depending on the position. And then we have fiscal year 26 compensation, or pay, and fiscal year 27. Now, as you were talking about the communications division, I did realize I left off the assistant communications director. So I can email you that information. I also have it here. So that position's current compensation is $95,000. $950. After the 2.5% COLA that would go up to $98,349. There is no vehicle or phone allowance for that position. And then I just want to comment the reason I have the public affairs and public information officer position here is because that person is filling in as the acting communications director. So that would not normally be a division manager. But because they are acting as the communications director, I have included that here. All right, so this was administration. There are two departments listed here, so city council and economic development. So both have an executive director and then assistant directors. This is the city attorney's office. This is administrative services. This is community development. And I apologize. I should have asked this earlier. Do you want me to point out what is a department head versus division? OK. This is the police department. This is the fire department. This is our public works department and obviously you'll see by the slides I did keep public works and public utilities separate. I did not try to do anything related to the proposed merger. So here's public utilities. And that's our last one. Oh, no, excuse me, Parks and Rec.

I think that's our last one.

Is that the last one? Okay. All right.

I really appreciate all the work you and your staff did to put this additional detail together and in a very short time frame. Thank you for being so responsive to the council request. Thank you. Council, are there any questions for Katrina?

Ms. D'Souza. Thank you. I don't have a question. I just wanted to say thank you. I feel like what was presented really captured what the intent was behind the motion and definitely provided me with a level of clarity and information that I think ultimately is really helpful. So thank you.

Okay, thank you. All right. Mr. DeKaiser.

We can talk about this more later but one thing that stood out to me looking at those numbers in that format was the significant variation between the director and the assistant across departments. It ebbs and flows pretty much so I just kind of wanted to understand the philosophy behind that you know whether it's a matter of tenure or the pay band ranges that they fit within. Again it was just an observation so we can follow up on that later. Thank you.

All right. Once again, this is a public hearing. So I will open the public hearing on this item. And that means we will be taking public comment for anyone who would like to make it. I have no blue cards on this item. Dustin. Oh, Pat, are you going to come to? Are you on your way to do that? You're just stretching your legs. OK. All right. You have three minutes.

Please don't be tired of me. I just want to say that now with all the transparency of the compensations, I want to thank you so much. You put in a lot of work. I know it's part-time. The position's supposed to be part-time. But you put in more than part-time hours. I know that. So I just want to come up here and thank you very, very much, each one of you. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. For our online participants, Dustin, go ahead.

Of course. Thank you, Madam Chair. Yet again, if you're joining us virtually this evening, if you'd like to comment on the public hearing item number seven on tonight's agenda, go ahead and click the raise hand button on your screen. I'll call your name in the order in which you raised your hands and you'll have three minutes. Madam Chair, up first is Steve Van Maren. Steve, I'm going to allow you to begin speaking. Please remember to unmute yourself and you'll have three minutes.

Thank you, Justin. Good evening, council. Steve Van Maren, an unfortunate resident of Draper. I thought it was interesting that a event coordinator, event planner would be on the list, but it's not really a department head or anything, but she is highly ranked in the org chart. So I understand. Thank you for your time.

Okay, Madam Chair, up next is Craig Ulrich. Craig, I'm going to allow you to begin speaking. Please remember to unmute yourself, and you'll have three minutes.

Thank you, and Madam Chair, I would just like to echo what Pat Jones said about the work of the council, and it's a tremendous responsibility, but each one of you have taken tremendous efforts to get everything right that you're working on, and I applaud and thank you for your exemplary work. Thank you.

Madam Chair, I don't see any other raised hands.

All right. I'll close the public hearing on that particular item and we'll move on to the next public hearing item which is the twenty six twenty seven budget. Brian is there anything you want to say about this one.

No I don't have anything to add tonight.

Do we have any questions for Brian. Looks like we have none. And I have no blue cards on this. Is there anyone that would like to make comment on this particular item? It is still open. And Dustin, go ahead and invite our onliners.

I've done this a lot this evening, Madam Chair. For the final time, if you would like to comment on public hearing item number eight on this evening's agenda, Go ahead and click the raise hand button on your screen. I'll call your name and the order in which you raised your hand, and you'll have three minutes. And Madam Chair, while we're waiting, just a reminder, if you're going to continue the hearing, just note that so we can make sure to get it on the record. I'm not seeing any hands raised.

All right. I'm going to continue this public hearing. I'm assuming no council member has a motion for adoption. Thank you. I was crossing my fingers on that one. OK. We'll continue that public hearing. Consent calendar. Would anyone like to make a motion on adoption of the two sets of minutes on the consent calendar?

So moved.

All in favor, say aye. Aye.

Any opposed?

All right. That is the end of our agenda. All right. Director's report.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Council Member. I was going to beat myself. Just one thing I want to go over. hiring process for our council communications director. I think it's going well. Thank you to those of you who took a look at the applications and sent over your suggestions. Really appreciate that. That's going to be helpful. Chris and Martin and myself are meeting tomorrow to kind of go through the list and figure out who we want to invite in for a first interview. Justin also took a look at all the applicants before he left and had a conversation with me and told me what his thoughts were on it as well, so we'll include those. Maybe I'm being too gung-ho in my hopes here, but I'm hoping that we can do some first-round interviews next week. That's the goal, with an intent of doing second interviews soon thereafter, and then hopefully being able to hire somebody relatively soon after that. I think I'm going to leave it there for this evening.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to note that the Land Development Code work group is going awesome. I find the different perspectives so incredibly interesting. And I just love the direction. I wanted to tell James that everybody's working great together, and I love that. I also went to the Sandy Club. board of directors meeting, donations are down, and their land lease has gone up. Donations are down because of pretty much the economy. They're losing, well, a grant is expiring, a rather large one that the director got when she came into the position, and it was a five-year grant or something like that. That's the only reason why it's ending, and there's not a reapplication process for that. She's working on another one, but I think that this year is going to be quite tight for them. So just wanted to update everybody on that.

Ms. Housman.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just one item for tonight, a big thank you. Yesterday I had the opportunity to meet with two residents who live near Alta High School. They brought forward some concerns that we've heard previously. over and over through the years parking in our neighborhoods around Alta. Um, but, but what was unique about this couple was they, they sure they shared concerns on behalf of, of their neighbors, but they also brought forward potential solutions. So very solution forward. Um, Hey, we know it's a problem. Here's some things we've thought about. So anyway, had a fantastic meeting with them yesterday. Um, they shared their concerns and what's been shared with them by neighbors. Um, and I want to just send Brittany is here. What? Um, they, three members of our staff that were just exceptional yesterday. They, they listened, they asked questions to understand. Um, it was, it was exceptional. So we had, um, police captain Corey Hess, um, transportation engineer, Ivan Hooper. And then I mentioned city engineer, Brittany Ward, who joined us. Um, they were so engaged, so attentive, um, really listened. And then, um, after ensuring that our residents felt heard, they were able to articulate what was within our sphere of control and what was not, and walk the residents through some of the efforts we've made to study this issue, as well as the intersection study that's also happening outside of the parking issue. And I feel like they really heard some of the suggestions that were offered. And Mr. Frato organized the whole thing, brought us all together, and came up with some really good spontaneous thinking that also sparked some potential problem solving. But what was interesting is the residents came to their own conclusion once provided with really good information, good data, good information. you know, here's what we could do, but here's the potential barriers and costs. Anyway, it was, it was so, so good. Um, and I just want to share something. I, this is me paraphrasing, but at the end of the meeting, one of them said, she said, she's been involved in Sandy for a long time. Um, and that the city has really made a difference. She appreciates the attitude, the motivation and the reality of how we are all working. And that came truly because of our staff and including Mr. Fratto and helping these residents feel heard but also armed with really good information that they can now go back to neighbors and and share and almost advocate on the city's behalf and say they are hearing us and here are things they've been doing to address it there's only so much that is within their domain so i just thank you and you're getting all the thank yous because you're the one here tonight but all three of them um it was great and that's how we continue to foster kind of that trust within our community they're willing to come Talk to us because they feel heard and they feel a part of some problem-solving sessions.

So I just want to say thank you Miss Christensen South Valley Chamber of Commerce met last week and two things to let everyone know about one is the let's do lunch coming up on June 10th it's There's no limit on this one. It's a really cool one sponsored by Swire Coca-Cola in Draper at their facility there. And it's honoring the America 250 and the active duty service members, and there will be people talking about that, service members, and also writing letters to them and then talking about how we can support them and then different service projects that are coming up to support them and their families in the next little bit. So that's a pretty cool one if you are available to come to that. And then also The U.S. Biathlon Olympic team has a really cool sponsorship opportunity for businesses. If anyone's interested, let me know. It's pretty neat to be able to be involved in that. And then lastly, thank you so much to the fire department and the fire union for scaring the crap out of me. making me really sore at the fire ops on Saturday. It really was an amazing experience and I'm so glad that I got to do that and see just the tiniest bit of what our firefighters go through. So thank you.

You went to that? You should have talked to me first. When I went, my report was, I think the fire department tried to kill me last weekend. Anyway, you're sobering. All right. LPC had our first meeting after a little bit of a break. Here are the legislative issues that we are expecting to see this year. It's a little bit early yet. But we know we're going to see more housing and land use bills. We know we're going to see infrastructure funding and development bills. We know we're going to see water conservation. We're going to see homelessness bills. And relative to cities, and a little bit concerning all over again, we know we're going to see more questions, more bills possibly about property tax, sales tax maybe, fees, including impact fees. Those are on legislators' minds. And in the realm of economic development, we think we're going to be seeing tax increment funding or financing bills and probably PIDs as well. I just want to give a shout out to the Sandy Hiking Club through the Sandy Parks and Rec Department. This is the second year I've joined it. It's super fun. It's an adult hiking group. The first time I took it, it was a little bit easier hikes, like Donut Falls and stuff like this. This time, when they said, we're going to make it harder. And we're going to make it longer and greater elevation gains. And I'm just going... On Thursday nights after work, OK, so their first hike was, and I was not able to go to this one, but it was the Upper Falls at Bells Canyon. On a Thursday night, they were hiking down with headlamps and flashlights. So these guys are, last week we went to Hughes Canyon Falls. I had never even heard of this hike or this place. It was wonderful. It was a pretty grueling hike. It was fairly difficult, but luckily everybody made it. So it's a fun group. It's four hikes over four weeks. It's $30, and you get a T-shirt. And so it's like the deal of a lifetime. And they're guided hikes, by the way. There are three guides that are walking with you. So I really appreciate it, and thanks to the Parks and Rec departments for such a fun activity. That's it from me. Ms. Stroud.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So I attended the police swearing in. So two more laterals, one from Corrections, one from West Valley. Always enjoy seeing who's coming in and making sure that you guys are fully staffed. And that's so far. I mean, other than one or two here and there, but we seem to get them. So quite a few. I think there were 18 in the last six months. So quite a few getting in there. The fire ops, so that was a always enjoy seeing what you guys do. hearing from the employees what the challenges are and what they enjoy. One thing that I really captured on that. So one is, first of all, that Fire Ops 101 is actually coined from the fire union. It's throughout the state. something that we should be very proud of is and they were talking about so CPR so part of the the process you know when you go through this fire ops is you're learning about some of the medical components to it and CPR so there's an 18% success rate nationally you know with reviving somebody with CPR Our fire department has a 30% success rate. So that's due, I know, to the training and what they're doing. And one of the things that they're doing differently is they are not rushing to get a patient to the hospital. They are sticking with them to make sure, and it could be up to an hour, of working on them, providing that high level of care and that immediate need to ensure the best outcome for a patient. that is in that situation. So that was something new that I learned and appreciate it. And I want residents to know that we're almost double the national average rate. It's spending the morning with you guys. I appreciate it. The other part, and I guess probably coming from you, Chief McConaughey, is just make sure you stay out of the way of Chief Nyberg if he's got a fire hose because he's a all over the place with that thing. But always fun and enjoyed it. So especially the little takeaways that we got from there, the volunteer badges, that was pretty cool. Then food truck night. So up there we had canine cache from the police department. We also had animal services up there. chipping and providing licenses. Several dogs were chipped. Actually, one of our Sandy ambassadors brought her dog up there and was microchipped. So love seeing the community up there. Lots of dogs. I mean, just food truck night. Lots of dogs that were up there. But seeing that engagement. I know the mayor brought her horses. But lots of people, and it was a beautiful night. And that's all. Thank you, Madam Chair.

SPEAKER 1. Mr. DeKeyser, do you have anything tonight

Well just some rehash. Thanks Chief. Fire Ops 101 training was incredible. I did burn my ear a little bit. There was a joke made about that that I won't repeat but the conditions we were in were 400 degrees and normal house fires can be like 800 to 1500 or something which is totally crazy. So much much respect for the fire department and appreciation for Educating me on so many things and then like Councilmember Nichols said the meeting with Somos was great I wanted to thank the Community Development Department especially Melissa for caring to have Council feedback as we work through that rewrite Councilmember Nichols this is a and I had a great conversation.

So, thank you CAO report

Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, I'm grateful that none of you died in the fire operations. I would have been OK with one of you. So would we, by the way. This Saturday is the farmer's market, the first one, at the amphitheater from 9 to 1. So put that on your calendar. Thank you tonight for the compromise on the communications ordinance. I think that that will move us all forward in a more productive way in communications. I want to take the opportunity, oh, you're talking about saving lives and our police officers yesterday saved a baby. They were able to get there soon enough to be able to clear the baby's throat and breathing channel, promptly turned it over to fire, and fire got the baby to the hospital.

Shane, was it a delivery or a choking baby?

Just a choking child. I don't know. There were some other things that they learned after the fact. I don't know the details of that. But yeah, it's just great when we get to hear that those officers will probably be nominated for a lifesaving award. They showed up, did their job, and went the extra mile. I want to take a moment tonight to publicly uh... wholeheartedly endorse martin jensen to replace me uh... i believe martin is an excellent uh... employee for the city i believe that he has the skill to do this job you will probably liking better than me i like him better than me and so uh... as he comes to you next week uh... for interview i hope you will give him the attention that he deserves you seriously consider him as my replacement. I have loved working with him for the last two years. I am so glad that I selected him to be my deputy for these two years because he has He has done some tremendous things for this city already And I think you'll see that he will be able to help you do more tremendous things in the future.

I Just want to say it's 23 days 16 work days and three council meetings left Thank you All right, that's it for our agenda do I have a motion to adjourn I Second. All in favor?

Aye.

Have a good evening, everyone.

Thank you, Madam Chair.