City Council - Regular Meeting

I have had a lot of stuff show up. Everything was going into my junk email. Have you guys noticed that? I haven't. I have like six resident things I was just looking at here. All these big cities and counties. It just started like a week or two ago. It's like there's this, I see something in there right now.

We've implemented a new firewall, so it is catching more stuff. Yeah. And that might be it.

I'm gonna go ahead I'm gonna go ahead and start the zoom just so you guys know it it is recording I

just so folks online can join.

Recording in progress.

I even CC'd myself and got it.

It's all sent blind carbon copy. Is that why?

No. So who was the original? You BCC'd who?

I BCC'd everybody.

Oh, you BCC'd everybody.

No, you don't have to have an original.

But that might be a trigger for our new... But now you know. This is a comment that was...

Anything from ProtonMilk is lost.

Good evening, welcome everyone to tonight's City Council meeting We appreciate those of you who are here attending in the chambers and also those who are attending online We like to begin our meetings each Tuesday night with a prayer followed by the pledge Do we have a volunteer for this evening's prayer? Ms. Christensen, thank you.

Our dearest Heavenly Father, we are so grateful to be gathered together this evening. We thank you for the opportunity we have to... help out the residents of Sandy and to make living in our city a better experience. Heavenly Father, we ask thee that we be able to articulate our thoughts and be able to listen to one another and provide direction to our staff. We are so grateful for all of our blessings and we say these things in the name of thy son, Jesus Christ, amen.

Thank you, Councilwoman Christensen. If we could please stand, we'll all recite the Pledge of Allegiance together. 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, everyone. So we will move into our introduction, starting over here with our staff, and then we'll come around the dais.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm Justin Sorensen. I'm the Council Assistant Director.

Hi Chris Edwards with the council office Christensen district 1 Marcy Houseman district 4 Allison Stroud district 2 Brooke D'Souza at large Aaron DeKaiser at large Ryan Mecham deputy CAO Lynn Pace to the attorney

All right thank you everyone. So we will move into our agenda just for notice for everyone in chambers and online we do take public general citizen comment not before six o'clock. So if you are here or interested in commenting online for general citizen comment that will not happen before six o'clock but we do finish an item of discussion Once we've hit the six o'clock mark when we wrap up that discussion then we will take general citizen. But tonight is a voting item and we will take public comments on our specific voting item as well. So with that I'm going to move into our first item on the agenda which is our consent calendar and council take a motion on this.

I move to approve the consent calendar. Second.

All right, we have a motion to approve the consent calendar and a second. I believe this is, I can just say, voice vote, right? All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? All right, seeing none, we will move on to item number two. And item number two is a part of our ongoing conversation. We've been gathering a lot of information, getting a lot of questions answered, having robust discussion. And tonight, that discussion continues. We will continue to listen to one another, get questions answered. And then ultimately, once we feel like we've had the discussion and we're ready to move forward, Tonight, the goal is to identify a number. So with that, I'll open it to the council. I don't think we have a formal presentation. I think everything's been presented. But I do know we have staff ready to answer questions. So council, where would we like to begin? Questions? Ms. Nichol?

The item I brought up last week, I wanted to thank for getting the explanation why we shouldn't put and sale or portions of the sale on there. Can we, if we put in the motion tonight, whatever the motion is, and to have bond language for sale put in the voter information packet, would that be okay? Because that's where they recommended it go.

Yeah, they would not recommend you put that in the resolution. The resolution does call for the voter information pamphlet to be prepared, but I think you could approve that and ask for that to be brought to you before that's released. But their advice is not to put any language in the actual resolution regarding that.

So if we said, and bring back the bond language, or the voter pamphlet to the council to approve in the motion?

Without specifically stating? I'm not sure on that. We did that last time. I think we're happy to do that. Awesome. and just so you know, they are planning to be here bond council and Jason burning out from LRB, but I Got a text from Jason and said there's traffic there may be an accident on the freeway So they might be a little late.

It sounds like I'll try to answer any questions You want to go down to standing reports and get time there's hardly anybody in the council here it seems kind of odd maybe people aren't expecting to

Only if council if the only questions council has would be Directed at them then I could see value. Otherwise, I think it's important that we have our conversation and hear where everyone is Comments but not questions

Both, I guess, on this item.

And you're feeling that we need bond counsel and finance advisor here for that?

Yeah.

Okay.

So you're willing to wait until they are here? Yeah.

Okay.

What about, is there anything you would like to discuss or questions that we don't necessarily need bond counsel or a financial advisor here for? Yes, please, Mr. Sousa.

I have a question. I'm not sure. I don't think that this is a bond council question, but I don't know who to direct it to. So whomever looks like they know the answer and would like to, that would be great. In terms of a process, let's hypothetically say that there is a vote to put this on the ballot in some form. The following process for the voter pamphlet What is the process for that? Does that come back to the council? Does the council get to review it? Is it all administrative? How does that pamphlet specifically work? Oh, I was going to say, I don't know.

Well, my understanding, the state statute says the city must prepare voter information pamphlet. It doesn't specifically say whether that, in our form of government, if it's who from the city. But our last process was, it was a team effort. Administration drafted a version, and that was shared with council, and we received feedback from the council. Our bond council also reviewed it. it's uh we had our financial advisor so many people were reviewing it there is specific items that are in the packet under that process outline that are required and then there's like we talked about the first time when bond council was here we can add more educational information to the pamphlet they've said that no city does it exactly the same so for every bond issue it's slightly different that they've seen but There's there's about five or six things that are required and then there's if you want to supplement with more information Most cities do that. So we envision that being a team effort What does that team effort look like?

Does it is it a formal conversation and a vote of the council to approve? Whatever is ultimately going out or what do you envision that team effort to look like?

I think

I don't remember what we did for the fire station.

Yeah, and I could defer to administration if they have any comments. But last time, I think it was just sent to the council in an email, and we received comments back and incorporated those.

And part of the reason that I'm asking is because last week, I think, or a previous discussion, and Council Member Nickel has had some things that she wanted to convey to voters in a way that is appropriate for, you know, disseminating should this go on the ballot? And how do we ensure that those things are in the voter pamphlet? Because I think I made it clear that that was important to me should this go on the ballot, that certain information be guaranteed to be shared through that voter pamphlet.

I don't know if somebody wants to address that but also keep in mind there is the arguments for and against and so if you and council members can be either they can help draft or write the for or against we've seen that in fact when the city hall bond issue was put forth to voters that was done at that time so that's another method that you can get like a contrary opinion out there but yeah.

Ms. D'Souza, for clarification on the Fire Station 31 bond, I wrote the language with the advice of bond counsel and Brian and some of the other administrative staff, and then we submitted it to the council for approval. And then when everyone had agreed on the language, that's what we used. I worked closely. I wrote the copy, and I worked closely with Eric Richards at the time, who was the communications director, and he designed some graphic descriptions a map and another image showing the need and why the bond was being sought after. We also had the opportunity to create the negative, what's it called, the counterpoint, the argument against, but to my recollection, there was no argument against. No one submitted anything. So we didn't include that in the pamphlet, but that's something that we will look toward if such an argument is submitted.

Okay, and so you anticipate from an administrative standpoint that that same argument Process will be followed in this particular case. Should this end up on a ballot?

Well, frankly, I have already started working on it So we haven't really discussed whether you wanted me to do that again mayor But I've already started working on it and I do have an outline based on what we did last time with a fire station 31 bond Okay.

All right. I think that that's really my only question right now.

Thanks Thank You councilwoman de Souza miss Nicole. I

Thank you. I don't know who this question is for. Maybe for bond counsel. I don't know. But I have some language I'd like to talk through with you. It says financing for the purpose all or a portion of the cost of acquiring the former Crescent Middle School. I would like that to say, I would like to strike a portion and put just all. Because I don't want this to be funded any other way than the bond. It says a portion of this could be – I want this money to go to specifically for what people think they're voting on, which is Crescent. If we say a portion of the cost in acquiring it, it almost seems like there could be a chance that we wouldn't have to use the bond money for this. It's in the opening line of the resolution.

Sure, I can take that. Randy Larson with Gilmore and Bell.

Oh, thank you.

Pull it right up to you.

Pull it close? You bet. Randy Larson with Gilmore and Bell, bond counsel to the city. The reason for the all or a portion is actually the inverse in case you can't, if the bond proceeds are insufficient to accomplish all of the acquisition. There's nothing wrong with what you would propose. The voter information pamphlet will give more detail and actually requires a prioritization of the bond monies. But that is relatively typical to say financing all or a portion just to give the city wiggle room if you used a lower bond amount and didn't acquire all of it. It wouldn't authorize bond proceeds to be used for anything other than what the ballot proposition approves.

Okay. Thank you. Any other thoughts on that?

Any thoughts on what Ms. Nichols shared? Okay, other oh, yes Mr. Sousa, thank you.

I don't know that I have a thought but it seems like Maybe councilmember Nichols question or concern was resolved with the response or do you still feel it's important and I'll just say that I understand and like the reason and I agree with it because I don't want to say all of it if we don't need to spend all of it, right, so that would be That would be my thought on the other side

Other questions, council members?

I'd like to propose a language change on page 29 of the packet paragraph 4. Whereas the council desires to submit a proposition, I would like that to either say the city or the mayor and council.

So I'll jump in with a question there. I'd love to have you elaborate on that. My understanding is we are the authority that executes bonding. So I don't want to confuse necessarily the public

That's the only paragraph where it specifically says the council. Everywhere else it says the city.

So you're saying perhaps change it to the city to be coherent with everything else saying the city.

Yes.

But we would clarify or perhaps we've done enough of that clarification that it is the city council that has this bonding authority. Okay. I see what you're saying. Other thoughts or questions on that?

I know nitpicking this document, but it's really important to get this right. Which section are you in? I am on page 29 of the packet. The resolution. The fourth paragraph. The council desires. Oh, I'm sorry. I see the city council in the first one, too. So that is not. It pops up a couple times. Yep.

Sorry, I'm also seeing it about, it's the council that holds the public hearing.

Gotcha.

Yeah.

Okay.

Okay, council members, any other questions? We're quiet today. I thought we had lots more questions to go. Okay, well seeing no questions, I would love just to have some deliberation like sharing, not necessarily making a motion unless that's what someone wants to do, but sort of starting the discussion and hearing thoughts because I've heard several of you say, I don't really have questions, but I have thoughts. So anyone want to begin the process of sharing where you are?

I do have one other additional item that I'd like to discuss with the council. Sure. I don't know if this is good or bad. I know we can take the proceeds in tranches. But we're getting a pretty good interest rate right now. Me, my feeling on the market is I think rates are still going to go up. So would it be better to do the whole amount at once versus two tranches or three because we actually have closing costs that we have to pay with those two So it's more expense to the taxpayers to do it incrementally as well.

I think I actually, oh, please, if I could add my thoughts to that. We learned a lot at dinner that I think is maybe what you're going to share as well in terms of some time stamped things that have to occur if we were to borrow it all at once. So I think he's ready to answer that.

I can help. You're right to point out that cost of issuance for each series should be weighed against the interest both at the time you issue and what is accrued. How quickly will you spend it? The reason that Again, historically we have authorized to be issued in one or more series is to allow flexibility around administration and optimizing those as they come. You won't be in a position to issue bonds until December. And I'm not a financial advisor. But that would be a crystal ball. They've actually dropped in the last couple of weeks, but we're in a pretty volatile time frame. So typically, you reserve that flexibility to the financial plan to try and measure all those things at the time that you issue. So it is a function of the interest rate at the time. It's a function of the closing costs. It'd be dumb to spend closing costs if you're going to spend your money. what is the project that you are bonding for and how quickly can you spend it? Because not paying interest can make the additional cost of issuance be dwarfed by paying interest. So it's a combo of those three things, which is why that usually gives flexibility. And I think you acknowledge that. You said, I can see it both ways.

But we're accruing interest, right? Can we use the interest, some of that, to pay down the payment?

Yes.

And that would be larger on the larger number, right?

The amount that you bond for, it won't begin to accrue interest until you close, but the amount of proceeds that you invest, typically in PTIF or something similar, will inert or have investment earnings come to you. Those can be used towards the project or they can help offset the debt service as well. Rarely, well, I shouldn't say rarely. We're in a different environment now. I'm trading into financial advisor role, not legal. But oftentimes, the federal government will require you to rebate back to them any earnings above the bond deal. So therefore, it's a wash in most circumstances. But there are some subtle, those are the things that would be considered at the time you issue it.

Yeah, and as Randy was alluding to, we do have time requirements in spending down the amount that we bond for. Within 18 months, we should be spent down by about 85%. And so six, 12, 18 months, we should be spent down 85%. If we're not and we are earning more interest than we're paying on the yield, then we rebate that back to the IRS. So we have to track all that.

So there is – Is the rebate a portion or all of it?

It's just the amount above what our yield is, if we earn more than that, the difference. Okay. So – but all of that, we will do analysis for you as a council when it gets time to issue the bonds. We'll work with our financial advisor to let you know if it's more advantageous. But Jason and I have had conversations about this already. And in our discussions, you know, he's said usually if you do it in tranches, it usually outweighs the issuance cost. Because if you take, say, for example, if you do the $24 million bond or the $30 million option, and the property's only 17, so you have that excess and it's sitting in your account, you will be paying yield interest to the investors on that. And if you're not sure exactly if you're gonna meet those time constraints and spending it down, that could outweigh the cost of issuing another tranche and only doing the 17 at first and doing a second tranche later, so.

But I would add, for your benefit, this resolution doesn't authorize the issuance of bonds. It authorizes the election. So the plan that will come back to you for the Council to approve will be exactly that. Should we issue in one or more troughs? How much? Et cetera. That will come back to you as a second authorization, assuming a successful election.

Yeah, and remember, this resolution doesn't even require the city to issue bonds. This is putting it on the ballot. Even if the voters approve for it, it doesn't obligate the city from doing it.

Great question, and woo! Thank you, thank you. Great responses. Ms. Christensen had a follow-up.

No, I just was thinking about that smart question. I like it. One other aspect to think about is that if we just issue enough to do, if we did put the bond on there and it passed, if we had enough to do closing costs and whatever improvements we needed to get going, then we wouldn't have the money issued. And we wouldn't necessarily issue it until we had a plan that we were comfortable with of what we were going to do. So just a different thought.

And I'll add to that as well because I think I've said this before but I appreciate the flexibility that the series approach offers. I appreciate that tonight is you've been very clear. Thank you for reinforcing always, this is what your discussion is tonight. This is what you're voting on tonight. But I appreciate the visioning for. And what would come before you next would be some recommendations around if the voters say yes to whatever is put on the ballot, here would be our recommendations. And so I think that might be where you would come back and take into account Ms. Nichols' question of here's what we're recommending. And then to reinforce what Ms. Christensen said, I also really like the flexibility of I know you'll come back we're not making this decision tonight but you'll come back with recommendations but just sort of letting you know where I am. I like the idea of an initial bond tranche that gets the property purchased and then we And then we have time. Like, is that what you're saying? I want to make sure I'm hearing. OK. I don't want to put words in your mouth. OK. OK. So I sort of second that. I like the idea of having time to then figure out what the right plan is and then hearing your direction, et cetera.

Other thoughts on that? Just so you're aware, I think the time is 10 years that you would have. That's the legal limit, right?

10 years from the time voters approve it or from the first issuance? Approval. Approval.

10 years of the approval, 10 years.

OK, 10 years to issue. The full amount. OK, great clarifying. Thank you. I see Ms. D'Souza.

All right, sorry. These are kind of onesie, twosie questions, I think, as we're talking and deliberating. In terms of repayment of the bond, this particular one that we're, do we already have an idea in mind? And I guess I'm asking, what is the earliest that we can repay the bond?

The the plan we have outlined as a 10-year call provision that's typical for the market So doing anything before that 10-year call would be prohibitive Like it would cost us more or they just don't issue them.

I

Well, it definitely would impact the interest rate for sure. And even, for example, we went out with the Arbor building and we tried to do complete flexibility with no call provision. We went to the market and we couldn't even get a zero. We ended up getting a three-year call. I doubt we would get less than a 7, but it would impact the interest rate. For something like this, 10 is really common and what the market expects to see. And if you start trying to change things like that, it causes questions in the marketplace. It would impact our interest rate.

Okay. So then I have another question and I'm thinking about who knows what the future holds. Okay. And we purchased the property, all, all 17 acres. And at some point down the road, we decide that we want to sell a portion of the land, the proceeds from that sale. I mean, I'm assuming that they have to go back into. the repayment of the bond, is that correct? Because it was used for collateral? Okay. But as long as it's not repaid in full, then we're not in penalty, is that?

Yeah. Let me try to work through that. It's a very good question. If you were to issue the bonds for the ground, the governmental tax exempt analysis will likely be based upon governmental use. If you sold a portion of that land for non-governmental use, then you may be in a position where you would need to pay down the portion of the bonds that are attributable to the land that you're now selling. And a 10-year call will make that less efficient, right? Because you can't call the bonds right now. You'd have to escrow out to the call date. But the downside of a better flexible call provision is a higher interest rate. So it's yin-yang, nothing's free.

What if you determine that the portion that you sell can't be sold for as much as you counted it worth when you issued the bonds, then what?

Then you would have to come up with a difference. in equity. Land typically appreciates, but whatever percentage of the bonds that would be attributable to the property you want to sell, that same percentage would need to be paid down on the outstanding bonds.

And what type of valuation would make the determination on where it is or was?

Best one would be a willing buyer for that property.

OK. Thanks.

Great questions. Thank you, Mr. Sousa. All right. Anyone else want to share thoughts?

I have a question. Does the resolution include all of the other items that are in the packet? So like the official ballot proposition, that's included in it?

It is. It's in the resolution. It looks kind of official and has some caps to it. It looks very official.

Yeah it's on page seven.

And so. OK. And on page 40 of the packet on the recorder certification does she sign that tonight. Or does it imply that she signs it tonight? Because the minutes aren't adopted from this meeting until the next meeting, and it talks about minutes.

The minutes would be not until they were approved by the council at the next meeting. Okay. The authorization, the resolution itself will be signed. Should you approve it at the next meeting? We're on a clock, state law clock, for next week by the 19th. But that part could wait until the minutes were approved. OK, thanks.

Great question. Thank you. OK, ready to share thoughts? OK. Yeah. Because we can take public comment without a motion. So love that. Let's go ahead and pause our discussion. Good questions. And we will open this up for public comment. This is not general citizen comment. That will happen at or after 6 o'clock. This is public comment on this particular item. This is a voting item, the Crescent View Middle School proposal that we are discussing. So we'll go ahead and open it. If you are interested in making public comment, there's blue cards in the back. You would fill that out. Bring it over here to Mr. Sorenson. We will call you up to the podium in the order in which we receive those cards. And then we will move from in-person comments to those who are online. We see a good number of attendees online. So those of you online, be prepared. Should you want to make a comment, you will be able to do so. You'll just raise your hand and we'll sort of acknowledge you one at a time. I see people... filling out blue cards. So I know we have people in the chambers ready to comment. So we're just going to give them a chance to get those turned in. As a reminder, we have a three-minute limit for each speaker. So we'll be monitoring. And we do that to ensure that every speaker is allotted the same amount of time in terms of fairness for everyone. And even if you want to finish filling that out after, you're welcome to come on up and then you can finish filling out the blue card and give that to Mr. Sorensen.

You ready to start?

Well, I saw them stand up. I'm not sure what the order is. But you're at the mic. I guess we'll pass those down.

I'll just go on the order that they're here. Thank you.

All right. My first card is Don Can. Please come on up. Remember, you will have three minutes.

OK. Don Can. I live at 10966 South Blossom Tree Lane in Sandy. And I wanted to just offer a few comments. I did send a little note to each of you as council members. I've lived in Sandy since 1989, and so I'm one of the oldest residents here, I believe. I was 34 when I moved here, and my kids were all little. And my kids did attend Crescent View Middle School. I was astounded when the district took our nicest, newest middle school and shut it down. It was completely ridiculous to build a Taj Mahal at Union. It didn't make any sense, but that's neither here nor there. Anyway, what I wanted to say is, first of all, I'm just concerned about spending money. I'm retired now, as some of you will be someday, and so you're concerned about your taxes going up. And Ronald Reagan said that it's often talked about spending like a drunken sailor. But even a drunken sailor can't spend more money than what's in his pocket. And Sandy City is prepared to do the opposite, spend money that they don't have. This proposal, I've seen a number of different figures. The first one that was given to us in the highly skewed presentations that were over at the middle school were regarding $17 million or $4.80 per taxpayer on an average size home. That is if you have an average size home. If you have an above average home, it would cost you much more. But $17 million, somebody said a bond will be $21 million, I guess is what you're speaking about. And other people have talked about the build out and the ongoing maintenance would take us in the $31 to $42 million range. by the time all is said and done. I'm very concerned about that, because we've seen a lot of businesses flee Sandy. There's a lot of vacant buildings here. When I moved here, we had nine supermarkets. Now we have like four. I'm not counting the ones up on the Upper East Side that I don't go to, but down here we have like two. Harmon's, which is retail plus 20%, and then you've got Target over here, which is quite a ways away from us. Our old reams shut down because the landlord decided to sell the property. Reems wanted to stay. And so my proposal was the possibility of using a mixed use for the property and actually having it be partial commercial, maybe with a grocery store anchor that might want to come, somebody like a Reems or a Lucky or a Winco, and then a strip mall. And then in addition to that, have a... one eight single family homes supplement whatever land is not used up, which I thought would be an excellent thing to do. It would be income money coming in for Sandy City instead of going out. And right now we're just talking about tax and spend. And again, it seems to me like many times people get deceived, especially when it's put before the voters. And that's what worries me. We live in a representative constitutional republic. We do not live in a democracy. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. People are easily influenced. And I'm afraid that if you put it before the voters, a massive advertising campaign would guarantee you a yay vote.

Thank you. Thank you. All right, next we have Paul Godot? Godot? Godot. Godot, there we go. Thank you for correcting me.

That's AKA, my Home Depot buddy. I see him every time I go to Home Depot.

So you need name and address and all that? Yes. OK, great. Last week, I think many of you received an email, and I apologize for the mess up, I think. It was Mr. Sosa.

I was so wrong. Yeah, I forgot the gov.

OK, so I think it's a great idea, this property. You know, it is a once in a lifetime. There's plenty of evidence to not only suggest but support the notion that entities such as being proposed, community centers, arts, crafts, They raise property values and they provide that venue for the community to recreate, right? And we all need that. And we especially need it in the America of today. So I support that. The question, I read the revised motion, so I'm a little confused about 17, 30, 21, but I did do some preliminary present value calculations. And when you're making a deal with respect to money, The best deal is that which produces the least present value. I know present value is a tough subject. I don't claim to know everything about it. You've got people in the room here who are experts. But it's something to keep in mind. And it's counterintuitive that the mayor I believe wanted to let's say bond 17 and then she said, no, let's do 21. So I'm thinking, okay, if you did 17 and then they did 13, right? That's the 30 and compare that to the 30 with the exception of The 13 being issued at 4.2%, because I think interest rates are going up. And normally, you've got a 15 to 20 basis point differential with munis, with AAA credit. So the bottom line is that if you fund the 13 tranche by itself, or if you fund it all together, it's going to be 15,371, 15 million, right? And if it's at 4.2, it's 15,302. You're going to save about $68,000. But if inflation goes to 3.5, you're at $250,000. So it's just something to keep in mind. I mean, this is just all estimates. It makes a difference when you issue the bond. And by the way, this country is built on credit. We don't have money to buy a house. We borrow it. It's called a mortgage.

Thank you. All right, we have Marilyn Berry. Sorry, Berger. Thank you. I was trying to decide if that was a G or a Y. Thank you, Berger.

I always think that my handwriting is better than it is.

Mine is definitely worse than yours.

So I have a unique perspective about all of this because I came to Sandy back in 2007 when everything was pretty cheap here to buy a really nice home and to live. I've watched it just go exponentially, absolutely crazy. I also own property near Carmel, California. So I've watched Carmel go from a very quaint little city to this craziness of people wanting to move in and just overdevelop continually and change the landscape of what was beautiful about what they wanted to come there for. And I feel sometimes the same way about Sandy. So last year, or two years ago, I bought a little mobile home in that Crescentwood mobile home park. The surrounding neighborhoods there are interesting to me because they're not like all the other planned areas in Sandy where they have a green space. Mostly housing development, houses on top of one another, and the only place that we have to play and do things is in the park there and then in the school grounds which i was confused too about why the school was closed that was so weird but it's a beautiful building and to see it torn down to replace it with something that's going to cause more problems in the long run just seems silly to me Once we put more houses in there, we've got water problems, we've got infrastructure problems, we've got crime problems. And what about the children who go to that school? Right now they're safe going from the trailer park into that area. But in reality, once we don't have control over that anymore, that presents a real safety issue for those children. And so I'm really for this project, which I wouldn't normally be, because I think it will benefit Sandy as a city. I think it will benefit the neighborhoods that are surrounding that area. And I think what it'll really do is stop the urban sprawl. And for the trailer park where we live, or we call it that, but in reality, it's a nice mobile home park. It will also stop... greed from wanting to sell out from underneath all of those people who live there. And I'm one of them. And it's a real challenge. It is a real challenge when you think about it. And so I hope that the city council can kind of look past the tax base that they think they might get and look at the reality of the people there. Because I think that's what's important. And that's all I want to say.

Thank you. And now Monica Berger.

Mother, daughter.

Mother, daughter. Tag team.

So when I got up this morning, I wasn't

Sorry, I know you're, there you go, perfect. Can you hear me, is that better? Yep.

Okay. When I got up this morning, it was kind of overwhelming for me because I'm the resident association manager, which I started that in February of this year over at Crescentwood Village for some things that were going on in the park. We learned about this pretty soon after I had opened that first resident association. I have a couple of really crazy things that have happened, but the level of frustration around the rent lot rent there, because it's $1,300 a month for people to rent the lots. And then on top of that, if you have a mortgage, you have to pay your mortgage on top of that. But it is Sandy. It's a nice place to live. It's a very expensive place to live, but it's a nice place. So I was able to... you know, think about all of the people that this would affect. And some of the people were, you know, the elderly man who doesn't have any food that he has to pay his rent instead of his food, or he has to figure out how he's going to make that work. And he's going, you know, quite a bit into this self-preservation to be able to do that. And I was thinking about all the people that I know and what's going on, but these people, they're not a statistic. It's not something that we can just throw around and say, You know, this doesn't matter to them. Well, it does matter to us because even though that we own the home, we don't own the land. And a lot of those places cannot be moved. So if they can't sell their property or if they can't move their home and it's forfeited, then they will be completely homeless. And we're not talking about a small amount of people. We're talking about 1,200 to 1,500 people that are in there. There's 300 homes. So when you look at that, if that was to go to a private developer, who's going to, you know, raise those lot fees like way higher on our side, even though that they don't own that area, that could be really such a bad thing in the long run for all of us that live there. So I wanted to kind of just address that portion, but also so that you understood that even if we're in there, it's going to cause some problems with the construction and traffic and all of those things that come along with private development, we would also see an uptick in some of those other issues like my mom had mentioned just a few moments ago. But the biggest thing I want people to understand is that it doesn't really, it's not just 17 acres. Nobody's gonna remember in 20 years how much we paid for it. They're not gonna remember why it was done. But I don't, I mean, I wouldn't wanna look back at this and say we made the wrong choice. We really made the wrong choice. But I don't wanna go home tonight And I don't want to get in my bed and think about what am I going to tell these people? What am I going to tell these people after that vote's made? Because that isn't a decision that I made. But I should get the opportunity to make it. Meaning that people should probably look at that and push this through. So that the citizens can actually say, this is what we think we should do. Not just, you know, 15 people in a room. Because we live with those consequences of what happens today. It's going to be my family that has to figure out where to go and what to do.

Thank you. All right before we move to those who are have joined us online anyone else in the chambers make sure you do fill out a blue card and let us know you're interested in public comment. I do not see anyone moving to that so we'll move to online. Mr. Sorensen if you'll give those instructions.

Thank you. If you're joining us via the Zoom meeting and would like to comment on item number two please use the raise hand feature and we'll call you in the order in which you raise your hand and you'll have three minutes to make your comment. Okay, first up we have Diane Nicholson. I will allow you to talk. Please remember to unmute yourself and you will have three minutes to make your comment.

Good evening. Thank you for giving me permission to talk. My name is Diane Nicholson and I live in District 3, which in all honesty is not that close to the property we're talking about tonight. But what I want to mention is that I moved to Sandy in 1990, and I live very close to the Dimpledale Park, which I am very thankful for. But I have watched Sandy go through many stages of imagining the possibilities of who we want to be. I've watched Sandy grow with the whole Quarry Bend area, the amphitheater. We went through stages where we brought in a large, chain stores like Walmart and other big stores. We went through eras where we bought in lots of small local stores. But we're also have, we seem to be in a stage now where we're really valuing our green space or our natural places the way Sandy used to be. And I just feel like I would like the voters to have a choice of who we want to be. And so I'm asking you to put a resolution on the ballot asking the voters to either buy this property or choose not to buy it so that the voters have a choice of who we want Sandy to be in the future. Thank you very much.

I don't see any more hands raised.

All right. Thank you. Neither do I. So Madam Chair.

Mr. Sorensen did you see the email from Phil Snyder.

I just wanted to. I was just going to bring that up. That's right.

Yes. Thank you. So before we close public comment. Thank you Mr. Kaiser. We did have a request. Same three minute limit applies.

Yes, and there were some instructions to jump around a little bit in this email, so please bear with me as I'm wearing multiple hats right now. Dear members of the council, I am writing as a Sandy resident and property taxpayer to express my opposition to the proposed $17 million purchase of the former Crescent View Middle School property and the associated $21 million bond now heading towards the November 2026 ballot. I recognize the appeal of preserving this site as a community asset. But as currently structured, this proposal asks residents to commit tens of millions of dollars without basic questions of value, purpose, and funding having been answered. I respectfully urge the council to address the concerns below before asking voters to approve this bond. First, the city is paying well above its own appraised value. The city commissioned its own appraisal of this property, which came back at $8.5 million. A second jointly commissioned appraisal placed the value at 10 million. Yet the city has agreed to pay Canyon School District 17 million reportedly to match the highest outside developer bid rather than to negotiate from a position grounded in the city's own valuation work. This is more than double the city's own appraisal and a 7 million premium over even the most generous joint appraisal. If the city's own experts value this property at less than half the purchase price, residents deserve a clear explanation of why the city chose to match a private developer's bid rather than use its appraisal as leverage in negotiations. Paying a substantial premium over independently appraised value is not fiscally responsible stewardship of public funds, particularly for a purchase of this size. This amounts to double taxation on the same asset. Perhaps most fundamentally, Sandy City property owners already fund Canyon School District directly through their existing property tax bills, including the operating levy and state basic school levy that combined represent the single largest line item on the typical resident's property tax statement. Residents' tax dollars paid to the district over decades built, maintained, and improved the original Crescent View Middle School building. The district is now selling that same taxpayer-funded asset for $17 million with proceeds explicitly earmarked to fund renovations at its new Innovation Center. benefit to the district financed in part by the very taxpayers now being asked to buy the building back a second time through a new city bond Sandy residents would in effect pay twice for the same physical asset once through years of school property tax levies that built and sustained it and again through a new bond to purchase it back from the district This raises a further question the city has not addressed. Why has the city not insisted as a condition of this transaction that sale proceeds be earmarked towards paying down the.

Thank you for reading that into the record and for the reminder Mr. Kaiser. So with that we will go ahead and close public comment on this item and bring it back to the council for further discussion. OK, I'm not seeing. I'll go ahead and share my thoughts then. And then again, hoping to hear from everyone. I think what I would like to start with is just reiterating what a deliberative process this has been. And I think we've really leaned in. We've asked a lot of good questions, including questions that I've asked tonight. I think we've surfaced important information. We've engaged the public. We are thinking about what the public is sharing. There's a lot of deliberation. And I think for me, the focus tonight is actually in alignment with some of the public comment we've heard in terms of I know there's many potential decisions ahead, and yet those decisions are only come before us should voters choose to support. If we do put this on the ballot, the next round of decisions only comes to us if voters say, We see the value of this project, and we can get behind this, and voters indicate. We acknowledge that there will be an increase in our property tax, and we are saying yes to support that. It may not be 100%. It will not be 100%, but we are giving voters an opportunity to share their voice and let us know if they believe this property is is worth purchasing to the degree that they're willing to say yes and I know my property tax is going to go up. And so I I am sort of anchoring everything in that remembering that there's there's more decisions ahead. There's the process will continue tonight is simply Do, and I can just speak for myself, do I want this to go on the ballot? The answer to that question for me is yes. The next question would be, how much? And so I'm coming back to the voters and thinking about what I want to make sure voters have a say in. I want the full opportunity to come to voters. I don't want there to be any potential surprises. I want voters to have the opportunity to know that what they are voting to support is the full breadth of the project. It may not cost the full amount that we bond for, but they are saying yes to a property tax increase. They are weighing in on the project. And my concern with perhaps coming in well under what What it could cost is that it's gonna feel like a bit of a bit of a surprise if if they're another property tax comes later and it's one that ends up not going before the voters and Yet their property taxes go up. So for me, I think the the the the The number that I will be supporting it hasn't changed from last week. I will be supporting 30 million because I believe that gives the full ownership to the voters it gives them the full voice as to whether or not this is a project they want to see happen. I understand the call for working out more details and having a concrete plan. And the fact is, is if we don't act, the time runs out. We are, it is what it is. We are working under very tight time constraints. If we don't put this on the ballot and give voters the opportunity to say yay or nay, Kenya's district will just sell it to someone else, and in effect, voters They don't have that opportunity. So we do need, in my opinion, to put this on the ballot. And I would support $30 million. Not that we're going to spend that full amount, but this authorizes, the voters essentially say, Sandy City Council, I am authorizing you to bond for up to $30 million. I see the vision. I know there's not all of the details. And I know that there will be a public process by which those details will be shared. I want to make sure that there are no surprises. I know we've had some conversation around operations, and that's a separate conversation. But in terms of if there's this phase one and then eventually there's this phase two, well, I don't want surprises with phase two. I want voters to have an opportunity to weigh in on a property tax increase for the $30 million. Again, we may not spend all of that, but they should have a voice. And I want to do all I can in terms of I am one of seven, but I want to do all I can to protect the voter voice, give them the full picture, and by the way, When we do it this way it is a bond that sunsets. So the voters are in effect voting to say yes I will increase my property taxes for this project. And when that project completes that bond sunsets. So does that increase property tax. If at a later date a property tax increase is passed but it is not done through a general obligation bond that is a property tax increase in perpetuity. Because we know, based on history, that once we increase property taxes, not many councils roll that back. I believe $30 million protects taxpayers because it's an up-to amount, and it has that number. That $30 million is locked in as a finite project with a finite time limit and when that project is complete that bond sunsets and the attached property tax increase also sunsets in effect reducing that property tax. And I just I have concerns that if we don't do the 30 million down the road taxpayers might feel a little bit like there was a bit of a bait and switch. You got me really excited about what this could be. And I supported it at $17 million, thinking that was what it was going to be. And now another property tax increase got kind of pushed through. But it wasn't a voter referendum. It wasn't a ballot initiative. It was just a property tax increase. And that is in perpetuity. I'm sort of being a bit redundant. But I hope, please ask questions if you want me to clarify anything. But that's where I am. I want to be very clear. I want it to be a general obligation bond that could deliver the full vision And I supported, and I've got numbers, but I feel like I've already talked quite enough, but I guess the one thing I'll say about numbers is I really dug deep into the District 4 results. That's who I represent. And there is significant support from District 4, and we all saw that data. But the overall support from District 4 was definitely interest in the project. And I know there's different numbers. People show different interest in different amounts. But in terms of the people who wanted to purchase the property from District 4, the largest percentage of that group said the $30 million. They want to go ahead and authorize the full vision. So that's where I am. I think it is full transparency. I think it's what voters deserve. And they have a voice in what the ultimate property tax increase would look like for them. And it sunsets. it it ends when the project ends and their and their tax their property tax goes back down. So that's where I am. I'll be quiet now. Anyone else want to share where you are. Mr. DeKaiser.

Thank you Madam Chair. I'm going to support the 21 million dollar ask that the administration recommends. Again no one has more experience in doing this than Martin and I really trust his judgment and what they've said we can buy the property for and put money into it to make it fully functional. I don't think there's transparency issues about whether it's 21 or 30. I think the council could can always increase property taxes and so it's not unique to this situation. I think we're saying to the residents 21 million this is what we're going to get for it and that's good. I think from a fiscally conservative perspective 21 million is more responsible than 30 million. There's no plan as of now for the nine million dollar difference that's almost 50 percent. So why why are we going to ask residents for that. Why are the conservative more conservative members of the council calling for a possibility where we're able to build the Taj Mahal. I think another point I want to reiterate from previous discussions is the point that while District 1 constituents overwhelmingly support a higher amount the 20 million 21 million dollars is more palatable across the entire city. So as an at large member I think the 21 million dollars strikes the right balance. It's very clear about what the plan is and it's the most palatable for the residents. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. DeKaiser. Looking for additional comments. Ms. D'Souza.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I am going to channel a Recent colleague and say I'm struggling with this decision tonight. I really have I feel dissonance I feel some dissonance between where I think this is going and maybe how I really feel based off of all of the information that's been presented to us not just on this particular item but throughout my time on the council and all that I know about the city and our needs and the costs and and and not just the city, but our residents and our businesses. And I think that it's, I'm gonna say this and I don't mean to accuse anybody of doing this, right? I just, for me it feels like this decision's being made in a bit of a vacuum. And I have a lot of concern over that. We talk about the school closing down. Well, part of the reason, not the only reason, but part of the reason that schools are closing down is because Housing is too expensive for young families. There's a need for housing in the state, but we're going to not allow land that's in a residential area to be used for housing. We just bought the Arbor Building for some of our municipal department needs. yet it is my understanding, I'd like to get an update, we'll talk about that later, on our municipal departments moving into the Arbor Building, but that was to alleviate some of our space needs. And now some of those same departments are being mentioned into the 128,000 square foot building of Crescent Middle School. The cost to operate a 50 year old, 40, 50 year old building is expensive. That's one of the reasons that We rebuilt the Alta Canyon Sandy Recreation Center. It's more space than we need. The building's more space than we need. The land's more space than we need. I do see value in a portion of the land, but that conversation never really transpired, and we aren't having that conversation. That time is gone. In my gut, I feel like purchasing this is the wrong decision. I do. But at the same time, I feel like The conversation, the train has left the station, and it's barreling down the tracks. And I think that there is some reasonable expectation that voters weigh in on this in a more substantial way. And so that's the dissonance between what I feel and what I believe based off of all of the information that I've gathered on my five years here and where I believe that this is going. I'm concerned about adding costs. We talk about, oh, it's only an average of x small amount. Even using words like only suggests that it's small or should be considered small. I think that that's misleading. I think that we need to also consider, I think Mr. Kan mentioned it, that businesses pay 100% of the property taxes while residents get an exemption, you know, 45% exemption. And we all talk about how we don't want businesses to leave and we want more businesses to come in, but are we creating the environment that that keeps businesses and brings new businesses in. I get really worried about that. Are we creating an environment that allows for some of the broader housing needs that our county, state, even our city, and with our aging children who've grown up here that would like to stay here maybe, are we creating those opportunities? I don't think that we are with this particular decision. I hear what Mr. DeKaiser says. I would never be able to support the $21 million proposal that was proposed most recently by the administration, primarily because it was not a consideration for all of the public consideration and debates that has been going on over the last few weeks. There were two open houses and a survey and a website. And what was cobbled together for our meeting last week doesn't represent what was being asked for the public to weigh in on. And so that doesn't make sense. Let's go out and ask them a bunch of questions and then throw an option at them at the end that isn't anything that we've asked them about so far. There was a $21 million option that was proposed, but it suggested selling a portion of the land and making the building smaller, I believe. So anyway, I don't believe that $21 million is completely transparent because I think that the administration stated that they would use $17 million plus, a little bit extra to bring the building up to operable, operatable, whatever the word is. And then we'd ask the residents what they want it to be. Well, there's going to have to be more money be put into any solution. And so anyway, that's why I feel that that $21 million isn't reflective or transparent of the total overall conversation. And I'm not looking to put something on the ballot that is palatable to people in a way that gets it passed, but maybe feels a bit like a bait and switch, which is what I would feel in those circumstances. Quite frankly, I kind of feel that as a council member because, again, when we first talked about this, the conversation was always about selling some land. And then that kind of went away very, very quickly without ever coming back to the council. It just went to the public. And so I don't want to do that. I don't want to continue to do that. I'm going to listen to the rest of the debate. and make my decision as I hear what my colleagues are saying. But that's kind of where I'm at in this moment. This is a very hard decision. It does not serve our community. core reason for being a municipality in the way that it's extra. We have Crescent View Park right next door, so it's not like there is a lack of parks or green space. You know, I recognize that Sandy is a desirable community for many because of our parks and green space and recreational, outdoor recreational opportunities. And, you know, that's why I love living here. And so, you know, I want to say that I recognize that's important, but I also feel like this particular purchase in the way that it's been proposed is redundant and unnecessary to a point that I almost feel like it's irresponsible. But that doesn't mean that I think that, I don't know, that I'm at a point where I can make the decision for everybody because, again, I think that a reasonable expectation has been made of the public. So those are my thoughts right now. Thanks.

Thank you, Mr. Sousa. Anyone over here want to share thoughts? Who? Yes. Ms. Stroud? Okay.

I think in hearing some of this, so after I hear from the other side over here, I may have some more thoughts to add. And all of us have a very unique perspective to this. And listen to a... We do our best to listen to the entire city, but it's whoever has our ear. So people that we have interacted with the most, people that we've received the emails from, that we've received text messages, that we've been able to connect the most frequently with. So it will be good to hear from everybody to see what those groups are because You know, often we have residents that contact all of us, and then we have residents that, you know, are a little more, you know, whether that's because it's just, you know, physical geography that they're connected with or they've connected in another way. You know, so a couple of things, you know, and I pulled up the, you know, so I've got some questions for you, Ms. Hausman. You know, on the flash flood survey, you know, that's, and maybe I'm looking at incorrectly, but District 4, the majority, didn't want it at all. Only 23% asked for the $30 million bond. 27% said zero, and then the next was 14% at 24.5, and then 15% at 17, and then 21 at 9. know which which surprised me district 4 because a lot of it is very close you know district 1 overwhelmingly you know had the that 35% you know so that's you know it was just it was a question but I'm sure you have received a lot more outreach since this survey But that is a question I have. The $21 million and you mentioned and which is very true. Originally there were options presented to the public that said what if we We have to buy all of it because Canyons is not suggesting that we sell part of it, we'll sell part of it to you, and then we'll look to sell part of it to somebody else. But one of those options was, well, if we buy all of it because that's how it's being presented to us, I can't buy an outfit with a shirt and pants and just buy the shirt. Um, you know, that's, so I, I'm buying all of this and so maybe we do sell part of it, you know, in the future to help with those, uh, those, those upgrades or those updates. Um, and so I, I think that, you know, in those couple of weeks that, that it was presented to the public, that it's, it was represented in one aspect and that it has changed. And I would expect that it would continue to change, you know, and, and that's, especially if we, If we put on for $30 million and the property costs $17, we've got another $13 million to decide how are we going to spend this. And that will change. So no matter what we present to the public right now, this will be a decision that we're not addressing for quite a while on what that looks like. And could it include still selling part of it? Sure. I don't like the idea of being... you know, having that financial conflict. Um, and then, you know, and how do you present that to the public? If, if you just said, well, right now we're looking to buy all of it. And then in a couple of years it's, yeah, well, we need to sell part of it. So that's, that's a, it, it, it's a struggle for me. Um, you know, with that, I, um, you know, it's, I think we are, I don't think anybody is trying to be not transparent. I think it's just moved quickly. And it's difficult. And we get information and then we adjust and we adapt. And we hear this and we go, you know what, there's a lot of momentum over here. And so we just shift a little bit. So I don't think anything was done intentionally to be deceptive. A bait and switch, I've heard that a couple of times. And I've used that as well. I've said, gosh, well, how would I feel as a resident of saying, pay this, and then, oh, you know what, actually, we're not keeping this. We're only going to keep this part of it. And that's hard, because are we going to keep all 17 acres? I'm not sure that's something that we could even decide in the next few weeks. I mean, is that an option to sell something off? Sure. Would we? I don't know. And would a future council? I don't know. One thing, and I want to address this little bit maybe opening a can of worms you know with a with Canyon School District if if we had property and Canyon School District wanted to buy it sandy city we're not going to give it to canyons we're not just going to hand it over and say, oh, you know what, the Arbor Building, yeah, we bought that, but you know what, we don't need it anymore and you need something else, you need more office space, we'll just hand it to you because the taxpayers have already paid it. It will be, for Canyon School District, it will be reinvested into Canyon School District. I'm not trying to defend them at all, just try to provide some clarity. The district at the time of the purchase extended from the Wasatch Mountains to the Ochre Mountains. We have half the district that is no longer in Canyons District because it was Jordan School District at the time. So it's, and they are, they're not, putting the money in their pockets. They're not a for-profit organization. So it would be going back into being reinvested into the mission of that entity, which is educating the youth and Sandy residents involved. And that is something that has popped up over and over and over. And I had questions in the very beginning as well. I'm like, well, yeah. I was part of that. That's tax dollars and then paying into it. So that is something that was brought up. It is about $400,000 for closing costs, issuance, all of that. I feel that with all of the city undeveloped property that we own, that we don't need to put $30 million out there for residents. There are ways that we can look at some of this property and say maybe we should sell some of this. So if we bonded for that 17 to 21 range, if we want something to change something there, then let's sell some of this unused, undeveloped property that we're doing. I've had a lot of residents say, well, you know what? Why are we bonding for this? Why don't you save and then pay for it? To save $17 million is, That's difficult even for Sandy City to do. But we could be selling some other properties that we don't have or that we don't have anything built on there and use some of that money at a later date if we wanted to renovate, if we wanted to enhance And at that point, we could say, OK, we're getting here's $2 million. What do we want to do with $2 million? Right now, I think telling residents $30 million, we don't have a plan. We don't have a plan. What's going to go in there? We've had great ideas, excellent ideas. I mean, we put a lot of them on this survey. bigger parks, more trails, public-private partnerships. We have organizations that have come to us and said, hey, I really want those fields. I want to be able to use them, and I'm willing to pay for that use. Well, how much are you willing to pay? I mean, how much does that offset? Do you want to do improvements? So I don't think going above that 21, Is is in our is in residents best interest because we can do that later If we have a plan and say hey residents you paid for the property Now this is what we want to do. Are you still on board? Do you feel that this is what you can get behind? Here is the plan We want this So I'm down closer, and probably not quite that 17, because I would want to cover the additional costs that it would take. And understanding that canyons, at some point, will take all of the chairs out. They'll take all of the little things. But add a couple million onto it to make sure that we can cover the issuance costs that we can put in if we need a rug somewhere, if something needed to be repaired. The chairs, the seating, things like that. But I am really struggling with that $30 million primarily because we don't have a plan and I don't think residents are willing to just say I'm going to assign a blind check, here's a blank check for you. Life Skills Academy, which services adults that have graduated 18 to 22 years old that have some special needs, they have indicated that they would like to remain in that building. We could kick them out. I don't think that's a good community partnership, but they would like to remain there for this next year until they can get that eBay building going. So we can't do anything for that building for another year. We start looking and we push this out a year, we're approaching a new council at that point, potentially a new council at that point. That council may have a different idea of what they want to do. So then we're in this, well, we sold it at $30 million, yet Now we've got a council that wants to do something different than what was maybe that was presented before. So that is a struggle of mine. And primarily, once again, we're not looking at doing something in three to four months if the bond passed. We would be waiting that year because they are using the entirety of that building. So I really struggle with that $30 million. I love the idea. of having that prospect of what we could do. I mean, dream big. It's got a lot of potential to it. Huge building, huge building. But I am very, very hesitant and very wary of a $30 million prospect to residence. And that is not also we haven't talked about this. We have in the past, but what the O&M may look like in the future. It's not, I mean, just to turn on the lights, that costs money. The additional watering the lawns, that costs money. People, to be there, to unlock the doors, that costs money. If we're running programs, that costs money as well. So we would need to be looking, where do we find that money? What does that look like? And we've had a lot of different ideas that have been thrown out. Well, it could be this, it could be this, it could be this. but we haven't had a very restrictive conversation on that to say this is probably where we're going to end up. So I still think there's a lot of ifs on this. I would probably, I'm more in the, and I'm gonna go with that 17 to 21, I'm a little more than 17, 21 at this point is probably gonna be my max. But let me see what the four of you have to say. Convince me otherwise.

I'm going to go ahead and answer the question you asked. So you sort of lumped two separate questions into one. So I want to break them back apart. So in the question that asked exclusively about interest in buying the property, 61% of District 4 expressed support for purchasing the property and 47 percent of that was strongly support. So that was a separate question was buying the property for 61 percent of those who responded who are identifiable as district 4 residents. Then the piece you were discussing was when they were shown the actual price tag and asked to choose one option you're right 27 percent said don't buy it at all. but the remainder said yes buy it and of the remainder who said yes buy it. Of course there were those different different increments but of the remainder who said buy it the largest portion said we want we want the entire thing. So 61 percent chose a purchase option which aligns with the number above which was 61 percent and every paid option so 17 million 21 million 24 and a half the single most chosen in district 4 was the full 30 million vision so the amount so that's that is what I was saying earlier so you read it a little differently I feel like you lumped it into one batch and it's two separate questions so the majority of district 4 Wants us to purchase the property and of that 60 plus percent who want us to purchase the property The the group of residents that was the largest said I want the whole thing So in my opinion the feedback from and again, there's a lot to consider here but as we're thinking about that survey the the residents who responded to the survey who are verifiable from district for They were very clear buy the property keep all of the building keep the open space make improvements. And when asked separately about selling or leasing part of the land to developers a full third of District 4 said no no no we don't want that. Keep it whole. So to answer your question there. And then I want to just add while I'm chatting, and then I'll come this direction. I'm hearing some of what you shared. And I want to just say, again, this is just my perspective. But we could still sell. And I've heard you bring this up a few times in terms of there's property across the city. I believe you asked for a map of it, what's undeveloped, what's unused. putting on the ballot, asking voters, would you support 30 million, does not keep us from continuing to explore that option. And we could absolutely go down that path. And I think that's an administration decision, though. I don't think that's a city council decision, because I don't think that's in our authority. So the administration would have to determine to sell property. But you're right. I mean, that could absolutely be an avenue. And if that were to happen, it would be delight. I would love to delight voters and say, hey, we issued this first tranche. We bonded for $17 million. We bought the property. We explored all of these other avenues, including grant funding, philanthropic giving, selling of some property. And look, look what we've collected. So we're only going to need a second tranche to be this amount. Or hey, we're so excited. Look at all this work we've done. We don't even need the second tranche. But asking voters whether or not they would authorize up to $30 million does not prevent us from pursuing some of those other options. And it does remind me of a question that I want to confirm that I know. And whoever wants to answer this, but if I am recalling correctly, The decision, let's say we get to run with this idea that Councilman Stroud came up with and administration does decide to sell some of this unused property elsewhere in the city and we are able to have that and we don't need to bond for a full second tranche, let's call it just two million or whatever. We have 10 years to make that decision. Is that right? From the time, and tell me if my timeline is wrong, and I thought I heard you say this earlier tonight, Brian, that from the time voters speak, if it passes and voters say yes, we authorize, we then have 10 years to take it, yes, the thumbs up. Okay, so we have 10 years to determine the series and the amounts and all of that. So it's not like we have to turn around and bond so that I believe your option is good thinking. I just want to say from my perspective we still have that as an option but 30 million voters saying yes to 30 million provides a lot of flexibility and we could we could absolutely end up not having to do anything but the purchase price because we will have 10 years to sort of I think we'll do it far sooner than that. That's my point. OK. So thank you for clarifying that I remembered correctly, 10 years. And then within that time, we can issue any additional bond we need to based on what we've determined. OK. That's all that I had. So I'm going to swing over this direction. We need to hear from others. You're pulling the mic up. So Ms. Christensen.

Yeah, I agree with a lot of what's been said. I still think the $21 million is a good spot to be to put on the ballot. I have concerns about the tax increases, especially in District 1. I think that's an extremely valid concern. And if I live next to the park, I would be like, yes, let's do it and be out there campaigning for it, because I wouldn't want whatever the option other than a park was. But the further you move away from the park, the less I think support there is in the rest of District 1. And I was just looking at the master parks plan. There are six gaps in our master parks plan. Five of those, four of those, four or five of them are all in Sandy, I mean in District 1, sorry guys. District 1 is lacking in open space compared to the rest of the city. There's no question about it. They measure it with any park that's more than a 10-minute walk is not a good indicator in your city. And I think four of the six gaps in the city are in District 1. And one of them is near Crescent Park on the other side, more south. So there's two competing things in my mind. I would prefer to put on the ballot the $21 million option. I can also see the argument for the $30 million option, but I do feel very strongly that this is something that Sandy voters need to... agree to and also have the knowledge that even with a $30 million bond, this isn't the end of their expenses with this center. It's like Alta Canyon, right? Like if we make 40% of our money on like cost back on that, we're doing great. I think this will be a similar situation. And so that's just kind of where my head is.

Thank you, Ms. Christensen. Ms. Sharkey.

I'm jealous of Ms. Hausman's constituents if they're given her a directive because mine told me that a majority would like for the city to acquire this property, but they don't want to pay anything for it. So that's what my constituents have told me. Mr. Kahn. I agree with you 100 percent. I too am concerned about spending money. I any council member who isn't struggling with this. Well I think the clear majority of us probably are. This has been way too fast. We don't have enough information. we are far from getting any more information, that could be an argument alone for not putting it on the ballot for a vote. But unfortunately, I think we are in a situation where that has been made to be the expectation. So for me, you know, We could say, why not? Put it on a ballot for a vote. Who cares? What do we have to lose? That could be our point of view. I feel the very, very strong tug to whatever we put, if this goes on to a ballot, We need to take the action that is most protective to the taxpayers. That is where I am embedded. That is where I will always be and I will never stray. I won't support any proposal that doesn't apply a spending cap to this. I won't support 17, and I won't support 21. Because you know why? There's a phase two, taxpayers. We aren't telling you about it. We don't know if we're even going to let you vote on it. All we can tell you is it's coming. And it's probably going to be millions of dollars, but there's a phase two. I can't get behind that. To protect the taxpayers, for me, there has to be a spending cap. Must be. A not to exceed number. We don't have to get there. We could be far from there. We could draw zero. We could get the taxpayers to say yes to a potential $30 million and then do nothing. But I can't support a scenario where there is a surprise down the line and there very, very, very, very, very likely would be. And who knows if we put it out in front of the taxpayers again. And let's even play that out. What happens if we put a GO bond on the ballot for $17 million and the voters say yes to that? Yeah, we'll pay $17 million. And then a couple years later when the planning is done, we put another GO bond vote on the ballot that says, okay, how about the next 13 million? Remember the next 13 million? And they say no. What do we do then? What do we do then? The answer is, Well, maybe we try to sell the property because there's no money for us to do anything with it. And then you know what's likely to happen? We have to try to sell it. We sell it for less than we bought it for. That is the likelihood. So to me, we can't say yes to 17. That because there's 100% for sure more to come. 21 that's the case too and you know what's the case problem very possibly on the 21 is that you guys don't get to vote on that because it may not qualify for a geo bond vote anymore because there may be other expenses in there like operating expenses and maintenance expenses that don't qualify for a GO bond. So that becomes a tax imposed on you rather than one you get to vote on. I don't want to take that chance either. If we are asking the public, do you want to do this or don't, it has to be all in the full amount, not an undefined phase two which very likely surprises you down the line and could be a lot more than the 13 million. My job is to neither steer voters toward a certain outcome or protect them from a bad one. My job is to do the best that I can to protect the taxpayers and not have them surprised. by something down the road that is not at all what they're expecting, or what they've been promised at this juncture, but becomes something different as time lapses. And if it's years down the road, it won't even be this council. It won't even be these people that you know. It'll be other people. And I can't, on the 17 and 21, to me that feels like a down payment on a final cost unknown. I can't support that, can't support that. So for me, I could support the up to 30. And I do agree. The conversation that was had about potential property sales, those are all very good points. I've thought of them myself and I've told that to constituents. Would we look for other ways to fund the cost of the project? Sure we would. That is our legacy. That's what we always do. You can count on it. You can expect it. That is what we do. But yeah, property sales are not under our authority. And so we don't get to make that commitment. All we can say is probably that we would encourage it. We might support it. You know, it depends. If it's in the interest of our constituents and of the taxpayers, then I think that you can count on us to support something like that. But I can't ask the voters to vote on something which is a down payment on a final cost to be determined. So. So the only. If it if it goes on a ballot if the vote is to put it on a ballot the only total that I would support would be the 30 million dollars which I feel is the only one that's protective of taxpayers And again, it's up to 30. It doesn't have to be that. And so it gives us the flexibility and it gives taxpayers the protection against a surprise bill down the line. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Ms. Sharkey. Ms. Nichols, do you have thoughts?

I want to thank Allison for bringing up the property sales. I love that idea. I love us talking about ideas to fund it. But when we talk about that, and if in the ideal world we do sell property, are we going to allocate one-time funding for something like an improvement in that, right? That's a one-time fund. But if we're looking at it to fund The ongoing maintenance? No? Okay, all right, yeah. That would become a little bit of an issue. But, yeah, I love this idea, and I love how people have said they've analyzed data, and I realize that how we analyze data is different, right? And so I see the ceiling, the points of the ceiling and the minimum 100%. But here's where I'm at. So we can roughly say plus or minus 1,500 people have, verified Sandy residents, have given us input on this. I've had contact with seven people in District 3, five of which are opposed, two of which, and one gentleman tonight, are for it. I don't think... 1500 people is enough people to show a true representation of what everybody thinks and when I go back and I go I look at the I have the numbers out I'm not going to throw those out but so I analyzed the flash vote study the parks master plan oh no no no the Alta Canyon survey the y2 analytics survey and And I did look at the parks master plan and throw in the public sentiment of people from District 3. Everything is pointing towards they don't want don't want or think we need more of the same stuff that we're offering because that's kind of what we've like Brooke said, Brooke Christensen said, we're deficient actually in like three areas, right? And District 1 is one of those areas. But we're deficient specifically with an indoor swimming pool, a dog park, and one other thing. That's where our deficiencies are. And none of those things are being considered for this site. So in being true to the master plan, The total sentiment of people in District 3, I don't know where I'm going to land on a number, but it doesn't feel right to me. I quoted the master plan last week. Are we doing this at the right time for the right reason? And I can't answer that question in a yes and yes yet.

So...

All right. Well, we've heard from everyone. And so obviously, we need to move this forward. So I'm going to go ahead and make a motion. And we'll just.

Madam Chair, could I respond to a couple of points that have been raised about administration's recommendation? I know this is council deliberation but I think it's important to have a chance to respond.

Okay one second if you'll clarify because we really need to move this conversation.

I've been listening patiently for several weeks I'd like a few minutes to respond. This is my recommendation on the $21 million.

And you shared your recommendations last week.

Yes and I've heard some rebuttal I'd like to address.

Please be focused and concise.

So I appreciate the concerns that have been raised by the council and constituents, but I don't think it's really fair to start with the worst-case scenarios. Ms. Sharkey said, well, there could be this, there could be add-on costs, there's a lot of unknowns. We recognize that. This is not a campaign for persuasion. This is not a campaign to – set the voters up to decide one way or the other, this is to present an opportunity. At the end of the day, that is why we are all here. We have different takes on it, and that's fair. But it is, tonight is about putting this, should this opportunity be put to the voters. And Crescent View does present a very rare opportunity. It is not just the cost of the purchase price, that's the economic impact of this decision, but the economics of creating community and a quality of life that attracts businesses, that attracts families, that creates an experience that is what Sandy is known for. Open space, undeveloped land is rare, becoming rare every year. There's a greater appreciation for open space and keeping that as part of the community experience and the values that Sandy holds dear. So the survey, the open house, those are the foundation of the conversation. It's evolved. The survey results have pointed to where there's the most consensus on a dollar value, but what the full business plan, operations plan of future of Crescent, if it were held as a civic center, that hasn't played out. We haven't had the time for that. We acknowledge that. But we need to respond to this timeline. So I'm not asking, I just don't want the dollar value to predetermine the outcome of a vote. And there are no guarantees in anything that we do in the city, administration and the council. But to give clear information to the voters is really important and to ask voters to approve a bond amount at any amount and then highlight that this should be or could be sold. This term bait and switch keeps coming up tonight and to me that would be the biggest bait and switch if we asked and held voters accountable for a bond where the property was later sold. So here's another recommendation. Whatever amount the council decides and I defer to your judgment. You know my recommendation, but I respect your role. If there's any proceeds of land that is considered to pay down this bond, whether it's from subdividing the Crescent property itself in the future or the sale of anything else in the city, there should be a promise by the council that that goes to pay down this bond. So the first land, undeveloped land in Sandy that is sold goes to pay down this bond because otherwise it's inconsistent to ask voters to approve a general obligation bond and say that we could sell this property but there's no guarantee that that sale proceeds really goes to pay down this bond. So my preference is where the survey landed. There's the strongest interest in buying and holding the property. And there is support. It is small, but it is measurable support for subdividing Crescent to reduce the sale. But before we subdivide Crescent, it's already in use for soccer fields. It's already in use for recreation. It's already there. It's already part of the community consciousness as a recreation center. We should examine all of the properties in the city. If that is indeed the council's preference, And then I could follow that recommendation. If all the land in the city were available to pay down a bond, I'm open to that conversation. So I just want to put that on the record. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. So we need to kind of get something started here. So I'm going to go ahead and make a motion to approve resolution number 26-78C at the, and I know we've been told that you'll be able to take whatever number we land on and get this tuned up. But I'm proposing inserting the number at 30 million with all of the following calculations to follow. Okay.

I'll second it just to move it.

OK. Thank you. So we have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion?

Who first? OK, Ms. D'Souza. Thank you. All right, so it kind of goes back to my very first question, which had to do with the voter pamphlet. And it was really, really important that in our communication to the voters that we are as open and transparent with the material facts as we have them. And the one that is kind of the most important for me is ensuring that people understand that the operations and maintenance will not be included in this bond. And so I just want to make sure that when this comes back, administration, that that is communicated, because I wouldn't be able to support anything going on the ballot otherwise. Okay, I see head shaking. Okay. All right. Thank you.

That's all I have Thank You mr. Sousa comments on from this side Okay Yes, mr. Um, I you know and maybe you know miss Sharkey you can help Help me better understand, you know the 30 million you've brought up. I mean I several times this week, last week, and maybe even the week before with voters. And you're saying, you know what, I want them to see everything, phase two. There could be a, I don't know where. I mean, $13 million is a lot of money. But there could be some other proposal that came up that was more than $13 million. And I don't know how to ask this that's not going bother you, but we... I'm so easy, though. I'm the sweet and nice council. There were only two council members. Just a couple of years ago, a council, not this one, declined to put Alta Canyon on for residents to decide. And we ended up with a $24 million building that had a 30-yard basketball court, and it will have, we're almost there, a 30-yard field house, an inside walking track, and two inside programmable space, classroom size, what they had described to us at that point, the architects, of classroom size space. Um, the council at the time did not five council members. There were two that wanted residents to weigh in on how much, um, because understanding that out to, uh, the Sandy rec center complex, the vision is not finished. So I'm trying to understand where not allowing residents to make the decision for Alta Canyon slash Sandy Rec Center, but going complete $30 million on this one without a plan. And we did have, we had several plans. I mean, the number, which originally we had like this $40 million, which was this fabulous facility, but I think just inflation and cost of materials just kept skyrocketing. The council did not desire to have the public make a decision on out the canyon. For this, What is the phase two that you've talked about? I'm missing something. And maybe that's that I'm taking notes and you're staying. I think I'm pretty good at hearing a lot of that. But help me understand with that, because I see this as a parallel. desired outcome that has been expressed has been different. It does have some recreation components, but it also has the desire for arts, it's got the desire for some public-private partnership, a variety, versus the recreation center up on 94th and 20th. I'm struggling to see $30 million, and nope, don't get the public to vote on this.

Are you ready? So the council voted to spend no more than $20 million on a new Elta Canyon. We voted on that. And that's what we stuck with. And that was zero tax increase, right? That was my pledge from the very beginning that I would not consider a tax increase to build a new Sandy Recreation Center. So we put all those pieces in place and we stuck with them. In this case, we're talking about a tax increase, for sure a tax increase. This conversation about capping it at $30 million, you know why? I got really scared a couple weeks ago when we were talking about the council chambers remodel, remember? And the architects were standing up there saying, what do you guys want? And my answer was, I want it to be capped at $1 million. Stop asking us these questions because we answer all these questions about what we want in a new chamber, and a $1 million bond all of a sudden becomes $2 or $3 million. So I'm stuck. I want a cap on the number, and I want us to be held to the cap. I don't want a $30 million projected cost to become $40 million in two years. And I think that's a real possibility. So I want us to be capped. I want the taxpayers to be assured that under no circumstances, as we start visioning this facility, under no circumstances will it exceed $30 million. That's what I want.

All right. Any other? Yes, please.

I just have a question. When we're talking about tranches, maybe this is Brian or Lynn. Do we have to have the same hearing process for the second tranche?

You're looking at me, but I think you want them to answer, right?

If we were to do it.

Yeah. The hearing is held as part of the election process as to whatever amount you're required. So that fulfills the state law requirement of holding a public hearing for however number of series that don't total more than the ballot proposition. There would be no problem in discretionarily having a hearing, but your state law requirement will have been met.

So if we were to say the 21, and it did become $30 million, we would have to go through the process again.

Oh, yeah. You have to do a new election to go from $21 million to $30 million.

Wait, can I ask a clarifying question? I want to make sure I understand you. Are you saying if we put on the ballot $21 million and it's supported and then we decide later we need more, you're asking would it be another ballot proposition?

Not a ballot proposition. Oh, yeah, it would. Or a vote.

OK, yeah, it would. Or it could end up just being an imposed property tax increase. But I want to make sure I was understanding if your question was, so for me, what I'm thinking about is, if the number's $30 million, we bond for $17 million as the first tranche. So that's what I was trying to differentiate. Are you saying?

Yeah, that's my line of thinking. So another reason. that I think is a great reason for Cindy saying that the cap is 31 is that 30, excuse me, 30. It would have the effect of not having to go back to the people to the bank again and ask them again. So just my thought on what was said about that.

Yeah, and I should clarify that. Thank you for that. With the $30 million ballot proposition, your public hearing will no longer be required by state law to do separate tranches or series up to that amount. However, each one of those will come back to the City Council. There would be no ability for the City to issue bonds without coming back to the City Council.

And that of our own right could be its own public process.

You often have a public hearing with every agenda item anyways. We do. But yes.

So I just want to make sure. Yeah, yeah. When we're talking about what number. Yep. Very helpful. Thank you.

Yes, please, Mr. Sousa. I have one more bond question. This may be for Brian. So. If we bond for this, we put it on the ballot, let's say that it passes, how does that affect our ability to bond for something in the future? Because we have a few bonds outstanding right now. Is this going to impact our future ability to bond for something that may come up along the way that we don't know about right now?

Yeah, maybe I'll take that question. Jason Burningham, financial advisor to the city with LRB. General obligation bonds are limited under constitutions, statutory provisions relative to the percent of the market value, the overall market value of the community. And so there's a legal or constitutional limitation in terms of how much geo bonds you could be issued. I think in the packet we had looked at your current market value and then what actually could be issued in geo bonds is far more than the capacity we're talking about. And really, I'm not sure that it's a realistic number. But I do think there's a practical limitation. So I do think by virtue of issuing GO bonds, I think there is a point where rating agencies and the municipal market would look at that and say, well, what's the affordability now to you know homeowners or commercial development etc and although currently the general fund I believe the general operations tax rate is lower respectively across in comparison maybe to other communities we do have the one geo bond for the 2024 fire station project it was our opinion as we went through the analysis and visited with Brian and so forth that you still have tons of capacity in terms of sales tax revenue bonds, for which you also have AAA bonds, which doesn't require voter authorization but would have to be directed by the council and the city in order to do that. But the GO bonds really wouldn't affect anything to do with the capacity of the sales tax other than overall general capacity Affordability I think when it comes right down to what residents are paying and so, you know, I think that was asked of us we said It's probably a hundred million dollars plus in terms of what geo Bond capacity you have from a practical perspective The statutory perspective is way more than that but I'm not concerned in terms of the credit rating and where the city is in terms of its assessed value that this is putting enough pressure on you that you don't have any other capacity for other issuance. Okay, that was helpful.

Thank you. Thank you for that question and for that answer. Other comments? Okay. Seeing that we have a motion and a second, we could do a roll call vote, please.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Ms. Houseman?

Yes.

Ms. Nickel? No. Ms. Sharkey? Yes. Ms. Christensen?

No.

Ms. D'Souza?

Yes.

Mr. DeKaiser?

No.

Ms. Stratton?

No.

Madam Chair, that motion failed, three to four.

Thank you. OK, so we do not have a motion. And I know I'm stating the obvious, but either we take action or, in essence, we're making a decision that it will not go on the ballot. Voters will not weigh in. And what we've been told is there's other buyers waiting in the wings to purchase this. So I do believe some action is needed.

Go ahead and make a motion with everything except, I mean, just to kind of see where we are at the $21 million. Kind of see where we stand. So with all of that language to it, do I need to pull that up specifically? The 21, yeah. Second. Indicate.

Okay. Just Mr. Sorensen, do you have clarity? Was that clear enough? That motion?

Yeah, just so a motion to approve the same resolution just at 21 million?

Yes. That's 78C with the 21 million.

Yeah, that's good enough.

Thank you. Thank you. So we have a motion and a second. Discussion on the motion? Seeing none, we'll take roll call vote, please.

Ms. Stroud?

Yes.

Mr. DeKaiser? Yes. Ms. Nickel? No. Ms. Hausman?

No.

Ms. Sharkey? No. Ms. Christensen? Yes. Ms. D'Souza?

No.

Madam Chair, that motion failed three to four.

Thank you.

Can we take a two minute recess?

Are we supportive of a recess? OK. Mr. Sorensen, we've had a request for a recess. Let's just make it five, because we always take more than we actually say we're going to take. But let's try to be five minute. Yeah. Five minute recess. Are you wanting to go talk somewhere?

Madam Chair, we're ready to go when you are.

OK. Welcome back. Thank you, everyone, for pausing with us. We do have two council members who are soon to rejoin us, but we do have a quorum. And so we're going to move forward. Here we are. We are back, full seven. So council, bringing it back, do we have a motion? Ms. Christensen.

Okay. I'm going to say something, then I'm going to make a motion. Right? Okay. I feel very strongly that this needs to be voted on by the public. And so with that in mind, and it feels like the only option we have at this point is if we make a motion, I make a motion to move forward with the $30 million on the bond. Okay.

So the motion was resolution 26-78C with 30 million as the number. And I am seconding that motion. I don't know. Am I allowed to second?

Because you voted against. No, I voted for. The second can be.

Yeah, I don't know. But just for clarification that you're Because you were the opposing. Yes. You're bringing it back for reconsideration. Okay. Right.

So that's what we are needing. So then maybe I don't second because she's bringing it back for. So.

Okay. Please. Mr. Sorensen.

Here we go.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes. To make a motion to reconsider has to be someone that was on the losing side of that motion. The second can come from any member.

Okay. Okay.

And it does need to be seconded.

So did I – everything I did is okay?

That's a valid second.

Okay. So we have a motion and a second. Discussion on the motion?

Oh, Ms. Stroud. Kind of a question with this. I mean that's – I feel strongly this should be on the ballot as well. You know, we're already at this point. Do we have to have a decision this week? Do we have one more week?

I'm just curious. Under state law. I'm sorry, Madam Chair. Under state law, you have to let the lieutenant governor know and the county know by August 20th of next week. I believe that Salt Lake County is really wanting it sooner than that because of the depth of the ballot propositions for Salt Lake County. That's not a state law requirement, so I can't speak to that. But by state law, you have until the 19th to take action and then submit that on the morning of August 20th.

Please. Just to add to that though as we have recommended tonight we feel like it would be very difficult for us to meet that deadline without making this decision tonight.

Thank you Mr. Kelly. Any other discussion? Mr. Pace?

Just to chime in on what Brian was saying, Wendy Downs has been in touch with the county. The number of things that have to be done between now and the 20th would not allow a decision next Tuesday. You need to decide tonight.

Okay. Thank you for that additional statement. Any other discussion? All right. Seeing none, we'll do roll call vote, please.

Ms. Christensen? Yes. Ms. Hausman?

Yes.

Ms. Sharkey? Yes. Ms. D'Souza?

Yes.

Mr. DeKaiser?

Yes.

Ms. Stroud?

Yes.

Ms. Nickel? No. Madam Chair, that motion carried six to one.

Thank you. Thank you, council, again, for a very deliberative process. Appreciate all the good questions. Thank you, staff. Over time, I know a lot of hours were spent on this. So thank you, all of you. I do want to move us into our general public comment. Again, we've already taken public comment on the item that we just did. This is our general public comment. And again, I'll start with the cards I have here, the blue cards from people that are in the chamber. If there's anyone else who wishes to speak for public comment, Please fill out the blue card, and then we will move to online. So, Mr. Henry Butters, we have you first. Please come on up, and you'll have three minutes once you begin speaking.

How are you, City Council? There's no way I could do your job. There's no way. Hey, I want to tell you guys good doing what you guys do. I want to come give the police department a good... Pat on the back. They have done awesome down on, right behind the Real, awesome. Another thing is the mayor just fronted me on what I have talked to you guys about in the public and just chastised me about it. I think that's not right. No people should be getting chastised from, if I have a problem with you, No city person or anybody should be coming at me fully. That's wrong for the mayor. That's wrong for anybody to come at us. It sits in the spot of the mayor. She just chastised me out there. And she's not a big lady to come sit here and hear my comments last week when she walked out intentionally. And I feel that way as a person of Sandy. I am not going to take the chastising to the fullest extent. She wants to pull me out and chastise me out there. That's wrong. Then let's all go out there and talk. You see what I mean? I brought it to your guys' attention, and the mayor should not be coming at me like that. That's not right. That's my personal opinion. Thank you.

Thank you. And Paul, we have you wanting to speak again. This is our general citizen comment. Please come on up, and you'll have three minutes. Correct. Yeah.

double dip tonight.

Larry David would be proud.

So, okay. Firstly, thank you for being committed to your goal as was stated in the video that you have decided to let the voter make a decision and that's great. And in the process, We need to educate the voter. I believe that was basically what I heard when I listened to those videos. Items came up about ongoing expenses, half a million dollars. I'm just going to make it easy. So yes, that's going to cost the taxpayer a little more money. And I left my notes, and I can't remember how much it was. But it's not a lot of money. With respect to some information that was presented with respect to this bond, and it's a public record because it was in your packet, I'd like to know a little bit more about this. And I called your agent. and I've asked somebody to explain a little bit more detail what this is about, so I'm more informed. And also, the appraisal numbers came out in this video, right? And there's a bit of a human quality that says, you know, if you're in negotiations, you don't want to be the first to throw the number out, because that sets an anchor, psychological, in your head. It's just the way we're wired. And so when I hear 8 million, I'm going, what's a city doing? 10 million, what's happening here? Who's getting ripped off? And believe me, I suspect there are a lot of taxpayers that may have come to that conclusion. And you're paying 17? Oh, come on. All right. So there was an appraisal. And I would like to see the appraisals. Okay, not just an I want to see the whole enchilada because those appraisers made certain assumptions and That goes to the heart of it. All right I've got ability. I want to do ABC with it. Well, somebody else wants to do XYZ It's not the same they have the same they don't have the same interest. Okay, so they're not to come up with a number It's a crap shoot anyway, but it's the best thing we've got and the banks need it because they don't want to make any loans unless they have some comparisons because then they can't sell the credit instrument, the debt instrument. So anyway, I don't know what the council thinks about that. I'm in the process of preparing a grandma request to get that information. So let's educate the public. Thank you.

Thank you. I do not see any other blue cards and I'm not seeing anyone in the chambers move to speak. So we'll move to online Mr. Sorensen.

Thank you Madam Chair. If you're participating on Zoom and would like to make a comment for our general citizen comment please use the raise hand feature and I'll call on you in the order in which you raise your hands. First up, we have Diane Nicholson. I will allow you to speak. Please remember to unmute yourself. And you'll have three minutes to make your comment.

Thank you very much. I just want to state that the audio was not on when the last motion was made. So I heard the vote six to one, six in favor. But I don't know what the motion was. If someone could repeat the motion, I would be very thankful. That's all I have right now.

We're just we'll take all of our comment from the public and then we'll address that just if there's see if there's anyone else online Mr. Sorenson I don't see any other hands Neither do I. Thank you. I do think that's an appropriate request. I know, counsel, typically we do not back and forth, but I think I'm hearing from the group in the room as well that maybe it was a little faint. So would you be willing to read that back, Ms. Edwards? Is that the appropriate way to do it? Or do we want to read it?

Tell her it was for 31. 30. 30. I don't know why I have 31 in my mind. 30.

Station 31. That's why. You're thinking station.

I can handle that Madam Chair. Okay please. Thank you. So it was a motion to reconsider the original motion made by Ms. Hausman. So that was the motion to approve the resolution at the amount of 30 million dollars.

And approve 6 to 1.

Yeah it was Councilmember Christensen that made the motion to reconsider the original motion made by Councilmember Hausman and it was seconded also by Councilmember Hausman.

and then voted upon six to one. I'm hoping that that helps. Those in the chambers, does that help as well? OK, thank you for speaking up so we know that perhaps there was a little audio issue. OK, so we've now closed general citizen comment. Thank you for those who participated. And I will bring us back to our agenda for our standing reports. I believe that's next. So we'll start with our staff over here, please. Standing reports.

Thank you Madam Chair. I think you've all heard plenty from me tonight. I would go through our agenda planning calendar but looking at the next couple meetings we do have a lot of items that are still tentative. Hopefully we can get those resolved in our agenda planning meeting tomorrow. And then we will send out that calendar with the updated agenda for next week and the week thereafter. For the remainder of this week myself and Chris Edwards will be in the office so if you need something feel free to reach out to us until we get back up the full staff next week.

Okay I think that's staff so Ms. Sharkey.

Just a couple of quick things. For the first time I attended a play at Hale in the new Beehive Theater. I hadn't been to that particular venue before. It just the story continues to grow and very positively for Hale another very, very professional play in a very, very nice venue. So just continue to be grateful that the Deet Lines chose Sandy. to locate Hale Center Theater, and I just continue to be blown away by the quality of the productions that I see there. I was able to make it to the Balloon Glow afterwards, because it was Saturday night that I went. Saw Ryan there, very hot, very crowded. But it looked like another really well-attended event for Sandy City on Saturday night. And then last night I was able to attend the open house at Alta High School. with the proposals and we had lots of engineers and consultants there to answer the public's questions about traffic and pedestrian safety enhancements that are being planned for the corner there where we had that unfortunate tragic Pedestrian fatality and so I appreciate everyone from the city who is there Appreciate we I think we said at one time we had about outside of employees had quite a few employees and consultants and engineers there but about 30 members of the public came to Listen and understand as well. So that was I would count that as another good city event that we had last night.

Thank you Thank You miss Christian said nothing All right, I've got a couple here. Speaking of the balloon festival, I just want to say my grandson Ollie turned two, and he absolutely loves hot air balloons. So Pops and Cece, that's grandma and grandpa name, were able to send images of balloons, hot air balloons, floating over our house to ollie and say sandy city says happy birthday ollie and he was over the moon but he kept like of course they're in north carolina so so my son and daughter-in-law were like he kept he kept wanting to it to hit play so he could because he just watches endless videos of hot air balloons and he wanted it to be real live action and so apparently we fell short of the full thing that he wanted to experience. But thank you for everything that went into the Balloon Festival. I echo what you said. I also echo what Councilwoman Sharkey mentioned about the intersection community open house and really appreciate that. So I won't reiterate, aside from calling attention to one of our youth council members, Bridger, who was there. And boy, did Bridger know his stuff. People were asking Bridger questions. And he was nailing the data reporting. It was very impressive. So thank you for that. And then the last thing I would share is a bit of an arts update that came in. And I promised I would share this tonight as part of my update. So I'm going to read this information so that I don't get anything wrong, especially because this comes from a 16-year-old. And I always love it when we see our youth taking on leadership roles. So here's her message. My name is Zoe Stender, and I'm a 16-year-old performer and activist in Utah. Recently, I founded the Spotlight for Joy Opportunity Fund. Our mission is to raise money for under-supported performing arts education. On September 12, we will be hosting our inaugural gala at the Hale Center Theater. So we're getting a lot of props for Hale Center Theater tonight. She continues, we believe that performing arts education helps edify a child holistically and provides them not only with the ability to sing and dance, but also with the ability to communicate, empathize, and have a confident sense of self. And I say we would all agree with her. Young people with the skills gained in theater programs have been proven to be more likely to secure employment. Furthermore, engagement in theater programs has even been found to raise average SAT and ACT scores. So again, her invite is the Spotlight for Joy Gala. It is September 12th at the Hale Center Theater in the Legacy Room, beginning at 6 o'clock. So I've got a QR code that she has shared. I'll pass that on to all of you and share it however you would like. Oh, please.

Also on my social media, if anyone... Wants to get the code there.

Oh, perfect. Perfect. So those who are following Councilman Christensen has been made available there. Thank you. And that's all I had. Mr. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Start with the balloon festival. So the Youth Council was there with Miss Edwards Friday morning. Unfortunately, they only had a couple of balloons launched before that wind picked up. It's it can be. Perfect and 200 feet in the air. It's just going like crazy. So You know last year we launched on both days But today they had just a couple on Friday and then Saturday morning all of them went up that wanted to You know Youth Council was there on both days helping out with Stars and Stripes and then also with Monty You know, that's the big sheep balloon You know, it's a it's great, you know, I got some great pictures, you know with the kids there, you know with the Miss Edwards and You know, it gets so crowded at Storm Mountain Park, but beautiful day, Saturday, like no wind. And they were letting those balloons go up, and they would just go straight up. And then everybody, once they launched, it was just all at once. So it was great. And then that night, so I was up at 630 at Storm Mountain, and then that night down at the Glow right here in the Promenade. And lots and lots of people there too. That is... That is one of my favorite city events. Just seeing the glow inside those balloons when they hit those flames is incredible. I know a family, so it's our balloon the guy who runs everything, the meister guy, the guy who orchestrates everything. And I had a chance, sat down with his family quite a while, talked with them. They've got kids of all ages. Sat with them last year and sat with them again this year. It's a great thing to do. And then we have the drone show after, and people are here for all sorts of festivities just before school's getting ready to start. So put it on your calendars for next year. And then, yes, Richard, I was going to bring him up with our youth council. He's incredible. You just listen to him as you kind of follow him, and you'll pick up all these little things that he's like, oh, yeah, and then about this poster here. It was great. They've got a couple of renditions of what it could look like. And I think overall the community was very supportive Putting in you know moving forward with the roundabout We'll have to wait and see you know what that's what that looks like in the next you know several weeks couple of months but I See some changes in that area, you know with the with safety in mind and you know and many residents really commented on You know the fact that that there was an issue They band together came to Sandy and the responsiveness of of every city employee to their needs and to those concerns and and to the depth and listening to them every single person I spoke with said wow I am just floored and super impressed with that with city employees so you know that's a something to kind of relay on um and then uh the last thing was we had a police swearing in and you know it was only one officer and she so having it down in the training room and it was full so her husband is an officer over in west jordan but she's just a new officer here with sandy looking forward to to seeing her grow with the best department, not West Jordan, and move on with her new career, moving from a dental hygienist onto being a police officer.

So that's all. Thank you, Madam Chair. CHRISTIE WOODARD- Mr. Mecham.

Thank you very much. Just a couple of things. Number one, Martin Jensen will be unavailable starting today for about a week. So if you need anything, please don't hesitate. Give me a call. Second thing, if it's okay with you, Madam Chair, we have a new hire, Kyler Brower is Assistant Chief Administrative Officer. He started on Thursday of last week. And if you'll allow him a few minutes, he would like to introduce himself.

Yes please come up provide the same recommendation. Keep as focused and concise as you can. Thank you. We've had a long

I understand. Well, good evening, Council. I appreciate you letting me come up and just introduce myself. As stated, my name is Kyler Brower, and I am the new ACAO. I come here from Colonial Beach, Virginia, which is about an hour and a half from D.C. However, my roots are strictly here in Utah for the most part. I started working for the United States Senate for two senators for a few years. Then I went to Riverton City as the mayor's policy advisor, went to Salt Lake County, working with the Salt Lake County Council as one of their policy advisors, went to management with Pleasant Grove City. and then Virginia, and now I'm back with my roots. I have a beautiful wife. We're both happy to be here in Sandy. We're also expecting our first child, so I'm hoping to share some pictures when that day comes, but I'm looking forward to working with each of you as we try to make Sandy even better than it is today.

We want pictures, too. Thank you. So good to meet you. Is that all, Mr. Mecham? Mr. Pace? No? No? You know, we're spreading the wealth here. Do we have, help me remember, do we? Yes, we do. Okay. Parks and Recreation, or I think it's specifically update on. The Sandy Recreation Center.

Recreation, yeah.

Perfect. Okay, so this update is as of August 7th. It's been a couple weeks since we've been here. This is the Facing east on the west side, so the elevation brick was completed and the scaffolding has been removed. It's a little bit further away of a picture, but it's kind of cool to see the scaffolding was all there and now it's gone. We'll walk around the building. On the south side, the brick has also been completed. This is where we'll have our lifeguard room as well as the entrance to the outdoor pool area and the locker room area for the patrons. Just walking up a little bit higher and see the brick there and then also you can see the second level It looks like we've got really clean windows the windows are actually in but the framing is The glass I think is arriving this week and should be going up soon On the back side, so looking west, we now have a patio. The concrete landing was poured, and the stairs have been formed. So on both sides of the patio, there will be two staircases to go up to it, as well as a fencing. A great view, but also out of a fence, so we make sure everyone goes in the front door and pays. But it will be a nice fence to see through. Keep on going, walking, oh this is just as you get a little bit lower from those stairs, you can see the patio right above us. This is the mechanical yard. That has been prepped for additional concrete. That's where a lot of the drop-offs will happen for the facility. Then here is the looking south on the north side Unfortunately, we had a number of trees that were well established on that side that we've been trying to protect Just couldn't handle I think because of the especially the heat we've had this summer the compression and compact of the vehicles going around have really put a number on those. So we were watering, they were watering by truck and by hand as much as we were supposed to and they just didn't make it. So we got those removed and we'll make sure to plant additional trees when the project's completed. This is inside, so this is the elevator. The elevator now is fully installed. The only problem is there's not power to it yet, so I couldn't ride it. It's there, it's ready to go. As soon as I get power to it, it will be able to function. Wrapping this up, second level taping is complete and painting continues on the second level. Again, frames for the windows should, glass should be coming soon. And the last slide is just HVAC crews have now started to tie in what is on the second level down to the first level. So you can see an overview of being on the second level, looking down on the field house. And then you can see the A, B, A, C units piping down. And so that's it for this week. Any questions?

Council, any questions? Thank you for this update. It's exciting. Okay. I think that is our final standing report. So we'll take a motion, anyone?

Move to adjourn.

Second. All right. We have a motion and a second to adjourn. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? No. All right. Thank you, everyone. Have a good evening. We appreciate you being here.