Council continues budget hearing after lengthy debate on staff cuts, new positions and sidewalk funding

SANDY, Utah — The Sandy City Council on June 10 held an extended public hearing on the proposed fiscal year 2025–26 budget and heard competing amendment packages from Councilmembers Zach Robinson and Marcy Hausman, and from Allison Stroud.

Robinson and Hausman presented a joint proposal they said prioritized “people” and workforce retention. They proposed restoring or partially restoring positions eliminated in the tentative budget and reallocating savings from other areas to fund positions they view as city‑wide priorities. Their memo cites a desire to “strengthen and work towards keeping and retaining our workforce” and to invest in training and core services.

Among items discussed in the Robinson–Hausman proposal were: - Reinstating and reclassifying an executive assistant position into a proposed real property manager FTE (the proposal shows a combined figure of roughly $150,000 to fund one reclassified position, drawn from prior tentative budget lines). Staff said that figure is a combination of two amounts removed in earlier budget actions. - Adding an animal services officer (proposal references roughly $89,000 as the cost basis in council discussion). - Restoring funds for management studies and audit services and modest increases for council meeting costs. - Reducing some vehicle leadership replacements in the fleet program rather than cutting frontline fleet for public safety.

Robinson said the amendments reflected both council priorities identified earlier in the year and feedback from multiple department heads about where resources would provide the most city‑wide value. He described the effort as “our best attempt thinking in the best interest of the city” and said the proposal was open to negotiation.

Allison Stroud presented a separate amendment focused on a mix of one‑time capital and ongoing items. Her chief asks included: - A one‑time $100,000 allocation to hazardous concrete/sidewalk repair (staff estimated 1,500 feet of sidewalk replacements or about 20 ADA ramps for that amount). - Funding for an animal services officer (Stroud’s amendment used similar budget sources as the Robinson–Hausman package for this item). - An ongoing $5,000 increase for police ammunition, which the police chief said was needed to maintain required training amid rising ammunition costs.

Funding sources and tradeoffs Council members discussed where to find savings that would free up money for the proposed items. Possible sources discussed included trimming communications and marketing budgets (several proposals reduced that line), using leftover balances from recent municipal building projects, and tapping smaller community engagement lines. Some council members said they preferred to use one‑time savings for one‑time needs and to avoid creating new ongoing obligations in a year when staff reductions had already occurred.

Administration and staff follow‑up Staff and department heads joined the discussion. Shane Pace (city administrator) and Brian Kelly (administrative services/finance) answered technical budget questions. City staff agreed to draft supplementary information on several items if the council requested it — notably a clearer job description and cost estimate for the proposed real property manager position. Robinson asked staff to return further information in time for the next meeting.

Public comment and next step The council took public comments during the hearing (one commenter urged more transparency about mayoral office spending and supported prioritizing people before “wants”). After the extended discussion, Councilmember Zach Robinson moved to continue the public hearing to June 17 to allow more information and potential amendments; the council adopted that motion 7–0.

What was decided: The budget hearing was continued to the June 17 meeting to allow staff follow‑up, additional amendments and more time for council deliberation. No final budget or tax‑rate decision was made on June 10.