Council Work Session Meeting

Tuesday, April 14, 2026 — the full transcript. Click any sentence to hear it.

Work Session · 3:46:45 · the city’s copy →

Jump to:

Phone comment line 801-535-7654. Comments we receive on agenda topics are shared with council members and posted in our website, slc.gov slash council. The first item on the agenda is an ordinance community clean energy programs. We're gonna welcome Lihua Weaver, Council Deputy Director at the table, Sophia Nicholas, Assistant Deputy Director, unglade, Salward Senior Energy and Climate Program Manager.

Lihua. Hi, thank you. I wanted to just do a quick introduction and then I'll turn time over to sustainability staff. As you saw from the memo in your packets, this is the culmination of many years and hours of work. The city has participated with 18 other communities to set up the community clean energy program with Rocky Mountain Power.

Following the Public Service Commission approval order, all of those communities must now decide whether to officially join the program. Joining means that Rocky Mountain Power proceeds with setting up the program for all of those participating communities. And then the program begins early in 2027 and all customers, power customers are enrolled, but can opt out.

There will also be some assistance for low income customers available and that is more information about that. Will be made public and also is available on the website. The monthly charge is determined based on the participation rate and so it could change but currently is estimated about $4 per month. I also wanted to highlight for the council that there will be some mailing expenses and the sustainability department will be holding an amount for startup costs in the event that is needed to reimburse Rocky Mountain Power.

And once the council takes action to determine whether to join the program or not, both the council staff and the sustainability staff and mayor staff will coordinate on more outreach and information to the community so that they know what to expect as Rocky Mountain Power is setting up. And with that, I'll turn time over to Sophia and Glade with more information.

Thank you. Thanks, Leah, and thanks everyone for having us here today. We are very excited to be talking to you about this major milestone with the community clean energy program. Next slide. So just a note on language. We have been using the Utah Renewable Communities as an informal name for the program over the years.

We are moving towards using the formal name, which is community clean energy program. That's what will be on Rocky Mountain Power's website. That's what will be in the notices. We'll still use URC for the agency, which is the collection of 19 communities, but not the program. Next slide. So what is it? It's a brand new program that was just approved, giving Rocky Mountain Power customers and eligible communities the ability to choose clean, reliable, affordable energy.

It's been designed thoughtfully and intentionally since 2019 when HP 411 passed and was the enabling statute to create the program. And been thoughtfully designed with the utility and Utah Renewable Communities of which Salt Lake City is a member. It was approved by the Public Service Commission and found to be in the public interest on March 4th, 2026.

Salt Lake City now has the opportunity to consider an ordinance to formally adopt the program, meaning all eligible Rocky Mountain Power customers in Salt Lake City will now have the option to choose clean energy directly on their bill and they will be automatically enrolled. We're estimating early 2027 with the choice to exit at any time.

Next slide.

So why develop this new clean energy program? Just a little recap here.

It's solutions oriented. We all know that there is a growing demand for energy in our city, in our region, in our state. This program at the moment is really the only game in town for bringing online clean energy to meet these growing needs of our community and doing so in a way that supports the environment and keeps the air clean.

Scale. We have a unique opportunity to drive investment at scale to really move the needle on clean energy investment. The Utah Renewable Communities represent about 25% of Rocky Mountain Power's electricity sales in Utah. We don't know if all 19 are going to move forward, but if they do, this is more than anything that has been done in the past.

Choice. It offers homes and businesses in our communities a new option for where their electricity comes from through Rocky Mountain Power in a way that current offerings do not. Investment, clean energy investment, supports jobs and economies, often in rural areas, but it benefits the whole state and the whole region.

And then finally, health and environment. Clean energy helps to avoid pollution from other energy sources. Next slide. So what will the proposed program look like for customers? This is just a little example. Customers will continue to be Rocky Mountain Power customers

receiving the same reliable service that they always have as Rocky Mountain Power customers. They will begin to receive notices if Salt Lake City adopts the ordinance in late 2026 and will be automatically enrolled in the program in early 2027 with the choice stopped out at any time. Glade will cover this in more detail, but there will be no cost to opt out initially and after a couple of months, after six months, to be clear, there will be a fee to terminate participation.

And there will be this new clean energy light item, schedule 100 on Rocky Mountain Power bills. And I'll turn it over to Glade after I do the next slide, which is the PSC order. We won't go into a lot of detail on what the order itself says, but just the highlights here is that the state regulators approved the program.

They gave us clarity on key details like the initial program rate, customer opt out information, while acknowledging further items will be worked on in parallel and will be brought back to the commission for follow up ruling. We have now with this March 4th decision, a 90 day clock for communities to consider the ordinance.

So that's through June 2nd. In parallel to communities working on the ordinance consideration, the URC board and support staff will be working with Rocky Mountain Power and other parties to the docket to continue

working through the remaining items at the same time we're also working on a resource procurement for clean energy, which is really exciting for the first project or projects for the directly to serve the Utah Renewable Communities program. And with that, I'm gonna turn it over to Glade. And before I do that, I just wanna acknowledge and thank Council Member Dugan, who has been very much involved in this over the entire period.

We couldn't be where we are without him. He's the chair of the URC board. So thank you for all you do. Next slide. Thanks, Sophia. Okay, I just wanna elaborate a little bit. Sophia mentioned that the Public Service Commission had approved a number of items with their program approval, including the initial program rate, the rate that will show up has that schedule 100 item on the electricity bills.

So let's start with residential customers. We asked for and received a simple $4 per month residential charge, as opposed to a volume charge that might be hard to understand. So just a very clear flat rate per month. And that rate includes a few things. It includes $3.88 per month for the program fee to actually pay for the cost of the program, as well as 12 cents per month to cover a surge charge, to cover credits for low income customers.

And those credits, the way it would work is that same $3.88 charge will show up on a low income customers bill, but they'll also receive a $3.88 credit netting out to zero. In terms of eligibility, basically all residential customers in participating communities are able to participate with the exception of those who participate in schedule 135, which is the net metering program for those who have rooftop solar and are kind of grandfathered in on an older system.

Next slide, please.

Wanted to elaborate a little on the low income offerings associated with the program. So for qualifying low income customers, the following provisions exist. There's very importantly ongoing outreach and engagement. We need to make sure that folks understand what this program is, what implications the implications are for remaining in it.

For those qualifying low income customers, as I mentioned on the last slide, participation is free, has a result of that enhanced bill credit. And like all customers, low income qualifying low income customers can always choose to opt out of the program at any time. But for these customers, there is a wave termination fee.

So they can opt out indefinitely beyond the termination of the cancellation window that Sophia referred to. Next slide, please. And just to show how the low income offerings work. So to qualify the customer will need to be a Rocky Mountain Power customer that receives a Rocky Mountain Power bill, live in a participating community, and have a household income at or below 150% of the federal poverty level.

And then there are sort of two pathways. One is to apply for the home energy assistance target program or heat program, and then once they're part of that, they would automatically be enrolled in the help program, Rocky Mountain Power, Schedule III program. So that's one pathway. The other is just to directly apply for the help program and receive the assistance.

So once you're enrolled in help, you're in Schedule III and those credits apply. Next slide, please. I want to turn quickly to non-residential customers. They are billed at a volumetric rate or per kilowatt hour usage based rate of 0.00609 dollars or basically six-tenths of a penny per kilowatt hour plus that same 12 cent per month surcharge to help fund the low income credits.

And just a quick example. So if a medium size office building were to use 6880 kilowatt hours in a given month, without the program there, bill would be $847.39 per month. With the program, the bill would go up by $42.02

for a 5% increase. So that's what that looks like. And those same eligibility requirements apply, sorry, apply here that Schedule I-35 customers with net metering are not eligible, but other customers are for non-residential.

Just briefly, next slide, please. Sorry. I wanted to hit on something about long-term rates and the way that the Public Service Commission addressed those in their order. Like all utility rates, rates for the community clean energy program are gonna be periodically adjusted under, no more than annually under the statute.

But importantly, so that raises the question of what's gonna happen in the future with rates. But importantly, the Public Service Commission, in their ruling found no evidence in the record that suggests that program rates are likely to meaningfully increase from the initial rates approved in the order. Instead, under Rocky Mountain Powers proposal, they would decrease rather significantly after the first two years.

So the idea is that people would be making their opt-out decision during that termination window and beyond based on those high early rates. And that's important. So folks are informed in making a good decision about their desire to continue to participate in the program.

Next slide, please. So just to orient you, we've thrown out a lot of dates and time periods, but again, the program approval was March 4th. That started the 90-day clock that Sophia mentioned, culminating in a June 2nd deadline for the communities to adopt the program. After that, there would be a five-month period while Rocky Mountain Power gets their billing system set up, their software, their 1-800 number, and that sort of thing.

And then beginning or honor around November 2nd, we would have the implementation date that would start a 60-day or two-month noticing period, after which there would be a commencement date when the bill impact starts to be felt, afterwards they'd have four months to continue to cancel or opt out of the program without a termination fee.

So to be clear, there's six total months, two before the bill impact start and four after the bill impact start for folks to have the opportunity to opt out of the program. There would be, after the cancellation window I just mentioned, after that six-month period, there'd be a $30 termination fee for residential customers and for non-residential customers, that fee will vary based on their size and what rate schedule they're in.

And there's also a similar provision for new and annex customers regarding noticing and having a cancellation period. And I think the last thing I wanted to touch on briefly is, oh sorry, next slide, thank you. She's looking at my own computer. There are other programs, offerings for clean energy that Rocky Mountain Power provides for their customers, that you may have heard of some of these, but I wanted to touch on them briefly.

There's the Blue Sky program that allows participants to voluntarily contribute, $1.95 per 100 kilowatt hour block or $1.95, sorry, 1.95 cents per kilowatt hour to support renewable energy. That usually goes to support local grants for things like rooftop solar, but largely goes towards funding the purchase of what are known as renewable energy certificates or RECS, and those can come from anywhere in the nation.

So with that latter class of project, those projects don't necessarily benefit our communities directly. So it's a good program, but it has different objectives. Similarly, there's a subscriber solar program, there's an existing 20 megawatt solar farm in Southern Utah that offers folks the opportunity to opt into that program, but the participation in that program has been capped and Rocky Mountain Power has not signaled any indication or any desire to go forward with building new projects, at least not at this time.

Finally, folks can always, if they have the resources, put rooftop solar on their homes and businesses, but that requires the resources and also, it doesn't work for every location. So we think this is a great program that complements these other programs, and importantly, it's large scale and supports new, regionally based clean energy projects.

Next slide, please. So the next slide talks about the ordinance requirement. There's a good write up about it in your stop report, but there is a requirement if Salt Lake City would like to move forward with our participation to adopt an ordinance that we have placed in Title IX, Chapter 50. Next slide. The ordinance itself really just enables all of our community members to have the choice of whether they want to remain in the program or opt out of the program.

And then finally, Lehuah mentioned some budgetary considerations. Overall, there's a lot of conservatism built into the program as a whole. We're happy to talk about any questions you have in that regard. We could go on and on, to be honest. But the one thing that we are going to be bringing before the Council in Budget Amendment V is a request for Salt Lake City to sign the startup cost agreement with Rocky Mountain Power.

This is a little bit of a... I don't know, chicken and the egg situation. Rocky Mountain Power has administrative startup costs that they need to pay for that need to occur before they can start collecting program revenue, but the program revenue will ultimately pay for those incurred startup costs. But they require a contract to backstop those in the case that there is a immediate and really catastrophic level of unsubscriptions within really just the first month of the program.

We've run the numbers. We feel like it's almost impossible for there to be enough opt-outs for Salt Lake City to be on the hook to actually need to expend those funds. However, we do need to request them so that we can sign the contract. And I'm happy. Next slide. We'll just leave the summary slide here for you and happy to answer any questions.

Council members, yes, Council Member Cross. Very excited for this program. I think my one question is the one-time termination fee of $30. Where does that go? Is it go back to Rocky Mountain Power? Does it go specifically to the renewable program in general? Where does that get allocated to?

It goes to Rocky Mountain Power and it is to just help stabilize the rates overall so it directly goes to the program. Any other comments? I'm a customer of Dougan. Yeah, appreciate all the work and effort on this program. And then just maybe a comment on people moving in to a participating city or moving out from a participating city.

How does the opt-out work on that? Do you kind of just inform people when you move in? How many months do you have until you can opt-out? That's a great question. And a lot of these details we're still confirming that it's our understanding that for new customers who move to a home and a participating community or for someone whose community gets annexed into the program which could happen coming from a county, for example, those customers, we believe, will have a 60-day window for a noticing period during which no program rate applies and during which no termination fee applies.

At the end of that 60 days, both the program rate and the termination fee would apply. So unlike the initial program, there's not that four-month extra window there. So, and that's just how it was set up in the administrative rules and in the statute. So. Thank you. And can you also kind of touch on the low-income plan as a great program, but there's not, there's a lot more residents eligible for the low-income plan that are not participating.

And can you talk to us through how the program is set up to educate the population that could actually be served by this and with no cost? Yeah, that's a great question. And I'll just note that by statute, all of the communities are required to have their own low-income outreach plan and we had to submit that with our application to the Public Service Commission.

So those low-income outreach plans talk about this credit that we worked out. They talk about the no termination fee and they talk about all of the community organizations that we have identified to work directly with to make sure that people are aware of this program. The social service providers and others that are working, you know, in this space anyway with their clients and community members that are low-income serving.

We are also more than happy to take any other suggestions that the council has for ones that might not be on our list. But to your point about how many participants are actually on the help program, there are a lot more people that are eligible to be on Rocky Mount Power's existing help program than currently are on the help program.

So we see this as one of the benefits of our program could be that we're raising awareness of the community clean energy program. People can join help so that they receive the, you know, the fee waiver for schedule 100. But at the same time, then they become eligible for the rest of Rocky Mountain Power's existing utility assistance.

So, and we have been talking with various community organizations about helping us with that outreach, including Weber State, actually, that is prepared to do it on behalf of the State of Utah. Yes, go ahead. Recently, you know, Rocky Mountain Power released here at 2025 IRP. And can you walk us through how much wind and solar was on that IRP and what their CO2 emissions were going forward?

Yeah, happy to discuss that. So as Councilman Duggan mentioned, Rocky Mountain Power recently came out with their 2025 Integrated Resource Plan update. That's the, it's a planning, the Integrated Resource Plan is a planning cycle they go through every two years. And in the off years, the even years, they do what's called an update, kind of a light version of the plan.

And in that most, in each of the Integrated Resource Plans, the company looks out 20 years, looks at the load they need to serve, looks at the resources and the costs that they can choose from, how to serve that load, the different types of energy sources. And they make decisions, they develop what's called a preferred portfolio, the path that they want to go forward with.

And in this most recent update for the Eastern Service Territory for Rocky Mountain Power, there are no new renewable builds and for across their entire system, their CO2 emissions go up. And I think that's really underscores what Sophia said about us sort of being the only game in town. You know, a few years ago, there were plans for a really big build out of clean energy from the company and their recent plans have changed that.

And so this makes it all the more important, I think, that we have this opportunity for our residents and businesses. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. We appreciate the update. This is a big deal. It took no time to get to this place. It was very fast, very smooth. No, obviously this is a big deal in so many ways. It's a huge milestone for the cities that are participating and showing our commitment to clean energy and to the reduction of emissions and to getting electricity from the right sources.

So thank you for the work on this. Thank you, Mr. Duggins, for you being the one assigned to this or you assigned yourself to it. But thank you for really... He knows more than he ever wanted to, but I think you're enjoying it. You have been who really carried the water here or the cables. Oh, no. Thank you for all the work.

We appreciate the presentation. Thank you very much. Moving on to item number two. This is an audience about camping and obstruction, public property and park rules text amendment. We're going to welcome Nick Tovett, Council Deputy Director. We're getting all the Deputy Directors today to present to us Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff and Sara Montoya, Senior City Attorney.

Nick, can you give us...

Different people that I presented. Former Councilman Johnston and Joanna Thasevo, but thank you, Nick. Can you start? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will give a quick high-level overview of the background on this and the key changes. Then Andrew will go in depth. We think that it would be helpful for the Council members to pull up the staff report because we'll probably go through that quite a bit.

So this is a briefing on proposed updates to the current camping ordinance to address challenges arising from increased use of public spaces such as parks, sidewalks, park strips to be used as living spaces for sleeping, storing property, preparing meals. The proposed updates, the proposal updates the definition of camping and consolidates existing rules to be clearer and focused on behaviors that cause problems while aiming for humane and compassionate enforcement.

The key changes are camping now includes more than just tents. It covers broader living accommodation behaviors. It applies to all public property, not just parks. It includes sidewalks. And the new definition includes sleeping outdoors or in a vehicle on public property during closed hours, typically 11 p.m. to 5 a.m.

Leaving personal property unattended on public property close to the public and using public space or vehicles as residents of dwelling for living accommodation purposes. Andrew. Thanks, Nick. And make sure we identify that Commander Jared Gilbert from the Police Department here joining me today. Thank you very much, Commander.

We also have attorneys in the audience who can help correct anything I misstate, intentionally or unintentionally. So, direct your attention to page two. We'll start on the staff report under additional background information. The first thing I want to point out to everybody here is we're talking about a very specific city ordinance.

I wish that I could incorporate a solution to housing difficulties or shelter difficulties, vehicle difficulties, everything else, nuisance issues in the city in this ordinance, but we cannot. This is not intended to solve homelessness. We are working very hard in other avenues and other entities and organizations to do that.

This pertains to our current camping ordinance in Salt Lake City proper. So I want to put that out there because in our discussion it gets very easy to go to places. I'm talking about all of the struggles we've got or parks has or streets has or the general public has and we can't necessarily address all of them here, although we're willing to take in any feedback and keep working on those as we can in different parts of the code.

Okay? All right. So we've had an old camping ordinance for a number of years. It is outlawed camping with a few exceptions over the years. I think the ordinance we have right now when I read it initially really reflected the reality of decades ago when a boy scout troops would go camp and public parks were up the canyon.

It did not necessarily envision people living in vehicles full time as their place or the number of people without housing funding places to sleep at night. So we tried to update this to reflect the new reality. However, in the course of the last year or two years of going through this, the new reality is shifted again.

Two years ago, if you remember, we had a lot of people camping in pug, pug parks, rights of way, park strips across the city during the daytime and nighttime and vacant properties. We don't have the same volume anymore. It is still a problem. But if you'll notice, we've got a lot of people who are in shelter. We have 600 more temporary shelter beds than we did a couple of years ago that are still operational.

We're working to keep those open all the time. The police department has done enforcement and we have heard of people moving outside the city limits to other cities. There's still a need for housing and shelter in this county that's not being fully addressed. We're working on that. But we don't see the same issues in Salt Lake City.

We did a couple of years ago. So it may feel different to you than it did maybe a year ago talking about this issue. The definition of camping now, it used to be really focused on setting up something that looked like a camp, shelter of some sort. That was where the threshold to talk about camping. In the new ordinance, we're trying to address people who are living outside in camping with actually our right to be in public spaces at certain times and hours.

So if you'll see in here, it talks about public areas. That means including parks. We don't want to criminalize people being in a public park or on a public sidewalk and using those things like we envision them to be used. However, we also are trying to dissuade people from camping in those places overnight or doing things that are camp related.

So here you're going to see the camping definition now includes sleeping outdoors on page two near the bottom of your page. Between these hours of 11 and 5 in vehicles, which is brand new, we've never identified living in a vehicle as camping before. And leaving personal property unattended in an area that's public like that.

Now we also have something called living accommodation purposes there. This is to address the difficulty the police department and others have had in identifying that someone's not setting up a shelter but they're probably are camping there at times and there's a list of things here sleeping, storing personal property, preparing and shipping meals, establishing sleeping quarters, blind, laying down bedding, temporary structures, et cetera.

That would identify somebody is camping even if they're not setting up a camp per se. I know some of you are probably thinking about this thing that's tricky. It is tricky. This is hard. Now from the police perspective, his input as well from the department about how to enforce this in a way that tries to balance personal liberty rights with our public spaces.

This section is meant to say if you're seeing two or more of these activities, it's probably indicating it is a camping situation and you could intervene. Does that make sense? Now that's the definition of camping that we're going to go off of here. If you go up to page one, actually that hits it right there, page one, page two and then you go down to page three, excuse me.

In page three, there are some exceptions obviously to this no camping. If it's authorized by a property owner along a parade route within 24 hours, such as days of 47 parade in our case, or the mayor declares a state of emergency, even in those exception times, you'll see below that, it's still not appropriate to camp in certain places where it would be an immediate threat to persons public health safety within 1,000 feet of certain facilities, 500 feet of day care, senior centers, schools, 10 feet of driveways or building entrances or exits, or in a riparian corridor or lay area.

So those are the exceptions to this, where even if you're authorized perhaps or that, it doesn't fit. So that's the technical stuff. Questions so far about this? Members? I have a question below each other. Thank you. And I do see that you put in there for parade routes 24 hours before it is included. Just wanted to know that was one of the hypothetical I was going to ask about, should we expect people to pull permits or we have families that have the tradition of coming to camp or barbie?

Sometimes many days in advance to finding your day, just kind of curious what we're thinking of enforcement on that. Well, it's hard, obviously, right? We're trying to allow the use of the public space for positive parades, right, in this case. We're not necessarily interested in going through a parade route and saying, you seem to fit, you don't seem to fit, you fit, you don't fit.

That's not what we're trying to do here. We're trying to carve out a time where, from an enforcement perspective, it's probably a little less intense enforcement in those areas as long as people are following general rules of decorum and public spaces, those kind of things. So we're trying to balance both of those things because a parade is a rare event.

It doesn't happen every week, every month, every year, but maybe once a year in these cases. So it's more of the exception. We're trying not to throw the whole thing in there with this exception. We're not trying to write a policy that's going to address the exception as the rule. Let's keep the rule as a general rule on that of the exception happened those times.

Thank you. The other big piece here is occupied vehicles. And Salt Lake City right now, we don't have a lot of day time camping per se, but we have a lot more vehicles, perhaps we're used to. I don't have the exact numbers right now, but we know that reports of vehicles are climbing and approaching that of actual camps in the city.

People living in a vehicle generally have no place else to go. That is their home. Oftentimes, the vehicles are older, probably not in as good or a Paris, maybe newer vehicles are, and maybe are not even allowed in certain RV parks because of the age of the vehicle or the condition. It's a really tough situation because when they're parking on a public street, it also could be a public health issue with the county overseas with gray water release or other issues coming from a police perspective.

Sometimes it's not necessarily the actual owner of the vehicle or the pre-person of the vehicle. It's everything else that comes around for business, so to speak. So it does create a nuisance at times on the street. Right now, our current ordinance is a parking ordinance that doesn't allow you to park in a public street face for more than 48 hours.

We've had struggles because that means you have to go out and inform somebody you're violating and they have 48 hours to comply, but we also have to get back to the exact place within 48 hours to mark that. And if it's over a weekend or our volume is high enough, you can't get back in that time frame. So it took us weeks and weeks, actually, last year and a half ago, we were at about 12 weeks before we could actually get to a parking issue.

We're down to about two weeks now, give or take maybe less than that now. This ordinance, because we define that as camping, that means the police department could now be part of the enforcement of that. So it wouldn't be a parking enforcement thing all alone. It would be a camping enforcement. Parking restrictions still apply, but the police could be called in a situation to address that violation of the ordinance.

Does that make sense? Now, I have not answered where people go. That's a huge problem. And I understand that would be a question for this Council and this question for all of us. We are still working as hard as we can to figure out temporary shelter solutions for individuals, places to legally be, that would also accommodate the particular needs of folks who are unsheltered or living in a vehicle.

We don't have enough of those, but we're still working on it. One of the problems we have to contend within our ordinances were not an island in some ways right now, we're trying not to be an island completely. If the cities around us are also enforcing on a higher level than we are, it does create an imbalance in a problem city.

If we're too strict, it means other cities also feel the impact here. We're sort of united in that. So we're trying not to be an outlier too much, but also not push this too hard to criminalize a state of being. Also knowing that some people who are experiencing homelessness may be violating other laws or in vehicles are violating other laws as well.

From a form perspective, it's tough. So we're trying to balance all those views right now in this ordinance as it stands before you. Mr. Chair? One more group. You just mentioned vehicles. And so you're grouping that altogether. You're not being specific. Like, you know, he's got a two-car, you know, a Honda Civic or Motorhome.

They're both the same. You're not differentiating the two different living arrangements. They're all the same, and you're going to treat them all the same. Is that how, just to make it simple on the enforcement side of the house? Yeah, and this proposal doesn't differentiate types of vehicles. It's the activity in the vehicle.

It's the activity in the vehicle and surrounding the vehicle. Okay. Thanks. Okay. Because one more of course. Thank you for this presentation. And I think I just want to share some statements before moving towards my questions. And I think I want to just share that I realize that we're balancing two things here. We're balancing the very real impacts that camping can have as it intersects with substance abuse and mental health challenges and the impacts on parks, public spaces and surrounding businesses.

And right of ways, I understand those impacts. I experience some of my district at the same time. I am concerned and frankly not interested in the further criminalization of poverty or homelessness. And so I'm holding both of those realities in my mind. And it's from that nuanced perspective, I want to ask a couple questions.

The first question is we've got some alternative response teams already set up in the city. How will those alternative response teams that include social workers and encouraging connection to services be deployed in connection with the enforcement of this or with the enforcement of this proposed ordinance? I think that this starts well in advance of enforcement of the ordinance.

So this council and the city have funded the volunteers of America Street Outreach Team for a couple of years in the city, specifically for doing outreach to individuals who are experiencing homelessness. That should continue on regardless of this. In context of the other responses, the police department has social workers involved for specifically trained in mental illness and mental health support, crisis response support, those things.

A lot of our interventions have been targeted towards camping. So we have a weekly meeting that is led by HART, the homeless engagement team in the city that includes county partners, law enforcement, outreach partners, private partners as well, and the city urban services team. And they take all the reports across the city through the app or calls and they go through and evaluate and they have a staff member who goes out and evaluates the report where it is, the situation on the ground.

And then they talk through who's engaging with him. The V.O. outreach team oftentimes says that we're engaging with this couple here. We're working with them on a housing voucher. Could we work with them for a little longer before they get displaced to try and get them into a shelter or housing situation without losing contact with them?

We've done that a lot. That will continue to happen as long as we have that outreach team. From the other side, the urban services team, we coordinate with them about where, when, and how they're going out. We don't want to throw heavy equipment at everything and doesn't need heavy equipment. Sometimes it's a matter of we've given trash bags out to individuals out there and they picked up their own literatimes.

We're going to try and do the least restrictive approach possible all the time and coordinate these across all our entities. With that being said, the county health department sometimes says this is a county health violation. It has to be addressed. And there are times when that's hard. It's hard because it means we have to go in with our resources and help clean up.

In one situation recently, it was in the sign of a mountain. A very dangerous place to do this and difficult. But because the county health department also identified, this is a serious issue that needs to be dealt with. We had to sort of invest the time to do that. Our intent on that crew is to make sure we're all coordinated and we're not duplicating services.

We're also not ignoring services and we're trying to get the right support in advance of that. Oftentimes outreach teams are not very interested in going out with the police officers to group of individuals because it's two different responses perhaps from the individual on the street. They may be receptive to somebody doing outreach.

They may not be from an officer for whatever the reasons are. So we try and do that a little separately at times. But the police department social workers will be involved in a level of situations. There's also a difference now between people who oftentimes are camping for a long period of time in the foothills or a long Jordan River and folks who are laying on the sidewalk on Main Street or in a park strip by a track station.

Without stuff necessary around them. In those situations, there's very different needs perhaps. We still want outreach at times to go with them. But we may not need a full clean up for somebody there versus the foothills. And if you talk about a two minute sort of situation here, that's a general rule we're trying to use to help balance enforcement with realistic timeframes to clean up.

From moving from a sidewalk or in front of a building entrance, we can't necessarily be there for half an hour or 45 minutes if it takes out long because or in the middle of the street, we need to get them out of the street. We also want the officers to work with the social workers so that if there's mental illness situations going on, it's not just physically move them out there.

But we try and get the right services to them, which is why from the police department perspective, they have access to VOAD talks beds on a daily basis to St. Vincent de Paul overnight shelter on a daily basis to try and offer that for folks to get in there if they need that. Generally speaking from an enforcement perspective, and I'll speak and get a turn.

But the police department generally, when they come across somebody and they get a notification they're violating the ordinance, generally people do move. They pack up and they move along. There's very few situations where it's a confrontation necessarily and we try and avoid that anyway. Does that answer what you're trying to get to?

Yeah, it leads me to my next couple of questions, which is exactly what you talked about. Where we are now at this point in time versus what you alluded to a year ago is different. And currently the practice is, I imagine, law enforcement approaches an encampment and people pack up and they move along to another part of the city and the problem's not solved.

And so I'm curious about with enforcement of this ordinance, how does it solve that problem, if at all? Well, when you're talking about somebody who doesn't have a place to live, the ordinance doesn't solve that. I think when you talk about the city budget from the CRA or the regular city budget and affordable housing investments in our support of emergency shelters and the mayor's work on the state homeless services board, et cetera, we're trying to address that in those environments.

This ordinance does not initially address that. Doesn't answer that question for you. And so that's hard that way. And sorry, just last thing I'll say is that if that's the case, what's the purpose of this ordinance given how does it materially change what's already been going on for the past year or so that has changed many of the conditions for the better in our parks and our public spaces?

Well, I think the first thing is we have not had a really way to address vehicle. That's a huge sort of hole in our ordinance that was anticipated years ago. So I think that's an immediate sort of change that we're probably felt mostly in the city in a lot of ways. The second piece is right now in the code, you can't obstruct a sidewalk, for instance, and you have like two minutes for reasonable notice to not do that.

But the other part of the code, it says reasonable notice without defining that. It makes it difficult from an enforcement perspective that consistency for officers trained on to make sure they are all following the same expectation. That's a change also on the enforcement side. The other thing I'll say is that we've been living off of really nickels and dimes for a couple of years, keeping shelters open.

I hope that doesn't change. I hope that it changes the better if it does, where we have stable funding and we have consistency in our shelter system and our housing system. But if it were to change again, and we lost shelter beds, we could see an increase again in people on the streets and we'd have similar issues. What we see today may or may not be sort of the standard going forward.

And we need some consistency in our ordinance, I'd say, to ensure that we have a reasonable understanding from the officer's side, from our outreach side, and from you all about what the public can expect from the city enforcement. Councillor Humber, you're on. Thank you. I do appreciate you bringing this forward. And just want to say, I know that the vehicle's issue has been pretty prevalent and that in working with Salt Lake City Police and the experts that we have, the tools in their toolbox are very limited.

Like when it comes to being able to proactively engage in that, we saw that deteriorate to a worst case scenario, you know, not too far outside of Fairmont Park. And if you ask the neighbors and the business owners and the individuals who frequented that area, we knew there was going to be an issue. But there wasn't an opportunity for a proactive intervention until it was far too late and, you know, a tragic end for that family.

So I appreciate looking at it in terms of how are we adding tools to the toolbox. My follow-up question to that is, how are we going to know if that is working? So are there certain, you know, elements, measures, dynamics? What are we looking at to say that if this moves forward to become a part of the ordinance, is this the right approach for the city?

Or do we need to look at something else? It's an interesting question and not an easy one to answer. I'll say today. From an ordinance that's intended to do standardized enforcement and talk about it that way, then generally we're looking at sort of the actions, right? Does this address an action quickly? Does a deterrent action perhaps?

Does it show our response times decrease? So we're quicker getting there, these kind of things. You could look at it that way. I don't think that's a full measure of this, though. And the reason is, is because from individuals who have no place to be to live, they're going to have to live someplace. It may not be in our city anymore, but they're living somewhere else.

From our city perspective, I think a couple of things to think about. One is, all of our efforts collectively, not just the enforcement side, but also the proactive offering resources side, are we seeing a decrease in the time it takes us to address an occupied vehicle? That's a measure that's probably a good one for us in this situation.

Are we seeing a measurable decrease in the amount of camping in the city? Now, it doesn't mean we're solving homelessness necessarily. It means they're not camping in our city. I would hope that with everything else involved in that as well, we take both our measures and also statewide measures, point in time, count measures, et cetera, that we see a positive outcome to that.

That means that we have decrease in camping as people are resolving into positive situations rather than just relocating elsewhere. But that's a harder metric to show over time, but that's our intention. I think the other thing is, and you all know this, is it's an intangible piece. It's about what does a park feel like in there is your attention going on?

Can we work on the tension between people have no place to be, to live, and people who are recreating the park? I think there's some pieces like that that we've seen a decrease over time in the city already from the Parks Department, and response, at least, from their staff, of saying, I have a decrease in the number of issues I've had, personally, with individuals or park patrons.

We've also seen a decrease, in some ways, of the number of individual homeless providers working in parks versus working in other locations like community corner. I think that's a positive sign as well, that we're trying to be more proactive in coordinating services for the unsheltered, making sure the unsheltered know where to get services, and working on the number of sheltered beds and housing units we've got.

So I think all those work together towards a metric we're looking for, but it's not as clean, perhaps, as I'd like. Mr. Chair, I'll just wrap up. So Andrew, very few people could have responded to that question in the moment, with the expertise and the comprehensive nature that you did. So reminds me, and everyone in the room, why we're so fortunate to have you leading out on this, I think as we see this process move forward, I do think it's something that would help me as a council member be able to be more fluent in some of those measures, both whether it's like a baseline and kind of where we're going, just to be able to help articulate the actions of the city and how we're looking to see if some of those things

impact it. So a future conversation, but I do just wanna honor the expertise that you were just able to magically come up with while sitting here, so thank you. Cause I wanna love to show this. I wanna understand better in this process because we're standardizing policing. Policing usually deals with civil or criminal citations.

Can you kind of walk me through that process as well as, I'm just trying to understand, recognizing that there are folks today that use vehicles as a last resort. I've certainly met them in district four, some of them are constituents that still have jobs, have families, and as we try to meet these needs, what is reasonable, what should we expect from a police officer, and is there an opportunity to have both proactive, but also to react to the truth that if we are citing, that means we're indicating that it's an individual that could participate in housing, I'd love to see a policy that really helps build a pipeline if we're gonna remove this option from them, to make sure that we're not just enclosing them

or exposing them back into the elements, but we're giving them the opportunity to translate their experience into transitional housing or permanent support of housing for other types of organizations that are really picking up where public funds aren't able to go and participate. Sure, so I'll let a kind of Gilbert answer the police side specifically of it, but I think the wording you used is important here.

We're talking about changing a city's statute and ordinance. We also have internals, say police department or parks department policies about how we do certain things. This deals with the statute end of this, but from a police department policy, they could still go in with certain expectations, like here's some resources I can offer.

What's my policy in taking into context the situation with the weather, the location, other things going on? That's a sort of internal policy thing that we can't shift and change based on resources things, but I'll let Senator Gilbert deal with that. Yeah, thank you.

So for an enforcement perspective from a car to an RV, it's gonna be similar to like a camping citation for something like that, but that's not our first option. Typically, when we go out on these, like the hillside got brought up, for example, that we're up on the mountainside, we had worked with several of those groups on five different occasions to try to connect them to services.

Our social workers will go out when we've been on the Jordan River Trail. They'll go out with us and we'll do what we can to get them to connect to services. We really do this as a last option. It's not something we're excited to go do or eager to get out there and go do it. It's responding to complaints and is a last resort to address a problem or concern.

As far as the criminal aspect of it, I can't speak to the civil side, so I might be more in your house. I think we could pull the numbers too, but we don't have a lot of citations for the situation or arrests in the last couple of years. I think it's very few. Generally speaking, I think, maybe correct me if I'm wrong, Commander, but when individuals or approaches that you're violating the city ordinance, they generally don't want to sort of get in trouble.

It's more trouble for everybody involved than not. So they generally will comply. They're moving or packing or stuff and leaving, that's what I think. Again, it doesn't solve it, but generally compliance is happening just with sort of notification of this. Same with the parking statute. Most folks when they're informed that you're violating the 40-hour ordinance do move.

They comply with the statute if they can. And even folks that the vehicle's not operable, they're people helping them move it. I think that's happening already, so we're not having a large number of the citations that way necessarily we'd think. But again, this is not trying to criminalize it as much as trying to have a consistent ability to enforce across 500 police officers and our parks staff and everybody else.

I'll just wrap up my comments. I keep thinking about the Geraldine King and the type of camping that's happening there and how we can produce as close as possible policy that, you know, again, these are women, oftentimes that can't make it into the shelter. They're ending up as a less reservoir on the sidewalk and recognizing, balancing that with the private property ownership needs.

And, you know, I think this is not a policy that is intending to be perfect, but I think we can have more discussions on this. I'm really interested to see how we can overcome that, especially as we try to move people into shelter and then eventually into other transitional housing. So thanks, thank you. Ms. Marmour-Pitru.

Hi. Yeah. Okay, so as our city has disproportionately borne this burden for the rest of the state, you've been an amazing resource in helping balancing some tensions. And one of the biggest tensions that exists on the West Side is making sure that our school students feel safe, even if people are forced to sleep in their cars.

What will a policy of implementation around this policy enforcement look like? If I'm living in my car, the likelihood that I'm tuned into this meeting right now isn't super high. The likelihood that I read whatever tweet we're going to use. Will we do signage? How do we notify people about this? And then will there be kind of a more assertive period of us letting people know that there's a lower tolerance for proximity to schools?

It's a good question about how do we inform the public about this? It's not always easy to get the details out. Even you all or our city staff understanding the nuance of 1,000 feet from certain facilities versus 500 versus 10, that's hard. My guess is we can talk through this with the police department, but they're probably going to be called out more quickly to certain areas around schools, for instance.

If an occupied vehicle is there for more than a day or two, or even a day, they may go out immediately or at that a few hours and address it with them. And I think that's an internal policy question about do we inform them first? Because generally we want people to comply with the law before we go through the citation process.

I think right now we'll be talking about going out and always trying to address and say, this is why you're violating the ordinance right now. And if they comply, it's probably not different than it currently is. What may be very different is the rapidity of which we get out to address somebody, which in some instances have been weeks versus days versus hours.

I think in this situation, particularly when the police department understands that it can't be within this of a school, it's probably a much quicker response within a few hours. So from the public perspective, we're probably going to see some immediate response than more immediate response than before. I think from folks who are experiencing homelessness or in vehicles, that's a tougher situation.

My experience is oftentimes word gets around very quickly. Now it's not always exactly accurate, but the idea that enforcement is changing does get around fairly quickly. But we also want to make sure that the officers and public park staff and other folks have a very clear and concise sort of overview of this and what's changes are.

So everyone's working out the same page of information. And they can give out accurate information to the public as well. And then my second thing is, it appears because we still don't have any strategy for increasing places for people to go. And just stop being poor isn't really a policy. That we've created hours where people's option is to wander, to meander through the city from 11 p.m. to 5 a.m.

That causes me to fear, if I were to put myself in that place, I would look for darker, more secluded places where I couldn't be seen when the very human urge to sleep happens, which then makes me worry that we're pushing vulnerable people particularly, but really everyone, anyone who's almost vulnerable, into more dangerous situations.

Are we doing anything to enhance sexual assault reporting capabilities? Any sort of trust building so that people who will be victimized feel confident in their ability to get help? I understand the pressure is pushing us to tighten up this ordinance. And I'm someone who, like the parking next to my kid's school, next to the elderly person, these are problems.

So I am not at all saying that I'm faulting us for thinking creatively about this, but I am also saying that those people who are unsheltered are also our constituents. And under the 14th Amendment deserving of equal protection under the law,

it's probably an impossible thing that we're asking to do here to equally protect them and those who are sheltered without any apparatus in a very Christian state for taking care of the poor and downtrodden. But in approximating as imperfectly as we are, are there any apparatuses for the likelihood that we see an increase in victimization because we are pushing people to darker places that are less monitored?

It's hard to forecast things. I'll say that I echo the concern of oftentimes people, as we get fewer and fewer people outside, for instance, generally people outside may have higher barriers to coming inside for various reasons. The whole variety of issues, right? Trust issues primarily, but also other issues about being in congregate spaces or public spaces are fear about those things.

A lot of our efforts outside of this ordinance are probably what maybe you're trying to get to. I think from a large high level perspective with the REITs legislative session, there's been a renewed emphasis on addressing subpopulations in homelessness. The obvious one we've talked a lot about are high utilizers of police resources.

People who get arrested a lot are cited a lot. That's gotten a lot of attention. It's also a good way to start this process because there's a small number of people taking about a large bandwidth of public services. That's a good thing to address that population in a different way. It's also a good to address subpopulations like women, couples, youth, those kinds in different ways as well.

In the discussions with the state office, home of services and new funding, they have talking a lot about subpopulations and addressing them in very specific, unique ways that maybe haven't been done to scale before. I think that's important to what you're talking about. That's preventative, that's proactive, that's before it comes to two in the morning on the street kind of situation.

Even in those situations though, we wanted to ensure that the police department had access to immediate beds in the detox center, to immediate beds in the women and children's center with the VOA in the D-A as well. Access to St. Vincent de Paul, the shelter itself. We want that in their toolbox. It's not big enough, but it's there so that an officer could come across somebody there and try and get them into a positive place.

Siding somebody for sleeping on the street in the middle of the night is not gonna help the officer or the person there and that's it. So I think the officers really want the toolbox as well to try and access to those services. From a city perspective, we don't run those services. What we do is we fund ability to get those beds held for us.

That's part of the annual budget we do. That's why we do that.

The other piece to think about in here is the social workers. Now, it's expensive to run social workers, but they're meant for that specific purpose. To deal with a situation where a regular an officer who's wonderful and trained is probably not the right person necessarily for that situation. We need those social workers more broadly.

That means hours of coverage, that means shifts those kind of things. The more we can do that, the more we have, the right resource for the right time at the right place when you're re-needed because you're never quite sure when you're gonna come across that. That's an ongoing discussion with you all and our city. It's a policy, it's a financial discussion, but I think we're in the right place we need to expand and develop it more.

Council Member Dugan. Thank you, Rex. Thank you, as always, and you on this work. I appreciate the ordinance and what we're trying to do here, and I also appreciate this is not solving the homeless side of the house. This is one slice of it. And we talked a little bit about metrics and also where do these people go? And do we see an avenue from what this ordinance allows us to do and have metrics to say to the state?

We are seeing people that would be perfect fits for micro-shelters, perfect fits for switch point motels. And if we had this much money, we could take these hundred individuals,

house them, stabilize them, and they can be productive because they're not living in their car. Will that allow us to make that, maybe we can make that connection, and maybe we can make that connection, and then transport that connection to their brain so that they can actually maybe fund it? Is there an avenue for that to happen where we have some data that shows that we have actually, people that would be perfect fits for micro-shelters or the hotels from what we're seeing on the vehicle data?

Yes, is the first answer to your question. I'll say that because the state office of homeless services recently hired a former sergeant in the police department from our department. I think specifically to address the folks who have frequent interactions with law enforcement who are experiencing homelessness. So they've already requested and gotten a lot of data from us about our last couple of years of work with them from the police department perspective.

Now, it doesn't talk about all everybody in homelessness because most people who experience homelessness never have to interact with the police department very much. They're not doing criminal activity for the most part. They're actually staying in shelters or transitional housing or vehicles, and they're really trying not to violate the law.

For that sub-population, it has been very helpful to work with them to say, here's what we're seeing. That's what they're seeing. Let's address that in very specific ways. The first example is we actually have a number of individuals from the Project Connect program that we're working with who actually have been placed in the micro-shelters because that was what their need is.

So when we go and partner with OHS, we've always requested from them, we need access for our police department or our department or social workers to some of these beds. So we come across somebody who needs that service, we can get them in quickly. So yes, we are doing that immediately. I think we need to expand that to a broader data set in a more proactive way, but I'm confident that they're moving in the right direction that way.

Chris Horton. Just briefly, did you look at other, like, compare this to language from other cities, ordinances, and can you talk a little bit about those considerations that went into this? We did. I say they're loyal, because I think the city attorneys did a wonderful job of doing the research on that, and I'd probably be speaking that I'd turn it if I talked about other cities.

If that'd be helpful here, we'd probably take the time where we could do it offline. It depends on what you're talking about. Thank you. I, you know, when this ordinance came to be presented to us, I shared with you and the staff that presented this, my concerns with the ordinance, but also trying to see how the administration is trying to be balanced with the pressures that we're under.

I do worry that this is too close to criminalizing homelessness. And it, but the alternative is what? It's really the question on the tape. The alternative is, no having the right tools to address the problem. So it ultimately goes back to, we as a municipality trying to solve a problem that is way above our league, way outside our resources, and being blamed for it at the same time.

So I don't, I struggle really with, you know, moving this post to, to really what I think it is going to happen, and I hope I'm wrong, but is more citations, more, more people getting into struggling with the system because of those citations. Maybe some of them even getting arrested and, and we know that that doesn't really solve the problem for everybody.

Maybe the argument is that some of them may actually get their life in order because, you know, they interacted with, with law. But this is a much bigger problem that we can address and I struggle with, with it. I do believe that the leadership of the police department is honest and sincere in how they want to approach this, this tools and not hammer down on the community.

I, I do believe that. I do believe the chief's heart and the leadership of the police department. I, what I worry it is, in practice, on the ground to the rank and file police officer, how can we make sure that everybody's on the same, then with, and applying these tools, the more balanced and, and correct way possible.

That is what I'm worried about. I want to know how can we ensure that the police department, every officer is going to try their best to balance this correctly. Yeah, so, we have several components to do that. One, I think the language in here would help clear up some of the confusion with conflicting ordinances, like the loitering on the sidewalk versus blocking or obstructing a sidewalk.

You know, the officers get conflicted in which one's appropriate to charge. But as far as just overall training, we, we have training programs that we do that are every trimester throughout the year that involve every member of the department. And it's very easy to get consistency through those trainings because it's a requirement that they attend.

We also have online training that is, for like example, like case laws or ordinance updates that goes out to everybody to get it out to the, the department faster. So we can incorporate that with a combination of online training within person training so that everybody is on the same understanding and has the same training and the same information to empower them to do their job, you know, with compassion and with the expectations set from the administration.

I think we expect from every member of the community to balance the obligations of citizens and then the, the compassion of the system. And I'm, I'm hoping that this doesn't go too far into a place that I personally don't think it should, should go, because we don't, it's very unfair to be on the other side, right, when there's not enough resources available.

So I would love to hammer down on that training and making sure that our officers and maybe even a timeline, because moving this ordinance forward right now or soon enough means an immediate, you know, car plank, an authorization for the officers to enforce. I want to make sure that there is clear expectations and boundaries of what the values of the city are and why do we see this issue as not a black and white issue.

So I personally would love to see that training or not personally, I don't want to see the training. I want to see that this happening and that before the ordinance is implemented, that there is a plan to make sure that every officer understands why this is a complex thing and not just a black and white issue. And personally, I wanted to try to narrow it down to, you know, make sure that there was more enforcement around neighborhoods, since neighborhoods are the ones that are experienced more of the challenges of, you know, our children neighbors too.

Unfortunately, we couldn't really find a way of doing it. I do wonder, and in the summary of the ordinance talks about providing a notice to an individual that they are in breach of this ordinance or, you know, the law really. And could the city with this providing of a notice include some resources, including information, the document that explains what resources are available and what numbers and what, you know, like more than just, I know that that's another piece of paper.

And maybe, you know, many of them may not read it, but I'm hoping that some of them may. So I will feel comfortable if as far as that notice of breach, that there are some physical resources provided to those individuals. I think Council Member, you hit a point that I think is being addressed in different avenues and different ways.

From the state legislative perspective, there was a bill that talked about first responders in the state needing a list of resources with them that they could use in interactions with the public. A lot of the intention of that was mental illness support or addiction support, but it could include everything you're talking about.

I think we when we talk about this ordinance, it's really our enforcement tool, right, our expectation of public boundaries for our city. But it doesn't address policy internal about how staff does it. That's what you're talking about about how does our police department have the resources and knowledge about what resources are available to them in those interactions with the training piece.

It's also about what else we're doing as a city outside of here. We're funding a deeply affordable housing. We need everyone to do the same as we're doing. Fund the housing, fund transitional housing. In our previous budgets, we funded outreach services. If we didn't fund that, we don't probably have an outreach team in this city that does the work we're asking them to do.

We funded a business liaison for homelessness, somebody who has experience in homeless outreach and businesses who can work with all of our businesses to interact with them and explain and talk through and build that understanding. Because homelessness is not necessarily something that we solve and we're done with. It doesn't go away.

We try and get to a place of basically base zero, where we're not increasing homelessness. Over time, we're decreasing it completely. We're still going to have interactions. And we need people who can help the public understand those interactions and the resources and how to deal with it instead of just frustrating and maybe lash out.

Those are things that we control the city to fund. That's a budget thing. So as you look through the budget going forward this year, as you look for resources like that, I think it's important to remember that that's as important, if not more important, than our actual ordinances, we need both those working together to be effective.

So I'm looking forward to maybe specifically to see some delivery of something, I don't know if it's in some other different way, maybe in coordination with what the state is pushing to. I do also struggle that like we discussed here earlier today, this is to solve the problem. And what it basically does, it pushes it away.

And I don't know if that's the argument to the state that we wanted it to make. We want the state to realize that there is a problem. And by hiding it in some ways, I'm not sure that this gets solved. I don't know if that encourages those decision makers that have the funding really to make a difference in homelessness, to actually make a difference.

But I also understand all my neighbors. Many times I'm reaching out on behalf of a neighbor that is seeing something that is very concerning and trying to balance that out. And I just, this policy and this shift in interaction is a struggle for me. But I'm not blaming anybody here. We're all the same boat and we're all trying to figure out how to make the best out of this crisis.

Any other comments, Council members? Okay. Thank you for your time. We might be sending some questions or thoughts your way. Happy to help. A little behind now. Probably my fault. Number three is an ordinance for master plan and so an amendment at approximately 346, 350, 354 and 370 south 800 east and 775 east 400 south.

We're going to welcome the table where it comes up on list, grant a man, principal planner. Great. Thank you. This is a proposal to amend both the zoning and the master plan for properties located in district four. They are near eight east, Linden and fourth south. So that's the general area. The second, not all of those properties need to be rezoned. Some of them are already zoned.

What they are proposed to become. The master plan amendment includes a request to change from medium density residential and medium density transit oriented development to high density transit oriented development. The applicant is requesting these amendments to allow construction of a mixed use building with 109 residential of a mixed scale of unit sizes and commercial ground floor space adjacent to 400 south.

In addition to these applications, there is a third application that the planning commission is also reviewing and that is a design review application. There are November meeting. The planning commission recommended approval of the zoning amendment, but they did not recommend approval of the general plan amendment. That was due to their opinion that evidence did not provide what they felt needed to be demonstrated from the proposals to comply with the consideration number three, the applicant's community benefit unit replacement and tenant displacement proposals.

Planning staff has recommended approval of the amendments of these items. Additionally, at the public hearing for the planning commission meeting, there were eight people that spoke and all of them were not in favor of this application due to concerns about solar blockage in the neighborhood and the city's

There's a couple of policy questions associated with this one including may want to discuss whether or not you feel density should be high or medium in this area and also whether or not you support amending the zoning map amendment and general plan. With that, I'll turn it over to planning staff. All right. Thank you so much, Kate. Good evening, council members. I'm Grant Aiman. I'm representing this request for the general plan and zoning map amendment for these properties. Next slide.

The subject property is located on the corner of 400 south and eight east. As you can see here, this image notes its significant placement along the tracks fixed rail red line close to the 900 east station. There are three properties subject to rezone and five properties in total that are impacted by this request. The general plan amendment and zoning map amendment will require approval by the city council. The intent of this rezone is a mixed use multifamily storefront building consisting of 109 residential units with storefront commercial along 400 south.

This project includes a design review, but the design review only requires approval by planning commission and is currently tabled at planning commission. Next slide. Here you can see the two requests there. The rezone request is outlined in black there on the right and then the general plan amendment is outlined in blue and you can see the overlap between those five properties. Next slide.

All right. The first request is that general plan amendment. The applicable general plan is the central community plan and it designates the properties currently as medium density residential and medium density transit oriented development. That's that light kind of olive green and then that mustard yellow color on the map to the right.

The proposal would change the future land use map for the properties to a designation of high density transit oriented development for all five of those properties. This request is consistent with city wide plans, which I will discuss shortly. The central actually next slide. The central community general plan states higher intensive uses may be located near light rail stations. These areas are in centers of high population where pedestrians are more concentrated.

And that is specifically for high density transit oriented development designation. Next slide. The second request is that zoning map amendment or rezone and it only impacts the first three properties. As you can see, the entire block is MU5. The request would just be to bring those three properties up in line with the rest of the block.

The existing zoning designation is residential multifamily 35. The proposed zoning district is MU5. The zone is different from the RMF 35 district because it allows mix of residential and commercial units. It allows a maximum height of 55 feet. It has more permissible setback and open space requirements, but it also includes a higher threshold of design standards than the RMF zone.

Since we started this, there's actually been some changes to the RMF zone. Previously, the RMF 35 zoning district did not have any design standards. And that is the approach that was taken with this project is there would not be design standards. The applicant has a submitted proposal that meets the design standards of the MU5 district. All right. Next slide, please. Next slide. Oh, sorry. All right. Thank you.

The total square footage of all three properties combined is roughly 14,500 square feet. Again, there was a change to the RMF 35 district just shortly. It used to say a bunch regarding how many units could be built, and it was variable depending on how much square footage was underneath it. It used to be that only five units would be able to be built. Now, currently, there are seven units that RMF 35 proposal that just went through increases that to 20 units. This proposal would roughly 40 units on that space where that RMF 35 is. Next slide.

In order to mitigate additional density, any R project includes a broad unit type mix, including two unit or two bedroom units, three bedroom units, and a four bedroom unit as well along with community serving commercial space, including a publicly accessible space geared towards a local gym as a perspective tenant. The proposal advances the general plans goals for growth, housing variety, and multi-modal transportation. Details for the community benefit are finalized by City Council and secured through a development agreement. Next slide.

Next, the requirement for unit replacement and tenant displacement. The zoning ordinance does address the concern of demolished units, and the applicant has outlined a required plan, which is included in the staff report that indicates full compliance with the requirements of demolish units and displace tenants. All seven units will be replaced bedroom for bedroom. The applicant has chosen to contribute to the city's housing fund, which satisfies the code requirement for unit replacement. The applicant has agreed to all the requirements of 21A.50.050 for the four units that are currently occupied as stipulated in a development agreement. Staff has found that the applicant's plan satisfies the requirements of the ordinance to replace existing units and provide full

relocation assistance for all occupied units, including moving costs, fees, deposits, and rental assistance. The final details may be confirmed by Council and secured through a development agreement. Next slide. As mentioned earlier, the proposal does meet the goals outlined in the applicable planning documents, which are Plan Salt Lake, the Central Community Plan, the 400 South Transit Oriented Development Plan, and Housing SLC.

These plans indicate a strong desire for density and mixed use along transit corridors, including 400 South. They also mention as a desire for family-sized or multi-bedroom units. Notably, the project is also within a quarter mile of two fixed rail transit stops, and although there is no bus that runs along 800 East, the 209 bus goes along 900 East and offers UTA's fastest headway.

I wanted to read this quote as well, which is specific for the transit-oriented development of the Central Community Plan. It says, encourage the development of mixed use projects near light rail stations to create a livable walkable urban environment. Next slide. I should also mention this project requires design review because it would exceed the maximum facade length in the proposed MU5, which is 200 feet.

Again, that's tabled with planning commission. And finally, planning commission forwarded a negative recommendation of the general plan amendment and a positive recommendation of the zoning map amendment to city council with details stipulated in a development agreement. Discussion as to why the general plan amendment was not recommended for approval was centered around the necessity of the request.

With that, thank you. This concludes my presentation, and I'm happy to take questions at this time. The applicant is also here as well. Consume, roll over. Thank you. The applicant wants to go first. That's fine. Let me organize the meeting. Do you have a question for staff? I was just going to mention some comments about the rezone.

If you want to ask the applicant, we can have them at the end. We can have them to present. And you can ask them directly questions. If you have questions for staff, you don't have any questions. Okay. Let's welcome the applicant. The applicant will have five minutes to present. You guys came through the whole meeting. So you've seen it all today.

You've seen it all today. Okay. You have five minutes. Is your time now? Absolutely. No, I appreciate Council's time and the opportunity to be here. I am Hire Madsen, Vice President of Construction at Heart of Hospitality, Owner's Rep. I think Grant did a great job presenting our project. We've been working on this for quite a long time. So happy to build any questions you have now. I don't have any more to add at this point.

Okay. Consume, remember to have us. You have some questions for you. Thank you. And I appreciate the time that you've spent with the community on this. Can you walk me through again with the commercial space? That was some of the last comments that we had on our call. What the total amount of square footages? And then we had talked about price points.

What is that square footage average? Especially as we talk about who will eventually be that tenant in this neighborhood? Yeah, absolutely. So it's 2,650 square feet of available retail space. It is carved up into two sections. We do have a drive entrance for the subterranean parking garage that splits that up. And the way it's designed is that larger space that's 2,200 square feet could be parced up into smaller tenants if needed.

The marketing plan is to see what possible retail tenants want to take the space. Local businesses, whether it's a convenience store, a coffee shop, a gym, lifestyle, health fitness, that's kind of what we're hoping to add to the neighborhood as we think it's a need. And obviously with the walkability and the whole point of the 4th South Corridor for that live environment and transit and walking around, we think that a gym would be a very attractive tenant in that space. So that's who we would target local tenants, local gyms to see who would be interested in it.

But we would also go after the national big brands and stuff like that. The price point right now would just be following market. So it varies a little bit because you have anywhere from 18 bucks a square footage. I mean, it looks a square foot triple net to I've seen up to 27. So I think it's going to be in that range. I wish I could give you a real dialed in number, but it's kind of a moving target right now.

So I appreciate you considering again, we talked about this is the biggest public benefit that the neighborhood, you know, in the first proposal, we had some preservation or adaptive reuse. In this new proposal, the commercial space is really where the impetus has lied for this neighborhood. And I just wanted to make sure and, you know, really put it on the record that I think when because we're not able to preserve housing units that have been affordable, obviously you purchased them, but they really did serve a purpose to this neighborhood.

And because we are increasing in this transit node, specifically on a East, we're going to see a lot more agris points of vehicular transportation that that was my only concern. Still, that was an outlier was this commercial space. I'd love to see if there's an opportunity. I'm going to be supporting this because I think you and Grant has done a fabulous job really interpreting density, making sure that we meet those community needs.

But I just want to articulate again that this commercial space has the opportunity to be broken up if you can't meet those demands. This is still according to our census tract data, a very low income neighborhood. It's one that receives a lot of different support. And so I just want you to consider that because we're seeing a lot of development that's trying to place commercial spaces and more luxury retail experiences.

And that doesn't seem to match the consumer's price point. And so as we consider that really taking that opportunity to look at how can you bring that cost point down because that, you know, in a triple net lease that's still significant amount for a new business owner, for example. Yeah, I think one of the things that we want to make sure we're doing is something that's sustainable.

And we've talked with you before about, I mean, something as exotic as a dog wash, self-serve dog wash, even like secure bike storage for people using the tracks. So we just want to make sure that we're not creating something that is an empty storefront going forward and really has some vitality to it. Yeah, and with that, I'll just send the comment saying, you know, again, 400 cell, that's the biggest thing is that it's not that we don't want the development.

It's that 400 cell in the commercial spaces there have difficulty with retail. When you say Jim, my ears perk up because we have so many of those gyms and it's created a lot of, you know, again, it's stagnation and we want to activate 400 cells. Especially knowing it's a TOD. Thank you. Thank you. It seems like we don't have any more questions. So thank you for the presentation.

Oh, because my MacDugan, sorry. I'm just kind of, my question is more to, customer Lopez Chavez is, is this, are you looking for a development agreement for this portion? Because this is just a rezone of the area. And do we need to put this in a development agreement? And that's, and do we have those terms of that, of your points for development agreement?

So there will be a development agreement that is approved at the same time as the ordinance. If that is the direction that you want to go. Okay. And does that development agreement capture what comes from a business office once? Yes, it should. Okay. Okay. All right. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you for the presentation. Thank you.

We're moving on right now on the agenda. I'm going to make some executive decisions here since, you know, you guys gave me the microphones, your fault. So I'm going to move to item number five, which is an informational item. Welcome in the Salt Lake County Council for a presentation. We're going to welcome at the table, Council Member Amy Windern-Newton, the Salt Lake County Council chair for district, and she presents this to three, three, the council.

And Susan Harrison, Salt Lake County Council Member, a large welcome. And Council Member Rose Romero. For some reason I struggle with saying your name. Rose Romero also welcome, welcome on the table. Thank you so much. We really appreciate you being willing to let us come today. And we also have Council Member Johnson, who represents Salt Lake City who's sad that he couldn't be here tonight.

So we wanted to give you a brief update just on some things related to Salt Lake County. We're trying to do a better job of educating people in our county about our budget, about what Salt Lake County does. And so we've been talking to several city councils just to run through some things. Now you're going to already know a lot of this.

And so we'll go pretty quick through this and then be happy to answer any questions. What's my best way to move forward? So Scott, on our staff is running the slides. So just say next slide whenever you're ready. Okay. All right. So we'll go ahead. So we are almost wall to wall cities now as a county and this will be completed in 2027.

Here's kind of an idea of when the different corporations happen and I know you all have a copy of this. So if I go too quickly, you can go back and look at it. You're leisure. Go ahead. Some have asked, well, if we're wall to wall cities, do we still need the county? You guys are pretty well aware of what we do as a county.

A lot of our facilities are in your city. In fact, I have a list here of all of our county facilities that are in your city and we work closely with you on criminal justice. And so anyway, I'll go ahead and move forward. So these are some of the examples of services that we provide. Obviously, the big one is criminal justice and public safety.

We have the jail. We do prosecution. Behavioral health is something that we do. Elections. You're all familiar with that. You have health department, aging and adult services, behavioral health, the culture and arts. And again, you have a lot of our facilities in your city. Conventions and tourism. You're well aware of it.

You're also knee deep in this and it's a great boon for our economy. And then regional parks and recreation, library services, which doesn't apply to your city because you have your own. And then property tax administration. Go ahead.

Obviously, not every city wants to have their own jail or their own, you know, elections or whatever. And so that's why the county has an important role, especially when it comes to regional services. Go ahead. I think you know a lot of our council members. We have our mayor, Jenny Wilson, and then nine council members, three, which are out large and six districted.

And that ensures that everybody in the county has four people that they get to help elect. Go ahead. We also have our independent elected officials that do different things related to property or prosecution or, um, treasuring. Treasuring, is that a thing? Money? Yeah. Go ahead. So one of the things that we are trying to do about our job educating on is our budget.

We have a two billion dollar budget technically, but a lot of that is passed through. You can move forward. We have about a half a half a billion dollars. It's just passed through dollars that go to our cities or UTA or others. And we still have to count on our roles. So we really have about a five hundred million dollar general fund.

Go ahead. And that general fund is the one fund that the council can control. And 74% of that is public safety related. We have things like enterprise funds that our golf courses are self-sustaining and whatnot. You can go ahead. And so just wanted to help you see how much of our general fund was public safety related.

About half of that general fund is our property tax. And so that's something that when we look at how to better utilize property tax funds, it gets tricky because there is so much needed for public safety.

You can move past this one. You guys already know how property taxes work and how truth and taxation work. So you can go past this one too. And then this is the portion of property taxes that goes to the county. You can move forward. Move forward. One of the things that we try to do as a county, we appreciate our AAA bond rating, but we also try to be fiscally responsible and do stress testing and other things.

We had our budget session this last December and we had to make some hard decisions because public safety costs are going up. One of the things that we decided to do is to recognize that we weren't best suited to do daycares. We had a fraud audit that didn't look good. We had some other reports and information that made us realize the best option for us is to bring in other people who are really good at doing daycare and let them use our facilities.

And we focus on criminal justice reform and the things that we're really good at as a county tourism and things of that nature. And so that's what we decided to do. We are talking to different people who may be able to utilize those rec center spaces for childcare. We actually have been in conversations with Salt Lake City, youth city, about the northwest daycare, looking at that facility as maybe a potential option, but nothing's been officially announced.

Also, we are going to be starting an after school or a summer program this summer for the kids who need somewhere to go during the summertime. And this is something Councilman Harrison and Councilman Johnson brought forward. And so look forward to that to get some more information as we move forward. I just want to end by talking a little bit more about the public safety piece because it is such a big connector that we have with you as a city.

We are going, we made the decision that we're going to do a lease revenue bond to add on to the jail. And while we recognize that we do need more jail space, we are also making a significant investment in doing criminal justice differently, where we are wanting to give help to people who need mental health or substance abuse help and ensure that we can decrease the number of people who are in and out of the jail.

And so through the life model that we are working on right now, that is something that we are moving towards and we've made significant investments in that. And so we are going to be adding on to the jail, but it won't be on the ballot. It's going to be something that the Council is just going to do as a lease revenue bond to move forward.

This is just some more information about our public safety needs. As you know, we have the Metro jail and we have Oxbow. We'll be closing Oxbow. It's an old jail. It has a lot of maintenance that's needed on it and it's not cost effective to keep that open. And so this will be add on to the Metro jail. You can move forward.

And I think that is our last slide. So are there any questions or anything that you want us to know that you're working on? Council members, we have questions for the other entity on the table. Council member Lava Chavez. Thank you. And thank you for the presentation. Thank you for coming to visit City Hall. And I really appreciate the work you do.

As you know, I got to participate in your county budget process. So district four residents and specifically the essential seniors of our city would love to know and hear what should we expect on the future funding for the operating cost of the 10th e-senior center. Oh, I'm so glad you asked that. So as you know, during our budget deliberations, that was we were looking at do we keep putting money into this or, you know, when we have other senior centers close by or not.

Well, we did decide to continue to do the upgrades on the building. And the ongoing costs, we found a new market tax credit that we can use towards it. And so we are moving forward as planned. Yeah. Thanks for participating in our budget process. It's great to see you as well. And I really appreciate that answer. Thank you.

Yeah. Council member Wharton next and then customer Peter after. Yeah, my first question was similar on not just the 10th e-senior center, but what there were some other senior centers as well. What's the long term plan about those? Are you being more of a similar path like the daycare of having a private operator or.

No, I'm with senior centers. It's an interesting question because we do have some cities who build the building and then we just come and operate the services. And so, you know, we may look at that in the future for future centers as far as in your city, the commitment, I believe. And I guess I shouldn't speak for the whole council because we haven't actually taken a vote on this, but at some point, northwest or river bend.

That that's an older building and we will look at rebuilding that. So that it has plenty of space. So as far as any other decisions, there hasn't been any specific decisions on that. I don't know if my colleagues here want to chime in on that. If I may, Mr. Chair, just add. So I just I think it's a really important discussion.

Every budget session can be difficult. I think this last budget session was the most difficult I've experienced on the council and, you know, many of you are aware of some of those challenges that we have during the budget session. But I think what's important is what we're doing now and how we're moving forward. I'm very, very grateful that we have this commitment to expand summer programming, summer, summer camps for kids.

And that's in a more widely distributed area throughout the county. I'll tell you my commitment that I will continue to fight for is supporting families, supporting how we help make things more affordable for working families in the community, supporting our most vulnerable and our seniors. So that's my commitment. And there will always be, you know, budget challenges as we face each year, but that is my commitment to you.

Yeah. I'll just say that I don't think, I mean, we have items that come through our city budget every year that people write in on that are kind of the big thing for that year. And last year, I had way more comments about the county budget than about the city budget and they were all about daycare and senior centers. And then, and then before that, the year before that, even though this wasn't part of budget necessarily, I got so many emails about a Robin L Hall.

But I think I've told some of your colleagues on the council this that the thing that I hear the most consistently from residents about the county and the budget and like complaints that they're making. And I don't want this to be like accusatory. I don't mean it that way, but is about the facilities just that the county facilities feel like.

That the maintenance has been deferred as long as it can go or way too long. And now we're in trying so hard to be, I think, physically conservative. We're undoing that because now they're too far in deferred maintenance in some respects. I mean, I say that as an outsider, I'm sure you could come in and criticize all you want about the city budget and you're welcome to do that.

But I just wanted to bring that up because I appreciate the feedback that sometimes I get when people confuse which elected official they're talking about. And so I hope that I feel like you're doing that in some of the decisions that you're making or trying to kind of turn the ship a little bit. So if there's something that we need to help with that, I mean, we want to be good partners too.

And we know about the challenges of deferred maintenance as well. So it's not an easy decision. Well, I appreciate that remark because you're right. I mean, we're concerned about deferred maintenance too. One of the things that you could help us with is as people talk about the county, we want them to better understand what is property tax funded and what's funded with everything else.

So public safety is mostly property tax, right? But when we talk about like rec centers and other facilities, those are funded with like our track funds, the TRCC funds. And so the tourism taxes as we like to say. And so it's just about balancing that, right? And so we're not trying to cut, but we need to have a more robust plan on deferred maintenance and we're working on that.

So thank you. Thanks. I'm happy to spread that information. I'll be right. Share that information. If I could just also say, I think the feedback is very helpful. One of the reasons why we're doing this is because we're not collaborating enough sometimes with our cities. We actually started this outreach effort with the state legislature members because sometimes they were working in opposition to the county's interest in some ways.

So building these relationships, having these conversations, getting feedback is very important. And there is a bit of confusion in this community. I was hearing about the hotel at Sugar House Park recently. So it's, I won't tell you where the views were, but I think you guys got it. Thank you. Thanks for coming. I appreciate this.

I feel like we should do this more often. I don't want to be sure. Good therapy sessions. Okay. Thank you for being here. You listed out the services that the county provides. Are all of those derived from statute according to the, so how do you decide what things you provide and what things you don't? That's a great question.

So we obviously, we look at statute first of what statutorily do we have to provide. And then we look at what does the community expect that we're going to provide. And a lot of those quality of life things that you see on there, you know, the rec centers, the parks, that type of thing. Because the funding sources that we have like through track and ZAP and all of those, that is the public saying we are interested in this.

And so that's where we have done that. Things that we also have to look at how do we have fair tax policy where everybody can benefit. That was one of the issues with the childcare is you only have some people who could take advantage of that right. And so anyway, so we look at how can we be fair to everyone and try to provide service for all.

But yeah, it is a lot driven by what we hear from the public and some of it we've just been doing for a long time too. So I'm going to need you to hear what I say, even if what I say doesn't come up the way it should. Because I think your metric of fairness is disproportionately burdensome to my neighborhood. I represent Rose Park and I know you care about this.

I'm preaching to you have been you helped us open the Huntsman mental health center early. I am not this is not an individual indictment. As a matter of fact, I would consider seven out of the nine council people, people that I trust and can work with on anything. However, I'm not just representing that area. I'm a mom who went all three of her kids through your county childcare who was only able to return economically to the workforce because of what was provided there.

And not only were my children well taken care of in a place that allowed me to become a member of the workforce who could focus knowing her kids were cared for. But my children to this day, my first born turned 15 yesterday has a more secure experience in his community because the seniors from River Bend used to come over and help feed him.

And they still see him in Smith's because the women who took care of him are still checking him in and out when he goes to that rec center. And when he acts a fool, there are people who have known him since he was two years old who helped potty train him who are telling him, you know better than that. Don't let me find you over in that space.

So what you built through those childcare centers may not physically show up in every community the same way, but your ROI on what you did in ensuring that people like me who are as hard working as possible got care for their children to get those young people to adulthood safely. And I do have to say it was beyond infuriating to hear it call the subsidy.

It's an investment in a utility. I am concerned about getting east side young people in Draper to adulthood without trauma safely and they should be concerned about getting my neighbors as well. And guess what? Democracy sucks because sometimes you do the heavy lifting and sometimes you do the receiving. And I don't, I can't live in a world where those things come down to just dollars and cents.

We're on the precipice of facing our own. We, we too have an expansive and there's some programs that we have created dependence on. And at this moment, GDP is not going to show it because defense spending will cover. The lived experience is recessionary. Our neighbors aren't living in an active recession even when macro economics will not demonstrate it.

And so what's happening is we've created dependencies and to pull them back at the point where people need them the most without actual things that are going to take their place is legislative malpractice. I will be guilty of it. So three fingers pointing back at me because we have a really rough, but this, this is not the way we govern.

And so I need to put that on the public record because it is the real experience of my neighbors. I know three families who are currently panicking and their children combined five children will either be under supervised or unsupervised. And when that kid chokes on the grape because a 16 year old decided to stay home from school to watch them instead of the people who we have at the county, it's going to be a devastating moment for all of us.

Thank you for sharing that council member. I especially love the story about your son and that's amazing. One of the things that we are looking forward to with the changes that we've made is now we have childcare providers in those same facilities, or we will be. But it's going to focus on low income families. Before our childcare program had no income qualifications.

So you had middle and high income families who were being subsidized by taxpayers who were struggling to make ends meet or were on fixed incomes. And we're trying to shift that so we can still keep childcare seats open but have it focused on low income families. And so anyway, you're absolutely right. It's so important to have that community around our kids.

So thank you for sharing. Council Member Dugan. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thanks for coming to the big city. My question is, it is involved about the mental health side of the house. Earlier today, you might have been here when we were still talking about our homeless campaign ordinance. And we had a long conversation about that and we struggled with that because you know you have a campaign ordinance.

But then you're also struggling on where those people go and where do they house. And we have a micro shelter here. We have a number of shelter beds as you are aware. But we're always struggling with them on the mental health side of the house. And that's not, that's on the county statute of taking care of. And how do you budget for that and how do you balance your budget for that with the needs, with the state and the feds and the funding side of the house.

Because just like everything else, there's more need than dollars. And you have 74% of your public tax goes to public safety. And this is just as big as public safety. I think it's probably part of public safety in a lot of respects. And how do you balance that and how do we help you balance that and get more money from the states or the feds.

Yeah, go for it. So, I agree. This is one of our top priorities. And as Councilwoman Winder Newton mentioned, in addition to our work to expand the jail, which we've known we've needed for years and years to expand the mental health beds in the jail, we are actively working to improve access to those services just this year.

We are opening over three group homes, which will open up over 100 additional beds for those with severe mental illness with wraparound services. That's just one example of what we're doing. We're very grateful to representative Dungan for helping get past a Medicaid waiver that will allow us to bill Medicaid while folks are in our jail.

We're getting that rolled out now. We're also expanding our treatment for substance use disorder within the jail. Currently, we can just continue that treatment if someone has already been on it. This change will allow us to start someone in that treatment. And that along with the work that we're doing to expand that warm handoff to the community from our incarcerated setting.

The goal is to get people to the treatment that they need, whether it's substance use, severe mental illness and housing. And I know you guys have been, I'm preaching to the choir here, we are partners on this and the state is also part of the stakeholders here in working on this. But we are very committed to reducing barriers that we have control over to get folks housed, get them treatment for severe mental illness, get those substance use disorder treatments more accessible.

And then so we stop the cycle, they actually remain in supportive housing after that. Can I just add one, oh sorry. I was just going to say I was talking to the folks from Intermountain Health Care today as they came in with a charitable care conversation. And one of the things I brought up to them is how much youth in our community are beginning to suffer stresses because of the immigration status in their home and their fear of detention and their parents' detention.

So there's a whole other component that we're not quite having the conversation with. I wanted to put it on the radar because in other states they're experiencing that trauma in a very meaningful way. And you know with what we've seen in the press, we're under the spotlight too. So it is something we're working on and trying to make sure our private sector partners are also recognizing what may be coming and thinking about how they're providing charitable care.

And just to add to that I think part of what Council Member Romero is saying, and I fully agree with, I'm preaching to the choir here is moving upstream so that we're reducing some of those traumas that our families are experiencing throughout the county with access to affordable childcare, access to like a livable wage, a good paying job, great education so that we have fewer folks that end up interfacing with our criminal justice system because it's never been designed as the way to get people on a path to success and mental health treatment, substance use treatment, housing and supportive housing for folks that need that help is something we are very passionate about.

Mayor Jenny Wilson has been really leading out on this and I appreciate the Council's work in a bipartisan manner to get these things going and improve and work with cities like you in the state to make an improvement in the community for our residents. Council Member, I'll just add too, when you talk about state and federal and how we do that to help with the mental health, actually Representative Clancy ran some legislation that provides a million dollars if we would match to expand the mental health group homes, the ACT teams and all of that and so we are going to making that additional investment to draw down those Medicaid dollars and utilize that and it's I think a great partnership to show between the county, the state and the feds.

Thank you everyone for, oh, a council member Young, so sorry. All right, you said something that just pulls at my heart, so I just wanted to say thank you. I really do appreciate the expansion of the past access for our kiddos to be able to enjoy the facilities that are available. I know personally that when you're down to limited funds in the summer because you've been feeding your kids who normally can get food at school and other places that it can be hard to find opportunities for engagement and I think that the county leading out on that is incredible and I just wanted to express appreciation for that in a hard budget year.

You guys are looking at every last dollar, but I think maintaining that makes a big difference for our families in terms of that engagement and also say I have a family member who's an employee and it's a great place for a first job for kids and they've really enjoyed working and kind of learning about being an employee with the county and it's an experience that will carry him through life.

So thank you for those things. Thank you for sharing that. We really appreciate it. And it's part of the work to help our families be healthy, help with cost of living stress and hopefully get those kids off of those funds more often. Thank you. Thank you for the presentation. Thank you for putting yourself here and I'm sending finding the time to do this.

I can remember when you were the only one that is left from the times when I worked for the council. Oh, that's crazy. And you're the senior member I guess. For a few more months. For a few months. But I not only learned a lot about policy and politics really, the county council back in the day and behind you, another of my former bosses.

I think I had everybody as a boss at someplace. No one knew what they wanted me or at some point they didn't want me anymore. But one of the things that I learned from you and from this council is generally willingness to work together. Absolutely. Right now we have a few big projects. Certainly we have many that were partners, community centers, senior centers, and you know, theaters and where we are really partners, investors in it together.

But I, you know, the Sao Paulo's and the district, you know, we are partners in the success of it. I struggle sometimes with understanding why, why select city is only sometimes partner on those with you. But there's, you know, the state sort of seems to be pushing their responsibility and their benefit. Because they also benefit from the success of these facilities that bring and attract money to the state.

So how can we sometimes, how could we be part of sharing this story into trying to convince those, those that I may have those resources to really invest on something that is not a benefit to select city only, as a benefit to the whole state. And that's what I worry sometimes that many think that benefiting select city is a problem and this is bigger than that.

Well, I'll just say I think our state leadership, like our governor and the Senate president and speaker, they understand the tourism piece and what you guys help provide with having a nice place for tourists to come and, you know, participate in the arts and culture and whatnot. I think we saw that when the discussion was had on the downtown revitalization.

So I think that's a positive step in the right direction is that people understand better what, what you guys are doing for the whole state and what you're generating for everyone in tax revenue. So thank you for that. If I could also just respond, you know, we also promote the Southtown Convention Center, right? And so that brings in a different group of allies and supporters and the economic engine there.

So your point's well taken. We should be recognizing this as tourism industries and bringing those voices to bear. And select city is investing dollars into this, to the actual South Palace and potentially, you know, costs. We are subsidizing some of these costs to make sure that is a success because we wanted to be a success.

But that is a little bit of generally one could say a little beyond what we're supposed to do. We're still invested in it in the success of it. But I, while we are trying to solve so many problems at the same time, really to homelessness and it doesn't seem to be enough. And I just, if there is anything that we can do to help, you know, share our impact on what we're bringing to the table, we'll love to be part of that.

So thank you for your time. Thank you for the work that you guys do and the public service that you provide to our counties. Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate you all. Thank you for your service. I really appreciate the many ways that we interact and partner together. And please reach out to us if there's things we can do to strengthen that. Thank you.

Thank you, everyone. We're going to take a brief break right now. I don't know how long we should do the library and then break. Okay, let's do the library. I felt bad for, they're not, they're busy right now, but we are going to bring the library people to the table library, select city library. We are moving back to the item.

I'm sorry for the shift. We appreciate you for waiting. This is item number four, fiscal year 2026, 2027 proposed budget for the Salt Lake City Poory Library System. Austin Kimo just joined us at the table, our Council Policy Analyst to give us a brief introduction. No, I'll ask it. The Chief Executive Officer of the Library and the Library Director and Taylor Van Chief Financial Office for the Library.

Austin, it's your time. Great. Thanks Council members. And this, I think officially kicks off budget season. So, I just want to give a brief introduction before turning it over to Noah and Tyler. As you mentioned, the Salt Lake City Public Library is here to present its FY 27 annual budget. The total proposed budget for this fiscal year is 53,193,189 dollars.

This is an increase of about $10 million or 23% from FY26. The increase is driven by a higher amount anticipated for the required pass-through of property taxes to other entities. An increase in capital projects, a cost of living increase following the approval of the collective bargaining agreement for library employees, which was approved earlier this year.

And a few other key points I'll make is that the library does not propose a property tax increase as part of its annual budget. The library is developing a proposal to fund branch improvements and potentially a new branch location, which it intends to discuss today and discuss further at a future meeting. And that proposal may result in a tax increase at a future point.

Last, the library is not proposing any additional FTEs. And as a reminder, the Salt Lake City Library is considered a separate legal entity from Salt Lake City. The Council's role in the library budget is a little unique to city departments. The library board sets policy for library operations, and the Council is tasked with reviewing and improving the overall budget and setting the library's tax rate.

Policy questions can be found on page two of the staff report, and with that I will turn it over to Noah and Tyler. Thanks. Thank you, Austin. Great to be with you, City Council, and good evening. On behalf of the Salt Lake City Public Library, I am pleased to present you all the library's proposed budget for fiscal year 2627.

Tyler handed out our budget book, which has been presented to the library's board of directors approved by that body in its March board meeting. We have a great deal that we're really excited to share with you all as part of this year's proposed budget, particularly as we look forward to the next chapter of the library and service to building a stronger Salt Lake City.

We're really excited in particular as we wrap up our strategic planning later this spring, and this budget speaks to that future. And also as a part of the next chapter, we're excited to share with you the connection between this next year's proposed budget, as well as the opportunity to bond for some of the critical needs of the library as well.

So we were going to start out our presentation with just a few library trivia questions, but in light of time, I think we may postpone those. And if we have any time at the end, we can circle back. I can't know. This is a test. I don't have a question. Well, yeah, if we have time, we'll circle back. How's that sound? So with that, could we skip actually to slide nine?

Okay. So we began this tradition last year with you all in light of the fiscal 2025 year request for an increased tax for the library. We really did feel like it was incumbent upon us as a library to report to you all as the City Council and the public at large on what the actual return on investment, both in terms of that financial investment.

What's been the return to Salt Lakers? And so this slide shows just some real actual returns in terms of what we've been able to do with that additional funding over this last year. We have been able to provide competitive staff compensation. We were able to this past year have an increase, wage increase that was particularly focused on our entry level staff.

And as Austin mentioned, we were also able to reach a labor union agreement earlier this year, ensuring that we're supporting our staff well in terms of compensation. We've also been able to really focus on some prioritized capital projects. As you know, we were able to reopen our rooftop plaza at the main library across the street.

And I am happy to report that we are ahead of schedule under budget on the Crescent Wall renovation happening at the main library as well. So even though it says on the slide, it's scheduled to wrap up by June, we're actually hoping we're going to be able to open it up to the public next month of April. I'm really excited about that.

As it relates to really thinking about ongoing stewardship and sustainability of the library, we've really been able to strengthen our philanthropic strategy at the library. This past year, we launched the Salt Lake City Library Foundation. And we also launched our next chapter capital campaign really working to leverage local philanthropy as we think about some of these significant capital projects in the library's future.

We were also able to increase private annual giving to the library by nearly 300% over this last year. So the early fruits of our library foundation effort, we're seeing early fruit really in an exciting way. We also were able to secure eight new grants from local foundations as part of that effort. And this past year, an important part of this past year's budget has been strategic planning consultation that's been ongoing and has really been deeply informed by some really intentional and intensive community engagement work.

And we're excited to be able to present our final strategic plan after it's approved by our library board in June. Next slide, please. I will point to the right side of this slide first in terms of some really encouraging statistics. This last year, we saw foot traffic across the library system increase by 20%. About 1.3 million visits to libraries across the city.

That's a pretty significant year-over-year increase. We're also seeing circulation counts go up so people continue to check out and leverage all of the services that the library provides. The circulation was up by about 8%. Our unique patron count was up by about 9%. And new sign-ups for library cards was up by nearly 12%.

Now, on the left side of the slide, this was actually a question that we did as part of some public polling back in 2023. Amongst a number of other questions we asked the public, would you support or oppose additional funding for the Salt Lake City Public Library, even if it resulted in a property tax increase for residents?

Back in 2023, 73% of Salt Lake City residents that responded with this poll said yes, they would. Either definitely or probably. We were interested in getting a read on how that public sentiment may have changed. And so we asked this question again earlier this fall as part of polling serving that we did with our strategic planning community engagement.

As you all know, Salt Lakers are feeling the increased cost of living in a number of different ways. We were very, very prepared for that number to not be what it was back in 2023. Next slide, please. That's not what happened. We were surprised to see that that number actually went up by 15% where 87% of Salt Lake residents polled this past fall said that they would definitely or probably support increased library funding, even if it meant an increased property tax for residents.

Okay, I'm going to turn it over to Tyler Barr, our CFO, to talk a little bit about the long term financial strategy that undergirds this forthcoming budget as well. Thanks so much, Noah. Next slide, please. This is information that we've made an effort to share with the council each year as we've presented our budget.

Slightly different format to be more visual. This slide represents the beginning fund balance at each of these fiscal years that we see forecasted. The red line on this slide represents the floor below which we do not want to fall. That's about two months of operating revenues or 16%. Next slide, please. If we go back last year, this black line represents our projection and we were anticipating hitting or falling below that line, that red line in fiscal year 28.

Next slide, please. Thanks to some unplanned revenue and some one time savings. We're 25. You can see that our fund balance is a little stronger. And we're thrilled about that. We have stayed the course. We've worked the plan that the library has instituted a few years ago, a couple years ago when Noah and I came on board, and it's exciting to see the opportunities there.

Next slide, please. I want you to pin this slide in your memory for just a moment. We'll come back to that, but it presents some great opportunities for us coming up here in fiscal year 28. Back to Noah and we'll talk about, excuse me, no, we'll have some specifics on the budget. Next slide, please. So high level, this information is in the budget book that we handed out and it was in your packet.

As far as revenue goes, we're projecting a 2% increase relative to new growth, including the expiration of the grain redistrict increment. It is awesome mentioned, no property tax increases proposed. And our budget has included these pass throughs previously and Mary Beth and I were just talking and I think a lot of that will fall to the city specifically based on some changes in accounting.

The way that the county has been treating things, but that's an important element that has been significant in our budget in the past. Next slide, please. In terms of expenses, our staffing, the budget includes consistent with the union agreement, a 5.5% increase in wages. That includes a 3% cost of living adjustment and 2.5% for step union eligible employees.

The same 2.5% would be applied to non-union employees for longevity increase. No headcount increase, so any changes that are going to come as a result of the very exciting strategic plan around the corner. We will act within the existing complement and not increase our headcount. We've also decreased travel by 10%, which I'm pretty thrilled about.

In terms of our strategic plan, program magnetic enhancement is a significant piece. We are aligned with the mayor's priorities of child, youth and technology literacy, workforce development, civic engagement, and English learning. Our strategic plan will double down in these areas to make sure we're focusing on those in particular with communities that need a little extra help.

Next slide, please. In terms of capital, we've identified $1.9 million in improvements, replacement and enhancements to buildings that need them. Some furnishings, $400,000 in IT projects. And then we have also identified consistent with our practice the last two years, $3.3 million in reserve or contingency projects.

Those are items that are on our list of deferred maintenance, things that need to be addressed. But as we have seen in the last couple of years, unplanned revenue, that gives us an opportunity potentially to take advantage of current pricing instead of waiting a year to pay. A year or two for inflationary costs to overtake those.

So those projects will not proceed until we confirm a couple of different points in the year that that funding is available. Another important point on capital, it does include approximately $6 million for architectural design and construction documents for our day riverside. And Anderson-Hitt-Foothill branches. No one will talk about some of those in a little more detail, but that's an important component, a very significant component of the capital project budget this year.

And great. You have one more slide. Next slide, please. Thank you. So the slide that we pinned in your memory, as a result of the one-time savings and revenue creates some great opportunity to get a jump potentially on some of these capital projects. So with that, I'll turn it over to Noah. Alright. Next slide, please.

So this project plan might be familiar to many of you. This is something that we've shared with you over the past, well, more than two years, longer than Tyler and I have been here in talking about potential bonding scenarios to pay for the critical capital needs of the library. So you can see here, I know you can't see a lot of the details of this project plan, but it involves a number of steps related to community engagement that I know a number of you all have been actively involved in, really, to take that community engagement to work with our architectural consultant MSR to develop concepts that then really inform these future capital builds, specifically a rebuild of the Anderson-Foothill Library, recognizing that there's some really significant capital improvements that need to happen there in short order for it to continue to be usable by the community, a renovation expansion of the day Riverside Library,

and a new full service library in the ballpark neighborhood. And then you can see on the bottom half, as we talk about the funding strategy, we have launched our film, Thapak Strategy, our capital campaign, and our, and as you can see, we're kind of right here at a time, kind of a critical point in time in determining next steps related to potential bonding scenarios.

Next slide, please. And just as a bit of a recap of kind of where we are, you know, the Anderson-Foothill Library, our highest circulating, highest door account library across the city, there continues to be significant settling issues that are happening. In fact, we recently reviewed the structural report from our consultants from 2023, and they said, you know, within the next three years, you're going to have to do significant remediation work for that library to continue to be habitable, and here we are in 2026.

We have done a great deal of community engagement, as I've mentioned. We've spent about $400,000 in that design consultation thus far. We do have included, as Tyler has mentioned, in fiscal year 2027, $6 million in the proposed budget that would cover the cost of architectural designs and construction documents. We've launched our capital campaign.

We are deeply grateful for Councilmember Pietro's support of the community project funding submission to Representative Maloy in support of the day riverside expansion. And included in the handouts that Tyler passed with you all, the Government Financial Officers Association awarded the Salt Lake City Public Library. It's a award for excellence in government finance early this year.

And so, it relates to both some of the planning related to these capital projects and some of the long-term financial forecasting that Tyler's team has done. So really honored to be receiving that award. Next slide. So you can see there's, I'm going to talk through two kind of separate scenarios here to update you a little bit on some of the libraries team.

And some of the libraries thinking regarding some of the potential bonding opportunities in front of us. Next slide. So first, a possibility of a general obligations bond. So we have had several conversations with the U.C. Council over the last two years have been in coordination with the financial office, and finance department of the city as well as the mayor's office around this possibility of a geobahn for the library.

It's a large scope. It includes all three capital projects that we've discussed, including a full-size ballpark library. A geobahn does have a bit of a fixed timeline. The city, U.L. City Council would have to approve placement on ballot by August and residents would vote in November. And then the library would be, would be, again, really working towards that geobahn vote as we've been, as we earlier several years ago were directed by the mayor's office.

We've had many conversations with U.L. We've heard a lot of really good feedback from city council just around the timing and around the scope. And recognizing other costs associated with just the cost of living, the QL are hearing from residents, and have really appreciated that feedback and have taken it to heart, have listened deeply, and in light of that feedback are bringing forward to you all another route forward to try to address some of these critical capital needs through a local building authority bond.

Next slide. So just, in the next slide I'll go into some more detail around what we're proposing. But an LBA bond for the library would be smaller scope. It would include the rebuild of the day river side, or the rebuild of the Anderson Foote Hill Library and a renovation expansion of the day riverside library. It wouldn't cover the funding of the full-size ballpark library branch.

We would continue to be, we continue to be really excited and to be partners with the city and the CRA to help make that library happen. We will continue to fundraise for it, and in a few months time we'll have concept designs for that facility. But we would be looking a little bit further down the road as ballpark next continues to think about the phasing and the full funding structure of how that library gets built.

There's a bit more flexibility in timeline related to the LBA bond, and when you think about all the confusion around potential tax increases with the city's truth and taxation process, this gives us a little bit more flexibility in terms of when a bond would be approved by city council. And this would be something that would be smaller, and we've had really good conversations with Mary Beth and City Finance around the potential benefit of this route.

Next slide, please. So here's what we are asking city council to consider. That they would approve an LBA bond for the library in winter of fiscal year 2027. That's this coming winter. And as Tyler mentioned, in looking at the long term financial forecast, this would require an increased tax from the library for fiscal year 2028.

The library does have existing revenue in our fund balance to cover the first $3 million bond payment of what would be a $40 million bond. And we will be proposing a $6 million tax increase for that fiscal year 2028. Half of that to service that LBA bond for the next 20 years, and half of that to service increased library operation costs.

Our financial forecasting shows that with that increase in fiscal year 2028, and based on long term financial planning that we would not need to seek an additional tax increase as a library until fiscal year 2034. Next slide, please. And then I kind of shared some of these details already, but this would be a $40 million bond, which it would be sufficient, along with our capital campaign, to cover that rebuild of Anderson Foothill and a renovation expansion of the Day Riverside Library.

It would be a 20 year term. And again, we continue to be really excited about having a larger library replace our ballpark library lab, which we also really love, but we are really excited about the opportunity for a full size library and ballpark down the road. Next slide. So this, I think this is our last slide, and it outlines a bit of the library's budget process, which is a little bit longer.

It was back in March, in February, we presented our budget to the library board. They voted on that in March. This last several months, we've been engaging with U City Council and the mayor and other city partners around the library's budget, and then that will do staff presentations to share a little bit more about the budget.

And June, you all would vote on our proposed budget. And July and beyond is related to, we will have a strategic plan by then as of June of 2026. And our request would be that you all would, we would be able to come back together later this summer in July to be able to discuss more of the possibility of the LBA bond for the library for these critical capital projects as we've described.

And with that, next slide. We thank you all. I think the last thing is that we handed out t-shirts for you all. We probably didn't get the sizes right, sorry about that. But the library's tag line, we worked together to make lives better. Tyler and I are both sporting that this evening and we just want to extend the library love to you all.

So thank you all. Welcome any questions. It makes me very happy that you thought I was a small and crazy. That's a medium. But we have a plethora of extra smalls too. So that's the polite way. I see what you're doing there. No, council members, let me shy. Council member Pietro. Council member Pietro. And then Councilman Carlson.

I happen to have survey results directly from my constituents about the library. So when I speak, I can speak like with actual authority. I'm so excited about this. Okay, so you know that when you came to me, I was really skeptical about bonding for library where I've got a lot of neighbors who are worried about water in their houses.

But surprisingly, even though you are ranked lower in a priority list than I would have expected, you are ranked not in opposition by a majority of the people who respond to me for this bond. But the clear mandate that I have here is to mitigate, to do the least impact that the financial insecurity is high. And so while day riverside is something that people want to see investment in, and we have everything like they want you to invest in materials all the way through to the teen spaces, there's a lot of marmalade envy in these comments here.

Thanks district. You know, it really is wide ranging. There is, they're, they're employing you to not do anything that would stress out budgets. So I don't know if a larger geo bond at a lower interest rate is comparable to what an LBA bond would be if it carries a higher interest rate. But I don't know if we have other bonds falling off that make this neutral to their tax experience.

But as you're looking at this, if you can present that sort of information that will help me in deliberation or help me in informing and gathering, I don't know any of the answers this budget year because it's going to be hard, so I am going directly to constituents more than I do on other topics. So if you can provide that sort of information, if you can check, I know Mary Beth keeps a really great list of what is determining out on bonds, so where we have kind of some flexibility.

If you can present that information as we move forward, it'll just be really, really helpful to me as we move forward. Certainly Council Member, I should have also clarified too. I don't know if I did this. Our proposal is to go with the more scaled back bond. So it certainly is mindful of what you're hearing from your constituents around concerns around overall cost of living and really mitigating that cost.

And so that of those two pathways, we are proposing the less impactful path. And we have worked with the city around when different bonds fall off, and that's part of why they have directed us to think about this, just to make sure that the city preserves its flexibility and capacity to do other kinds of bonding in the future, which we really appreciate.

And your other question, we have done some preliminary developments. Development of statistics around what the impact would be with an additional tax increase that we're proposing for a typical household, and we're happy to provide more of that information. And really quickly on the interest rate question, an LBA bond is only very, very nominally more expensive than a GEO bond.

It's still a city bond, and so it's a city rated bond. The difference, I mean, I don't know the current terms, but like the last time we looked, we actually funded the Marmalade and Glendale branch libraries with an LBA bond. So when you guys convene as the LBA, that's what you're doing. It's the pass through to that.

It's like 0.25 percentage point. So it's really, I wouldn't say it's negligible, but especially with those amounts, but it's still considered a very cost effective financing mechanism. My question was similar to Council Member Petro's question about wanting to see the difference between the two, and also say I'm bummed to hear about the recommendation around ballpark, but also have similar pressures and have been hearing similar pressures regarding property tax increases with my residence and how spread in their feeling despite maybe loving a library, wanting a library, especially since our district is the only one that doesn't have a full service library.

So. We hardly agree, Council Member Colson. We're really, we're excited to continue to work with the city and the CRA to make that, to make that library building happen in other ways, and we'll have some really exciting concept drawings to be able to help bolster that effort and to help promote that. So, I think that the public has been really encouraging to do so far.

In addition to the facility needs, our forecasting includes here in a few years staffing for that new bridge. So we're looking forward to that and hopeful when the timing is right, we'll be ready to go. Any other thoughts, Council Members? Okay. Thank you for the presentation. Thank you all. Okay. Council Members, we, we, okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. We can ask about that after the fact, after the fact, we are going to take a little quick break right now.

It is food on the counter. And then we have one more item on the agenda. So let's go up some food, stretch our legs and so on. Thank you. I, on the agenda, item number six. This is for fiscal year to my interest. I knew one of those hammers. Where is the name? The thing? The gavel. Fiscal year 2026, 2027, funding allocations for federal housing and community development grant and city funding our future housing program follow up at the table.

Alison Roland, Council Policy Analyst, kind of available for question, a lot of Tyler D'Raffy, Dennis Rutledge, Chuck Martman. All of them work with community development policy and, you know, community development grants and providers and grant specialists. So thank you everyone for being here. Alison. Thank you, Mr. Chair. You may notice this is actually Heather Royale, not Dennis.

But Dennis is what was listed. He's not able to be here this afternoon. Let me follow my script or I'll go off on the tangent. This is the final opportunity schedule for you to review the funding recommendations of the CDC IP Board and discuss any potential changes. Responses to your most recent questions from the second briefing last week can be found in attachment C7 of the updated staff report.

Also, housing stability received the finalized federal funding amounts yesterday, which is earlier than usual. Overall, HUD will provide $41,000 more, approximately, than CAN had estimated, but the increases in reductions are unequally spread across the different categories. Home, HOPWA, CBBG, CDBG, and ESG. So this limits the fact that they are spread across the categories limits the kinds of changes that may be made to the proposed funding amounts for applicants.

And you should also note that the amount of funding or future funds has not changed since these were allocated by the Council as part of the FY26 budget. The housing stability division worked quickly yesterday and today with the new information from HUD to apply the contingencies that are proposed for FY27 to identify which organizations would be affected positively or negatively by the finalized funding from HUD.

And the changes in funding for housing division staff, as you may remember, the housing division takes a small percentage of each one of the categories to cover their own administrative costs. So the changes overall include that home funds were increased by almost $15,000, HOPWA increased by over $71,000, CDBG decreased by $36,000, well, almost $37,000, and ESG.

decreased by $7500. These are reflected in the updated funding log, which I attached to an email I sent to you a few hours ago. And they will be highlighted in pink on the simplified funding log tab that I'm going to put up on the screen as soon as I remember. The other things to keep in mind that I highlighted on at least the version I have up on the screen and in the one I sent to you, there's the highlighted items in Violet mark where the council seems to have agreed in the April 7th work session, and the ones highlighted in yellow are funding changes that were suggested by one of the council members or more of them, but not yet agreed to by the group.

So I will get my screen up as soon as I can, and Mr. Chair, as you would like to continue, I'm ready almost. I think that maybe that was the best way to go. There are definitely more items that are sort of pending in the funding of our future than anywhere else, but that may just mean that you'll go faster through the first ones.

Sorry, I seem to have done. There it is. I apologize, this is supposed to be the easy part. Alison, do you want to maybe just go through verbally whether the yellow ones are? I'm about to share my screen. Sorry for the delay. I know there's nothing worse. Different item. Oh, yeah. We... Alison... Oh, yeah. Alison... Can we share a letter to the administration?

Yeah, this... Thank you, Alison. So we're here on the neighborhood. This is the CDBG neighborhood housing infrastructure. Yes. Because number 10 community era of CDCU was the lowest ranked one in this category that received funds, it's marked in pink. And because of the way the contingencies are written, it lost approximately $24,000 because this amount came in lower than expected.

You'll see that the housing stability division also will charge about $80,000. Is that right? Less. Or is it $8,000? $8,000. Sorry, decimals count. So on that section, Council members, we're good. Okay. Yes. And then in the public services division, the item that lost because of the rate of the federal government, because of the reduction in contingency funds or rather reduction in funds, is number 19, the road home.

So it's down by about $6,000. I believe you had decided on agreeing with the mayor's recommendations for number 14, the Wasatch, the four street clinic. And then you also added another $10,000 to that. You reduced number 17 South Valley services to zero, and you took the other $50,000 from that and added it to something further down the page.

Oh, fit to recover. Sorry, that didn't get turned. I thought that was always there. Oh, you're right. That was already there. What has happened here? Oh, what? There's one still further down. Salt Lake American. There it is. What 50,000. Yeah, sorry about that. And then you had considered moving 50,000 from number 16 Thrive Center to Wasatch Community Gardens.

And I'm no supportable, God. On whether to move. Oh, sorry. If staff has an update on that, I would appreciate it because I know they applied for FOS as well. So what the differences between the FOS funding and the CDBG funding for Ross Atchens. Did they answer that question? Did they get back to you guys with information about that?

Yes. So for CDBG number 27, that is to support the salary of a job training program director for funding our future. That is to support the salary of a case manager. And we have additional information we can give as well. But both are associated with the green team? Yes, that's correct. They're both associated with the green team.

The funding our future application is case management. And the CDBG application is programming. So there are two parts of the same piece. The recommended amount in funding our future is $52,600 or slightly more. Is there a motion? A proposed proposal? I would just keep the same. Thanks. People go way down the list. All of those colors are great.

I am so lost because we had the old numbers and I'll have the new numbers. I thought I had a good understanding of the old numbers now. But we'll get there. So if we move along from there, it would be at emergency solutions grant. I believe Mr. Chair, you suggested finding our future funds for rep haven number five. So I feel like I'm going to get behind your idea and funding to some level.

And I would like to throw it out there for all of you. Again, I think that all of us could make a case about different organizations. I don't think that all of them do a good job. They do amazing things. But the space that we're having services is a very unique space. And it really affects us in some of the goals that we have as a city related to those that are in recovery or in homes, experiencing homelessness and whatnot.

So I would love to propose to support this request to 50 is what usually is the minimum. Is that correct? That's a question of $50,000. But to pull it from, I wish I wasn't the first one doing this. On the microphone. May I ask a question before he does. The first step house item in ESG part one. Can you tell me more about that one?

Yeah. So that's funding for their resource center program. So it's the essentially case management. They bring people in. It's a resource center. And that's the funding that they use to provide that programming. Okay. So it's like an FTE. Likely? Yeah. Never mind. I don't have a good solution. Let me do this. Let me put a pause on this idea for one second.

And then because I felt like maybe a question coming in later may answer or not. This is the potential here. So let's keep on going. Give me a little more. Okay. In the home category. There were no proposed changes by the council and you can see that neighbor works and CDCU both would receive actually more funding a little bit more funding than they had been recommended to receive.

So you can agree with that or suggest something different if you'd rather. How much more was it again? For neighbor works it would be about $11,000 and for CDCU it would be about $2,000 more. And this is a hostel stay within the category. So we'll move it around. Thank you. Any comments here? Yeah. Let's keep on going.

Okay. In. That was home. Just slightly increased because of the increased funding from HUD. So in HOPWA both housing connect and Utah community action. Thank you. Would receive a little bit more than they would otherwise because of increased funding from HUD. Rather more than expected funding from HUD. And then we're down at funding our future dollars and this is where there's a lot of yellow because the council mentioned a lot of things that they'd like to find money for.

So can we like support HOPWA like can close that one? Yes. Yes. So funding our future is exactly the same because it didn't receive any head funds. Yeah. So yeah. I would like to phone a friend. And so my request is to for number 21 first step house of their request of $679,513. I would like to propose an award of $255,000.

And I would like to propose it coming back from what was dropped to general fund balance as part of the previous funding our future program money that was returned. So you can't do that without that money doesn't exist to allocate right now. Okay. We would have to come back and you can propose a budget amendment. That is what I would like to do.

And so it would be delayed in implementation. The reason it's not available is because anything that was available in the previous budget was recycled into the current allocation. There is though money in funding our future fund balance in general. But that's basically just like increasing the pot, which is fine. Yes.

That is what I would like to propose for $255,000.

I think the question that I will have to that I generally supportive I would love to know how much money we have in the fund balance for this account. And to that question I was hoping to get 50 for rough heaven from this amount. And that really is the only change I would like to do because it's money that is we're deluding a little bit of the funds that we have in there.

But I think it's spending that question about how much fund balance that is. So I could pull up the latest budget amendment to try and get that figure. But I think it's in the like $10 million range. I know that last year we balanced the budget with funding our future fund balance. So I would just throw out that question.

This is the conversation I had with all of you last time that we are making decisions ahead of the bigger conversation. And I wish that maybe next year we move back funding our future back to the budget so we can actually make these decisions that feel like a little. You know, this connector from the general budget because they are right now we don't have the general budget in front of us.

But because of this is what it was created by this process. So we're following the process as it is in front of us. But I would love for you, council members, if you feel like maybe we should bring back funding our future back to the budget like it was every year since. So we can make decisions as a whole. I think it would be nice for our administration to hear that.

But now going back to your question because I think that's only for to close that to your proposal. I think we do we want everybody how do you guys feel about 255,000. And I'm clarifying the funding our future fund balance is not the fund balance because not general fund balance. It absolutely is. It's just we track it separately so that we can make sure we don't spend it on just regular general fund things.

And it's 255 was from the. Unspent money of the of the fund our future programs from prior years. So yes, but it basically goes back. Right. So there's not like a pool of money messes. So I understand like the budgetary ask is out of the norm. But that is what I am proposing. Right. And I just want to all just everyone to understand that's where that's where the magical number of 255,000.

But on the rough Haven side house that was from. Funny our future they didn't apply the fund a future funding that was applied to. Yes, G right. And I think I think if you I don't know that it would fit within the funding or the rough Haven would sit within the funding or future categories to use funding or future fund balance that way.

Even if they do the housing and homeless services and that's what almost services is not in your future. So housing is. But it could be. So I guess maybe we should like check on that one. But like okay, let's close the one question. Any other thoughts about the proposal that Council Member Yang brought to the table and how do you guys feel about them.

And I can speak to it. Can I have like have one minute? Yes. Okay. Okay. So I think the question is why. Is when looking at kind of the various proposals, I understand some of the feedback we've received related to first step house and their. You know, approach of combining applications didn't fare well in the. Kind of process and they probably would have been better served to keep them separate.

And so I think that's a very important thing. I think the larger issue for me because like a lot of people could make that argument and I don't want to go back into the space of like negotiating like what points got where and things like that because like we are where we are. Let's stick with that. The biggest issue for me is the fact that they're receiving funding from the county and from other various areas for housing vouchers.

So it's a question of being able to put personnel in place to be able to administer some of these other larger scale programs that ultimately support the housing needs more comprehensively than just saying this is going for a single voucher and we're getting a return on that. We're able to see that money go further. That's my wife.

Thank you. Okay. I think the show your feelings I guess is the next step. Okay. So. We're just first up have some of the. Well, I'm asking for one question right now. We're not holding on right now. Right. Recycled. No. Yes. Rough. I mean it's first up first step first step first step to 55. Do we have any idea what that does to fund balance?

Not that matters. So the fund balance for funding our future. The last budget amendment is 22 million. So so it would just take that down. There's not a requirement for funding our future fund balance the way we have for general fund balance that it'd be 13%. So by doing this, even though it is general fund balance, we are not impacting that 13% general fund balance.

No. Okay. That's what I was worried about. Okay. But I think you know, I mean, I wouldn't be doing my job if I didn't flag that. There's always nuance. Jen, if you will, if you did, if you didn't do. I wouldn't. I didn't. I can be quiet. Okay. Grace. Grace, that's a question. I mean, I'm supportive of this, but how do we not make this an annual thing and a multiple.

How come somebody else doesn't out do the same thing next year? And that's where I will say I do support Council member chair, police. Recommendation that we move this back into like the larger budgetary cycle, like conversation, because then I think we align the resources. To be able to have more clarity on what the needs are and whether or not these things will impact the larger city budget and the plan for the next fiscal year.

I also in my meetings told people that I understand the difference between trying to make up a gap in funding right now and having a year's worth of warning. And I've warned everyone that I've spoken to that CDBG is being suggested to be cut to pay for a voluntary war. So the likelihood that we even have these funds next year is a high question.

So I've warned everyone. I think that is something that I would ask this office to do is to let every applicant know that the likelihood of this next year isn't very high. But I think saving off a crisis is in our best interest. And it's not their full proposal. I'll clarify that. So they ask for significantly more in resources.

So this is a one year bridge to be able to address the immediacy of the need for the housing vouchers. They already have allocated for these other entities. Yes. I want to support this. I just want future me not support whatever other good thing. It comes up next year when we add it back and we do it at a different time.

No, it is. But I'm just going to have to will that into the universe. No, and I think your resistance is making these decisions a bit in the blind to me. I felt like it's a little odd. But this is what it was proposed to us. And this is how we make a decision. So I think the administration made like the other option a little better next year, bringing it all together.

But in the past, this council supported moving general fund dollars to support some organizations. We did it. I remember making that happen. I've done it. So this is not much. We've still done it. There is a precedent, but this is not the present starter. Anyways, we can close that chapter. It seems like we have enough feelings and the positive for that one.

Just from a logistical perspective, so there's no surprises. I think it probably will not appear on this spreadsheet. It won't appear on the CDBG log, but it will be what we'll do just to make sure we don't lose the threat is included in their motion is adopting this. There's an intent to include it in the next budget amendment.

Perfect. Thank you. Okay. So I wanted to advocate for the question that I put up earlier about the rough heaven, about 50,000. But I do know that their success of the program has really impacted success of, I mean, they have quite a bit of statistics about that. Success of people staying in programs. So no one really is offering that service.

People are not going into treatment or housing sometimes because they're not home their pets. And they fit a space there. They're only asking for 52. Can you grab it with a street outreach is component because that isn't just for operations in their center. They're saying street outreach. Yes, basically they're offering.

Okay. I have a better explanation, but I know a little bit about it. Which I may need to go. I need to get this one. I forgot about that. Yeah. Yeah. So that would fall under the street outreach component. They offer services where they help people have shelter for their pet basically because often that's a huge barrier for people to get access to other services, especially shelter housing medical care as the case may be.

These are the most critical people. I mean, that's what they're like really offering to people that have pets and they are not accessing services. So I would love to advocate for the same tool that we just unlocked. I understand that this is not a forever thing. I think that will be very important if any of enough of you support this to tell them that this is not a commitment long term at all.

I would love if anybody has any other questions or thoughts. Chris has a look. Well, well, well. Me from a few minutes ago. I should have started this. You know, right? Wait a minute. He's so previous comment here. So what are we going to say next year to them? We're saying that this year that this is coming from a different pocket of money that we're not committing to like a long term.

We see the value of it so they can prepare for other funding mechanisms in case money is not available. I understand the desire because I have a hard one. This is coming from a different. It was in the competition with the same front of our future competitions, the rest of them. There's competition and there's fun in our future programs.

They apply for the funding of future funding that didn't get applied. And back to Chris points, it's about a million plus dollars in that funding in the future that would love to get funded but didn't get funded. And so, and I appreciate the program, but I also appreciate other programs that just same amount for the same reason.

I'm just kind of concerned that we're ended up with that. Okay. So, I think that's a $50,000. Everyone gets their own pet product for $50 grand. And then you're always just snowballing on that. So that's where my concern is. One more question. If you want to mind reminding me, is there a mandatory amount for funding our future?

Does it have to be $50,000? We could say $30,000. And think about taking it from one of these other, maybe Utah Community Action as an idea to help. I agree with you, Council Member, that Ruff Haven provides a really critical service. And I would love to think about how we might, with the existing funds that are allocated, maybe cobbled together something.

If it's not even $50,000, maybe it's $30,000. Council Member, I believe Utah Community Action, because it's an ESG Part 2, you can't switch money from the pieces. Utah Community Action is also funded with funding our future number. Sorry, funding our future. The 355,000. That is part of their funding our future. Can you scroll down in the funding our future sections?

To answer your question about the funding floor, the decision made by City Council to set a floor 50,000 was just made for the HUD programs. We have instituted that as sort of a soft policy, but previously we had done 30,000. And if Council feels that that's appropriate, or even if the Council feels less, then you can make that decision at your discretion.

And maybe this is a question just for you guys. Is it accurate to say that if the Council decided to fund that program from funding our future dollars, that the grant tracking requirements would be less onerous? That would be accurate, yes. So I think the justification for the $50,000 kind of soft policy is that the effort it takes to track for federal grants is so much heavier of a lift.

And if it's a little bit more than $50,000, it has to be really worth it. Whereas funding our future dollars, if they're a grant, they're a grant. Obviously we don't just sign a blank check, but. So we haven't really found the money yet, but maybe there is an idea here that maybe we should explore. And Chris, I'm looking at your note.

First step, how's number three, we reduce that by $30,000. Yeah, number three. In the ESG part one. Yes. No, no, that's. That's where roughy. That's where roughy is. So, yeah, yeah. So this is three and five. So we're good. So we reduce that $30,000 from there, move it to roughy for $30,000 and to Council Member Young's proposal.

We support the 255,000 plus 30,000 from the fund balance. Change that to 285. And we're not open to taking it from an existing allocation. So we're not drawing more from funding our future fund balance. Okay. Well, they're lost me there. Taking. I mean, for instance, reducing the amount awarded to Utah Community Action by 30,000 and reallocating it.

The community action is in ESG part two. No, underfunding our future. Number five on funding our future. Utah Community Action.

So it would essentially be using funding our future money to fund. To fund. Roughhaven. Yes. So rather than 355,000 in funding our future dollars to roughhaven, it would be 325,000 to roughhaven. Excuse me, two, sorry. Utah Community Action and 30,000 to roughhaven. Sorry. We're not drawing from our fund balance even more beyond what we're doing for first step.

I think that's a, excuse me, we're still doing the 255 from fund balance. Correct. That is done. That's a few. That's just a problem. We're not doing an additional 30 from fund balance. That was a proposal, but I think that is a proposal that is different here. I'm sorry, Chair. I do wonder though whether there is the question that Jennifer mentioned earlier of whether funding our future money can be used for.

I think, I mean, it's a self imposed. Right. Adherence to the categories. If you can make a straight, if you policy makers can make a straight based argument that this is housing, then I think that's good for. And this is a discussion on the record. I think if you all decide that this is a piece of housing, then that's the goal of getting more people in housing.

Wouldn't be the first time you're doing it. So 30,000 from line number seven. Correct. Line number five under funding our future Utah Community Action. Yeah. We can scroll down on the screen. That might be helpful. Yeah, keep going back and forth. Sorry. So under funding our future. Yes. Number five. So it takes that from 355 to 200.

It reduces that by 30,000. And the confusion is I'm using the oldest here. There are numbers. So sorry about that. So I should be using. That's a different category. It is funding. No, you're right. Yeah, you're right. It's blue. So anyways, it's my fault. And so is this straw poll for $30,000? Thirty from taking 30,000 from what has been allocated to the Utah Community Action and instead of funding our future dollars and instead allocating 30,000 to rough haven.

I'm okay with that. I think I'm passing my tier for redistribution onto Erica and Sarah. We are spreading peanut butter. Thank you for keeping that straight. Just a question. I want to reiterate the question here that we're considering the rough haven to be housing. Yeah. The impact to which this is not just about the animals.

The success of the program is about the success of their people. And this is why they're what I was saying is that their argument is no one is offering this kind of service. For people that are in the streets under their experience in homelessness or they have some substance abuse, they're not getting into programs or housing because of the issue of their pets.

So this is what the whole mission of the program is. So that's why I think it fits into the end of the fund. I would just say so like every point in time I have ever done every single year we've been a part of this. We're talking to individuals on the streets and in doing that survey work. One of the number one questions about why are you not participating in the shelter is I can't I can't bring my animal and that that has created a barrier.

And I think this is looking to try and address that barrier to make those existing services more accessible without the other solution of you have to give up your animal. So there was a proposal on the table about moving those funds for $30,000 of support from heaven. You want to show your feelings? He doesn't have feelings.

He's got too many of them. I've got too many of them. I've been completely lost between these two spreadsheets now. Okay. Is it is it? Are we all totally clear? Clear as mud? Clear as mud? Chris, what do you want to move? I do not. Okay. This, I listen to you have any questions for us anything that is unclear. I have no more questions if this is the way you want it. This is the way it shall be.

I do want to give you the last chance for you to say if you prefer this new mechanism to separate the funding our future discussion from the budget. If you prefer this here or you prefer to go back to what it was in previous years. So, I mean, Tammy, you can jump up to the table for you. I think the intention was to make it more transparent because this is at least been an open competitive process that was rated by the CDCI P board before it was kind of a general category that the administration would then kind of contract with organizations.

And so, I think maybe hindsight being 20, 20, you could still keep an open competitive process but closer to the annual budget discussion. I worry a little bit like, I don't think there's a way to get it competitive and within the annual budget. So, I think you guys are going to the thing you'll have to wrestle with in the annual budget is the experience from this year taught you that there wasn't enough money to give to all the organizations.

So, the context that you'll have is, should we increase the pot of money for this funding our future allocation? And then having a competitive process kind of like the RDA's NOFA, like where it goes out kind of middle of the budget year. I don't know if that's possible for the CDCI P board, but I don't know. We would have to work that out with the CDCI P board, but we could definitely do an individual funding our future NOFA.

The thought behind CO administering it with the federal funds is that previously funding our future was issued through an individual RFP. And not as many people were aware of that funding source and there weren't a lot of applicants. So, this kind of raised the transparency. And also, I felt it was a little bit strange to have CDBG in funding our future funding essentially similar or the same programs, but the council never saw what funding our future was funding.

So, it was a little bit strange to have two completely separate processes. I'll also add just briefly that the timing for it was partially structured so that these could be viewed at the same time as the federal applications. Moving funding our future will separate the two where you wouldn't be able to do something similar to what you do with rough haven where you'd be comparing the two different funding sources and programs.

Yeah, the rough haven thing is a good example. I think there are pros and cons to both approaches. I do think that there is personally having the funding our future money and the context of the budget or close to it, I think it makes sense to me because we could in a rough year, rough year, you know, in a tough year. We could make decisions about those funds in a different manner.

But again, none of these processes are perfect. I just think that this is a new process that I started this year and applicants have told us how complicated it was for them to follow. So, that will be my advocating to move it a little closer to. I know that sucks because you're separating them again. So, just to clarify for myself, so could we move this into the same timeline, we do CIP programs.

So, it would be basically we'd have their CIP for capital improvement projects for streets and then we'd have funded our future projects for these programs at the, basically at the same time, soon after the budget season. Is that? That would be a little bit complex because the Department of Finance administers the process with the CDCI P board for CIP and its CAN and housing stability, who does it for the federal grants.

And also, the funding our future housing funds are more related to the federal grants than they are capital projects. So, it would be, there's more alignment this way. So, what if we say this, since we don't know where to put it, but I struggle with this here, is that we would love to hear from the administration of a different manner and when, you know, hopefully it lines up a little closer to something, but you guys can tell us what the pros and cons of each option is.

Yeah. Well, that would be better. So, then we can keep the. What's the staff impact? For the different options? Yeah, like is one easier than the other? I think there's trade-offs there. The other way, an RFP went out through procurement. So, the process was administered by procurement. And the selection committee was comprised of Heather Kinciman, but housing stability staff.

Mostly. It was various finance and housing stability staff that comprised the committee for the RFP process. So, it wasn't the CDCIP board? No. No, this was the first year for the CICIP board to review these applications. But I think you could ask, I think you could do, I don't think it has to be the way we used to do it or this way.

I think it could be the CDCIP board just added different time in the year so that it's not so far removed from your last year's budget discussion. So, I think that was a little confusing too. It's like, are we dealing with future dollars or past dollars? And so, I don't know. Maybe you could think about, like, because like the RDA NOFA, right, the RDA budget's adopted in June that NOFA goes out, you know, applications are reviewed.

It's usually back to you guys, you know, or the NOFA goes out by the end of the year, usually. We could think about, like, if it made sense to do that. Maybe you want to think about if you want it to be an open and competitive process. I think I've observed that gets you guys better information when people have to kind of compete against each other for the money.

Well, I just want to also say, and I don't know if I agree with this. But, so when we, just go with it for a minute. When we did funding our future, you know, we made a lot of promises that it would be in these categories. And then we have allowed it to creep a little bit. Jen, you think? Would you agree? Oh, okay, a lot.

Okay, we've allowed it to creep a lot. I feel like we've been, well, okay, but yeah, okay. Okay, we've allowed, okay. Look, the point is. Decisions were made. And I guess I feel like if we, if funding our future was premised on that we were only going to use it in these ways, I think maybe having it go to a board of volunteers to determine whether we stick with that rule or not.

and how much weight they want to give it is maybe gives the voters a little more voice than just the seven of us deciding whether or not we want to keep that commitment or not because I'm the only one that was here. Well and this is you remember this is one small portion of funding our future right like the whole funding our future budget is in the 50 to 60 million and yeah over the years we've added things like parks maintenance.

Yeah 9-1-1 9-1-1 fire so yeah you know but but you guys have that discussion in the context of the budget you make that decision and it's transparent that way but that 50 million 50 to 60 million dollar budget doesn't go to the CDCI people right just this piece right but I just I feel like the the opportunity for expansion is very high with opening it up and putting it at a time where more organizations are going to notice and so it's it's only going to be more it's only going to get harder every year and it's only going to get more competitive every year and I feel like there's going to be an even stronger pressure to expand the scope and anything that we can do to try to add resident input into that because it was you know this promise that we

made it makes me feel better so that's why I'm saying I think I agree with what I'm saying but do you agree that we should allow them to give us a couple different options than pros and cons I do okay so let's let's let's know that then we don't need to discuss it need further until they come back and then we go back and I do I want to make sure that staff and administration administrative ease is one of the criteria we hear about prison cons do and it's on rush I I think that you know if you heard what we said was very clear not but you know we'll love to see some things some options but thank you for the work I'm putting it you know all your stuff put on this thank you for allowing us to move things

around and following a way clear direction on this thank you I think we got what you were trying to get at so we can come back with some options thank you thank you council members this this reports from us not reports from us and a report from the executive director not a personal executive director and that is a close meeting so I would like I need any someone to make a close meeting motion I move that we enter into closed meeting the purposes of the deployment of security devices and advice accounts and advice accounts nope no advice account council will not be advising just the deployment of security just the deployment okay just that one okay motion and then who seconds okay motion but council member Pietro second but council member warden yes yes

I can't remember a lot Carson I almost said Larson yes I can't remember Pietro yes and so I'm very young yes and I'm a yes this motion carries unanimously we are in a close meeting now

Audio streams from the city’s repository on demand — press play, or click any sentence, to start it.

This transcript does not identify who is speaking. Paragraph breaks follow pauses in the recording, not changes of voice, so a single paragraph can contain more than one person — and does, where people talk over each other. The transcript is produced automatically from the city’s published audio, is not an official record, and contains recognition errors, especially on names and dollar figures. The audio is the source: every sentence plays the moment it came from so you can check it.