City Council - Regular Meeting

We've got about a minute. I'm going to start the recording so online folks can log in.

Recording in progress.

Thank you.

We are ready Madam Chair whenever you're ready.

We will go ahead and get started. Thank you, Mr. Fratto. Welcome, everyone. We appreciate those who are in our chamber with us tonight as well as joining online. As a reminder, we do take public comment, general citizen comment, but not before 6 o'clock. We work through our business, and then we try, as we finish an agenda item, if it's 6 o'clock or later, we will go ahead and take public comment. Okay. I see someone already filling out the blue card, so that's perfect. And you'll just bring it up here to Mr. Fratto, and then we'll hold on to that for our general citizen comments. So those online, same thing. We will not take comment before 6 o'clock. So we typically begin our meetings with a prayer and then followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. Do we have any volunteers for the prayer this evening? Okay.

Councilwoman Christensen, thank you. Our dearest Heavenly Father, we are so grateful to be gathered together this evening. We thank thee for blessing us so abundantly and for the opportunity that we have to live in Sandy and in this wonderful country. Please watch over and protect our employees that they would be able to be safe in their different duties. Please bless the council and administration that we'd be able to express our thoughts clearly and be able to listen to one another and to make the best choices for the residents of Sandy. We love thee and we say these things in the name of thy son, Jesus Christ. Amen.

Please stand and we'll join together in the Pledge of Allegiance.

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.

Thank you for that, Councilman Christensen. And we'll begin with introductions over here, please.

Thank you, Madam Chair. My name is Dustin Fratto. I'm with the city council office. There's another council staff member in the back of the room, Justin Sorensen. I'm Tracy. I'm council for the council.

Chris Edwards with the council office. Cindy Sharkey, council at large. Brooke Christensen, district one.

Marcy Houseman, district four. Allison Stroud, district two. Brooke D'Souza, at large. We have two council members online. If you'd come off mute and introduce yourselves, please. Chris Nickel, District 3.

I'm Aaron DeKaiser, at large.

Thank you. We'll continue over here. I'm Sandy Bayer, Monica Soltansky.

Martin Jensen, Sandy, CAO.

Lynn Pace, city attorney.

Thank you. So we are going to go ahead and move into the first item on tonight's agenda. This is an informational item. We have an additional update on our Crescent View Middle School, all the conversation around bonding. So who is taking point? OK, off we go.

OK, good evening, council. I believe there's a presentation that Dustin's got. We can pull that up. Okay, so let me, can we zoom it? There we go. Trying to advance the slides here. There we go. OK, so before you tonight is a resolution calling for a bond election. And so I just wanted to present some highlights of that resolution for the decision that's before you tonight or more likely in the voting item for next week for a bond election specifically for the property at the Crescent Middle School property that's And the purpose of the bond would be to acquire and make improvements to the Crescent Middle School property. And that would be for the purposes of, as stated in the resolution, for the purposes of community, recreation, open space, among other municipal purposes. And so it could be at any amount that's been targeted that the high end of that would be $30 million as is proposed in the resolution. There could be any variation. Of amounts on that as is included in your packet a letter from the mayor Stating is recommended at 21 million. So there could be any any amount that that that's included on the resolution for that the resolution before you has 30 million in it, but we can come back with a an updated resolution with any amount that the council decides on that But the purpose is to acquire and improve the property for the purposes stated there. So the amount of $30 million, that would have a payback not to exceed 21 years. Just to give flexibility, it would be a 20-year bond is what's being proposed or recommended. for this project. And with that in mind, the property tax impact to an average resident would be just under $60 annually or $5 monthly. And for a commercial property, just over $109 annually or $909 monthly. I've also, because it was proposed, recommended by the mayor to have a $21 million bond, I've also included the information for the $21 million bond of what the impact would be on that. It would be similarly structured. But the impact, the property tax impact on a resident, average residential home would be 4,206 annually or 350 monthly. And for commercial property, 7,647 annually or 637 monthly. So and it could be anything in between, but that's what's kind of the proposals are on the table currently. The council also received a schedule of some additional information about how the bond would be structured and the impact on that for a $30 million bond and also on the $21 million bond. In terms of some key highlights of the resolution, there would be a process, if this were to go to a GO bond election, to be on the ballot this November. We would need to have language in to the county and to the state by August 20th. And that means, so we're targeting next week for the resolution, passage of the resolution and the ballot language. And then there would be a process we would need to go through for that to go on the ballot. There would be a public hearing that we're proposing to hold on September 22. There would be notice of election that would need to take place with Class A notices in October. And then there would be mailing of voter information. There would be an opportunity for arguments and rebuttal arguments for or against the ballot initiative. And so those are some of the highlights of the process as we go through. And if you have questions on that process, we can talk about some of those. But I have a timeline here on this slide. So that would be... I highlighted some of these already. These are some of the key dates that would be important to keep in mind as we go through the process. Really, the issue that is before you tonight is just deciding on the resolution language, the amount of the bond. and any updated language for the ballot that we could bring back to you to vote on for next week. And then we would go through, this would be the process as highlighted here on the timeline, to go through some of these key dates. But there would be a public process that we would go through on that, culminating in the election on November 3 and be canvassed on November 17, at which point we would know if we would be moving forward with that if it's approved by voters. So that's short and sweet. I figure we would leave a good amount of time for questions and discussion on this. So if you have any questions, happy to answer anything right now. Oh, Jason's here, so we'll defer all the tough questions to Jason. But if there's any that you have, I can help answer them as well. All right.

Thank you. Thank you both for being here. Questions from the council? OK. Ms. Sharkey. Oh. Ms. Christensen. Then we'll go with Ms. Sharkey.

I just wanted to hear from the mayor about her recommendation. and the thought process behind it, how you came to that. Just a little more background.

If we can do our deliberation first and just get questions answered. I mean, I understand that's a question, but it's, yeah. Let's unpack what's been presented and discuss as a council and then absolutely come back to that. Ms. Sharkey.

So maybe it's a Jason question. I'll put my question out there and whoever is going to answer it can step up to the mic. So in terms of the bond resolution, the language, in terms of the bond language, for the purposes of financing, all are part of the costs of acquiring, developing, constructing, renovating, improving, preserving, equipping. What does equipping include and what does it not include? I'd like some clarity on that.

Yeah, typically equipping relative to a building would be what we would think of as like FF&E, furniture, fixtures, equipment, elements such as that that would provide utilization of the building or the facility itself. Now, it could be more than that. It could be audio-visual app pertinences that are subject to the building as well. I think in terms of the recreation components and those types of things, I think you can think of it also as improvements to the facilities themselves, so outdoor facility, open space. If there are ball fields or soccer fields, maybe it could include, I believe in this case, it could include the nets and the goals and the... you know, various things like that. When we actually get to issue bonds, there is obviously the perspective of, well, how much of this is a useful life asset versus a depreciating asset? So when it comes to actually issuing the bonds, there's a practical reality of if we're using 20-year bonds to finance this, we wouldn't typically recommend you Financed some of those improvements that may only have a useful life of two or three or five years or whatnot, but I think equipping is Yeah, generally supportive elements that aren't necessarily just bricks and mortar or long-term useful life assets, but add to the use convenience Benefit of the of the facilities being financed so kind of compartmentalize buildings, here's what could do, you know, recreation components, you know, there's a lot of things that would fit in that. Is that helpful? Is it?

Kind of. It gets me to thinking what things might not be included. You did touch on some of the things I was wondering about. Like if it's got a recreational use, can we use the bond money to buy soccer balls and nets? Although they won't last 20 years, so... Could we, maybe could we is a different question than would we. Would we?

You could. I guess the could, I guess the answer would be yes. I think you could finance that. I don't know that we would necessarily finance a huge portion of it that way. you know, say a 16, 17 million dollar facility where the equipping of it might be a couple hundred thousand dollars, we're not too concerned about the useful life tipping the scale of that asset.

Yeah, I just think about, I'm really drilling down on trying to educate myself and maybe even the public about what wouldn't be included. I think about, too, the Arts Guild's use of a potential of the auditorium for rehearsals and plays and stuff. Could we buy all the equipment needed to operate a stage and sets? Could we buy sets? I know I'm getting into minutia, but I am just trying to understand... what for sure would not be included that we'd have to plan for as a council in other forms, perhaps in other forms of payment.

Those are great examples and I would say yes. The broad way that this language is drafted would probably allow for those to be considered. Again, the ballot proposition for purposes of authorizing it The issuance process is still a legislative process that you would go through and specifically what the uses of the funds would be and so forth. We're trying to broadly describe it so that all of those maybe we don't know right now what ifs that we have a little bigger picture or flexibility I guess for the city to consider that as I think of what wouldn't be equipping you know but I think the language is kind of specific to the related project that we're doing but certainly I think it would be outside the bounds here of the resolution to finance something unrelated to this project site itself and equip something in the City Hall or Something at some other place That isn't specific to that project Thank you, thank you anything over here Yes

Like anything that was presented, do you have questions on? Okay. Thank you, Mr. Sousa. Go ahead.

Thank you. Brett, I was just wondering if you could pull the slide back up that has the tax costs for the $21 million option, because it's not in the packet. And I missed it when you were doing it.

Yes, if you can pull that up. That's just the presentation. I can go to that slide.

And then also what's missing from that data is the amount, I know it's been stated a few times, but the amount of an average price Sandy Home. Yeah.

Yeah, so that's included in that is the average home prices calculated by the county is $739,100. So that's the amount that's included for the average home value on those numbers. Let me get to that slide for you. But let's go back. If I can get it to go back. OK, so these are the numbers for the $21 million bond. So that $350 per month is based on the $739,000 property, which is taxed at 55% of the value, or excuse me, 45% of the value, 55% exemption. Or sorry, reverse that. I said that wrong. But those, and then for a commercial property, would be $637 monthly. Are there other specific questions you had on that?

Well, yes, and I guess I'm trying to understand some of the previous information that was put out. I was just looking at a previous Crescent View Middle School presentation that was given to the council, and it looks like it was on the July 14th meeting. Is that right? Anyway, it had – I'm trying to pull it back up. So it had the price of the property tax impact at the $21 million slightly lower.

And that may be because, and Jason may be able to speak to this too, there was some movement in interest rates in recent weeks. And so this does reflect not only current rates, but an anticipated a little bit of an increase as we expect, or just to be safe, anticipating some future increases in rates.

Okay. Cause yeah, I've just pulled it back up. It took for a minute for it to come back up and it was at $3 and 35 cents per month based off of the average household. And so then, um, my other question is, um, concerning the commercial property. Is that price value also $739,100?

It is just because we don't have the – I mean, they vary so much based on probably just picking that number for consistency. So that's what that is.

Yeah, go ahead.

also the statute requires that so essentially what it says is what is the median residential value property in the city so specifically the city and then it says and also provide a property tax impact on a similar cost for commercial so the intent was is for commercial taxpayers that they would be able to equate that and then look at their total value and say, well, my property's in 739, but it's $2 million, and so that's the equivalent of what they've required us to put out.

Okay, that's helpful. Thank you. And then the whole timeline for should this go on the ballot and should it pass and bonding for it, what was that date again approximately, when that Is it next year, or would it be later this year that we would actually issue the bonds? And what are we thinking interest rates might be like at that time?

Yeah, so I think there's two parts to this. Well I'm answering two parts of that question I think. One is election authorization. So the resolution that we're discussing this evening and I think initially is planned to be considered on August 11th. Backing into the timeframe is no later than August 20th certain Information including an adopted resolution would have to be submitted to the lieutenant governor's office and the county Election official so we've used the 11th to provide some time in there But that's just with respect to adopting the resolution that would then authorize the ballot Proposition to go on the election and that would be on November 3rd coming up the second phase of this I look at is even after voters have approved a general bond election it doesn't authorize the issuance of bonds. It authorizes really the concept that voters have said we will allow you to increase property tax or use property tax revenues sufficient to pay for project that we define that's defined in the resolution in multiple series up to a maximum amount for a maximum time period, and then further states that it could be done in one series, multiple series, or potentially if a project were to go away, it wouldn't bind the legislative body from having to issue bonds if for some reason there's no project. You would just not issue those. That doesn't have a definitive timeframe other than after the election is passed, there's 10 years over which time you can issue the full maximum amount. So it's a fairly lengthy process. I've not seen the full 10 years used often, but it does allow for the full 10 years.

Okay. No, that still answers my question. I'm thinking even best case scenario, you know, it goes on the ballot, it passes, the council comes back and affirms, you know, the decision. It's still probably the end of the year, beginning of next year, the earliest maybe that bonds would be issued, I guess similar to the timeframe for the fire station, right? So who knows what interest rates are going to be like at that time.

And I totally didn't answer your question on the interest rates, but let me give you a quick maybe snapshot. July 14th or the middle of July when the initial information was provided in terms of what the tax impact would be, the U.S. Treasuries and the municipal tax exempt market have moved almost three-tenths, four-tenths of a percent. It's been a pretty significant rise over that period of time. And then just today, other news, stock market was up, which had the inverse effect on rates, and we saw a little bit of a rally. But if I had a crystal ball of exactly what the interest rates would do, I would tell you.

Are the general obligation bond interest rates still better than the revenue bond? Yes. Like enough that it still makes sense to pursue that path if that's what we were going to do?

Yeah. Again, that was a great process that I think the council did. Mayor, council, staff went through in 2023-24 when we determined on the fire station how to ultimately fund that. And we don't believe that that's changed. We think general obligation bonds are clearly the lowest cost option for the city to consider. It's not the only option, but it is the lowest cost option.

Okay, thank you. So that was all my question for them, but I do have another question and it does have to do kind of with the recommendation that was put out today. It would be more of like an attorney question. Okay, so my question is I'm trying to understand the parameters with this general obligation bond potentially right and the city's requirement of neutrality in communicating with the public and I know that there has not been a decision yet but like at what point how does that play into the future should this go on on a ballot and and And part of the reason I ask is because I noticed that the administration and the mayor had put out a video today that very specifically said, I recommend the voters support this. And so, OK, well, I'm paraphrasing. But there was a recommendation. Thank you. There was a recommendation that was very clearly made. Thank you. I got that. But I've still got a question. Thank you. A recommendation was still very clearly made in that video to consider voting in favor of this. And so how does that play into this conversation with the bond question? Are we free up until we decide to advocate for or have those conversations? At what point? Do we not, are we not able to do videos that maybe show support or could be considered supporting a particular idea? Do they need to come off of the internet? I'm just curious how that works because I would hate to have somebody in the public challenge a decision based on that.

Is that a question for me?

Yes, it is.

Thank you, Lynn. I don't have the language in front of me, but there's a prohibition on governmental entities or government officials advocating for or against ballot propositions. And there's a bit of a gray area as to when that becomes effective. But as of tonight, there's no ballot proposition because nothing's been voted on. Presumably if the council votes next week and if the council decides to put something on the ballot, then at that point I think somebody could argue we now have a ballot proposition before us. Any individual, including elected officials, are free to speak as individuals, but at that point you would want to say I'm just speaking for me as a citizen of Sandy, not as an elected official. I'm not speaking on behalf of the city. Um, but that's, that's basically the concept. Uh, there is, and you've seen that in the timeline that was sent out. There are, there are provisions in that timeline to create a voter information pamphlet that is designed to give voters information about the, the, the proposal without necessarily being, um, or at least without trying to take sides on the issue. So you literally have something that is an explanation as to why the city has put this on the ballot, and then there is an opportunity for a contrary point of view that gets synthesized and sent out to voters. That's later in the process.

OK, so if there are communications that have been created up until that point that maybe are questionable, do they need to be removed? Do we need to scrub our social media to exclude those to ensure the integrity of this process?

Yeah, I am not the expert on this. My question is, it's a little bit like something that you sent out in the mail. And do you have to go retrieve it? Or do you just not continue to post it? So if there were something that someone had posted that was said, I hate this, or I really like it, and we have the ability to remove it, then we should probably do that after, if there is a ballot proposition. So it doesn't continue to get broadcast or shared after the approval.

That would be what I think is the sharing may be a concern. OK, thank you. That answers my questions for now.

I have a couple of questions as well. And you can stay on this slide. That works for my question. Because I know the question applies to this slide and the previous one of the $30 million. And you sort of spoke to that earlier. And I just want to reiterate. Authorization, let's say the vote is yes, put it on the ballot. Let's say voters authorized, et cetera. So this amount that is indicated here, the property tax impact at the $21 million or on the other side at the $30 million, that is if That impact is if we bond immediately for the full amount. The impact is less, and I think I know the answer, but again, for the public, for all the information sharing we can do, the authorization does not mean that's what we will bond for. The impact begins at the level at which we bond. So let's say, because this one is up, if we bond at 21 million, but we decide we're going to do $17 million as the first tranche, then the property tax impact would be calculated, again, monthly or annually based on that $17 million. Then at whatever point, if, again, voters have approved the up to $21 million, whenever we hit that, we decide, OK, now we're going to bond for the additional $4 million. That gets layered on top of the impact of the $17 million that we initially bonded for. Am I understanding that?

Yeah, correct. And I think in kind of our analysis packet, you might have seen an illustration of we did include the $30, $17, and $21 million. Again, I'll... remind everyone that these are anticipated interest rates and costs and certainly could change and so we tried to put in a little bit of interest rate increase between now and when the bonds would be issued just to cover that but the statute doesn't require this is not a this is not a binding that the property tax impact is not a binding element of the referendum. It's for voters' information. It's required to be put in there. When you start getting into options, I think that's where we suggest that maybe the voter information pamphlet might be a better, more consistent way to show Well, our overall plan of finance kind of looks like this, and this is the maximum impact. But if we phase it, here's kind of how those phases would look like in terms of increase. But just how you described it is how I would envision it. It layers on, and if no additional issuance is done, then there's no additional layer.

Okay. And again, your recommendation is that's part of the voter information pamphlet. Scenarios, it's not binding. It's just helping voters understand this is what we are, we're asking for authorization for this. Here's all of the different ways, the possible scenarios that we could ultimately end up bonding up to this amount that you approve.

Yeah, to me, some might argue, well, aren't you advocating then for this? And I say, our position has been no, absolutely not. What you're articulating is what the potential plan of finance is for this. you're asking them to consider a proposition that might include all of that, but recognizing that there are circumstances that might just have you purchase the property and then determine that's where we stop, so we're not going to issue any more, or do the $21 million or the $30 million. I think in our evaluation and based on our experience in other places, it's an appropriate discussion of well, Maybe if it's too much of an amount, then that could negatively impact voters' mindset in terms of what they want to accomplish, especially if your voter information pamphlet doesn't give a good articulation of why you would even go to that. So I think some of the narrative has been, well, let's hone in on what amount that we really know that we're probably going to deal with and then you know there's other flexibility that you could consider but I think that's why we say the voter information pamphlet maybe is the best place to try to articulate that you've got a whole continuum of a finance plan whereas if you try to articulate that in the ballot proposition and the resolution our experience has been that becomes significantly more complicated and actually confusing to voters and gets to the point where it kind of stumps voters. And we've had kind of the reaction of, well, if we don't understand it, then it's an absolute no kind of a thing.

Which brings me actually to my second question. Well played. So I've been thinking ever since last week of what it looks like perhaps because to elaborate or perhaps connect to what Councilwoman D'Souza was just asking in terms of timing. So if If we were to consider ultimately, um, the council were to decide we were going to do this in, in two or three tranches, two or three, a series of, of, of three issuances. Um, and it could fall in the lap of a future council who hasn't been a part of this deliberation. So my wondering is how might we, um, help, help set in place some expectations around. you know, I'm, I'm not saying I'm a rock solid master plan or, or design, but, but what might this council do? Um, and I think I'm hearing your, your recommendation is going to be that goes in the ballot. I'm not on the ballot. Sorry. In the voter. Yeah. This would go in the voter preparation guide. But what I've been thinking, and this is for council colleagues as well, is kind of this idea of if we reach a conclusion of an amount and we have a very, very preliminary vision of why we're choosing that amount and we'll likely do it in a series, how might we help voters visualize some expectations we have for what will be developed with that second tranche. Some type of a master plan or I don't know if I'm using the right words.

No, I think that's a good distinction. So maybe in that case, again, I'm compartmentalizing ballot language, the resolution, and voter information pamphlets. So if I think of those as three separate pieces of information that goes to the public, I think I wouldn't recommend it in the ballot proposition. I think that's more complex, more complicated than it needs to be, and I think may be very confusing to an electorate. I think the purpose of the binary ask for the issuance of bond or against the issuance of bonds, I think, is to try to simplify it to in favor or not in favor. I think what you're suggesting is I could see the resolution maybe containing some more verbiage relative to it's the intent of the city to clearly publicly master plan this to get more input, et cetera, et cetera, which I really think you already have that ability by virtue of approving you know up to a certain amount in multiple series and that's only the election authorization again it's still got to come back to the city council to ultimately issue each of those series of bonds but you know that might be a way potentially in the resolution itself to mention that what you alluded to first was my recommendation would be definitely put it in the voter information pamphlet because I think that's where it articulates the best hopefully people have more time to digest it and think about it the resolution is helpful I think maybe more as a governing guidance for the city itself but I don't know that Voters are necessarily going to focus on the resolution. I think they're going to mostly look at the ballot language and the voter information pamphlet.

Yeah. That's helpful. And I think you understand kind of why I'm asking it is sort of setting a vision. Anyway, it looks like you're going to add.

Well, just a reminder for anyone listening, the closing currently under our contract is March 1st. And I think the council's all aware of that, but I thought I'd just mention it again as we're talking about tranches and maybe taking it down in pieces. That is the deadline we currently have for the closing at $17 million.

Right. So what I'm hearing you kind of say is, at the minimum, Marcy, don't lose sight of the fact that we need to have, in order to close on March 1st, we need to have at least 17 million.

Correct. Under our current contract. And I think they would have to start that process in January.

And I completely recognize that the council will be a part of the deliberation with each issuance. I hear that loud and clear. But my question kind of stemmed from, as I pondered on our conversation and our deliberation last week, I had this thought of, well, what if the deliberation over the issuance after the $17 million, I got you, Is a sits in the hands of a different council. Like, you know, we have a change or something. What might we do to communicate? And I like how you use the word intent. So that's what I'm sort of searching for is, um, how might, how might we offer a little bit of intent so that if the council looks different and it's time for the issuance of another tranche and the council at that time determines it's needed. What do we do to help share our intent? So I think you've answered that. Did you have anything else to add? That's it. OK. That's all I had as well. Thank you. Thank you. OK. So I know we had a question here. And you said it was not a question. It was a comment. It is?

I do have one.

For this?

Yes. OK. Go. So if we move forward with something tonight, it's been presented. all over the place that Canyons is asking $17 million. If we went with the $21 million, then that extra $4 million. If Canyons came off of that $17 million price, is there anything? And I haven't seen it either in the language, but are we specifying that this is how much we would be paying for the property versus this? So we could, if canyons came down, which, and there's still discussion with that, but if they were able to come down off of that price, you know, if we were able to work with them a little bit more, we're not limited. So it's not, there wouldn't be any sort of concern where, you know, residents were saying, oh, you know what? They came down a little bit on the price. So now we've got a little additional money. Oh, no. I authorized x amount for purchase of property. And then my ballot, I marked yes, because then I wanted only a maximum of here.

So we're- Yeah, I think the question is- It's just the total price and however that's spent. Yeah, I think I understand the question. I believe by virtue of how it's drafted now, whether it's 17, 21, 30 million, whatever it is, it's more comprehensive in terms of it doesn't detail exactly what the purchase price is. It doesn't detail how much would go into improvements or any of that. is more of a, whether it's 17, 21, or 30, the way it's crafted is you'll use it for that project. Now, I think what I'm hearing is the city certainly, if there's negotiation that comes in at 16 million, then maybe you won't ever even issue the 21 or the 30 million. but you might. You certainly, if you limited it first series just to the acquisition of property, we're not bound to issue $17 million. You could issue in any denomination that you wanted to. And again, I just wanted to remind again that the election is an authorization but not the obligation to issue. So you could issue as many series of bonds, I guess, as you wanted up to the maximum amount or zero. That's still dependent upon council approved resolution.

OK, I do see Mr. DeKeyser's hand. So let me just get clarification on his hand. Is your question relative to what's been presented tonight, like so far, Mr. DeKeyser? Or is it because I want to also make sure we get Councilman Christensen's question to the mayor? So I'm just trying to determine order.

Yes, I have a few questions and then a comment.

OK.

The council received an email tonight at five from a resident. And so I just wanted to clarify some of the things they're asking about. My understanding is that the structure of this issuance is serial, correct?

That's a pretty sophisticated question. Yes. Serial bond issues.

Yes. So we have some financial information as that affects the average monthly homeowner that is applicable to the serial issuance. The next question then is about whether in the information that the public receives, whether there would be a debt service structure as part of that.

Yes, it's not required as part of the resolution or the ballot proposition, but it's almost always included as a reference point in the voter information pamphlet.

OK, so not required, but common practice to include it.

Yeah.

And then finally, my comment, just reading the proposition language, I think it's fine. Oftentimes, as a voter, these propositions seem overly complicated or not clear. And I just wanted to point out that where it discusses that the amounts are $59.98 per year for a household, it goes on to say, and $5 per month. To me, that seems like an or. It's just a little bit. To me, it reads as you're paying the yearly amount and the monthly amount. So I would just like some consideration to make that more clear. Thank you.

Yeah, that's a fair point. I'll mention that to bond counsel. We didn't draft that element of it. But I see what you're saying. So it's almost like an added on cost. Yeah, we can clarify that, certainly.

Mr. DeKaiser, anything else?

That's it. Thank you, Madam Chair. MS. OK.

Thanks. That was great clarifying. Ms. Nichol, I see your hand. Again, I'm thinking about sequencing. Is it questions relative to what's been presented? MS. Yes, ma'am.

MS. All right. Off you go. MS. I'm concerned that the language doesn't have the option or it would be limiting our options that we've already put out to residents as selling a portion of the property. So I think it's really critical that we stick to what we presented to the public and maximize that instead of inhibit us with this property.

What does everybody think about that? So are you addressing that? Is that a question for our presenters or a deliberation?

It's necessary because we have put that out there as a possibility to residents. And if we don't end up doing the magical plans or getting in a financial pinch, we need the option. And so can I... I would like to see language in the next resolution that includes selling the property, or a portion of the property, whatever it is.

So your request would be language... I'm sorry, I don't want to paraphrase. Will you say it again?

Language that includes selling all or a portion of the property. Because those are scenarios one and three, I guess, something like that.

In the resolution language or on the ballot? I'm just clicking. In the resolution. OK. Staff, does that make any questions on that from Ms. Nichol?

I guess one question I would have is, I mean, we do have the option, as Jason mentioned, that in any amount that we put on the ballot, there would be the option to sell the property and subsequently not pursue bonding on a certain amount of the full amount of the bond. Say we did $30 million and then it's decided that we could sell a portion of the property, we wouldn't be required to go to that full amount. So I don't know if that is enough to address that or if there's something specifically in the language that I feel like would need to be addressed to make sure that that's an option. I don't know if it necessarily precludes that option currently, but.

Right. I think it needs to be in the resolution and the bond language.

Okay so.

Madam chair over here.

Where did I. Yes. Are you you're.

Just addressing council member Nichols question. We can look at that request that information and talk with the bond council to see.

And it would simply be brought back for consideration like the council would decide as a body if we're moving forward that language or not.

What I'm saying is we'll talk with the bond council and get their advice on it as well.

Oh, I see what you're saying. Okay, Ms. Stroud had an add-upon. Okay, I'll come there next.

So a couple of different questions, but it is kind of related to the same thing. But one of them, so a little bit with Ms. Nickel, what she was just asking, if we did this in a couple different sets, so a different tranche, the initial was $17 million. if we paid that off early. So if we sold off part of the property, if we got into it and said, you know what, we're in over our head, we're just going to sell everything, whatever. If we move to sell part of it, do we have to have the bond for a certain amount of time? Is there like a prepayment penalty, a time frame?

Yeah, another good question. not contemplated nor necessarily needed to be contemplated in the election or authorizing resolution or election. But the broad language provides that we could issue in multiple tranches, multiple series. That's part of the flexibility. We always have the right as a city to issue it as a private placement instead of going to the public offering. So the distinction there is if we do a publicly issued bond, and I'm going to use our example for Arbor building because when we issued bonds for that, one of the main reasons we wanted the flexibility to prepay early is because We potentially are going to have, you know, part of that being developed. We're going to have for a portion of time private parties that would be leasing property, et cetera, et cetera. Similar to this, we still have every option available to us whether we do a public offering or private placement. If we go to the public market, which is AAA-rated, the highest, the most comprehensive distribution path to potential bond investors, there will be a 10-year no-call provision. So basically for 10 years, basically half of the bond term, you wouldn't be able to prepay. Now, what typically happens if that's a circumstance by the property, don't end up deciding that you're going to develop it with the city, but you're going to sell it and then have it developed that way. What we would typically recommend then is either pursue a private placement. If that's a high likelihood, then we'd pursue a very direct purchaser that would give us flexibility kind of at any time to prepay it, but we would pay more in interest rate. Or we would go with the public offering, which would be the lowest cost, which is what's represented in these property tax impact figures. But then we would take the sale of the proceeds, and you would financially and legally actually defease the bond issue by setting that aside in U.S. Treasuries or in the PTIF, the Treasurer's Investment Fund. and you would just put all that money there and sink it down to when you can call the bonds. So it's a complicated thought process, but if the bonds were at 4 plus percent and the PTIF fund was only earning 3.5 percent, then we'd be... paying more in interest costs during that period of time than we would be receiving in interest investment that would come back. But there's multiple ways of handling it. We chose Ann Arbor to handle it the way we did with the private placement because it gave us the maximum flexibility. We could prepay bonds sooner, so any of the income that came from the leases or anything like that, if it came sooner rather than later, then we could pay down debt early.

Do you have, and I know this is like completely winging it right now, but an idea of what that cost would be either at the 21 or the 30 if we went with that other route? And I bring this up because we had several options that had been presented to the public where we could be selling off a portion of the property. And then Ms. Nichol even bringing up now, so just kind of looking at that, it sounds like that that could happen. And so I'm wondering how that changes what the cost would be to the residents and businesses.

Yeah, I could do a very quick thought on that. My initial is that the interest rate versus the public offering, and I think we're using, it's not here, but like 4.2% is what we think the public offering would be future starting. I think a private placement would probably cost another 30 basis points to a half a percent. So if I looked at our schedule that kind of delineated between current rates and future rates, I think there was a minimal difference. So yeah, for 10 basis points, instead of the $5 a month for the 30 year, it was $4.96. So it was $0.04 for 10 basis points. So if it was $0.50, maybe a $0.20 a quarter or something. Another $0.20.

Not a significant. OK. Thank you. I guess something to kind of consider if that was, you know, we keep that in our pocket. And then back to, you know, the question that that resident, you know, that Mr. Kaiser brought up. Can you explain the difference between, I had asked a little bit of this earlier, the difference between a term and a serial issue is? And then I have some questions on the serial because you said, I believe that you had said that this would be a serial bond.

Yeah, so the main distinction between serial bond and a term bond is just the bondholder's perspective of what they're buying. So in a term bond situation, they would be buying one bond that matures at the final maturity. So that's typically what you would see as a term bond. But almost always in the municipal structuring, we would have sinking fund redemptions, which means you would pay down that amortization. You just set it aside with the trustee. The trustee holds it until the final maturity and pays it. So really in terms of is there a difference in overall cost, Yes, but it's not because there's an additional interest carry. It's usually because the interest rate's a little higher because the term has an interest rate associated with it out 20 years, whereas a serial bond specifically matures every year according to that amortization, and it's potentially different purchasers that buy each single serial bond. Does that make sense?

And that's a little more typical. So the serials are more typical to municipalities.

In the short end of the curve, 20 years and less, that would be a common way to do it. When you go beyond 20 years, you need bigger institutions to buy the quantity of bonds that are out there, and that's usually when you see the bonds being termed up, what they call termed up.

Thank you.

Mr. Arkey?

So I see that our bond counsel is not here. And he's not online from what I understand. So I'll have to rely on the attorneys that we've got. I'm remembering back to what Randy said last week about bond language. And this conversation about adding flexibility seems to me a little bit in conflict with what we talked about last week where randy said something like the bond language needs to be specific enough so that the voters are clear on what they're being asked to vote on but not so specific that you can't add some flexibility or we can't allow ourselves some flexibility. And I'm thinking that's flexibility if we need it, not if we decide to change it, right? So it's a question like Council Member Stroud asked. Hey, if we say we want $17 million to buy a property and we get it for $16 million, we don't have to spend $17 million on it, right? I mean, that's pretty obvious. But it feels like our conversations, and I wonder if this is still okay. That's what I'm wondering. So far, what we've been doing with the public is giving them options and asking them which one they like. One, two, three, four, five, and tonight we're throwing in a sixth. And we've been asking, we've been feeding them information and asking them about their preference. And we've been collecting information from them. But I feel like, are we getting to a point of saying, we want you to approve money and then we'll decide how to spend it? I don't know if that's giving... I'm now getting a little bogged down on the clarity that is required. Can we say pretty much anything? Can we say we would like you to include a bond, we would like you to approve a bond for $30 million and we'll decide how to spend it later? I mean, that is not clear, but is it legal?

If voters voted on that, I think you could put that on the ballot proposition.

Wow.

I don't think it would pass.

Yeah. So it also feels a little bit too like I appreciate what Ms. Nickel just said, but we've been drawing a line between buying and keeping the property, buying and selling off some. Do we... Can we decide? I feel bad about deciding that later, right? Like we, it is, it's a topic of discussion and it's an important one that we've been having with the public. And so I guess I'm asking a philosophical question rather than a legal one. I'm asking about what is right, right? But what do we, can we be right? nonspecific and then just we spend the money or we don't and we say to the public, we decided to do this. I'm feeling uncomfortable with the wiggle room. I'm feeling like we're not being specific with the public. And we've been pretty specific with them thus far. Maybe there's an answer to my question. I'm asking somebody to help me feel comfortable about this wiggle room that we're discussing right now that sounds like we just might consider all these options we're putting in front of you, and we'll spend the money accordingly. stop talking and ask for a solace. That's what I'm asking for.

I would maybe just offer an opinion. I don't know. I mean, trying to look at this outside and kind of understanding what I had initially saw, which was, you know, here's some scenarios for the possibility related to Crescent Middle School. And I think as I evaluated that, what came across to me was this is potentially a very unique opportunity for the community or the city to acquire, possess property in which they could do something with it. More significant or beneficial to the residents of sandy than maybe what it could be done else elsewise so I look at that as part of the positioning of the of the city of It could be as much as just purchasing the property so we can at least preserve that option and then determine if there's a better path forward in another in I mean, the one option is don't do anything, don't purchase it, and then there's no other scenario other than what comes before the council to develop. But I think really where you need to determine is what that amount is because I do feel like what it seems like has been kind of shared with the public is this vision of we have an opportunity to get an asset to control it there's some benefit that we could do with it other than what it could be developed as and there's still a spectrum of you know first we got to at least buy it and then there's still this you know iterative process of developing well what makes the most sense for this property and I I don't think it's unfair. I guess my thought is I think it's fair in the voter information pamphlet to lay out that it could be just by the property. That may be where we stop this point in time. Or it could be by the property, equip it so that at least we've purchased an asset and then can make it usable. Or do you go to the full extent of saying, hey, why don't we, while we're at it, here's our total vision of what we would do. And it doesn't mean that we're committed 100% to issuing bonds, but would you authorize us to go up to that extent?

Stopping short of doing something that you haven't talked about at all, right?

Yeah, I mean, yeah.

So, you know, I appreciate what Council Member Nichols said. She wants to retain the right to buy the property and then sell a portion of it. And she would like that. I think if we were to entertain that, because that's a pretty controversial component of this whole thing. So if we wanted to do that, I suppose we could put that in the bond language among all the things. And she's suggesting that. Now, you said something very interesting when you started this, which was just be careful because if you say something that you think is going to put the bond measure in jeopardy, Are you sure you want to do that? So I think it's think carefully, be honest. If we did, because the language right now, it says that we would finance all or a portion of the cost of acquiring, developing, constructing the property or portions thereof. but it doesn't say anything about buying it and then selling a portion of it. So is it your feeling that if we were to do that, that would be inconsistent with what's been granted to us by the voters if it isn't specified in the bond language? I guess maybe that's a better...

I think Martin alluded to this earlier, which is I think following up with Bond Council specific to that. I can't opine necessarily. Certainly Lynn and Tracy would be in a better position. But when I was thinking of the actual resolution header, after all of the acquire this and construct and improve and so forth, I don't see the risk of, you know, after improvement saying and to the extent the full amount isn't or the full amount authorized isn't issued and the city determines to sell the property or something, you know, to that effect. I mean, you could put in there that I don't think that that necessarily applies. uh... bind you to that either that you have to sell the property but if if that is more transparent in terms of council member nickels is referring to uh... there's nothing there that necessarily suggests ever the property purchased could also potentially be property sold we've always assumed that that's the case that that's the case but To me, that's a question that I think we could track down with bond counsel and determine if they really see any risk to that. I don't. just off my top of my head and thinking well if we did need to tweak the language where would i put it and how would i put it again i wouldn't put it in the ballot proposition but i know that's what council member nichols has alluded to but i i do think in the caption of the resolution you know adding that element of the potential cell of land i don't think harms us

Thank you.

All right. I see Ms. Nicholson has this same line of inquiry, right?

Yeah. Did I state my need wrong or my want wrong was that I think it needs to be included in the bond language. I didn't necessarily want to specify it going on to the ballot information, the pro or con, but I think it does need to be in this resolution and for the bond language. That's what I meant. Did I hear wrong, Jason?

No, I probably misinterpreted that. I was thinking, again, the ballot language, The resolution and the voter information pamphlet, I think of three kind of documents in this. And yeah, I think it could be in the resolution and also in the voter information pamphlet. I don't think, which is attached in the draft here, which is the actual official ballot. That's what goes on. That's what you would be considering as part of this resolution. That's the ballot that would be then approved. That's where I'm saying I'm not sure that I would add it there. But that's, I think, something that Martin could track down. And we did have bond counsel discussion. We did provide some additional information to counsel executive, counsel attorney, and I think they addressed some of those in that discussion points. That one specifically, I don't know. But I don't see the harm necessarily in doing it from a, can it be added? I think it can. Does it help get the election more people understood and supportive of it? Or does it hurt? I don't have an opinion one way or another.

Yeah, that's, I'm not... I'm sorry, I'm not expressing myself very well. That's not what I was getting at. I just want them to know in the resolution, not specifically the bond language or what goes on the ballot, that that is also an option that could happen. When they want to dig deeper, that option that we've been saying for the last month is still an option. specifically state that in the resolution that we need to adopt in order to move forward with the bond.

Yeah, and I understand. I think I understand that and there's In the resolution I can see a couple of places where you could add the concept of not only cost of acquiring but cost of maybe selling and infer that there's a possibility that you would sell some of this property. But I think working through that with bond council, I think we need to determine that from their perspective, whether that's creating a problem or not.

So do you have what you need for Ms. Nickel?

Yes, I think I understood what the objective was and I think we can follow up with bond council fairly quickly and maybe there's a couple of options of where it could be put in to cover her point and we could circulate that to the council to see if if that's acceptable language or if that meets what you're trying to accomplish. But yeah, I see it in the preamble, I think, and the very first whereas clause, and potentially section two of the current resolution. I could see just adding language there.

MS. Ms. Nichol, does that align with what you were seeking? MS. Yes. MS. OK. All right, I think that's everything. So we'll go to your question, which moves us into hearing rationale.

So yeah, just like the thought process, Mayor, and then just like high level, I don't need every detail, of the 3.7 million for improvements to safety, safely operate the building in existing spaces, like what are we thinking there?

Well I think it's clear the Crescent View Middle School acquisition presents a larger issue. It shows that Sandy is at a crossroads to preserve the land or to develop the land. And over this last couple of months of the community conversation we've heard a lot of feedback. We've heard feedback from our residents who are frustrated that every last postage stamp of land seems to be developed for higher and higher density. And that's kind of been the undercurrent of the mood over the last couple election cycles as well. And we've also heard from residents who are frustrated about raising taxes and increased costs of running city government. And so the development of this land, turning it over to private development, presumably increase our property tax base and could solve some of those pressures for what it costs to run the city. So we've got this tension. And this is the decision of the moment to define who we are as a community. And so that's why I'm recommending the council requested make a recommendation on a bond level, a dollar amount, what should be put to the voters. I feel very, very strongly that this decision should be placed in the hands of the voters because this is going to say the type of community we will become for the next 30 50 years. It should be a citizen centric decision to declare how the property can best serve the needs of our city. So nothing comes for free. Yes there's cost to bonding and yes there's cost to development. So you only need to talk to residents who have lived near Farnsworth Farms or other neighborhood developments where they, you know, are used to seeing open fields or viewscapes that were now consumed by housing or height and the frustration on congestion and the longer commutes home and how it feels to cross the streets in neighborhoods when development comes in. So we hear a lot about that. And we hear, we've heard from our residents through the surveys, through the open houses, through the feedback, through the Community conversations happening online is however people feel about this decision. They're really happy to be asked. They're grateful that the council's seeking their input and the residents have the say in this. So my recommendation is for a $21 million bond to be placed on the ballot for the residents to consider the decision. How are we going to develop Sandy? $17 million is the purchase price that's established by Canyon School District. Yes, there have been appraisals, but it's the offers that are determining the land value. And it's $1 million an acre just for the land, not to mention the value of the building, that could serve civic needs very, very well. It's a middle school. I wouldn't say it's turnkey ready, but it has so many features, including the gymnasium, the cafeteria, the commercial kitchen, the classroom space, the music area, the performing arts space that would align very well with our civic needs for arts, youth sports. We already do the junior jazz. We're already paying to lease that property. And then the opportunity to move out of the current parks and recs building, saving that operation costs and the maintenance costs on that older building and putting that to something more programmable, more modern. So, uh, the need for the about $4 million in excess of the purchase price is for essential repairs, safety improvements, basic furnishings, fixtures, and equipment so that the property can begin serving the community immediately. The details on that, I'll turn it to Martin about that, but we've worked with an architect, we've had some initial planning, and so we can prepare that $4 million budget and present that to the council and share that with you. It's taken until now for this community process to play out to get this feedback from the residents. We saw on the nights of the open house, the $30 million option received such strong support Overwhelming support from the attendees at the at the open house, but we know that the attendees were mostly in that immediate crescent area so that That's understandable that they would want that built out to the strongest possible Civic Center Community Center purpose But the survey showed that while there is very strong support across the city across across the districts for securing the property the support is We found the pressure points as the price tag went up. And also, because of the timing of this, this is an opportunity that's come together relatively quickly, especially when you compare it to our rec center decision that took decades, right? We don't have a fully built-up business plan. We don't have all the questions answered. And we've been, it's been like what comes first, the chicken or the egg? Are we going to come with a business plan for all of the operations and activities in this in a civic center or doing. We're waiting for guidance from the council from the community at what level. Where is the comfort level for the support. So that's where the 17 million is for the purchase price. It gives us enough cushion. We don't have to use it all but it gives us enough cushion to build it out for a civic center and then it allows us to take some further time for a phase two process. the second phase where residents weigh in on what this should be ultimately. What is the permanent use? Should we maintain all of the property or should we sell a portion of it? Should we build out the sports and recreation, use that land and keep that as it is? Or should it be something different? Or should we bring in businesses or public-private partnerships? So it gives us the most flexibility. It gives us a budget where we get it safe and workable. as soon as possible and we're not going back to the voters for a million here or a million and a half there. We've got some, we've got some funds to get it operational and safe for community purposes first. And then we move into that second phase. And what would that phase two look like? It would look like a continuation of what we've done, full transparent resident informed process. You have a timeline community engagement open houses proposals for programming public private partnerships all of the things that have been amazing proposals from child care centers to businesses to housing a year round farmers market turning that commercial kitchen and inviting home chefs a lot of exciting ideas that would benefit the community but it will take some time to percolate some time to settle. But it gets the center open. It gets people into the building. It gets them used to the operations of the building and a sense of belonging, that that now belongs to the city. Talking to our events team to have daddy-daughter dances and larger meetings. We don't have any place in the city for that. So it's only limited by our imagination right now, but $21 million gives us enough to get started without writing a blank check or expecting the voters to sign off on a blank check. So it hits that sweet spot where it meets the strong support of our residents to preserve this opportunity for the city, but it also is responsible stewardship to say that we are going to come back to our residents, we're going to continue to come back and develop this plan together. And I think that's what's so unique about this opportunity is that really, It's in the hands of the residents, whether we keep all of it, sell it. I'm not advocating. I'm not recommending one course of action. I'm recommending that this decision rests with our residents. So that's where the $21 million comes into play because it was clear from the survey results that the $30 million just wasn't right for a decision. Not that a $30 million project couldn't work or wouldn't be ultimately the decision, but we're just not there yet. We haven't had the time to study it, to really process, to experience the property, to experience the building. But what we do know is we're asking the voters to secure that land. It's adjacent to the eight acres Crescent Park already. The value to the city, I would argue keeping it open space is higher than the value to a developer for developing that. It expands our recreation opportunities and our community uses of that land. Point about putting a purchase on the ballot, I think that would make it too confusing. I think there's such strong support from our survey responses that people just want to secure the property. That saying, asking a voter to vote to secure it, but yet we might sell it, we would lose support for that in the voter's mind. So I would discourage that, but knowing like all our properties, you know, if we had a worst case scenario where we had to make decisions, every piece of property is up for up for decision-making, but it's not just Crescent. We could, we don't have Mr. Out asked for a map of properties last week and we have assembled that we don't just have this property. Should there be a need to. meet a bottom line or to raise funds or raise capital or even develop for housing. There's other properties that are available in the city. So that's why putting this to the voters, keeping it simple, $21 million for the purchase price and the initial operating costs, excuse me, the initial improvements of the center seem sensible based on the feedback, based on the survey results, and based on the community engagement.

Thank you. Do you have any clarifying questions?

I wanted Martin to talk about some of those startup costs. Okay, go ahead.

Thank you, Mayor. So as we've worked with the school district and looked at the building, crawled all through it, had it inspected, They remind us over and over again, if it's not bolted down in the building, they will be taking it. And so, as Jason said, the fixtures, furniture, equipment, all the nuts and bolts in the building that make the building work will be there. The kitchen will be there. office space desks if we have staff in there they're not going to take the basketball standards those will will remain. But in order for us to get the building up and running as we have described with the public as a community center as a recreation opportunity, as childcare, as all these things that have been envisioned, there would be some capital cost to make some improvements. As the building sets, we can continue to use it as we have been for decades in recreation. It would be very turnkey for recreation programming. Very minimal overhead needed there. childcare we would need some improvements. The restrooms a lot of the restrooms were built for little people for for kids and so there would need to be some restroom upgrades and and some improvements made there. The art side of it is one of the areas where we would need to make some improvements to be able to function and host and use use the building and property for arts. The outside we can use it as is today. The city standards if you look at any aerial map of the property you look at the Crescent Park just to the north and then you look at the school grounds that they're at different standards and different qualities and so we would want to make some minimal improvements to ensure that we're securing the green space out there. But we as the mayor said we can come back next week with a little more detailed breakdown of the potential use of that. If we don't use if we have some plans we don't use all the four million we wouldn't use that. But we will move. We would move forward with a plan to make the building functional as is.

Thank you. Miss Nichol I see your hand. Go ahead.

Thank you. I just have some comments that I'd like to share. This is not in rebuttal to anybody else, but I've taken a lot of time and analyzed the recent studies and surveys that have been completed. And these studies were done without a deadline or a timeframe. They were taken at times when nothing was going on. So I really wanted to kind of focus on some of those answers. We do have a parks master plan that was just completed in 2024. And this is one of my favorite quotes in it. In order to achieve high level of service and the department provides every decision met with a question. And this question is really cool. Am I doing the right thing at the right time? And when I'm going through these things, just keep that in mind. So the parks study or the parks master plan showed we're deficient in three areas. We could build another skate park, bike park. It says that we could build another outdoor pool and that we're deficient in a dog park, all of which the dog park I agree with. But it also shows that there's a need in the Crescent area to expand their park, which is really cool. Sorry, I'm going through my notes here. And I looked at the survey that was done by Y2 Analytics just in 2024. And keep in mind, this was when people weren't pressured or had a deadline. We weren't talking about this property specifically. 73% strongly or somewhat strongly agree that Sandy has enough parks and open space recreation to meet their needs. 36% think preserving parks and trails is worthwhile. And take these numbers as you get them, but 76% of people are satisfied with the current recreational programs that we offer. 5% of residents went to Arts Guild Productions, and only 4% of Sandy residents went to an Arts Guild Youth Program. The largest segment of our population is 65 years and older. We're an aging community. 30% of Sandy's population have, 37% have kids under the age of 18, only 37% of Everybody in Sandy has kids under the age of 18. Last week, Parks and Recs, we were talking about Alta Canyon, and this was really eye-opening news information to me. Our director specifically said, modern municipal recreation centers recover 40 to 60% of the operating cost. This is essentially opening another recreation center. So it's going to be an expensive proposition unless, you know, our programming is spot on and we can make 100% of the operating costs, which parks and rec centers just don't do that. And when I looked at what has been offered on Crescent property, the only thing that we don't offer right now is really a private daycare and a cafeteria. But when we go back to the Crescent survey, only 3% of residents, I've used only residents only, are interested in that. So are we really hitting the need of the people with what we have said we're offering? I don't know that I can answer that with such surety. The survey went on to say anything that they would have liked to see in these. Oh, sorry. Okay. I'm looking at a different survey. So then the question was asked on the Crescent survey, there are several concepts for an overall project. Which one of the following options would you prefer for the average property owner? I'm on the wrong one. I am so sorry. I thought I was so prepared for this but okay. 28% of respondents said if there's something that goes on there they want it to be housing. The next section said none of these options. The other notable thing on this survey is that residents were asked to respond to one question on the preference of the average property owner would pay and 26 of is the highest percentage said nothing. And the other one was the, obviously, the blingy $30 million one. I want to look back and say yes to that question of, am I doing the right thing at the right time for the right reason? Thanks for allowing me that. I appreciate it.

Thank you Ms. Nichol. Any clarifying questions for the mayor and her rationale? Yes Ms. Sharkey.

So I do have a question for the mayor or for Martin and that is in relation to phase two. So if what we're looking at is a phase one at a cost of 21 million dollars which acquires the property and does, you know, improvements, buys equipment to allow an operation of it. And that, I mean, I can agree that we are kind of hazy on what comes after that, right? So I'm very interested in this proposition, but I do have questions about it. And that is, so phase two is, If that's a continuation of what we're doing now, an analysis of what the needs are, speaking to the public, asking them about their interests, what would they like to see there. I'm hoping it also includes vetting of some of the groups that have come to us and said that they'd like to be partners. And maybe you would help us use the venue, contribute hopefully revenue. Instead of the revenue draining, hopefully it produces revenue. But would it be, in the end, it sounds like if phase one is a baseline of acquiring the property and getting it useful for a narrow purpose, and then we start thinking more broadly, I'm assuming that phase two is more money, more cost. And Would it fall into the category of, once again, another GO bond for the voters to weigh in on? It doesn't sound like it to me because it probably wouldn't be a sizable amount of capital expenditure, or would it? or if it's not a geo bond then it is a tax increase imposed by the city council to fund more expenses to really grow and vet out the usefulness of the property i'm just looking to find out in this scenario Is this a down payment and then a future payment is coming and we don't know what that looks like or how it's presented to the residents in the form of another vote that you get to make. I'm sorry, Mayor. Please, just don't show so much disdain, please.

I think these are good questions. It's assuming a lot of worst case scenarios. Phase two.

I'm asking about phase two, your own words, your own words.

So I'm saying we need time to get into the building to experience it, to develop the strategic partnerships. So I'm not assuming a tax increase. Are you?

Yes. I'm assuming that's what I'm trying to narrow in on.

I don't think we have enough to make predictions right now, Councilmember. I don't want to get locked into what it's going to be before we've even had a chance to consult with the residents. That's the first step. I can't tell you.

So you think that there's a scenario with, you've defined it as phase two.

Yeah.

Looking at a future, more future expansive uses, but you're thinking the cost could be zero to do that. I'm asking that question. Could the cost be zero?

I'm not going to say what the cost is going to be because I don't know yet what the residents want it to become. So in fairness, I can't give you an estimate on cost and operations. But I know that unless we preserve the property, we'll never have the chance to ask that.

So you don't know what it would cost. Can you even think of a cap of what the upper end could possibly be?

If I may, council member. So the first step is securing the property, right? If we secure the property we would want to begin to utilize it right away one to benefit the public and then two to start generating revenue and to make the highest and best use instead of just putting up orange snow fencing and say we're going to you know take some time and figure it out. So the goal would be purchase it. Make sure that we're using it we're benefiting residents and then is the mayor said phase 2 I would call it we move into the next step which is a a additional public engagement process. It can be if you're building a brand new building would be called schematic design but it's a continuation of a public public process. There could be improvements. There could be a decision to say, hey, all right, after a few years, we're going to walk away from this. We're going to sell the whole building and the whole property. Would that happen? I doubt it. But it is a process, as I've gone through this for two decades in securing properties for public entities, You secure it. You say, hey, we need enough money to go and secure it. Here's our vision for it. Now that we have it, let's go out and we will really be able to slow down and involve the public, involve the elected officials that oversee it, and make decisions together at that point. And so could there be increased costs? Yes. Could there be an increased capital? Yes but it all depends upon what the public wants what the residents that are going to use it want and we'll make those decisions together.

If I could add upon the questions that have been asked, what I'm hearing in terms of the description of Phase 2 could also happen via authorization at the $30 million and we only issue a bond for the $17 million and we then treat the process in the same way that you just described, so I'm not hearing that We are limited to a very same public process a planning process. I'm hearing that the vision for phase two can be accomplished in more than one way.

Yeah. And the experience that I've had in that are the tranches and that's the term that was brought up last week by Randy and Brian. And if there was sentiment to say hey we're going to go out and bond for 30 million. Once again we're authorized to go for that amount but it doesn't mean we have to. the markers that we have right now are we know we have due diligence and a closing deadline of March of next year. And so we would hope if if voters said yes go for it and the council says yes go for it then we would work with the school district. We're always going to try and bring the cost down if we if we can reduce the cost from 17 million. Great. You know. And so say hypothetically they say well we're going to sell it to you for 10. OK well then We could factor that into the first tranche, do something lower, and then we go into that phase two or the next step and figure out what it is, figure out how much we need to use at that process, and then we would do a second tranche, a second issuing of bonds. But if we bond at a lower level we would need to determine if we're going to go out and do a second tranche. The 21 million right now assumes the sale price is going to be 17. That's what we've heard from the Canyon School District that they as of last week were not interested in lowering that. And then the 4 million gives us enough cushion to make sure that the building is operational for the purposes that we've talked about in the public meetings as soon as reasonably possible so that we can start providing services, start generating revenue, and then continue the evolution. If we secure the property, start operating it. It doesn't have to stay as is from that day forever forward in good governance. We throw that term around. We're constantly listening to our residents constantly checking the temperature of what our community needs. May that be selling part of the property in the future. Could be. In the world that I've worked in, in parks and recreation for decades, when we started running a lot of these bonds, literally one of the bonds I ran, we said, hey, we're going to take out money for recreation. We started recreation improvements, various parks. pickleball came along and exploded. And being able to say, hey, we're going to do recreation gave us enough flexibility. By the time the bond was issued and we started construction years down the road, we started building pickleball courts that were not even thought of at the time that the bond went to the voters. And so that's where we want to be specific enough to say hey we are going to use it as a community purpose recreation arts open space child care that the language has been provided is very specific enough to be open and honest with our residents but vague enough broad enough I should say is probably a better term. to allow some flexibility as we go into that next phase to listen to our residents to figure out what's the highest and best use and to go back to that point that Chris brought up of are we doing the right thing at the right time. I like that phrase and it's something that we need to continue to do and to think about in everything that we do.

Yeah, and I don't think you would get an argument from anyone. I think what I'm trying to clarify is that what's been communicated as the why for doing $21 million bond right now in order to allow for a very public process and additional study and perhaps some design, et cetera, could still occur with a $30 million bond where we think of it as the series that we've heard. et cetera. And I want to loop back to what I shared earlier in this conversation, which was it's important that we, as the current body making this decision currently, have the ability to indicate our intention. And where I find the 21 million in terms of how the phase approach has been discussed or presented tonight is it's still communicating intent. I hear it communicating intent. However, there isn't necessarily a clarity around how the funding for Phase II would be found. That's really fuzzy. Whereas if we did 30 million, and I know it's higher perhaps than some of my colleagues are interested in, but 30 million provides complete clarity. It allows voters to know this will be a general obligation bond. This is the predicted amount it will impact me but that impact only kicks in to the degree that we actually bond for the authorized amount so we could accomplish the vision of what I'm hearing is the rationale behind the mayor's 21 million but there's some fuzziness to that that I would just I am saying I feel like is clarified in terms of if we move forward and do more than the purchase of the property we already are saying to voters here's where that funding will come from and it will be a public process so my personal preference i'm sharing is i want to be very clear from the beginning i want it to be a general obligation bond i want voters to support from the beginning knowing This is what I'm authorizing. I see that it could be, it could fall under this resolution language. And I'm saying yes to an authorization of up to this amount, recognizing that there is inherent. And again, we would put it into the voter. I love how you keep reminding us. There's three things here, Marcy, three things. Get it right, Marcy. It would go into the voter information packet as to, what this could potentially look like. So I appreciate the clarification of your rationale. And I'm just adding my own preference to that. Mr. DeKaiser, I see your hand.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This conversation is getting a little confusing to me. I'm sensing some miscommunication between the council and the administration. I just want to clarify overall, though, that what the mayor is saying in terms of phase two is fully contained within the $21 million bond. Is that correct, Mayor?

No. So the $21 million bond allows for the property acquisition and basic updates to get it operational. If we proceed further and do a further development of, let's say, turn it into a civic center or a performing arts center or something like that, or take recommendations or suggestions of all the different partnership proposals that have come to be, We planned that in a separate phase. So that would not be funded with this general obligation bond because it only goes up to $21 million. Again, it's a value proposition. The support for a $30 million figure was really taxed when we went up to that level. So I think the $21 million strikes that balance between the preservation and the build-out. So that's, I think, the sweet spot for the Sandy community that shows we've We value the land preservation and preserving the opportunities. Does it answer all the questions? No, but that's my recommendation, too, for a bond that would probably stand the best chance of passage, if we're going to put it to the voters. That would appeal to most.

Thank you for the clarification. I missed that. I was thinking of phase two in terms of the initial improvements that we do after acquiring the building and wasn't clear that that would be a completely separate bond. Or how would we put that?

Separate funding, separate analysis. So would it be a tax increase? Would it be a bond? We don't have those questions yet to have the answers. That's what I'm saying today.

Thank you. MR. Mr. DeKeyser, is that everything you needed? OK. Thank you.

bring it back here I'm seeing a nod okay mr. Sousa okay okay so I'm kind of gonna kind of wrap up my thoughts I was absent from the last meeting when you know this was presented again and discussed and so trying to catch up on on what was presented then versus what's being presented now and the conversations that occurred and my own thoughts on that so I thought a lot about where to start, and I don't really know where to start. I'm going to say that I'm probably going to be a little bit more direct and frank just for the sake of ease of getting through this conversation. I have concerns for myself as a decision maker with the way that the information was put out and disseminated and changed over time and presented to the council in different iterations. in different iterations. And so initially, the question that came before the council on whether or not to go out to contract was one thing. And then it changed. And in June, the council was presented with two options. And then in July, the council was presented with five options that went out to the residents. And now we're being presented a recommendation for an option that wasn't even put out to the public. And so the statements about, well, we need to get public feedback and we don't really know what it's going to be is concerning to me because I thought that was what we have been doing, is getting that information, putting it out there, trying to figure out what it is that the public is interested in. I am concerned about doing this in a series of meetings of tranches through different bonds. We put out there on the ballot, hey, $30 million, for example. It's going to cost you x amount. Well, that's only if the interest rates and all of those things are equal or similar to what they are when we put that information out. So if we don't bond for phase two three or two or three or four until whatever, some later time, then we ask voters to approve the cost to them when it could be incredibly different, either for the better or for the worse. I don't like the uncertainty that we are putting on voters and residents and business owners when it comes to what it's going to cost. All of these options have an operating and maintenance cost that needs to be considered. I personally see this as a two-step. funding process. One is purchasing the building, and two, well, OK, maybe three, purchasing the building, getting the building to fit whatever use we have for it, and then three, ongoing maintenance and operations. It is my personal opinion as a council member that there will likely be another tax increase to the general fund to be able to cover those operations and maintenance expenses. I'm just going to be completely clear About that we are our budget this last year. We had to cut employees on to be able to balance the budget. And costs are just going up. So I'm concerned about what next year's budget looks like. I'm concerned that we have Alta Canyon that hasn't even opened yet. We don't know what the operations of that facility are going to get. We are doing the council chambers. I do see value in a portion of the Crescent View middle school land but to me it really is in like the true open space where we have fields that can be utilized by those families that need to if it were up to Completely up to me. I am I'm not interested in the building at all. I think that when it when we toured the building with council members council staff administrative staff at the time this was quite a while ago and Every comment that came was this is this building is way too big for any of our needs, you know and then we purchased the Arbor building to kind of help with some of the the needs that we have I Don't feel like I have the information that I need to make these decisions and feel comfortable that I'm making good decisions by leaving so much left to be decided in the future quite frankly, I Feel like I have a healthy risk tolerance I feel like This proposition is riskier than I feel comfortable with right now. I could see, like I said, value in some of the fields, a few acres for fields, but it would be, in my opinion, that the rest of it should be sold For development and we retain what we need to to expand field field space the operations and maintenance of just fields is a lot less than What we have in that building even if we purchase it for you know 17 million and it's only 21 million and it's not the full 30 million We're still basically paying the operations and maintenance costs on the 30 million like it's the entire building, right? Like that's kind of what we're talking about and which is what four hundred and some odd thousand dollars a year and so anyway I know we don't have a lot of time to make these decisions, but I'm not interested in putting out to the public for more than the cost to purchase the land. That's basically at $17 million. And I am with Councilmember Nickel in terms of, I'm not saying that she's advocating for selling a portion of the property, but that would be what I would anticipate happen with the remainder of the property. You know, when it comes to the Canyon School District, I'm kind of disappointed, frustrated, confused, concerned with the seeming lack of negotiations that they're engaging in. I mean, even the FF&E is a negotiation at this point in the process, right? Like, this is due diligence. This is what we're doing right now. And it's an opportunity to renegotiate the contract as we go through discovery and our fact finding on this. And if there is an opportunity or needs, for the most part, everything's negotiable until it's not. And so if they're not negotiating, I question why. And that's concerning to me. So those are kind of my thoughts. I don't mean to be so hard-lined on it. But the information that has been put out to the public and given to the council has changed and morphed every time to the point that I don't even recognize the question anymore. That's where I'm at. Thanks.

Thank you, Ms. D'Souza. I honestly think that's where we are. We each need to, so I don't think you need to necessarily apologize or think. We have to give this kind of clarity. We have to start sort of saying where we are so that feedback is received and then what gets brought back to us for consideration next week, we're voting. So I think you're right to just say where you are. So I appreciate that. Ms. Straub.

thank you madam chair a couple things and they're kind of in a couple different directions but the very last thing you said I wanted to address that because that was the last thing that popped up you know he said you were frustrated with you know Canyon School District and the lack of negotiations I even as this last Sunday I had someone who is either or very, very, very closely affiliated with one of the decision makers, call me and spend a significant amount of time on the phone with me. And they are frustrated. They are frustrated with Sandy City. Out of all the cities that they work with, Sandy's at the bottom. So yes, we have a lot we need to do to work with canyons and to find a better, smoother path forward. So I mean, that's a... And I don't know exactly what that looks like. I had to remind this individual as I have reminded other individuals that I cannot negotiate on the behalf of Sandy City. But they have expressed the desire to negotiate. more than one person on more than one occasion. So I'm not sure where that disconnect is, but I personally, and not just because I'm an employee of Canyon School District, it was my daytime job, but I have heard from them their desires to work with Sandy and what that looks like on different things. So I hope that those negotiations that we can fix what has has if it's a bridge of trust you know and it sounds like it's been you know it's not just just this instance you know that there have been other things you know for it for some history you know and and a fair amount of history so you know hopefully we we can't you know build that and look at other things you know not even just for now but for the future as well know that's being a strong community partner is is what I think what residents want from us and what they need from us so you know just a little insight on that but you know I understand your frustration on that you know because it has come back and has seemed very rigid you know and and so then my my next part of this you know with that 17 million 21 Twenty four point five and thirty, you know looking at those and then no, you know not do anything You know, it has been kind of all over the place, you know And and I think you know, I wish we had taken this discussion on a little earlier so that it wasn't so last-minute But you know, we're going through a lot of these questions. It's just in a condensed amount of time so it seems chaotic and it feels very chaotic you know with this and I mean that's and this is where I mean even last week because I think it's been alluded to a couple times you know we had a council member that was there was absence you know it was missing last week We printed, Ms. Christensen was wonderful enough to come over and spend some time last night and work on some slides of looking at what $4 million would do to remodel with the police department. We're hearing about $4 million that there's not a plan for phase two, we just want to have it over there. We've got space issues. And that's you know so looking at that and I don't know it doesn't sound like it. I've tried you know kind of over the past week and it sounds you know which we've got a lot we're dealing with. I understand that perspective. You know as Christiansen brought up last week you know thinking about you know if there was some sort of remodel you know and that's Miss Nichol. know same thing with you know looking at a public safety building you know that that would be pretty far down the road you know looking at that so I just I want to ask if there's any appetite or interest you know to be able to look at that or if we're just going to stay focused and say you know We're here. We're focused on crescent and you know understands, you know perspective, you know from from you know from all council members I mean, that's you know looking at that but you know, just wondering, you know, is there an interest? I mean there was two options kind of in here, you know, one of them looking more at what miss Nichols input was on that so Just curious with that

Could you say very clearly what input you need from the council?

So I would look so right now my question is do we spend 17 million dollars purchasing putting out for a bond for Crescent Middle School and instead of 4 million of going towards chairs and things like that when we don't have a phase two plan is take $4 million and build out space so that the police department has a place to go. So keeping it the $21 million, which is where at least that was the dollar amount. that administration felt was palatable for residents. It may not be the exact funding in certain areas, but it was a dollar amount. Would the council be interested? Is there any sort of appetite in buying the property and then using that $4 million? So $17 million for buying the property, securing that, and then $4 million for using that for the police department to try to get them into one building. So that's the question.

Thank you for clarifying. So I'll respond, and then I'd like to kind of just hear from everyone so that you get the feedback you're asking for. In my opinion, we are voting in a week, and there would be significant change to the entire conversation we've been having. The bond, the resolution would have to change, the bond language, the voter information packet, because now we are, it doesn't, in my opinion, fall under what we have considered tonight. So I'm not interested in that. that change. We discussed this last week and took a vote. I know it was 3-3 but I just would invite everyone to weigh in so that we have clarity on that question because it's not the exact question we voted on last week but it still is bringing in a whole another batch of language. So my response is I'm not interested in adding to that.

And that's always just a follow-up with it to clarify.

All right. I'm going to keep going down here, Ms. Christensen.

I am absolutely interested in it. I can kind of see from the head shaking where this is going. And if this isn't something that as a council we decide is an interest right now, I would just like to advocate for the opportunity to, during carryover possibly, to fund Ms. Nichols' study and to look at this

seriously to determine where our space needs are going forward for the police department so I'm not interested in taking up police right now certainly something that I would like to study and look at and consider and exercise some good planning and make some good decisions on that in terms of where we are now I think that we have led the public to believe that they're going to help make us the decision on this, on Crescent. And I think we've certainly asked their opinion. I always think like... If you're going to ask the public's opinion, you ought to be prepared to say yes. I feel like the only way to ask them their opinion and to resolve where we are in terms of, I think we're all in agreement that this has moved very, very, very, very fast and changed and morphed. And I think... a decision to only, I think every position is valid, by the way, even all six. I think all six options we've been presented are all valid. But if we're asking the public, what do you think? What do you want us to do? And if they're telling us, we like that you're asking our opinion, and we're certainly signaling that we're going to put this up to a vote, then what we shouldn't do is make a decision for them and then say, do you vote yes or no? I think we still ought to let them make the decision. And I think the way to do that is to put it on a $30 million bond for them to vote on and then to take only what we need to activate and implement what they tell us they want to do. I think that's the only way to do it. I tread into the honesty space, too. What I heard is... I'm probably going to be more direct. I should be more political on this. But what I've heard tonight is about some degree of comfort that a $21 million vote will pass, but a $30 million one will not. But what makes me uncomfortable with that is there seems like there's some more to come. So I don't like the idea that we're... Narrowing it to 21 million because we have some confidence that the voters will vote in favor of that But there's likely to be more funding that we're going to you know have to take up later That's not right. That's not fair. We're either letting the public decide or we're not and so I feel like that's the message that we've given and so I feel like that's what we ought to follow up on is we're letting the public decide and And to me, that takes the form of a $30 million bond vote. I'm happy to include Ms. Nichols' language in here that gives us more flexibility if we need it. And so... in consideration of the fact that all decisions haven't been made up until this point. We have some good overall concepts, but specific decisions haven't been made, and it leaves us some more room for more discussions and planning and conversations. Anyway, that's where I am on the topic.

Thank you, Ms. Sharkey. Bringing it back to the feedback that Ms. Stroud has requested, Ms. D'Souza, where are you?

I will say that I recognize that the police department has space needs but i also believe that you know like the the arbor building was purchased to help address some of those space needs and departments have been approved to move into that building yet nobody has and so the police can't get any relief until you know some of those dominoes fall and so i'm at a place where i think the dust needs to settle on some of the decisions that we've already made to really understand the right decisions moving forward for the police department. So for that, I am not supportive of this proposal at this time coupled with this Crescent View conversation.

Thank you, Mr. Sousa. Ms. Nichol, I see your hand. Could you provide feedback to Ms. Stroud that's been requested?

Yes, thank you. It's admirable what you're asking, 100%. But this is what I foresee in the future happening. we do $4 million for a police room remodel. And I hear the conversation of police don't need anything now because we have given them a police remodel. I think it adds a negative effect to getting them the type and kind of building that they really, really need.

Thank you, Ms. Nichol. Mr. DeKaiser, could you provide Ms. Stroud with feedback on her question?

The $4 million, some of that is going to need to be used to pay for the closing costs on the loan. And then we're not just going to operate the building empty. We need the money to make it usable. And we voted this down last week, so I would not be supportive.

Thank you, Mr. Kaiser. Thank you, Mr. Kaiser. The one thing I would add to what I shared earlier that I've not yet surfaced this, but happy to do so, it might be worth considering. I know the police department is next on our management study rotation with a new police chief. It could be that we think about moving that management study up a year, and first, do the management study and get that information in the same way that we did with the fire station. And then the management study becomes kind of our guiding light, so to speak. So food for thought, but have you received the feedback that you requested?

I have, I think, and it actually is for next year because we didn't do it this year.

Yes, but I'm saying we could potentially move it up a whole year. Like we could finish the study we're on right now, get it to the end conclusion, and decide as a council to go ahead and jump right into the next one. That's what I'm saying for police. Okay, so I like... Not that you need me to like it, but I appreciate the sort of direct numbers we're starting to give, because honestly, I believe that is what our staff is probably very hungry for. So I heard... I don't want to say it back. Ms. Sharkey, would you clarify? All I need is a number. I feel like we've given, well, pause, sorry. Let me come back to staff. Before we talk numbers, do you have the feedback you need relative to language for the resolution? And I know we have time on the voter, because next week we're voting on, say it again, Jason. Next week we're voting on amount,

and maximum number of years over which it can be amortized.

OK, number of years. We're not voting on voter information packet, but we are voting on resolution language and bond language.

Yeah, so the kind of blanks that would be in here that are currently based on the $30 million, versus the 17 versus the 21 would be maximum par amount of bonds that can be issued, the maximum length over which the bonds can be amortized, and then the associated property tax impact associated with whatever that dollar amount is. And then the last one in it, it's really the broad purpose. What's the purpose statement? And I think We would still need some clarification of what additional Purpose language goes in here. We've heard I think councilmember nickel had mentioned You know the sales of the property We would need clarification on just this is that what you'd like to see? so that we could make sure that we cover everything else, but in terms of Yeah, the points are maximum amount, so 31, 17, 21, or whatever that's decided. Right now what we've got in there is 21 years, and that's more to give us, we really think that's a 20-year bond, but because of the property tax imposition cycle, we want just a little bit of flexibility so you'll have a 20-year term. And then it's really... the associated property tax impact with that that we have to put in there, and then the language of what the purpose of it is. And then the voter information pamphlet is something that's later that we, that you put together collectively.

Okay, so let's do it in those three pieces. The easiest one to start with, is there anyone opposed to the 21 years being the term? And online, anyone opposed to the 21 years remaining the number in the resolution? Mr. DeKuyser, I don't see you. I need a yes or a no.

Would that change if the bond amount changes?

Please.

Yeah, I think all of it. The only thing that would change would be the property tax impact because if you shorten up the term, then it would be a larger impact on a monthly or an annual basis. If you lengthen it, then it would be less of an amount. But it was really the recommendation based on what we understand the plan to be that a 20-year amortization was a reasonable timeframe to do it. based on affordability, based on the asset that's being financed, those types of things.

Thank you. Mr. DeGeyser, does that answer your question?

I mean, yeah, I'm fine with the term. I'd be fine with the term changing if we felt that was best based on a changed amount. For me, this entire conversation, a lot of it, there's some questions that the administration will work with the bond council on. And I will mostly just have faith in that determination.

So I need you to say you're good keeping it at 21. Because that's the current language in the resolution. So I just.

We're not voting on anything.

I know. But I want them to bring back. So we're trying to give them as much guidance as possible.

I'm saying I'm flexible based on the recommendation of our bond council.

OK. So do you have what you need relative to that piece, number of years? OK, let's now revisit bond recommendation that Ms. Nickel brought in. Just for the sake of clarity, Ms. Nickel, would you please say again what you were hoping to have added to the resolution for us to consider?

I would like the option to sell a portion or sell the land be explicit in the resolution that we are may be going to adopt next week.

So council, any thoughts on her recommendation? We need to provide feedback. OK, I'm seeing Ms. Christensen is supportive. Ms. Sharkey is supportive. Ms. D'Souza is supportive. That's a supportive. Ms. Stroud is supportive. Mr. DeKaiser.

I would like to ask Tracy or Lynn if that's necessary.

Okay. I heard you say Mr. Cadell first, so Mr. Cadell, could you weigh in on that, please?

I don't necessarily think it's necessary. I think it's up to you how you decide to do it. I do think listening to Jason's advice, though, is a good idea, right? Like, if it were me, I would keep the... deal with the issues in the resolution and in the voter guide rather than in the language. I think Jason's advice is good.

Yes. And I think Ms. Nichol, correct me if I'm wrong, Ms. Nichol, but I think her intent was to not mess with the ballot language. This is resolution language.

That's what I heard her say as well, and I agree with that.

Ms. Nichol is nodding. Correct. OK. So Mr. Kaiser, do you want me to go to Mr. Pace?

No, I just don't understand. The city can sell property. I'm just not quite sure the point of it. As Mr. Cadell said, it's unnecessary. But no harm, no foul. I'd be fine, I suppose.

OK. And I'm supportive of it coming back as well so that we can see what that could look like. Correct. Correct. Which brings us to, oh wait, sorry, I don't want to move us on to a number. Are there any other thoughts in terms of amendments to the resolution language?

Ms. Stroud? I'm not sure it's really amendment to the resolution language, but if we need to ask, you had talked about, so following up on that question, that if we So the public bond versus kind of that private, do we need to talk about that? Because then that, no?

OK. All of it's expressly in the future. Hey, Jason. Could you speak in the microphone just for the record?

He knew. Sorry.

All of that is expressly in the future of a resolution that you would approve. And in that resolution, then, we would recommend that you give yourselves broad flexibility of doing a private placement or a public offering. This really isn't even intended to cover that type of specific relative to the issuance.

Perfect. I just didn't know if that changed the amount that we needed to have for residents.

No, that's a good clarification, but no, it wouldn't change the amount.

Okay. Does that give you what you needed? Okay. Anything else? Ms. Nichols? No. Okay. No. Good, good. So now our last piece is number. And if we could just do a quick go down the line and give a number so that staff hears from each of us and has the information they need. What number would you like to see come back in the resolution? I know it's been spoken, but just for clarity's sake, could we say that one more again? I'm going to start down on this end, Ms. D'Souza. What number would you like to see come back next week? Will I start elsewhere? I will start with me in the middle. I would like to see $30 million as the up to amount that we are asking voters to authorize. Doesn't mean we're going to bond for that, but it gives us flexibility. Up to $30 million. Ms. Christensen.

I have options. So... I'm willing to do multiple options depending on where the rest of the council is. But I would say $17 to $21 million would be the two options in my head. Okay. Ms. Sharkey.

My number's 30. I don't want to surprise the constituents with another bill later. So my number's 30.

Thank you. Ms. Sousa? Well, I have a question.

If it's in this $30 million scenario, what are we saying we're going to do with that money? I mean, obviously 17 is to purchase it, but what is the other amount? How are we communicating that? Because that matters in what I'll say.

So right now, the resolution would read this way. A resolution providing for a special bond election to be held on November 3, 2026 for the purpose of submitting to the qualified electors of Sandy City, Utah proposition regarding the issuance of not to exceed $30 million general obligation bonds for the purpose of financing all or a portion of the cost of acquiring the former Crescent View Middle School property. as defined the property, and renovating, constructing, improving, equipping, and furnishing the property into a community recreation arts and open space facility and all related improvements. Then there was the caveat of And to the extent if the full amount isn't determined to be issued or it's authorized but not issued, then the possibility of selling the property later. We're working on language, but that concept in there. So that's as specific as it is and, I guess, as broad as it is right now.

Okay. So, so I have another question and maybe this is, I don't know where this goes, but this is something that I feel is incredibly important to communicate. And that is to ensure that, that people in some way know that there are operations and maintenance costs that are not included in this bond language. And so I don't know if that's in the voter pamphlet or what, but that would be a condition for me is ensuring that We communicate that the yes on this does not get us all of the money.

So the other clarification just in the whereas clause, I don't know that it specifically addresses O&M, but there is some additional clarity in terms of arts, cultural, park, open space, trail, municipal, and related public purposes, including parking, site, and utility access, and related improvements.

Well, but that wouldn't be O&M, and we couldn't use the bond for that, right? And so I don't know. Would it be in the voter pamphlet then?

Yeah, I mean, yeah, it would be in the voter plan. I think what was shared by staff last week was the proposed different revenue sources that would be anticipated to offset the operation and maintenance costs. That could also be kind of incorporated into the voter information pamphlet. So you're kind of describing, here's our capital plan for how we're going to take care of the capital. And it might be 17, 21, 30, depending on where we go with it. But I think you could also put in the voter information pamphlet, well, how are we going to digest the O&M? What's our plan of digesting that? I think that could also be incorporated in there.

Okay. Okay. So where am I on this? I... do feel some concern, similar to what Council Member Sharkey shared with what has been publicly shared and asked about. Ultimately, the council has the decision slash authority to issue the bond, to approve an amount for bond issuance. And I can be supportive of asking the question. make my decisions ultimately should there be an opportunity to come back for bond issuance. So I could be OK going up to the $30 million.

Ms. Stroud, thank you. Ms. D'Souza, Ms. Stroud.

I don't think we've told residents. what we're doing. We've thrown out ideas. I don't think we know what we're doing. I don't think, and not in a bad way. Administration doesn't know what we're doing. I mean, that would be asking residents. I what I want to do is to give residents the idea to or the option to provide their inputs I understand by saying 30 million, you know, it could be this could be this could be this but you know Hey is the token poor person? I've said that again, you know, I'm on the council. Um, I'm not sure for me, you know if I see something for 30 million dollars I am a lot less likely to vote yes for it if I don't have a plan, and we have not presented a plan. So I am closer to that 17 to 21 to say, well, you haven't presented me with a plan. You've had a lot of great ideas, and we have had I mean, some good discussion on that and some excellent ideas. You had a great idea. Mark believed that as a resident that I think we would all be familiar with. He had a beautiful conception or conceptual drawing, a concept of what we could do over there. I mean, there's a lot of things that we can do, but we don't have that. Yeah, and I understand that it's up to 30 million, but you know without that without being able to tell residents This is what we're doing. We can always go back once we have that information It's hard to go back again because yet we're just adding another line item, but I'm at that 17 to 21 You know that is more palatable for me, you know as somebody who's single parents, you know north end of the city 17 to 21

OK, Ms. Nichol, would you weigh in on that with a number, please?

Yes, thank you. I want to reiterate that it's imperative to let the people know of the ongoing costs. And those have not been addressed yet. possibly even saying that there could be a tax increase, because that's a possibility. We haven't heard anything from administration that has signaled how we're going to manage that yet. So I'm assuming that. And not a bad thing. I'm just pointing that out. And I am not willing to go over $10 million, the appraised value. OK.

Thank you, Ms. Nichol. No, she's not willing to go over $10 million. Is that what you said, $10?

Yes.

OK. Mr. DeKeyser, would you weigh in with your number, please?

I just want to echo the mayor's comments from earlier that our new CAO is a professional in parks and recreation, all things. And so I am supportive of the $21 million.

All right, staff, we've answered, I think we've hit the three. Is there anything else you need from us as you prepare to come back? Wait, sorry, let me just get their, let me get their response. There's no consensus.

That's what I was going to say. We don't have a...

I was told not to paraphrase or summarize, so I am asking staff what they need from us.

Whatever we decide tonight is probably what they need.

You're welcome to ask clarifying questions of us and have us elaborate.

I think of the blanks that we need to fill in. Other than the maximum, that sounds like, amount that we would put in here, I think we've got the other information that we need. It wasn't clear to me if there was a consensus on the amount, but yeah, I'm not... I think we've got our homework. We can go back with the things that we've been asked to take on, including some of the language and so forth. And it sounds like more deliberation maybe on the maximum par amount of bonds. But I think we've got the items that we could fill in. I feel like we're confident in being able to address those and then come back.

We do have a question for Ms. Christensen, if you could. It's more of a question for the council, I guess.

Our goal tonight was to answer these three questions, right? And so we've got three for 21 million, three for 30 million, and one for 10 million. So we haven't answered the question. I know it's not binding and it could change, but I kind of feel like we need to have at least four people agree. Is that a possibility?

Please. So at first I thought that there was a problem. I don't necessarily know that I think it's a problem right now, because literally it's just a number. All of the other stuff will be the same. And it gives a week to maybe come to consensus. Yep. That's kind of what I'm saying. It'll be next week's problem.

So we certainly could bring the resolution in its current form at the $30 million could come back to the council and it can be amended. It just would need to be amended beyond just the amount. There's going to be property tax impacts. So there may be a few spots where we'd need to amend the language in the resolution, but we can certainly bring it back for that and the council can deliberate on how much they want to change on that.

And I actually appreciate that recommendation in terms of I mean it could be it just comes back at 30 million the way it's currently written and then we you know potentially make a motion and have conversation just like we follow our process and we see what support there is next week for that and if not then we know that we need to come up with a different number.

Please. So here's another part of the problem. We're having this conversation publicly. It's all public. There's still potential negotiations with the school district. We talk about how that impacts it. This kind of, in my opinion, impacts it. And what I'm going to say is not going to be helpful to anybody. But if it's not $30 million, the $21 million plan, the way that it was proposed doesn't make any sense to me. It was never presented to the public. And so I'm either $17 million, we buy the property, and we use the field, sell the rest, because we literally don't have any more money to do anything else with it. Or we ask if they will go up to $30 million and give us the opportunity to really figure out what we're doing with the property. That's kind of where I'm at. But that isn't any more helpful, I realize.

Thank you for that, Miss D'Souza. Miss Sharkey?

I could just go back to, are we listening to the public or not? We shouldn't be making any final decisions tonight. We have one more week. We're just posting our video with some more information to the public. I'm wanting to hear more. So I'm not feeling the need. to arrive at any kind of final decisions tonight. I think that's obvious. So more public input accepted right up until the bitter end next Tuesday night. Yeah.

Please. increase maybe the ease of the discussion and just the specifics in here we certainly could just bracket the various components that would be changeable based on the par amount that's agreed upon because there are several places that you know we could just bracket it right now as a holding place and then you can see that on the resolution itself and so we'll redline language for the sale of property will also redline or bracket the the movable pieces depending on what the dollar amount is you that you decide but You know to the point that was made is we do have the property tax impact analysis. That's also Clearly in the ballot proposition and so that would be bracketed until it's finalized but I think It sounds like we're comfortable with the language of use and what the resolution would be with the caveat that we need to be clear about the possibility of selling property if that's what we've represented. And then I think it is just those bracketed places. So we can craft it that way, send it back, and then those would be what you would be filling in.

Thank you for saying that back to us. Does that sound like a good plan, council? Okay.

One more question is would it be beneficial as a council, and I don't know the answer to this, but to do one more survey with just purely the three choices, like these are the three options we're looking at for the ballot, like where's the support for it, or is that not something we want to do? And I'm fine either way. I'm just throwing it out there.

I think, can I just answer? This is me just answering your question, then I want to hear from everyone else. I think the options that are out there are just visionary options. And regardless, ultimately any of the options that are expressed as being supported by the community are possible. with the up to language. So I personally do not feel. I think the decision needs to be made. We're voting next week. I think we've done such a good job with the time constraints we've been operating under. I feel that I have the information I need, and I can only speak for myself. I think that could potentially confuse things even further. So that's my response. Anyone else want to weigh in on her question? I think we just don't even have time to put something together for it so Online any One want to chime in on her question miss nickel Thank you.

I like the idea of Brooke. I really do but I think we would question the Which proposal goes on there and it would be a just another something for us to debate at this point I want to in a way, but I don't want to in a way.

I don't know if that helps Yeah, and I'm totally fine with that. I mean it sounds like it will just muddy the waters at this point So I'm fine with that.

It's always good to throw stuff out though. Thank you Okay So I think we have fully discussed that. Thank you, staff, for being really clear on what you need from us, what you got. I think we have a plan for next week. So thank you very, very much. We appreciate you. Yeah, so I'm gonna move us on. Actually, hold on, public comment. I know we're well past six o'clock, so thank you, public, who've been waiting for us to get to a place in our agenda where we could do that. So I am gonna move us to our general citizen comment. As a reminder for those in the room, if you are interested in speaking, to anything to the council. This is not a back and forth. The council does not respond to questions or anything. This is our opportunity as a council to hear from you. So you speak and share your thoughts. You'll have three minutes to do so. If you're in the chambers, you'd fill out a blue card and we'll call you in the order of the cards here and then we will move to our online. So we will start here with Kristen, is it Takamori? Thank you, Kristen. And once you begin, you'll have three minutes.

Well, hi, how are you? You guys go through a lot. This is very stressful. I did not realize how much pressure you guys have. My issues is a little bit different. I came up the chain of command three years ago because I have a pet pig.

Kristen, could you just grab the mic and just thank you? Yes, sorry.

So I have a pet pig, and I got ticketed for having the pet pig, and I broke the chain of command and went and saw the mayor first. She said, you have to take it up to city council. So they were supposed to change the, it's just a matter of verbiage, change the zoning and ordinances so it says that we can have two, like mini, not Juliana, but mini pot-bellied pigs. So I had got ticketed. I paid the ticket. I did everything that I was supposed to do with the court under the impression that this was going to be changed, that the ordinances and zoning was going to be changed, the verbiage. And so it didn't change. I just got another ticket for having a pig. And so I'm disappointed that it didn't happen because I thought that, I mean, it's been three years. So I honestly just thought that that happened, but I would just like to have that change because I really enjoy my pig. They're indoor animals. They're just like a dog. They don't bother anybody. And so I'm just really passionate about keeping my animals. And so I just would like to have the council just look into it and see if we could do what they said that they were going to do before. And I know you guys are probably different. I don't really remember who it was. Earl, Scott Earl was my, was the representative that was helping me. So it's been some time. So, but yeah, that's all I'm asking is if you guys could just please consider just changing. It's just a matter of verbiage for the zoning so that we can keep our pets. So thank you. Thank you.

Oh, sorry there. Now I'm on mic. Thank you very much. Next we have Pat, Patricia Jones.

Your three minutes doesn't start until you actually... Okay. First, I want to thank you very much. Good evening, everybody. Thank you, thank you very much for a very in-depth deliberation on this Crescent View Middle School property. Indeed, it is an opportunity, but we really have to, and you've done it, You have to dissect the whole thing very carefully, right? And you've done it. So I want to encourage every one of you, because time is short, and you've been working under time pressure. And for me, any time when there's time pressure for a decision to be made, by its nature, it is a compromise decision. I would tell salespeople that comes to me that, and when they say, oh, you only have today, you have to make a decision today, whether it's carpet laying or whatever, I would just outrightly say that I'm sorry, I do not make a decision under time pressure. So I understand that all of you are working to try to get things done. So I would like to encourage you very much, very, very much to speak up whatever you have your thoughts about this project because it is important. Every one of you need to hear each other's thoughts and comments and feelings about this project. So I want to encourage you doing that. And the other thing is this. I don't know who will be the future council. I know you. I have heard how you deliberate. I have seen some of your fiscal responsible decisions that you've made. I've seen your budget review and everything. I have confidence in you. I don't know what the future council will be. Maybe less fiscally responsible. like spending money, maybe enjoy. Not enjoy, I'm sorry, I take that back. I apologize. I apologize to everyone here. I don't mean that. But I want to say it's more loosely spending. Now, so please package the bond. Everything that you make, Do it very, very carefully and project it down to the future. What may happen or what may not happen, please do that. Because the future council may take a totally different direction of what you would decide and vote on. And I am very glad to hear that Ms. Nichol has presented this additional language in the resolution because it will be tight. And the voter pamphlet information, everything has to go on there, please, I beg you. Nothing can be missed. There, nothing, everything. Go put it on there. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, next we have Dan Brady.

Good evening, council members. Thank you for taking time to hear me, and thank you for all the good work you do for Sandy City. For a number of years, I worked as a finance director for Intermountain Healthcare and One of my tasks in that role was to go through the capital budget each year and we had department managers submit Projects to for consideration and and they always had a good intent and good ideas behind them And typically they were to promote patient care But we would get about three or four times as many dollar amount of requests as we had to fund. And since Intermountain Healthcare is owned by a corporation or some other organization, it's owned by the community, we had to remind ourselves that it was community money we were spending. And so... It's been interesting to watch the council over the last three or four years as I've come. You've made really hard decisions about projects that have come before you. You've had the firehouse to build. You've had a large property tax increase that you put into effect in 2024. There's other things that you've done. And you've made hard decisions and had good deliberation about those. There are some projects. in my experience, that would have been nice to have when I worked for Intermountain, but we just couldn't fund them. One of the projects that's come before this council in the last several years was the Sandy Recreation Center. I was opposed to it. This is water, you know, this is kind of water under the bridge or sour grapes maybe, but I was concerned last week when The budget for 2027 was presented with a deficit of about $870,000. And for those in my neighborhood, the additional funds required from property taxes was another $380,000. So for me, it's a $1.2 million deficit. But as I say, that's kind of sour grapes. What I'm worried about with this Crescent Middle School project is that we're getting ourselves into the same sort of a situation where we have a good idea, but gosh, it's the public's money that we're spending. And it's really clear to me in this discussion tonight and in the discussion last week that we're kind of going out with an idea that let's spend $20 million and then figure it out. maybe $30 million and then figure it out. And I just really am uncomfortable with that kind of bill being assessed to the public without any good idea really of what we're gonna do with it. Now we can say that it's only $5 a month or $4 a month. Okay, I'll finish. But it becomes death by a thousand cuts. I mean, look at your property tax statement this year and see the increases that are already built into that property tax statement.

Thank you. Thank you. All right, Mr. Henry Butters, please.

I could not be what you guys do.

No way. I want to tell the police chief thank you for what he have done and got stuff moved on the road down there. It's been awesome to see it. I drove down there today. Nothing really down there, only a couple of cars. On the thing I've been talking about on the mayor, I wish she was sitting right here because I would love her answer, but I won't get it. She charged someone for stealing her signs, and I actually thought about this, okay? She had someone charged for stealing her signs, and on this horse situation, she didn't get charged. That's a double-edged sword. That's my personal opinion. She did the crime, she should get punished. That's how I look at it. If she's going to have someone else charge for stealing her signs, you're stealing the bacon from the pig. You see what I mean? That's how I feel. And no one have got back to me. Martin have been talking to me about it. He haven't told me anything else about it. But I just want to come tell you my personal opinion. You stole a sign. They got prosecuted for it. She let her horse out, but she didn't get prosecuted for it. What if I let my dog run down the road? Will I get prosecuted for it? Not having it on a leash, why do our mayor get away with it? That's what I wanna show the public. Everybody can talk bad about Sharky on stuff when she was running for mayor, but I feel you can't be mayor if you are going to have a double-edged sword. That's my thoughts. You can't charge someone and you can do crime. I'm still waiting for her to call me, but she don't have the guts to call me and say, hey, I don't like how you talk about me. Hey, it's my constitutional rights. I can come tell you I don't like you, Brooke, and you can't do nothing about it. But it's my thoughts. Why are we... allowing her to, there are certain things that have to be done. But if someone else is going to get charged of a crime, still in the sign, she should be charged of the crime of letting her horse off. That's my personal opinion. Thank you.

Thank you. We will now turn to our online participants to see, could you please offer those instructions?

Of course. Thank you, Madam Chair. If you're joining us virtually this evening via Zoom and you'd like to comment on any city business, now's the time. 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, 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, Dustin. Good evening, Council. Steve Van Maren, resident of Draper. I'm sorry. I want to speak to the bond. I think you need to add language to the proposal or to the resolution that says any sale of this property must retire the bond. No bond proceeds are to be used for any other project of the city. And while I like the full redevelopment proposal that I saw at the open house, I think you are eliminating too much parking. You want people to come, they're not gonna stick around if they don't have parking, they're not gonna be happy about coming back. There's enough low parking areas in the city already. But I generally support the administration proposal. If you wanna support 30 million, fine, I'll go there. I'll support the 21 as well. I'm a little concerned about the proposal that for the chart that was in the packet for the debt service spreadsheet, I guess, where the new debt is gonna be 157% of the existing debt. I guess that's for the fire station. It took me a while. I thought that was against the general fund, but he did the $30 million number obviously, but $5 a month should not be a problem. I hope you, You propose the bond and get the property and fully develop it.

Thank you for your time Madam chair up next is Diane Nicholson Diane I'm gonna allow you to begin speaking Please remember to unmute yourself and you'll have three minutes

Thank you, Councilwomen. I really appreciate both last week's discussion and this week's discussion. One of my concerns is that you gave us a survey, to let you know, my husband has been to the open house and both of us filled out the survey and we both picked the 30,000 because there were many options, excuse me, 30 million, because there were many options and we were excited about imagining the possibilities. But we also saw on that survey that the majority of the people said they want to buy the property. And that should be the focus of this bond. What does it cost to buy the property and to make sure it's safe until we figure out what we want to do with it? When you asked for $30 million, I feel like you're taking the decision out of my hands again. You're asking me to consent to up to $30 million, but you're not telling me what you want to do with it. And I don't think that's right. So I'd just like to encourage the council people, council women and men, excuse me, council people, to let's go with what the survey majority said. put on the ballot, the amount to secure the property, and let's imagine the possibilities for the future. Thank you very much for your time.

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

All right, well, with that, I will close public comment and move us back to our agenda. I want to just do a quick check. How about a five-minute break? Are we feeling like a five-minute? And then we'll come back and do our remaining business. So Mr. Frato, we'll go ahead and take a break. We'll be right back. Public and online folks, we'll be back. Thank you.

Recording stopped. Recording in progress.

All right. Welcome back, everyone. Thank you for taking that short break. We are going to move on to the next section of our agenda, which is our consent calendar. I'll look for a motion. Motion to approve the consent calendar. Second. All right. We have a motion and a second. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Say no. Think we heard I from online as well. Right. Mr. Prado. Okay, so you have what you need Thank you moving on We are now on item number five councilman Christianson bringing back for a second reading her advice and consent proposal. I

Okay, so after last time we discussed this, we went through and implemented everyone's suggestions, so thank you all for that. They should be reflected in the red line. I don't know, do we want to pull up the red line? Just so you can... have a visual while we talk. Also, I've talked to administration. Justin's talked to administration. We've talked to legal. We made some changes that they requested as well. And today I talked to Katrina about it. I think we're all good and on the same page. that we have everything that we discussed last time in there, the changes that were requested and some minor adjustments. One of the biggest ones, just so you know why it looks so much smaller in the finished version, is under the minimum requirements, Yes, and there's all those red lines. It's because Lynn, we talked to Lynn about this, and they change, right? They could change in the state code. They could change in our policies. And so as long as we reference here that says supplementary to any positions identified in this code or by state statute, and then we just listed the positions that currently require advise and consent, that way we didn't have to put all of those other items in there that may or may not change in the future. So that was one of the biggest changes. And it didn't really change anything, it just made it more succinct. So how are we feeling? Do you guys have questions or concerns?

All right, Ms. D'Souza, please. All right, thank you. So I just want to try to understand the, because I'm looking at both, but the red line, what's different from last time you brought it forward?

Mostly it's adjusting the language to take out specific requirements, just referring them back to code.

So is the red line all the differences, basically? Yes, that's it. OK, so then I do have a couple of questions. Let me just make sure I can find the other one really quick. OK, so my first question is, It was important to me to have a written notice to the appointed candidate that their position is not final until consented to by the council. Yes. I don't see that in there. Is it in there?

So that's something that when offers are made that require that it's explicitly stated. Right, Mark? That's what I was told.

It's stated and it's also put in writing because we don't want to be in that situation and offer a job they quit. They don't get appointed. But short answer is yes.

So it is in their offer letters and That's what we're being told by HR.

Well, I was going to say, and I guess the reason why I'm confused by that is in conversation with a few of the candidates up for appointment, they have said that they were not aware and they had quit their jobs and they were very concerned and confused by the process that we were undergoing. And so that was what I was working to...

I would love if you would be willing to share that because... outside the meeting because we make sure that we know this is a huge step and we don't want people to be put in a bad situation. So it's a huge priority for me. I can't say for all those that went before me as I was in this position but absolutely it is communicated.

Okay, I saw that Mr. Pace, can I see what he has to say, Madam Chair? Yes, please.

Yeah, I just wanted to point out, I think it is in here. If you look at vacancies, subsection F says an individual shall be informed their employment is subject to the council's advice and consent and shall not be in work as a department director or statutory officer until the city council has given its advice and consent for such appointment. So I think it is explicit. Yeah.

I'm glad your memory is better than mine, Lynn. Okay, which one, where was that?

It's in, if you look under the heading, the heading is vacancies on page one, and then turn the next page where, capital F, subparagraph F. Okay, well that works then.

You know, I just, again, I just wanted to make sure because it was in conversation and it had happened more than once, you know, and it puts a lot of people in bad positions. So, um, okay. Then my other question has to do with, um, the interim process. And so interim appointments, it would be D the D section where it's talking about, you know, no interim appointment or combination of interim appointments can extend beyond four months unless, and then it's unless an extension of time is requested in writing by the mayor and the request shall be accompanied by a written report to the council describing yada yada, and that's it. And then it says the mayor has requested that the council give advice and consent to the appointment, but the council has failed to vote on the nomination. Obviously, that doesn't work. So it's requested, but where is it Does the council weigh in on that?

It would have to be a vote, is my understanding. Lynn, will you correct me on that? But if it's requested, we can't make decisions as a body without a vote.

You raise an interesting question here. Paragraph D, you may want to say an extension of time has been requested and granted. Right, because the request alone doesn't give the mayor, unless... And is it clear that the request is made to the council?

Does that need to be explicit?

I think that's understood, but if you want to clarify this, you could say an extension of time is requested to the council in writing by the mayor and city council approves the request.

Okay.

If that's the policy you want.

I'm fine with that. I thought that was the intent. And as I was reading it, I felt like that language wasn't explicit enough. So that was my question. And I could support this with that added language. Okay, and then I just had another question. So before it said that the administration would provide this information to the council, you know, the package, and then it would be put on an agenda. But it looks like now it's just as long as we have it for publishing the agenda. Am I reading that right?

So which part specifically?

I think it's under vacancies and then D. Oh, let me go up.

So it has to be sent, because those things aren't, like the request to have it approved to be on Advise and Consent has to be received by the time the packet is published, right? Like on that time frame. But the information that the request would go in the packet, the additional information would not. That would have to be emailed out to the council by the time the packet is published.

OK, well, and so I guess that's where I thought it was earlier before. I thought that the language talked about it being provided to the council at the time that it was requested to be put on the calendar. And the reason why that matters to me is we've had situations where, you know, If the administration knows that they are planning to put this person up for advice and consent, then they're given phone numbers and they reach out. But we don't yet have any information. And if we're waiting all the way until the agenda is published, then that's not necessarily providing us with the information we need earlier to be able to have those conversations in an informed manner. And so that was kind of my thought and my recollection from the last time. So I think it would be better if we could have that information to the council at the time that they're requesting to put it on the calendar, because they should know at that point, have all that information, because they're making a decision to put them on the calendar.

I saw Mr. Pace's hand.

I agree and we want to try and get you the information as soon as possible. There may be times where if you're willing we can piecemeal it. It's some of the times the background check and some of those things take a little bit of time. But I understand not wanting to have a conversation without being able to look at a background, a resume, and some history. So that makes sense, and we can do whatever we can to try and provide that as early as possible.

I can just add to this. I'm sorry. I think this language protects you, but it's intended to reflect sort of the realities of our process. Right now, we get on the agenda planning meeting, and we say, oh, yeah, these things are coming up. and that gets put on a tentative agenda, none of it goes out in the packet unless all the materials arrive in time for the packet.

No, I understand that.

So I think that's already captured in the language you have here, meaning if you don't get the materials in time for the packet, it comes off.

I know. I'm just saying that from a practical standpoint in trying to improve the process for council members, it would be better if the council members had some of that information. I can't imagine that you're going to offer a job or a potential job to somebody that you don't have a clear background check on yet. I mean, maybe you do conditionally, but that's more the least of it, really. But you'd have a resume. You'd understand the process that you undertook to hire the individual and some of that information. I don't feel like it's an improvement of the process if we're waiting until the agenda is published.

Those are my comments. Correct me if I'm wrong, but from my experience, we would have everything except... the background check when a job offer is made and the job offer is conditional upon passing background and drug test, right? Correct. So we could adjust it to say that when it's requested all of those items with the exception come with it and then the full packet has to be available by the time that it's published? Because then you would have a resume, you would have an offer letter. That's basically it.

Well, and those are just my thoughts. I don't know if anybody else actually cares about it, but I, you know.

No, I can see your point of like getting, we were called and we didn't have any information.

Like four people.

Yeah.

Yeah, it was a problem.

No, I think that's a valid point.

Okay well those are those are my comments and with those modifications I could absolutely support this. Mr. Jensen.

When you're done. Oh when I'm done.

Okay hold on then. Ms. Sharkey.

Just a couple of clarifying questions. So this one. So exhibit A minimum qualifications item B. the City Council may decline to give its consent to a proposed appointment, even if an appointee meets applicable minimum requirements. That's good to state. Or should we also add, or for any other reason? Or is that understood? Or can we decline for any reason?

You can vote no for any reason you want. You don't need paragraph B. It is clarifying, but you don't need it.

Well, I will admit, without naming names, I have heard people say that they felt they could not vote no to a candidate that didn't meet the minimum qualifications.

Well, generally, you don't vote no without a good reason. But that's assumed. We usually don't put that in code.

So I like this amount of clarification, and you're saying no further clarification is even needed?

Well, it's not needed, but it's your ordinance. You draft it however you want. I mean, it's whatever you want to put in there. That's up to you.

My other question, and I don't know. I don't care either way as long as I know I can use any reason and that I'm not held responsible. to anything in this ordinance, right?

PETER S. Any reason is way too broad. You can't vote no because of their race or their religion. So not any reason. You can vote no for a good reason.

Oh, or for any other good reason. Yeah, maybe we leave it alone. And then exhibit B, I just want to make sure for it to be like super clear that eliminating these 15 positions and absorbing all of it into one sentence is that each one of these 15 positions has been included in this new single statement?

Yes. We went through and we checked, and we did make sure we included, because all department heads, human resource directors, city treasurer, city recorder, city engineer, city attorney, and CAO, so we did double check that all of the positions were included.

The problem with all of that language, and I'll just use the city attorney line. If you look at the city attorney, it says, the city attorney shall be a member of the Utah State Bar. That's true, but that's not all the requirements in your code. When you create one list of requirements in Title IV of your code, and you create another list of requirements here, and there's another list in the state code, you create ambiguities. So it's a lot easier to say they have to meet all the requirements of the code than to try to relist them again here. That's why I recommend you just do that.

Makes sense. That's good. OK. Yeah. That's it. OK.

Checking online, any? I saw you come off mute, Ms. Nickel. Yep, there you go. You're on.

OK, awesome. On page 43 of our packet. in the first vacancy submission and appointment of information, A, it doesn't state how that information needs to come to us. Do we need to put in writing at the end of that?

I don't know. That's a Lynn question.

Where are you reading?

Where it says, when vacancies occur in a department head or statutory officer position that is subject to the city council's advice and consent, the mayor shall give a courtesy notice to the council of the vacancy. Do we have to put in writing? Or is that assumed? Or could it be in passing?

Again, this is your ordinance. Typically, the administration is not going to want to make seven phone calls. Maybe they do. So it's typically an email. That's in writing.

Yeah.

Or a text. But if you want to clarify, it's your ordinance. But I think the concept here, I think you were after, was you want to be notified.

Yes.

How that occurs, if it matters to you, then you can add that.

So I've got two for in writing. Anyone else like that or have an opinion?

Does writing include text, email, or text?

Yes.

Then that's good, too.

Going on that? Yes. They can't submit a new interim until they let us know about the... Can I ask a question?

Yes. Sorry. Please. Okay. So one of the situations that I think this brings up for me is the treasurer position. We didn't... Well, I guess we were notified that Corey, OK, maybe that's different. Anyway, is there a reason that we need to put a time frame? Or is it assumed that when a vacancy occurs, we will be notified when it occurs?

I would say our best practice, we let you know as soon as possible. So the only instances is where somebody may come to us and say, hey, I'm planning on retiring in six months. We won't say hey you know this position is happening. It's going to be vacant in six months. We wait for them to make their announcements and then as soon as it's made public we we share that quickly where there's changes that are happening in a different manner they happen quickly. We let you know as soon as possible. So we we don't want to try and stretch that out. If we have in the past we'll try and do better.

I'm OK without it being there, but if you guys want a time frame?

I guess it's, I mean, if it hasn't happened in the past, but could it happen? Is that something that would bother us if it took us, if it took them five days to tell us, oh, by the way, one of the department heads is no longer with the city, and it happened last Monday. I mean, it hasn't happened before, could it? I don't know.

As long as I'm here, it won't happen. I will let you know as soon as feasible.

I do see Ms. Nichols' hand.

Yeah, I didn't know if we were putting a date in writing. Yes, we are going to add the in writing. Okay, awesome. And on that same page, I think I mentioned last week about wanting to see the employment contract. So I would like to propose that there's a number six that includes the employment contract.

So the employment contract is part of what is required. It's just not called the employment contract. It's called the offer letter, right? And in the offer letter, it has the salary and any benefits, including vacation time, car allowances, phone allowances, anything that they will be compensated with has to be part of that offer letter. Is there something different? Where's the offer letter in here? It's called proposed compensation package. Thanks, Brooke.

Oh. C4. What number? C4.

But yeah, that, and you weren't the only one that asked for that. There were, I think three council members that asked me to make sure that was in there.

Oh, okay. And what number is that? Am I looking in the wrong area or is it under that same area? And I'm just not seeing it listed one through five.

It's number four.

I don't see it yet, but it's been highlighted on the screen.

Oh, thank you. highlighted on the screen, I can't see it. It says, the appointee's resume or equivalent summary of academic, professional, and experiential qualifications, proposed compensation package, and then it goes on to talk about any other boards or nonprofits or commissions that they serve on will be provided as well, like a conflict of interest.

Okay, just a quick question. Maybe HR or Martin can answer this. At the same time we do the proposed compensation package, that is the employee contract, right?

Yes.

Okay.

Okay, awesome. Never mind. That was it, just about the in-writing thing.

Okay, any other questions? So it sounds like we've kind of shaped it to be in a place. Yes.

Is it okay if I make these three changes that we talked about? If Justin helps me with that and then it comes back on the consent calendar?

I will answer that as me. Yes. I'm seeing a yes from Councilman Shark. I'm seeing yeses online. Mr. DeKaiser, Ms. Nickel. I think we can adopt it tonight with that language, if you wanted to.

Oh, Justin's saying yes as well. Sorry, guys. Wasn't paying close enough attention.

So are we comfortable with a motion that includes those amendments? Yes, Mr. Jensen.

I just wanted to say thank you for taking our feedback. I really appreciate this process from where you started. We shared some concerns, you listened to it, and I think they were all incorporated. So I just really appreciate the listening ear. Thank you.

Thank you. We never want to make it harder. We just want to make it better so we all know what's happening. Okay, so if I make a move. Oh, sorry.

Oh, Mr. DeKeyser.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I was not here during the July 14th meeting, so I went back and watched the video a second time to see if my thoughts had been discussed. And they hadn't really. And I could kind of blow this up, but I'm not going to. One thing, though, that I would really like to, c changed is in the in the memo it said that uh this is just about the process and that recent discussions regarding appointments have highlighted ambiguity surrounding the advice and consent process and demonstrated the need for greater clarity regarding the respective roles and processes of the mayor and city council So with respect to the council's role, I really don't like the verbiage on Section D as the council shall use its best efforts. And my main reason for that is I don't think this council would ever pass anything that allowed the mayor to do something on her best efforts. So I would like to see that just shored up and say, within two meetings, we will put it on the calendar. That's the only change I would like to ask for. And then I did just want to note that in the final version, it appears in the minimum qualification section that the third sentence was meant to be stricken. You've got that minimum requirements include there. That's just a technicality. But those are my thoughts. Thank you.

Okay. Um, I'm fine with doing it within two meetings. My only concern, and this was something that was brought up by, um, others was that if the person who is, um, up for advising consent is not available for those two meetings, it was more of a, that was from like admin, like what if they can't make it, but.

Well, if you want the job, you better be available.

Which, so I'm fine with that. How do you guys feel?

I will say that there was some, like even in the survey approval team, there was language that, is equivalent to best efforts on the mayor's part. So this isn't uncommon. And it really is best efforts preserving the expectation that there may be something that has come up from the council standpoint that pushes that out. So I'm comfortable with the language as is.

I think, based on what I heard, we're in support of the language as is. So were you going to like, I was going to say, since you've sort of been taking notes on the changes?

Yes. Okay. So then I would make a motion to pass, oh, sorry, I don't have the number in front of me. Ordinance number 2654, thank you. With the changes regarding vacancies would be notified to the council in writing that when the Advising consent is requested that it includes the offer and the resume and that the rest of the information will be provided by the time that the packet is published. And the third item is that the interim under the interim vacancies section that we include that the council needs to approve the extension of any interim vacancies before they can actually be extended.

Second. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Discussion on the motion? Does that encapsulate everybody's idea except for Aaron's? Mr. Sousa has a thought.

Just discussion on the motion. OK, I don't want to be a stick in the mud, but I almost think it would be better to come back and consent. That way we can see it in writing before it gets approved, and it can be pulled out if necessary. Just because there's lots of technical moving parts on this, that would just be my thoughts.

We do have a motion and a second.

I know, but I'm just saying that that's my thoughts on discussion on the motion.

Discussion on the motion. Gotcha, gotcha. Other discussion? Looking for discussion, Ms. Nickel or Mr. DeKaiser? Okay. All right. So we have a motion and a second. Go ahead.

Madam Chair, this is a voting item. So we do need to take public comment.

Oh, yeah. Thank you. Public comment, please. Since we are voting on this item, we'll go ahead and open for public comment on this item. Anyone in the chambers, which is not very many of us left anymore, but feel free to fill out a blue card and share that with us. We'll hear your comments and then we will move to online. I don't think we have anyone in the chamber so Mr. Frato will you go on online.

After joining us virtually and you'd like to comment on this agenda item go ahead and click the raise hand button on your screen now. I think you're OK to close public comment Madam Chair.

All right, thank you for that. We will close public comment, bring it back to the council for a vote, please.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Ms. Christensen? Yes. Ms. Nickel?

Yes.

Ms. Hausman? Yes. Ms. Sharkey? Yes. Ms. D'Souza? Yes. Mr. DeKaiser?

Yes.

Ms. Stratton? Yes. Madam Chair, that motion carries 7-0.

Thank you for that. So that brings us back to our agenda for, there we go, for our final item, which is a closed session. So we would wanna move to standing reports and then get a motion to move into closed session and adjourn from closed session, right? Yes. Okay, so let's go ahead and do standing reports. We'll start with our executive director.

I'll just make a couple of notes first related to next week's meeting. So next week on the 11th we've got a few tentative items on the agenda. Councilmember Houseman has a resolution for a bolder way forward that she's planning on bringing forward that is still listed as tentative. We'll have the Crescent Middle bond resolution that was obviously discussed at length this evening. And then tentatively we still have the two agenda items related to Canyon Gate with the development agreement that the council discussed a couple of weeks ago. One of those will be an item for reconsideration as it was voted on previously. And then we'll also have the rec center construction report on the agenda next week as well. Outside of that I'll just mention I had forgot I sent you all an email but I forgot to send out or to forward out some information that the administration had sent last week related to a meeting next Monday. So my apologies for that but I did forward it out to you. Chris has put it on your calendars. It's related to the intersection meeting up at the intersection by Alta High School next Monday. So please take a look at that. I just don't want anybody to miss it. And I'm going to leave my report there, Madam Chair. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Frato. We'll make our way around. Standing reports, please.

Just quick thanks. One to our staff. It was two weeks that we were trying to coalesce around getting out another video for Crescent Middle School. And so thanks to Dustin upon your return for taking that up. and making that work out for us and for Parker and whoever else helped in, um, administration or staff to get that done. It was, it was rocky for a little while, but finally, after two weeks of effort, we got that done. Also want to thank both, um, the public works department and the fire department. Okay. You guys will remember in 2023, we had that record runoff here. where we were all preparing for flooding. And the city did such an outstanding job, especially the public utilities department, of putting a lot of effort into making sure ahead of the runoff event that we were preventing any floods from happening. And that was especially a big issue in my neighborhood where we did have a bad event Um, previously and that Sandy city public utilities had to our credit in my neighborhood saved one house from disrupt destruction. And, um, so in preparing for, um, recently two years ago for another, even bigger flooding event, um, the city came through and kind of removed a bunch of debris from little cottonwood Creek and pushed it up out of the Creek bed. So it couldn't collect and create a flooding hazard. And now we began to worry that debris was still there. And we began to kind of wonder whether this now has created a wildfire risk. So I want to thank very much the Public Works Department and the Fire Department for agreeing to put this on a wildfire mitigation list. We really appreciate that and that will come with a lot of gratitude from the Willow Creek neighborhood. So thank you for making that happen. We appreciate it.

Madam Chair, can I add one other thing to my report? Is that OK? So the video that Councilmember Sharkey mentioned, just so you're all aware, that is now finalized. The version that has been edited and that's of the highest quality is now done. And so that link I sent you earlier today, you can use that same link. to go to the video. So we'll publish it on council social media tomorrow morning. You're all welcome to share it then or now if you'd like to. And then we'll work with Martin to get it disseminated on city, Martin and the communications team to get it disseminated on city channels as well.

I just wanted to congratulate the police department on a really great event last night for the night out of crime and It was a great event got some good public feedback and then Today, Allison and I attended the AT&T Fiber Launch. This is the flagship store in Utah, and they are going to be putting a lot of resources into our community, so that was exciting to see them, and they're really excited to be here. A big thank you to Janelle Fox on the PUAP committee who just retired, and she has been a staple in our public utilities department for many years and has done an amazing job, and so I just wanted to wish her well.

Thank you for that. I don't really have anything, so we're going to move on to questions.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The retirement for Jio, she's been here 17 years, and it would be different not seeing her as you walk in. And she's worked with a lot of us and kept us up to date when we were on the public utilities advisory board. So great turnout up there. And she was saying that she didn't have to plan that. She's usually done that in the past. When Chris Edwards and I, we walked up there and Chris had put together, we were able to give her, on behalf of the council, a couple of Hale Center theater tickets and she was very appreciative and looking forward to not having to wake up this morning and come in and go to work. So yeah, that was great. Yesterday, Canyon School District had a new teacher luau orientation for teachers that are new to the district and in years past. you know they've sent the invitation for the city to have a table there you know the council didn't get that there was a different person who you know was in within the district didn't get that sent over but you know thank you miss Edwards you know got the email you know from Dustin and within over the weekend was able to say, you know what, I'm going to be there and represent the council well. So there were a couple of our council advisory members, youth council advisory members that were there. And she always does a great job. The table looked great. A lot of people are stopping by. So thank you, Ms. Edwards, and then also to our youth council that was there. Speaking of youth council, so last week we had the Sandy Club, the boys and girls club, club for boys and girls. And a youth council, several members there helping throughout the night. It was hot. They did a great job helping with some of the activities for all of those kids. It was rescheduled from earlier because of all the fire and weather issues. Even with some thundershowers that came through, they were able to have a wonderful night with a lot of kids that were in the area. And it's a great almost get to do something fun right before school started. And then, yep, another night out against crime. So it was up at the food truck nights. Often last year, it was a food truck night as well. But in years past, it's been out in the neighborhoods. It was just kind of a different environment. But SWAT was up there, K9, victim advocates. There were VIPs that were up there. So a lot of great connections with the police department. You always do a wonderful job up there. So thank you. It's a wonderful opportunity for residents to come out and meet officers and motorists as well. And then the last thing that I have. So yesterday, I don't know if you remember, a couple of years ago, The council through CDBG had allocated some money for milestone housing. Milestone program is run through the Salt Lake County and it is transitional housing for young adults aged 18 to 21 who primarily would be homeless. They're often aging out of foster care and don't have the family support needed to be able to be successful. They have a 97% success rate. of not having young adults, I wanna call them kids, entering, they are successful and able to move on to find successful employment or schooling. So one of these houses they had a couple of years ago through community private partnerships have been able to remodel one of the homes that Good Shepherd Lutheran Church had donated to this program and yesterday they did a ribbon cutting for a second home and they had honored you know Sandy City for being we have here kind of a silver donor for helping out with that CDBG funding so that we have a second home that is up to date and safe and comfortable, which the CDBG money specifically went towards, one of the things that it went toward was the air conditioning, so the HVAC system, which the high temperatures we've had. I am sure that that has been very appreciated. So you know I wanted to bring this over and they were very pleased to work with Sandy and you know a couple of homes right here in the heart of Sandy. So Madam Chair.

I just want to say thank you for you.

Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. I got to take care of online. Yes. Thank you. Thank you.

Miss Nichol. Thank you. I just wanted to say thank you, Allison. That program is phenomenal. I love it. Next year, I'd like to, or when it opens, I'd like the council to be included in the festivities. And also a follow-up on Dustin's, request or update on the video. I was hoping Martin, in the spirit of collaborative work, would be able to put that on the city's Facebook page and push that out via all the social channels.

MARTHA MINOWSKI- He has agreed to do so. I know you were online, but I looked over at him when Mr. Fratto said that would be the case, and he nodded and confirmed that that will be the case. So thank you for verifying. And Mr. DeKaiser?

Mr. DeKaiser logged off about five minutes ago.

OK. Thank you. Now we're on to you.

I just want to say thanks to the council for your support in helping us purchase and then deliver Aggie ice cream to staff this week. Overwhelming positive response and just a little thank you has gone a long way. So we really appreciate that. Just a reminder of the balloon festival activities this week and that's it. Thank you.

I believe that is all of our standing reports so we'll need a motion as I mentioned earlier.

Motion motion to go into a closed session for character competence or professional competence Which we will then recess immediately after that adjourn. Sorry a John adjourned immediately after that I Need to say where it is or

I usually do that after you, but it'll be here at City Hall.

So we have a motion and we have a second. I can't remember. Oh, Councilwoman Christensen is the second. So roll call vote, please.

Ms. Stroud? Yes. Ms. Christensen? Yes. Ms. D'Souza?

Yes.

Ms. Nickel? Yes. Ms. Hausman? Yes. Ms. Sharkey? Yes. Madam Chair, that motion carried 6-0.

All right, thank you to all who've joined us. We're going to move into our closed session. Have a good evening.

Thank you. Thanks. Thank you Tim.