City Council · 2019-05-28

If I have Ernesto sit by you, is he going to be sitting right over here in the warm section of the room?

Half of my steak is warm and half of the steak is salty, so I don't know.

Yes, I wouldn't have bought it all if it wasn't nasty.

Oh yeah.

The problem is the zip code. They switched it last July, they were telling me. Sometimes our rates are bigger, but—

That's interesting.

It's happened in your state. Is that creating issues or not?

Not that I'm aware of. My brother-in-law lives in my state. He lives on—

he lived on Holdaway Road over there, but Grant Holdaway lives in Morrow.

Yes.

And he's been My son Michael worked there.

I bet.

But his brother lives on Main Street. Interesting place.

I don't remember working there at all.

I have no footage.

So I don't know if you realize it, but Morum used to include— what's it called— the Grandview Hill and Provo.

Oh, did it?

It included all of that.

I don't remember that.

I used to live in Grandview Hill when I was first married. Lived in a basement apartment.

So they had a lot of discussions when they first formed the city. And they went back and forth as to what sorts of promulgated through.

I read some of the discussion.

I know.

I did too.

You know, some wanted more, some wanted less.

I'm sure.

They say that the mayflies are bad down there. We haven't had them yet.

Yeah, but we've had it actually.

They have them, you know, pest control already.

around our home.

Okay.

So we'll see how the summer—

See how it looks at the end of the summer.

Yeah, cuz we didn't move into September, so we didn't have a summer.

So, but with being so wet, that's going to certainly— with that water feature on the windows, that's got to attract—

Oh yeah, so you have Craig Michaels.

Yeah, there's water there.

See how it goes.

Then you have some ponds.

We're liking it. I mean, it's—

we've had less bad weather than what we had up in North Country.

Really?

Yeah, which we were surprised.

Yeah, that makes sense because I think it tends to congregate around the mountains.

Yeah, so we literally have less snow than we're used to. I guess that's not typical, but it's just our observation. Do you need Steve for your presentation? Steve Rowland?

No.

Downs?

I think Jason has—

I don't have any slides, but I think Jason has some slides set up.

Are you ready, Jason? Why don't we go ahead and get started on our work sessions this afternoon. Appreciate having everybody here. I'll turn the time over for a discussion on rooftop solar permitting to Sam and the Development Services staff.

Sure. So I think most of the people in this room are familiar with some of the background, but just for the sake of the recording and everything, over the last couple years I've gotten probably about a half dozen either homeowners or solar installers reach out to me and ask, hey, why is the city holding us up on putting in solar panels? We have this in their mind unrelated zoning issue that keeps them— it might be a shed is too large for the side yard or something like that. There are also some cases where it is indirectly related to solar panels. So in other words, if somebody's roofline was non-compliant, putting solar panels on those would kind of perpetuate that problem. And so what I'm trying to do is see if there is some way That we can prevent the city from being the bottleneck when somebody's trying to do something good, if the issue that we're holding them back on isn't directly related to solar or isn't gonna be perpetuated by that. And so, if somebody was trying to put in a pool or a shed or something that benefits them, I think that it— I'm comfortable holding a stronger line on that in the sense of, well, you need to—

I think that's a good point.

Resolve this other zoning issue till we're ready to let you do that. But where this is something that benefits the community as a whole, I believe that it's, it's worth taking a look at. Can we find some kind of middle ground where we can, whether it's fast-tracking it or having some kind of conditional use permit or something like that, to allow them to put in solar panels without legitimizing or ignoring the The zoning issues in particular. So, Jason, I think you can speak to this. First of all, how big of an issue is this? Is this something widespread? And maybe you can start into your slides there.

Well, I don't think you can read that. From 2015 to current, we have 204 permits related to solar. Of the 204, 23 of those permits were related specifically to a zoning issue that we did issue because of a violation that we've caught.

On their property.

So the 181 represent the other 88%, which is either they— a lot of the cell companies will actually come in and will go to a property owner multiple times. And so each of those contractors will come and pull a permit even though they haven't actually signed the agreement yet. And so then they'll come back and cancel the 2 or whatever it is and get that agreement. So a lot of those 181 represent either a duplicate or the owner decided not to proceed with it. But only the 23 are related specifically to us telling them they can't put solar until they resolve their zoning issue.

So I have a question. How many solar permits have you issued though? I mean, if 200 were withdrawn, are you having, I don't know, 1,000 that actually went through? Or do you have any idea how many were pulled and went through?

I don't know how many they pulled out. There's many hundreds who we have solar on.

Per year?

It slowed down. I mean, last couple years have been very busy. This year's kind of slowed, but there were a time, probably last year, the year before, we were getting 30 a month.

Okay, thanks.

And is that, is that related mostly to tax incentives kind of slowing down?

Well, the buyback.

What's that?

And the buyback, it's no longer one for one that Rocky Mountain will give you that.

That step back.

So we're still getting a few now currently that are going through the process to put solar It's just shoestringing a lot of it. It's not as busy as it has been in the past. So from 2015, I mean, '23 is fairly minor as far as having significant zoning issues, whether the applicant has decided, well, I don't want to fix any of my stuff, I'm just going to pull my application.

And what are some of those zoning issues? Maybe you're going to get into that.

Well, they build a porch in the setback, or they build a shed that's too large in the setback without permits. So a lot of these things we've caught because they've done something without a permit. Where they should have come through the permit process. And if they would have come through the permit process, we would have steered them in a way to develop it or build it in a way that would have been better.

And they have the right to go back and fix the problem and meet the code?

They do. A lot of them have just chosen, well, I don't want to do that, so.

Okay.

And at that point, we don't actively enforce the violation?

We haven't currently, but that's just a discussion. Whether we want to pursue, actively pursue. Once you've discovered something, do we want to actively pursue it?

I guess that's part of my question too, is if we're not actually actively pursuing those cases, whether they do solar or not, does that— does it really matter, I guess? If we're not going to go after it, then why are we holding them back from solar?

But they can't go forward until they meet the code like anyone else.

Some have actually volunteered to actually move But if it's a site covering an RV or whatever, we've actually had people actually remove it and then move forward with their solar permit. So, I mean, we have—

So they have the right to rectify the problem and change it so it does meet the code. And so that's available to them.

And the holdup is not just solar. I mean, if another development project came and they wanted to do Do it and you found a violation of the code, you, you would not let them go forward with that add-on or that addition until they cleared up.

That's correct.

So it's, it's not just an overall solar issue. Anytime there's somebody does something without getting proper code knowledge, then you're running a risk basically. You've done a lot of research, Sam. Are there other cities that's kind of gone the way that you're suggesting?

So there's, uh, we have called several cities. One that is saying no, meaning that they actively say no, you cannot move forward with solar until you resolve the issue. So there's 4 of those that outright say the same that we do. If you look at the yeses, a lot of them are clarified with, well, let's say Lehi, for example. They have their own power company, so they just let them— they're okay with it, they just issue the permit. So there really is no catch-up. If you go down to Provo, they will issue a notice of non-compliance if they discover that there's a violation. Murray, if there's something unpermitted, it has to be resolved. So each of them are kind of catered— even though they issue them, there is some kind of restriction that, hey, if they find something illegal that's happened, they will stop work. until that gets rectified. So there is some caveats on how that's working. It wasn't a straight yes or no question there.

So what happens like in Draper if it says if they find an issue they've got to resolve it, they'll issue the permit, but then they still have to follow up? What level of involvement do they have to do?

They probably pursue it a different angle, whether that's through the courts, but they wouldn't hold up their Same way with the PROVO, if they find a violation, they will issue a notice of non-compliance, which means when you go to sell the property, you need to get it resolved before somebody will be able to buy it.

You'll notice West Valley City will issue a permit, but then they'll handle the problem separately. Kind of once you issue that permit though, you don't have any teeth to lock them into fixing the problem. They could just choose to ignore it.

Let's just go the court route, and then that way— this way for us, it's a matter of trying to get them into compliance before we actually issue that permit that they want.

Now, with that said, we can make an exception. Steve Earle's looked into it, and Steve can speak better to it. If the council is interested in moving forward with an exception for solar permitting to fast-track it, And Steve, maybe you can expand on that.

Well, there's not really a lot to expand on. I think we have a lot of flexibility in how we want to deal with this. If we want to make an exception just for solar but nothing else, we could do that. Um, so I think we can—

if you decide what direction you want to go, I think we can find a way to craft it and it will work.

Yeah, I think that deciding which way we need to go is the tricky part, Steve.

Yeah.

If somebody has built their shed too close to my property line, and now we go ahead and say, okay, you can put up your solar panel, we've given them tacit approval to have that shed too close to my property line. And that may or may not be a bother to me, but it may be a bother to whoever owns my home next. And then they go back and say, why did the city allow you to do this after you're in violation? So I don't know where the line is. And I'll be ridiculous on the one end. If their structure is 1 inch closer than it ought to be, I have no problem. If they're supposed to be, what, 10-foot setback? But if they're right on the property line, all of a sudden I have a problem. And, and so I don't know how you put that in a wording that if it's an inch or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5, and then basically all we've done is change the setback from 10 feet to 9 feet to 8 feet until we inch right up next to that property line. So I, I, I, I'm sympathetic and concur with it. This is a community good, unlike their swimming pool or racquetball court or whatever else they might want to build on their property. Or that the gentleman who was here a month ago with the large basketball court he wants to build, you know, but he seemed to be in all compliance with what he was needing to do, etc. But if he had built the basketball court out of code and just did it and then he's trying to salvage his basketball court by sticking solar panels on the top, we have a problem, I think.

And I don't—

And I guess that's one of the challenges is where do you essentially permit and not permit? Do you permit for solar? But several of you may remember a few years ago we had a gentleman come in who had a disabled family member And he wanted to build a structure overhead that would extend into the side setback so that he could have a covered spot for his disabled family member to get into the house.

Yeah.

It's a violation. It's clearly a violation. But how can you say no— and I believe we did say no to this gentleman a few years ago— to that, yet at the same time we're saying yes to another circumstance? Whether it be solar, whether it be a shed, whether it be wind, you know, some other structure that's on a property. That's— there are all sorts of very good causes. But how flexible do you want to make the ordinance? Because many of the, many of the requests are very compelling.

Yeah.

So the other thing is we have zoning laws for a reason.

And that is to protect those on their own property as well as those with property around them.

And should we start to peel back that and allow exceptions, again, you would have to— if you allowed an exception for solar, you would have to allow exceptions for other cases as well. And my feeling is that if we're looking at this, there's a reason why we have zoning laws. And I appreciate the fact that, for example, on the one gentleman who didn't have the right setback, or the garage built in the wrong way, that that be corrected first. Solar is great, but I think that our zoning laws are there for a reason.

Or is there a way, for example, where adjacent property owners could consent to it? But then at that point, It's okay with the current property owners, but is it okay with future property owners?

I guess part of the reason why I wanted to have this conversation is there's a disconnect between what we're talking about and what one of our city attorneys is saying. Like, he's saying that we can make the exception specific to solar, but in the next breath we're saying, well, if we allow this, then we have to allow all these others.

But that—

it's a false premise. Because we make this one exception does not mean that we have to make exceptions in these other areas.

But the others would come.

Yeah, I would want to for handicapped.

Where do you draw the line?

I don't remember the details, and thank you for refreshing my memory. I don't know how long ago it was, but boy, that would just tug at my heartstrings.

And I—

well, then it's been 6 years ago, whatever. But, uh, but that seems like a worthy cause, and And I'd hate to just have a blanket that says if you do install a panel, it doesn't matter what your violation is. But I wouldn't have a problem with them coming one at a time to both the Planning Commission, hey, will you make this exception? Because it was the 1 inch or 2 inch. And I realize it's easier to be the same 100% of the time than 97% of the time. But if it's a minor infraction, and I don't know who defines minor, I guess the Planning Commission than we would. But then the next guy will say, well, wait a minute, mine's only 2 inches more, and you go down that.

But again, Jason, these individuals have the right and the capability to rectify the problem and fix it so they can in fact put solar in.

So if they're, if they're off on their distance, they can fix that.

If they need If they need to fix a building that has not been permitted, they can fix that. But right now, that needs to be fixed.

I mean, admittedly though, we have individuals who come to us seeking a permit, and the first time they hear about a violation of a setback— Yeah, or any of the buildings built. When they make application for solar or whatever, and they're told, hey, that home you bought 3 years ago, the previous owner built something that's inconsistent with our code.

We had a group come in who asked for a change in setbacks on these small homes in North—

North Orme.

North Orme, just east of State Street, but I think a northwest address. And they said, hey, we thought we could have a sun cover back here. And all the neighborhood said the same thing. And I think we did waive that one. We changed the setback. We changed the ordinance. For that particular development, not for the community as a whole.

Correct.

So is it a PD then?

It's a PD. I have a question.

Is there an appeals process at all to, um, if we don't give them this and maybe it's a new homeowner, is there a way for them to say— and maybe it's only a few inches—

is there a way for them to have us look at the individual ones or is it just no or yes?

Not currently.

I guess you could write something in the ordinance, but there's nothing currently.

Not to make an exception for where somebody's only a little bit in violation, but if anybody thinks that the staff has misapplied the code to their situation, misinterpreted the law, they can appeal to the Board of Adjustment. But the Board of Adjustment doesn't have the authority to say, that's just a little violation, we don't have to worry about it. You know, that, that I think, as Tom indicated, is kind of a slippery slope.

That's, that's difficult.

But then you also weed out the people who are not You know, you know, those that are really serious, and most people aren't going to appeal unless they really have a legitimate case, I would think.

Right, those are rare. The staff is rarely wrong.

Thanks. We've had one issue. I think— I don't know if there's still pursuing the lawsuit against us where they've actually, you know, encased their entire back deck with an enclosure, which, you know, extremely violated the setback. We told them no. He basically said, well, I'm not going to remove it.

It's kind of going down.

So there are exceptions, obviously. There are a small unique violations that they could easily fix if they chose to. There are some exceptions, like a homeowner that bought it 3 years ago didn't realize that the big, you know, covering on their back porch is actually in violation of the ordinance. So we have some of those exceptions.

Yes, Brad?

I don't know the answer to this, but if you somehow are in violation of a code, When your house burns down, could the insurance company come in and say, hey, you know, you're not up to code?

The city allowed it and the city's liable.

Yeah, you allowed it, the city turned the end away. I don't know.

Yeah, that can happen.

So it's kind of like if you build something without a building permit, sometimes the insurance company will say, well, we don't have to honor your insurance policy because you built that addition without proper building permits.

But this doesn't really change that. In other words, whether they put solar panels on or not, that issue already exists. So that's, I guess, the part I'm struggling with. Some of the concerns that are raised are if somebody has— I'm just going to use the shed as an example— if they have a shed in the side yard that is non-compliant, and as of right now, we're not going after them, we're not seeking legal action.

I'm not saying Unless that.

a complaint is brought forward, and then we can address it. You know, MPU or whatever route is. If we disallow solar, nothing really changes with that. If we allow solar, nothing really has to change with that. Like, I'm not I'm not understanding why it has to if it necessitates that we legitimize it somehow because if I'm understanding right, there are actually steps that we could take to document those issues with the. So that we're actually in a better position than we are with the status quo. Is that correct? In other words, if we notify the county, and like you mentioned, Jason, that if they sold the property, that that has to get fixed, I think this is actually an avenue where we can improve our standing rather than diminish it.

It could be a letter of noncompliance or something like that, which would hurt them when they went to sell it, or put a restriction on them when they go to sell it.

And from what I recall, Paul, if you can back me on this, when I was talking to Julia, if we have a building permit code come to fruition that we find out about and they don't do anything to rectify it, we are recording a letter of noncompliance on that property right now.

Yes.

So our building department's already doing that with building issues.

Absolutely, this situation.

So I guess I'm just hoping somebody can answer that question. What would allowing this exception for solar, what would that change about that existing issue?

Well, I think we give tacit approval to what we didn't know about before.

I don't think we do though.

If we, if we didn't know the shed was built because no one gave a permit, we didn't know it was 3 feet too close to the line, and then we approve the solar panel to go on top of that shed, we know it's out of compliance. And I'll ask legal counsel, it seems like we've somehow given tacit approval to the shed being improperly built.

Personally, I don't think that's the case.

Okay.

I think that, you know, our general policy is that we typically don't go after them, you know, in a hard way to get them to remove the structure unless there's a complaint type situation.

So, like Jason said, maybe we'll think about changing that at some point in the future, but I think we're just—

We're acknowledging that the violation is there, but what we would be saying is we think solar is so important that we're not going to deprive you of the building permit to do it, even though there's that existing violation.

But this is our teeth right now to try to get them to come into compliance.

We're giving up whatever leverage we have to try and remedy the situation. That would be too costly.

Yeah.

And I think Jason said a few people who have applied for solar permits have actually brought property into compliance.

That's—

and I agree with Greg, that's what we can do.

But I think not having people bring their properties into compliance for whatever reason lets the nose of the camel in the tent, and then it just stretches from there. I think it's important, and people rely upon us, as do other development companies, that we do enforce the code. And we do spend a lot of time in passing zones, altering zones, passing codes. And I think to make them of less effect is going in the wrong direction.

And can we approve them one at a time? I realize we're opening up a mess. Is that possible or not?

If you had standards that you were judging them on, so we, for example, if you had under these circumstances we'll approve it, under these circumstances we won't.

Not because I know you or like you or you're my neighbor. They have to be above that.

They can't be like—

it has to be a standard-based process, not one where the Planning Commission just has discretion to grant them when they want to.

Well, I'm, I'm not in favor of pursuing it. I, I want to keep our laws into effect. I don't know how the rest of the council feels. I'd be ready to hear what they have to say.

Well, like I said before, I'd like If there is a problem, I'd like them to have a way to rectify it or appeal it if there's, you know, if it's a— sometimes when you're hard and fast on your rules, that doesn't give you the flexibility. So I guess I'd like to see— and I, I'm happy to give some of that power to the Planning Commission, let them vet that out and see what, see what they think. If it's only 20— you say 23?

23 over the last couple years.

5 years, 4 years.

So it's not tons.

I don't know.

I do love solar and I love the idea of, you know, the common good of that, but I don't know how many of these were grossly out of compliance or if it was just marginally. Do you know where they fell?

Of the 23, there were probably some significant issues, which is why they pulled them off. Or it was something that they really wanted and they didn't want to get rid of it, so they chose to keep it instead.

It wasn't a lot of people finding out they were out of compliance, they didn't know about it, or?

No, we have—

You have things like that, okay.

Most of these are caught from an aerial photo. The first thing that staff at the front desk will do is look at an aerial photo when an applicant comes in, and that is an immediate sign of a code violation with something in the setback. So it's a pretty significant structure to be picked up.

Any comments? I'm kind of going along with what Debbie said. I, all the time I've been on the council, I've had one email, and that was 3 or 4 years ago, about the solar problem, and they were in violation of the code, and we went back and forth. And I've only had one email in several years. I wonder if it's a It's a real problem, right?

I've had a few calls and a couple emails.

I just saw a slide. We have the data.

In 5 years, it's 11%.

Those weren't the numbers over the last 5 years, were they?

2015.

Yeah, 2015.

In 1 year?

No, this is from— Oh, 2015 to current.

To current.

Oh, wait a minute. These are just the ones that got withdrawn.

The 23 represent those that withdrew. through themselves.

And what's the other 181?

181 are other— so the 23 represent those that actually had a zoning violation, and we said we're not moving forward until it gets resolved. Okay, pulled them from that.

And the other 181 withdrew for some other reason?

Some other reason.

So it's 11% of those who were withdrawn, but we've had maybe 1,000 apply and be granted during that period of time.

I would—

I don't have the numbers.

Hundreds.

Hundreds.

Because they were in compliance.

They were in compliance and they did it. So the 181 might have just had Hey, it cost more money than I thought. I decided I'm not going to live in this home long enough, or for another reason they withdrew.

Or the contractor pulled it because they thought they had to sell.

Yeah.

Mark, what are your thoughts?

So I had an interesting scenario today. I was talking to one of my students who I asked him how the program helped him, and there was a change in personnel just a little while ago. Have you noticed a change? And he says, well, yeah, the person there before, he was very much about, okay, how do we help you get the job done?

What do you need to do to be successful?

We'll find a way to do it, even if we have to bend some rules. He says the new person is very much, no, it's against the rules, and there's roadblocks to get going. And I had an interesting thought of saying, God, I wonder what I am. Am I the kind that's gonna— be more of a roadblock or more of a, okay, how can we really try to get things kind of done? So I guess in the process, my line of thinking is if there is a way to—

I mean, there's—

to me it seems like in 1 or 2 or 3 of these cases, there's probably a common sense scenario that says, okay, this seems reasonable to go ahead and go forward with without changing the entire code and without making it a thing. So I'd be open to have some method of looking at the ones without really giving everything away that we have to change everything, step on that slippery slope. But I don't know what that is. I think that's where I'm struggling is I could see a pathway there, but I don't know to what level of detail or what level of variance flexibility we need to put that keeps us from going down that slippery slope.

Dave, how about you?

I think we have codes in place and I think they're there for a reason so we have some teeth and we can, you know, make things correct and get them corrected. So I would say no. Tom?

Well, I'd look to our staff to say, is there a reasonable way to do what we would all like to do? It to happen. I'd love to— all like is overstated, though some have expressed a view that I'd love to see how we could make this happen, but I don't know an easy way to do that, as I already depicted in an earlier example, within 1 foot, 2 foot, 3 feet, 4 feet, etc. So you don't have a solution at this point to say, oh, this is how we could make all 20 of these problems go away?

No, 23 wouldn't be able to solve without them actually probably physically removing something.

Yeah.

Unless we decided to just overlook it altogether.

Yeah.

I think I agree with Jason. I think it's either one or the other, not— there's not going to be a middle ground that you can really say, well, this guy's shed's not as impactful as this guy's shed, or this guy's awning isn't as impactful as this awning. And so I don't know where you draw— how you draw the line. I think it's kind of an all or nothing in my opinion.

So with the exception for solar that you're talking about, would that be codified in the code where it applies to everybody, or would there be an alternative where we utilize the Board of Adjustments or, you know, some kind of appealing body where we could have what Tom's talking about, where they could say, well, this, you know, the benefits outweigh the costs, I guess, as far as what the city I think you just want to put it in the code saying if you meet this situation, you get it.

And that might be in every situation, even if you have a violation, you can still get a permit to do solar. You might say if you only have these kinds of violations, you can get a permit, but you can't get it in the deed. So I think it would be— you would want a situation where you could read the code and know instantly where something is. if somebody qualifies for it or not, not have to go through a process where the Board of Adjustment has to look at it for the Planning Commission.

Mr. Mayor, may I ask—

Sure.

So Steve, in that scenario, could you codify the permission of solar but also recognize the code violation?

Yeah.

So you wouldn't necessarily be perpetuating A problem, you would identify the problem in the course of the ordinance.

How would you enforce it?

It still would prevent solar the same way you're enforcing it already.

So, could you stop the solar if there is a violation and go in and have the violation fixed?

No, essentially—

Or do you just let the violation continue?

Well, that's kind of what we do now, right? We don't, we don't go out and actively prosecute people for those violations. So, but I mean, right now our enforcement mechanism is not to take them to court, but not to let them get a building permit.

Right, you don't let them go forward.

Right, so that's the incentive to get people to come in.

So now you're saying you take that away?

So that's what you would be doing in the case of solar, which again, you could limit to solar only if you feel that that is so important.

But if somebody else came in and said, you've done solar, yeah, I want to do wind or whatever.

Yeah.

Or I want you to take care of my handicapped child. That too.

That, that, that, yeah, that could be a totally different situation. But legally, I don't think you're obligated to go any further beyond solar. You could limit it to solar.

No, no, I know. I'm just saying politically, you know, maybe you've got a— we had a group of racquetball players that wanted to have racquetball courts at their house.

Solar-powered courts.

Solar-powered courts.

I guess what I'm asking is, In permitting solar, you're not essentially endorsing the existing code violation.

No.

Well, and I would think you'd even want to say if the structure's over 5 years old and within some 2 feet, for sake of argument, 2 feet over, we'll let you put solar. But we don't want to de facto throw away the code by saying, oh, I'm going to build my shed closer than I need to and put one solar panel up there so I get what I want.

You're not endorsing, but you're also not enforcing.

Yeah.

So in other words, those 23 people, we said, you need to fix whatever it is at your facility. If you were to do this, you would not be enforcing, but you would not be endorsing. And I think enforcing is important that you have the ability to do that.

We just can't use solar as the means to enforce. So if, if he or she came to us and wanted to do something add on to the porch or whatever, then we'd say, no, you're in violation. But if they are just putting solar panels on their roof, then we would permit that.

But, Ray, could we have some kind of fee that they pay? In other words, if you don't want to go the route of coming into compliance and you just want this solar exception, could we charge them $100 or $200 or something to go that route? So that they have some kind of incentive to—

No, you can't. You typically can't charge fees unless it's— they're needed to offset like administrative costs or cost of enforcement, things like that. If it's just a fee to penalize, then that's considered a tax.

So I had a friend who wanted to do something at his house, and when the city came out, they noticed that he was in violation of the code. And so at that point they said You can't move forward until you fix this problem. And so that is not necessarily an enforcement, but it's an inducement that they have to fix that before they move forward. And I think that's beneficial.

Yeah, I think it's partially a recognition that we don't have the resources to go after that process.

Sure, but if they're trying to move forward—

So that's, that's our mechanism for enforcement.

Well, what we don't know is how many of those 23 revoked it and then went and fixed it and then reapplied.

We don't, yeah.

I don't have that information.

In other words, is the current system working to actually do that?

Right, yeah.

I guess most of them probably just—

I assume they didn't, nor did the 181. But my guess, yeah, what I don't know is if some of them did do that.

So would it be possible to have you check that out, what's happened with those 23? And would it be possible—

See if they've actually reapplied?

Yeah, what's actually happened with them?

And have any of them drive by and see they actually have something on the roof?

Or do you just put nothing up?

Then if in fact they want to fix a problem that they have, you'd need a permit.

Yeah, Rocky Mountain won't let you do it. They'll be pretty hard. For those of us who have solar on, we know the process.

Rocky Mountain won't let you have it without a permit.

Yeah, so I mean, the next steps I was suggesting were simply to send this to the Natural Resources Stewardship Committee, the Planning Commission, if we're talking about a potential ordinance change, are we at least comfortable enough to have them vet that out for us? Or are we just flat out saying no, this is— conversation's over?

So I think Rocky Mountain actually is an example of this same situation. I'm sure they must get a lot of proposals saying, can you please do this or do this? We know it's Not exactly the right way, but please do it. Or, we know that our house doesn't actually fit where we can get a permit, but can you please somehow make this work? And I think that they actually put, you know, a line down that they enforce and have a policy that that permit has to be in place before they move forward.

Right.

I would suggest the city should have the same policy. But I would be welcome to have the staff look at it, whatever. I don't know that I'm interested in having a long discussion with committees, but I would like to hear first what staff has to say before we go to committees.

Isn't that what we're doing today?

Well, I think we have some more questions to be answered.

I do actually like the idea of taking it to people like the Natural Resources, which is This is kind of what they're tasked to do, right? I'd like to maybe get some of their input. I don't know what the trends are in solar. I mean, I don't think there's any harm in having them look at the policy, but maybe it's not worth the time.

I guess the— I guess the question— this is a policy decision. So this is a decision that really rests with you as a policy body. Now, obviously, if there was an ordinance amendment, we we would have to go through the Planning Commission. They would have an opportunity to voice their input, provide feedback. But ultimately, this is kind of, kind of you. You know, I don't— I think Rocky Mountain is interested in just a permit. I don't think they care about what our setbacks are or anything like that. I think they're just wanting to make sure— That, I guess, that box has been checked, so to speak.

I would suggest that if we go down that route, that we do some type of letter of non-compliance as to zoning, not necessarily building, if we go that route. So in the future when they try to sell, there will be some— so in lieu of you getting this permit, you're also signing an agreement knowing that you're in violation of the zoning codes.

So we're not, we're not throwing away our leverage, but we're delaying it, essentially.

Right, but, and I agree with Jason, that's what I was going to say, but I— we do run the risk that when they do go to sell the property, they're going to come to us and whine about that letter of non-compliance. Please waive us and sign a reconveyance so that we can sell our property.

We've had that always, especially when other property owners die and kids are selling, let's say, the home, and then the kids come to us and say, we didn't know my mom and dad signed into So does that put us at any liability risk?

I'd have to ask.

I don't think it's a liability risk so much as just, uh, yeah, difficult position.

I would say though, from a building safety perspective, we would need to make sure it's not a code violation that is a hazardous situation associated with a power connection, or it's— they've gone out and strung some lights up and wired it on their own without a permit.

Potentially we're just putting up barriers for people to be able to sell their home, you know, in a reasonable time frame. You know, we have lenders or real estate agents or the sellers themselves coming to us and asking us to withdraw the letter or modify it or give them some other assurances that we may or may not be able to do.

Well, my point is that the property owner knows now if he wants to get sold, he knows right now that he's going to have to deal with that. If we just carve it out and give him that, then there's no mechanism for us to get any compliance in the future.

But you're saying we're doing that letter even currently with our existing process?

With just building violations.

Ryan, now I, as a homeowner, I can throw up my electrical lines or I can do whatever I want. But if you come and see it's in violation of the Solar permit? You're not going to make me fix it.

What I'm saying is if you come in and apply for the solar permit and you have a zoning violation, but at the same time we find out there's a building safety issue, for example, our inspectors go out and find out that you've done some haphazard electrical wiring, we're going to stop you. You've got to fix anything that's a safety hazard like that. So it's kind of a separate issue to a zoning setback issue, but If we find a building safety issue, we don't— I don't think we can compromise on those issues. They would need to bring those up to compliance.

So are you saying that only setback issues would be exempted as far as what you think could happen?

I'm saying anything that's a— that isn't necessarily a safety hazard. A trailer on the property line, I mean, a shipping container or a shed. So Maybe that's not a safety hazard. So, unless they're storing volatile chemicals in there or something.

Is a setback a safety hazard?

It could be, depending on what's stored in there.

So, that's my question. With setbacks, there's a reason for them, and if you're too close to a neighbor's property, there could be issues with fire, police, etc. You might be heading into the backyard if there's an emergency.

If it's just you're storing garden tools in there and it's, it's in the back corner, probably not a safety issue. But I don't know that we're going to go in and inspect what they're storing in those sheds.

But if you put your shed where you're only 5 feet from your neighbor's fence and there's a fire back there and it's a problem for firemen—

But we also don't have uniform setback standards in all of our zones or PDs.

Typically a shed that's detached from the house is not a violation. It's those that they're actually Attaching to the building and going then to either the side property line or they're attaching to the back and going all the way to the rear. That— those are the main issues that we have. And that's probably the 23 that's represented. If you're just having a shed in your back corner, that's probably not a violation.

So I would be interested to hear what those 23 were and what happened with them, if you could come back to us on that.

And are there any in the 181 that could be some kind of safety issue? Like I don't see that in the list there, but have we had any that were declining for safety reasons?

Those are the items that were—

But they withdraw on their own accord?

Yes. So there was either no reason given, that's probably the majority of that 80%, was no reason given, they just withdrew.

If they went with another contractor, they needed a new application to be with Contractor A instead of Contractor B, right?

Correct.

A lot of contractors will do their own base. and then another contractor come in and do the same homes, then whoever they go with will come and withdraw their estimate.

So would everybody be comfortable to wait to hear Jason come back with the 23?

I guess, Mayor, I would also suggest that if Steve is representing that we can modify the code, what would that modification— what would that amendment include?

It would probably be really simple.

What would it look like?

So basically right now the code says If you have an existing zoning violation, we will not give you a building permit. This does not apply to permits for rooftop solar.

Okay, so it would be very— something as simple as that.

Yes.

Okay.

Are they notified at that point that if there is a zoning issue though, that it will be— the county will be notified and will issue the letter? Is that part of the process? that we let them know about.

If we do that simple route, we wouldn't do that. So that would be something that you decide to do either as a policy or—

Yeah, that's not something we'll probably do in an ordinance.

So could you write up a simple sentence for us and, uh, bring that to our next work session?

Sure.

But I think, Mayor, if I— I think what Steve— Steve is recommending an ordinance amendment, but then we would also need an company policy. So that, so that, you know, we wouldn't be codifying what you've just talked about. But that would be potentially part of the policy that we have.

So could we do the 16th of July? Because I'm actually not going to be here the 18th.

Sure. We're still not making them come up to be compliant, which doesn't make sense.

We don't have Does that mean we could?

To me, that's the term right there. If you're not compliant, then you don't get it. Become compliant and get the permit, and we're done. So we're not playing the game of bending. To me, it's black and white. Sam, have you had a lot of residents approach you about this concern?

5 or 6, yeah.

I agree with Dave, but I'd like to hear what Jason finds out and what Steve presents.

I mean, I'd like to have the NRSC weigh in on this, and they could probably provide some insight into making a recommendation. And, you know, we need to go through the Planning Commission. I'm sure they'd have some input.

So I'm not against that.

I'd just like to get this information first.

Well, but I mean, it sounds like we have some We could probably run that process parallel with—

Yep.

With the work that Jason and Steve would be doing on the ordinance.

Okay. Let's move ahead that way then.

But it'd come back to us before the planning session.

Oh, before we go into—

Yeah, this is a policy decision on our part.

So July 16th is okay then?

Yeah.

So let's go ahead and have a prayer over the food. And Mark, could you give us a prayer over the food since it's here waiting for us?

Father in heaven, we're grateful for this day that we have today, the responsibility and obligation we have to city management and city legislators. We're grateful for the privilege of serving the residents here of Warren. For the food, we ask you to bless it to strengthen our bodies physically, We'll be able to have a most enjoyable and productive meeting tonight. This we pray for in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

Amen.

And I'm like, wow.

I said, you had, you had some long-term care that you were actually looking at.

Yeah, so she was FaceTiming them.

Yeah, he's in London.

Oh wow.

Here's some, uh, here's some Top Ramen.

You won't starve. Do me a favor, give Lester some.

She's in Los Angeles.

I was gonna say, I was wondering if allowing you to phone call means taking less letters, but it seems like—

He thought that's what it meant, but, um, his mom corrected him.

Oh yeah, that's—

no.

Well, Mike could always print off all the letters.

He's always printing off things there. How are you? I don't know. You're against the Republican Party. We're playing down as if that's where we're dealing with potential opposition.

Are we going to have to shutter school districts? Just look at the kids coming through combined with other—

It seems like Congressman Kern still agrees.

Yeah, he was on KSL today.

So do you realize that Ken McAdams won by 700 votes, and they're estimating that had our county not had delays in voting booths, that those 700 may have stayed and voted for B-11 and could have changed the direction of it?

Election.

Who are the real tipping points in marijuana?

Sucking people out to vote.

And Mitt Romney.

No, Republicans out to vote, but marijuana got the—

Oh, true.

Yeah.

Democrats.

Well, if everybody's done, why don't we—

Ready?

Yep. Okay. Why don't we go ahead and have a discussion? We have a discussion on the fitness center.

Are you leading that?

Okay.

I just wanted to give you a little bit of an update as to where we are relative to the fitness center. We have made great progress with big deconstruction in Method Studio in relation to starting to put kind of the pieces of the fitness center together. Initially, what we went through a process where we identified all the spaces that we thought were things that we wanted to include in the center— studio spaces, racquetball courts, gymnasium, childcare facilities, family restrooms, And we kind of identified what we saw as kind of critical needs and things that we thought were part of kind of the emerging fitness world. We identified about 90,000 square feet of needs. And then we went back and we kind of said, okay, well, based on The existing footprint of the fitness center. How do we fit all of these kind of pieces into that facility? And what we found were in the existing space, there's a lot of not dead space, but it's kind of empty space, a lot of corridors, a lot of unusable kind of spaces. And so we refined that model, and in addition to that, we had this discussion about the gymnasium, taking down the gym, trying to more efficiently locate that amenity within the fitness center. And we got down to being able to accommodate everything that we think we want to include in the facility. And minimize what I would call the amount of dead space that is in the new facility. And by that I mean we've eliminated a number of corridors and access areas that were not really efficient. And we've gotten that number, that 90,000 square foot vision, to about 80,000 square feet. But we haven't compromised any of the space, any of the active space that we want in getting down to that number, cutting down that 10,000 square feet. At the same time we're having this conversation, we're receiving bids back on the library hall project, which is a little different because that was a, essentially a traditional bid project. where we bid out plans and they came back and they said, yes, we're willing to build this product for X price. That X price is $6.5 million. Based on the square footage, it equated to $312 a square foot. So we were expecting the number to be higher.

How many—

what was the dollar amount I didn't hear?

$6.5 million. So we expected the amount to be higher. We had, you know, hoped that we could come in at $6.2 million. It came in at $6.5. We were nervous in advance of the bid that the number would come back based on current market conditions back at around $7 million. So we were happy and sad all at the same time, but we landed at about $312 a square foot. So we're starting to do the raw math on the fitness center based on 80,000 square feet, and we're saying, okay, we believe there are efficiencies that can be garnered in the fitness center because there— this is obviously a bigger project. Some of the spaces are not going to be as cost intensive, for example, because we have some large Racquetball courts, we have large gymnasium, we have large studio spaces, so it's not going to require the same cost per square foot as the library. So conservatively, we're saying, well, what if we came in at $300 a square foot? Which our architect is suggesting and our contractor is suggesting that's probably achievable. It makes us a little worried, but let's go with that number for now. Well, you do the math and 80,000 square feet times $300 per square foot is $24 million. Our project budget for the fitness center at present is $21.5 million. So we have a $2.5 million delta that we believe we are going to have to bridge. So we started having the conversation of, okay, well, how do we bridge that number? Obviously, the first way to bridge it is we could reduce the square footage and we could cut out some of the spaces in the, uh, in the proposed project. Any space that we cut out, we have to look and say, okay, well, if we cut out Space X, what are we giving up in terms of revenue? Does it make sense for us to walk away from some of the space if it's not going to generate revenue? We are of the opinion that the spaces we have programmed in the new fitness center are much more favorable from a revenue perspective than what we currently have. So for example, studio spaces. We have 3, I guess, slash 4 studio spaces included in this new fitness center. We can fill those studio spaces pretty regularly throughout the entire day. One of them would be dedicated almost exclusively to gymnastics, but, you know, 3 of the spaces we could keep busy pretty much the whole day. So if we cut out one of those spaces, then we're cutting out a revenue-generating space.

How big are those spaces?

I don't know exactly. I'm looking at Ryan and Carl.

They're between 1,500 and 2,500 square feet.

So they're pretty good spaces.

So the larger one, the spin room you were in?

Yes.

Is the bigger— the one we're in today would be The bigger of the other ones would be about half that size.

So could you—

and I don't know if you're far along in this process— but could you send us a, just a ballpark diagram of what the spaces are within the proposed rec center and what the ROI is for each one and how much square footage?

So right now, I know I, I don't know if there's 2 spaces 2 spaces for spinning, 3 spaces for spinning.

No, we, we can— we're getting to the point where we can send you kind of a general floor plate and a concept as to where everything fits.

Okay.

We haven't taken each of the spaces though and calculated from a revenue perspective where we think—

But if you don't have that yet, if you could send us the floor plate.

Yeah, yeah.

That would be really helpful.

We got with the architects on Thursday and kind of finalized a concept that we were all gravitating towards. So yes, we're happy to do that. So, you know, the first option is, well, let's cut back the square footage.

What is that?

And that's probably going to require us to cut certain amenities out of the facility. Is it studio space? Is it racquetball courts? Do we cut out family restrooms? Do we cut out an indoor playground?

Do we—

there's a, there's kind of a teen area. Do we cut that out? We have some multipurpose/community/meeting space, classroom space. Do we cut that out? So, you know, we're not necessarily really excited to do that, but That's the reality of where we are. The next option is we have set aside 4 years of care to this point from the rec fund. Do we set aside additional years of care on the rec side to dedicate to this project? An additional 2 years would garner us an additional, let's say for example, $2 million, and we could You know, we could probably trim $500,000 out of a project. We can't trim $2.5 million out of the project. So that's another option.

Question on the CARES tax. So are we using the CARES tax from this year as part of the project area?

Yes, this is our second—

this year and next year—

third year.

Yep.

And then next year.

So we have 2 existing The third year would be this next fiscal year. The fourth year would be fiscal year '21.

And that's over and above the $21.5 million?

No, that's included in the project budget.

Okay, so you're using 2 right now?

No, we're using all— all 4 is included in the $21.5 million construction price.

Or in other words, originally we already anticipated using 4 years.

I can't hear. The bond is $17.5 million of it, and CARES is $4 million.

Well, no, I'm saying, for example, the construction price, the construction amount we have is $21.5 million. Then we have fees on top of that for architects. And so the money we have to actually build with is not, you know, we have about $23 million to make the fitness center happen, but there's $1.5 million that gets sopped up.

Yes.

So again, how much CARES Act have you—

$4 million.

All right. For 4 years.

For 4 years. This year, next year, the next year, the next year.

Fiscal year— fiscal year '17.

Okay.

Or no, '18, '19, '20, and '21.

Okay.

So we would say, okay, prospectively, we would look at Taking '22 and fiscal year '23, and that would give us additional $2 million.

You have another door yet to open though.

Yes, there's 2 other doors. The 3rd door is we anticipate this year that we are going to have revenues in excess of expenditures. We've had some one-time money for permits that have been filed and things like that. Typically, we have taken that money and we have been putting it into capital projects. So this next year, we would anticipate that we would still do some of that, but a good majority, if we were to, you know, try and meet that delta, a good majority of that money would not go to a variety of capital projects in the city. It would be dedicated to—

What?

This project in the city. So there probably would be some things that we wouldn't carry forward and do this next fiscal year. Maybe we have a plan to redo 2 playgrounds at $175,000 apiece. Because of this, maybe we redo one of them, or we wouldn't redo any of them for this one fiscal year. And we would kind of go from there. The 4th option is we have some current monies set aside in capital projects or capital reserves. These are monies that are available for us to use for future capital projects. And we have no—

haven't identified—

No.

We haven't earmarked those monies for anything. So I think, Brandon, we have about $3.5 million.

Is this now not counting—

Yeah, not counting now. Yeah, so we have about $3.5 million. But for example, if we were to use those dollars, then we would have to— if we are looking at additional capital construction projects into the future, we would have to draw on that money today and maybe put into the future, some of the other capital projects we are interested in pursuing into the future.

So, go ahead, Brent.

What I'm just thinking here, last— less than a year ago, we were coming with an amount for a bond projecting our cost. How do we miss it so far? I mean, I think we need to build something for the citizens Well, I don't think we're necessarily missing it.

We continue to deal with an incredibly aggressive construction market and labor market, and the cost of materials has increased.

But it wasn't that aggressive last year.

And President Trump has raised steel tariffs and all sorts of other tariffs that are on the horizon that contractors and subcontractors are building into their bids that were not part of the conversation when we started this.

How big is the current fitness center? How many square feet?

109,000 total.

Without the pool?

That's including the pool.

And the 80,000 you're talking about is without the pool?

That's without the pool, yes.

How big is the park without the pool, Carl, so we're apples and apples? I think that's Brett's question.

I think our pools are 35, but I'll have to check that.

So roughly it's 85, 75, 75 and 35 makes 110 roughly, right? So it's, it's roughly the same size, a little bigger throwing out the pool. Independent of the pool, the new one is roughly the same size as the old one.

But for example, what— and what you will see in what we will share with you, or what the architects will share with you, is we're trying to congregate spaces in a way so that we don't have exclusive corridors for, for specific activities. So for example, down one corridor we would have access to Racquetball courts, gymnasium, potential studio spaces. All of it would be accessible down one corridor rather than— right now we have a corridor that gets you into the building, then we have a corridor that runs down and provides access to gym and weight room, and you run down another corridor, you've got racquetball courts, and at the end of that corridor you've got a little space where there's a shooting range. So what you'll see is a massing of those uses in a way where it's more efficient.

Similar to what we saw today in our tour, where, you know, originally when Camden Park was built, there was a lot of— there was a certain percentage that was dedicated to hallway space. Now it's more an open concept. A few years ago when we did a study on this City Hall and projected out How much space we needed in the future. We saw that we wouldn't really need a lot of extra space, again, because there's more efficient ways to open up the uses and connect them with each other without corridors.

You know, when we're talking about cost escalation of 10 to 15%, which if you ask any contractor, if you ask, you know, any Vendor or manufacturer, they're saying, hey, you know, between the cost of labor, the cost of goods, we are seeing that throughout the marketplace in general. So I don't think what we're talking about is a gross underestimation of what we thought we could do it for. We just didn't anticipate that, one, the economy would remain as strong as it has. 2, that we would still be having this growing conversation of tariffs, that the labor market would be a little less competitive than it is today. So, yeah, I mean—

So let me ask you a question. So the rec center is to be finished approximately July of '21, in theory? Or do we not?

So we're looking at a— we're looking at having, uh, the ribbon cutting, so to speak. Yeah, in right around that time frame where it would all be done.

Okay.

But it would be kind of phased into summer.

Sure. So right after that, you come to '22 and '23. If you were to use the CARES tax money from '22 and '23, as you have suggested, That money, $2 million, could be available to finish the rec center and be right at the end as the rec center is finished. If we use CIP money now, that money can go for the rec center, but rec center money from the CARES tax later cannot be used for CIP projects, only used for recreation projects.

Correct.

So I like the idea of using $20 million 22 and 23, since they're just right after the opening of the rec center, the money is available and is designated for recreation projects.

Um, anyway.

And the current CARE tax that voters approved, when does that expire?

March of '24.

Okay, so those years would still be part of what has already been approved?

Yeah, this February.

And as far as the equipment, so I'm thinking about cardio machines and the children's indoor playground, those types of things, is that included in that budget or is that kind of a separate equipment budget? Is that already funded or are we still trying to find money for that?

We haven't completely funded it yet, but we have some money set aside.

We do, to that point, we do have the million dollars from the Woodbury Corporation that is donated to the city over 15 years. So you could in theory purchase and lease the equipment to match the payments coming in from the Woodburys to have them actually pay for the equipment.

So as we fund this project, there are certain monies that have been pledged that we have yet to receive. The Woodbury group is money that won't Won't even kick in for 2 years. Until 2021. And then we have the Ashton money, and that money is going to be provided to us incrementally, but I think that the schedule is far more aggressive than what Woodbury is. Regardless of how we look at it, we're going to have to essentially— and we haven't figured it all out with Brandon yet, but we would anticipate Borrowing from ourselves to essentially float the money that we would need for full construction so we could meet our obligations for construction. And then as reimbursement or as contributions would be received, then we would make reimbursements to the money that we borrowed from ourselves.

Sure.

So, you know, we may actually be dipping in. to other funds to finance the—

But that would be paid back?

Yeah, we would enter into some sort of promissory note relationship and we would reimburse when that money becomes available.

Sure.

Those donations, is that included in the $21.5 million? Yes.

So the Ashton— the Woodbury money is not. The Ashton money is.

But that's not attached to the $25,000, that's attached to the library, isn't it?

No, it's attached to the fitness center.

Woodbury's fitness center.

Woodbury? Ashland.

No, Ashland, excuse me. No, and I guess what I'm— I'm kind of treating the projects as one and the same. No, so, and we're still hoping to receive some additional money from other sources, and that does not include Those monies, for example, the mayor is currently pursuing?

Yeah, we have asked out to Zion's Bank, which we believe will come back with a donation for the library.

And they're doing a new foundation, so we're just waiting for that foundation to be established and put in place. So, but they pretty much said they want to do a donation, so we believe that's forthcoming. We have contacted Qualtrics They're looking at it and will let us know back. That could go either way, don't know for sure. Contacted PEG Corporation, that is together with Blue Diamond, and we'll see where they go.

Don't know for sure.

So, we also have letters out to Garf Corporation. Larry H. Miller. And Larry H. Miller.

We've contacted We've met with Larry H. Miller, and they have requested that we fill out a form and send it in.

I'm not sure where that's at, but—

It's in progress.

So they donated $100,000 to the rec center of Provo, and we believe that they would do the same for us.

So anyway, the reason I'm bringing this to you tonight is a conversation we had with the architect and the contractor last week was, we think you have more of a project than you can afford with your current project budget. And we don't want to get too far down the road designing this facility if we're going to overbuild it. So we probably need to have a conversation sooner rather than later as to, should we be essentially looking for ways to trim back additional square footage out of the building so that we can meet current budget, or are there additional dollars available elsewhere in the city that you might contribute to the budget?

When would you like to have, and where would you like to have that conversation?

Well, I mean, I guess, I guess what I'm suggesting is, as staff, Our preference, and we believe in the best long-term interest of the city, because we're really making a short-term decision here that has some very, very long-term consequences. Our recommendation would be to try and find money from additional revenue sources to add to our project budget. Thereby keeping the project at about 80,000 square feet of new construction, rather than trimming back the size of the facility.

So I would like to see, if you could, send us a floor plate with things in there, and then I would like to have another discussion about this amongst the council. So whenever, however, but—

Okay, and I'm more than happy to do that. Our next scheduled meeting is the 18th or 16th of June.

So I feel like we keep punting on these things, you know, do this other research and come back, but it doesn't really change how we— it's not going to change how I feel about the path forward. So I, I'm comfortable committing that future CARE money that's specifically for recreation, even though it does kind of earmark funds that Future councils. Right, and it might increase the amount of flexibility we have where these current capital funds we could do a variety of things, whereas if we're tying it specifically to recreation. But I— with our playgrounds that we're renovating, the park upgrades that we're making, a lot of that funding comes outside of the CARE funding.

Yes.

So I think if we're pulling You know, money out of CARE as opposed to pulling it out of, you know, whatever these other capital budgets are, then, you know, I'm fine committing that money because it has to be used for recreation and this is kind of the flagship of our recreation program.

So to that point, I would be fine as well committing those last 2 years of CARE tax without further discussion. I would like further discussion on How it's proceeding and what's happening, but I'm comfortable with those 2 years. I don't know how everybody else is. I'd rather use those than the CIP funds.

I'm the only one getting bombarded on this, I think. But where are we at on the racquetball courts?

So the current plan has 4 racquetball courts in it.

No possibility of 6?

Yes, there is a possibility of 6 in the future. And there is essentially a footprint that we have identified that is south of the exist— of the potential new facility that could accommodate additional racquetball courts as we got the monies necessary to do it. There's also space that would accommodate an additional gymnasium or other activity spaces. we were to choose to do it in the future. So if we were to phase this, it would not be a phase 1 project. It would be— phase 1 would be 4 racquetball courts. And over time, as a council, the suggestion would be that you look at the need and the demand for additional racquetball spaces or other spaces for that matter.

It's—

It's flexible to the point where you If you want to add additional studio space, there would be essentially acreage available to do that. If you wanted to add a bowling alley, you could do that too.

So we're going to run out of time here, so we can move to the other— to the next City Council work session. I'm comfortable with the CARE tax. How's the rest of the council?

Brent?

Not yet?

I'm fine.

Okay, you're fine.

Well, whether it's a CARES tax or some other funding, I'm—

You're being specific right now on the CARES tax.

Yeah, I'm probably not ready to be that specific.

Okay.

But I'm willing to give you a stopgap that you need, which is really what you need today to move forward.

Dave? I think I'm not ready to move on to CARES either, but I think there may be a blended way of picking money here and there to make— get what we need. We talk about downsizing. I mean, have we talked about downsizing the hall to save money?

No, we haven't, because that project's been designed. We have a contractor on board. We've awarded the contract.

So we still are going to run out of time. We do have 4 council members that agree with using the CARE tax.

Well, and I wouldn't mind a blended— yeah, I mean, if it's 2 years of CARE, 1 year CARE, part of—

I mean, so are you Are you comfortable with the 2 years of caretakers?

That's the question.

I guess for me, Mayor, the question is— the option is, do we proceed and try to stick to the 80,000 square foot footprint, or do we begin the process of cutting back and minimizing?

I don't think anybody wants to cut back.

That's the only thing he needs answered.

So, and I think how we get there is—

I'm not comfortable with the I am with the CARES Act.

But again, some of us aren't as comfortable with CARES and are with the CIP. The question— that is the question on the table today.

How many freeze?

That's the question on the table. That's not even a question for each. The question is, will we stopgap the $80,000 bill?

The question is, do we want to use the CARES Act? No.

The question is—

that isn't what he asked. He asked, is it $80,000 or less?

100%.

We said $80,000 is fine. Okay, and I'm just saying I asked the question. Okay, are we comfortable with the care tax? You're no. Sam is.

I am.

We would know.

And Daisy no.

Mark, I'll look at options. I mean, I think it goes back to making a decision pretty quick here.

I do want some care funds used, but if it's all right, so we'll go back to the next work session to make a decision.

Yeah, is that what you're saying?

Yeah, we'll just go to the next work session to make the decision.

But I think the direction is move forward with the $80,000. We get the funding.

No, I don't think about it.

Exactly.

But I guess what I'm saying is that we could go, we could go 3 months down the road and somebody could contribute $250,000. Well, then the $2.5 million delta is no longer $2.5 million.

And we should have some of those funds coming in. So we'll go ahead and table that for the motion— for the moment, but you know the direction we feel. We do have one item tonight, and that is a consent item approval of the meeting minutes.

Is everybody comfortable with that? Okay.

We don't really have time to go through the whole agenda.

We got changes to the minutes. Thank you very much.

We do have the upcoming events. We are doing 3 different meetings, separate meetings for minutes as well as bylaws and budgets. So with that, why don't we go ahead and adjourn and move over to City Council. Thank you, too, for being here.

Appreciate it.

Perfect.

We would like to welcome everyone out to our city council meeting this evening and would like to call this meeting to order. We would like to begin by having a prayer given by Ned Hall, after which the Pledge of Allegiance will be given by Wendy Hall. Ned, if you'd like to go forward to the podium there.

Our kind and righteous Father in Heaven, we bow before thee this evening at the commencement of this City Council meeting and give thee thanks for the many blessings that we enjoy. We're grateful for the freedoms that thou hast blessed us with, living in this country, in this state, and in this city. We're grateful for those that administer to the services here. We pray that thou would bless them for their efforts this evening. Please bless all that participate, that they will do so in a manner that will be beneficial to this great city. Help us to listen, and understand and be able to contribute to the things that need to be said tonight. We pray for these things and ask for Thy Spirit in all things. In the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

Amen. Our flags—

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

Thank you to the Hall family. Appreciate that. We'd like to go over the upcoming events for the city. On June 1st, we have the Mountainland Continuum of Care And City of Orem Housing Summit at the St. Francis Catholic Church at 9:00 a.m. On June 1st, we have the City of Orem Mayor's Centennial Ball at 5:30 p.m. at the UVU Sorensen Center Ballroom. On June 10th through the 15th, we have the City of Orem Summerfest. June 20th, we have the City of Orem Police Hillcrest Police Picnic at the Hillcrest Park at 5:30 p.m. On the 21st of June, we have the Canyon Park Tech Center opening of the amenity center at 10:30 a.m. And then on June the 27th, we have the City of Orem Police Suncrest Area Police picnic at the community park at 5:30 p.m. We We now would like to receive a report from our Summerfest committee. Our presenters are Steve Down and Sean Lalas— Lalas, the Summerfest committee chair.

Good evening.

Thank you, Mayor and City Council. It's an honor to be able to present our vision for Summerfest 2019. My name is Shawn Lalas. I'm the Summerfest chairman this year as well as the Grand Parade chairman. The theme this year we have chosen for this year is 100 Years of New Frontiers. This year Orem turns 100, and with that significant milestone, we wanted to incorporate it into our events. Orem had humble beginnings but has grown to be one of the top 20 best places to live in the United States. Orem has overcome challenges and blazed through new frontiers to become the amazing city it is today. We wanted to focus on that with our theme this year. Our Summerfest mission statement is engaging, celebrating, and showcasing the citizens and community of Orem through annual events, service, and recognition. We believe that Orem has so much to offer and the citizens are exceptional. We wish to celebrate and showcase all the wonderful things that make Orem special during our Summerfest events. Summerfest allows our, our community to come together, share our talents, give service, and bond together. It is an event that provides entertainment but also a sense of belonging and unification to the citizens of Orem. The Summerfest committee and city staff work to ensure we are fulfilling this mission statement as we plan events each year. We've had many businesses and community members that wish to give back and support Summerfest and all that it encompasses for the citizens of Orem. Without them, we could not create our vision of Summerfest. We're grateful for their generosity. On the left column on the screen, we have those that have given cash donations, and on the right, we have those that have given in-kind donations. With their help, we've been able to improve and enhance events. Again, we are very appreciative of their donations and willingness to support our Summerfest vision. This year, we exceeded our donation amount from previous years. We wish to thank those sponsors that have been involved for many years and also those that have, have given for the first time this year. We want to thank them for their kindness and generosity. I wish to give recognition to our Summerfest committee members. These men and women volunteer their time, talents, and resources to make Summerfest shine. I personally have seen the sacrifices that they have given to make Summerfest run smoothly, and I want to thank them for their efforts. Summerfest definitely would not be possible without them, and if they were— are here, if they would please stand We have Jay Teresa, who is the vice chair, Kat, Sally Matthews, Ashley Mann, Liz Wolfe, Nate Black, Liz Crane.

Stand up.

Stand up if you're—

And stay standing.

John Whitaker, Catherine Whitaker, and Kirsten Hatterly. These are all—

Give them a round of applause, please.

Yeah.

And I want to personally thank them for all they've done to contribute to Summerfest. It's a, it's a lot of work and a lot of volunteer work that they do, and they've done a lot. We also have staff that support us. We can't do it without them. They too work tirelessly and they make many sacrifices, the city staff, to support our committee vision in Summerfest. They also put in many hours, and it simply would not happen without the city staff and commitment and dedication. And they definitely deserve recognition, and I would ask if any of them are here to please stand. Charlene, Reed, Jill, Laura, Kent, Stephen, please go ahead and stand. Jane, Kenna, Chris, Jim, Jason, Addison, Pete, Amy, Jenica, Nate, or Heidi.

Let's give them a round of applause as well.

It has been a pleasure working with City Councilwoman Debbie Larey. She is very passionate about Summerfest, and I believe she is the, the biggest citizen that loves it more than anyone in this, in the city. We've appreciated her support and her guidance. As we've had discussion in planning meetings, and she has created a video this year highlighting the Summerfest events, and we'd like to play that at this time.

Hi, this is Councilwoman Debbie LaRae inviting you to this year's Orem Summerfest, which is June 10th through the 15th. Did you know that this celebration started in 1939? So this is our 80th year of doing this summer festival. The other exciting news is that Orem Centennial, 100 years.

We're going to have a lot of centennial things going on this year.

We'll talk about those later in the video. We also have a couple really big changes this year, responding to several of your requests. Forget the long lines at the carnival this year. We're going to pre-sell those tickets at the Orem Public Library. They'll be a dollar each and they'll be sold in sets of 20. We're going to have a new spot-saving policy. No saving spots until Friday, June 14th at 8 AM. Markers will be removed at learner's expense. Okay, our exciting schedule is as follows. Monday, June 10th, the kickoff party at the University Place. Starting at 6 o'clock, we're going to have live music and a great storyteller, Antonio Sotra. He's fabulous.

I've heard of it before.

Guess what else? Free Far's Better ice cream. That's going to be a great family fun activity Monday night. The next day is Tuesday, June 11th. This is going to be our pool party over at the Syrup Pool, 6 PM to 9 PM. Admission will be 50% off. Another great free dessert, free Dairy Queen ice cream for everyone who attends.

Join us for that.

Wednesday, June 12th, we have a reimagined car show at the Stewart Park starting at 6 o'clock. There are going to be some great classic cars as well as rare and authentic U.S. military vehicles. There will be a nice dinner for the first 1,000 people. It's going to be a great family fun event. Thursday, June 13th is our family carnival day. This is going to be at the City Center Park. We're going to start earlier this year. We're starting Starting at noon and going until 10 PM. The carnival rides will be just one ticket, and like I said, if you want to get up early, down to the library. There's activities and entertainment, get off the tailgates, lots of fun things for families to come and spend the day with their kids. Friday, June 14th, you can come do the carnival rides and all the fun family activities during the day. At night, we're going to do Warm Stock Talent. This will be Center Park on Stage, 7 PM. featuring some of the most talented people in Orem. Hey, Saturday, June 15th, the Reclaimers will be out in the park here making a great pancake breakfast starting at 8 AM. It's $3 a person or $15 a family. New this year is a suicide health walk that's going to be starting at St. Francis of Assisi Church at 9 AM. We ask you to please wear a white shirt. We're going to connect different churches together that day. It's going to be a great event to help prevent suicide in our community. We have so many other activities going on, of course, the carnivals and eats, entertainment activities here at St. Center Park with our grand parade at 7 PM. And new this year, fireworks that are longer. To celebrate Orem's 100th birthday, we're adding 5 more minutes to our fireworks show. We want you to come down and have a Great experience. We're so excited. We want you to come out and have a great experience here at Summerfest. We spent a lot of time planning it. For a full calendar of events, you can go to summerfest.warm.org or follow the City of Warm on all of our social media outlets. We really want you to come and have a great summer.

Great video. Thank you, Debbie.

Again, we want to thank Councilwoman Debbie Lurie. She is a great support to our committee. And this video can be found on the Orem City's Facebook page if you want to watch it again or share it with friends and family. And then in addition, as Debbie Lurie had mentioned in her video, we do have the Summerfest website. So you can go to summerfest.orem.org for the most common questions. There's lots of information on there for that. So I again wish to thank the mayor and city council for the honor to present this to you. And if there's Any questions, we can entertain those.

My only question is, what's Scales and Tails?

So they present— they are a company that comes and brings reptiles and do a show with reptiles. We also— they're also going to do an exhibit where kids can go in and actually see the animals and touch them and hold them and things like that. They usually bring reptiles, Scales and Tails, so it's usually, you know, alligators and things like that and snakes and whatever else. So it's really fun. A lot of the kids, they've been to many other community events, and a lot of people really enjoy them and, and go to them. So we have quite a few shows for those.

Great, thank you. Any questions? Well, I want to thank— I want to thank you for all the efforts you put in and the hard work, and this is a big event, and thank you for taking the responsibility.

Thank you for the opportunity.

Debbie? I also want to echo my thanks. This has been a very good committee. I think we've had a lot of engagement, a lot of great ideas. We've had a lot of changes this year, and I really appreciate the committee and how they've been really pretty easy to get along and to really be flexible with a lot of those changes. And also to Kenna, she's done a great job fundraising. Do you know what our total dollar is right now?

$73,000.

And that is awesome. And we have some new donors we haven't had in the past, and then she was able to get some of our great past donors. So thanks to everyone who's worked so hard, especially you, Sean.

Thank you. Well, thanks, Steve. We'll now go to the personal appearance portion of our City Council meeting. We would ask that you give us your name and you hold your comments to 3 minutes. Our first one is John Arnoldson, and then Phil Murphy and Myrdian Murphy.

Hello, my name is John Arnoldson. I live at 953 North 600 West. I'm one of the sergeants in your police department. I'm here to tell you of the dire situation within your police department. I believe that the proud culture we've cultivated and excellent service we've provided to the Orem community for the last century is eroding, and there is no end in sight. We've lost 19 officers in the last year. Some have retired, but many, in unprecedented fashion, have left us to go elsewhere. This exodus, accelerating over the last several years, is unprecedented. Several, several more are slated to leave within the next month. Including myself, I have every reason to stay here. I was born and raised here, and I'm raising my own family here. OPD was my dream department. I love Orem PD and wish I didn't have a financial incentive to leave. Sound finance requires keeping expenses low, but it also requires managing risk and investing for the future. Orem City is doing neither well. Neither will when the majority of the patrol division has less than 3 years of experience. A newer officer is more likely to make a bad decision that will lead to the city paying out money and getting a black eye in our community. The lack of investment for the future is evident in the fact that despite great efforts to attract more officers, we are losing experienced officers just as fast or faster than we're able to train up the new ones. In the last year, the department has spent over $600,000 in training new officers. This represents an investment that could have gone to retaining our experience. Last year, you approved some increases in hourly compensation for officers. This was very appreciated and an excellent step in the right direction. A comprehensive plan that would have included corporals, sergeants, lieutenants, and on up the chain of command was presented but not approved. A fair question is, why are we still losing officers even when their pay has improved? My answer is, when officers perceive a lack of support from their city administration, then they will naturally question if their brightest future is where they are or somewhere else. When our best and brightest officers see that our sergeants and lieutenants are some of the lowest paid in the area and that the top half of their pay range is unattainable According to how the city issues raises, they can't help but question if their best future is with OPD. For decades, OPD has been a pinnacle department, hiring the best from other departments, keeping them happy and eager to give great service to our citizens. Now we are clearly becoming a training department where we bear the costs of training them to a level of proficiency only for another to hire them away and reap the benefit. You are our elected officials and bear the ultimate burden of resolving this. You are also citizens. Who do you want to come to your aid in your moment of greatest need? Can I finish?

How much more have you got?

4 paragraphs.

Okay.

I would like, like to raise my family under the same level of protection we've enjoyed for Orem for decades. If something very significant isn't done, the erosion will continue. When I started my career, the mantra I heard in various ways from many other officers went something like this: we have to work hard here to keep up with the workload, but we're paid better than anywhere else, and the city takes good care of us. We don't feel this way anymore. Your officers and other employees throughout the city need to feel like valued people not numbers who are easily replaced.

Thank you.

Thank you. Appreciate your service. Move on to Phil and then Miriam.

My name is Phil Murphy. I live here in Orem at 838 West 300 South. From December of 1984 till June of 2014, I had the honor and privilege of being a police officer for the City of Orem. From 2006 till my retirement in 2014, I served as the director of the Utah County Major Crimes Task Force, working closely with officers and agents from federal, state, county, and other participating Utah County municipalities. In this room, you will find my name listed as the 2006 City of Orem Employee of the Year. In the hallway of the police department, you will see a Purple Heart plaque with my name listed there. In 2005, I was shot in the line of duty during a domestic violence incident. I was very fortunate to have survived. And yes, I can say I put my life on the line and have shed blood for the citizens of Orem. I will keep my comments and concerns brief, but if I run over by my allotted time of 3 minutes by a minute or so, I respectfully believe I've earned the right. It is currently estimated that there are between 500 to 600 vacant police officer statewide in Utah. Agencies are struggling to find qualified applicants seeking a career in the noble profession of law enforcement. The city of Orem is facing a crisis in not just finding qualified applicants, but more troubling to me is the retention of officers. Tens of thousands of dollars have been invested in hiring and training vested employees. We are now seeing them leave the city to seek the same career path, but now at a different agency. The vast majority of officers who have left the City of Orem in the past 3 years, other than for retirement reasons, have done so because of salary concerns and better compensations at agencies in this valley or surrounding counties. There are numerous ripple effects that are now taking place. For many years, one of the strengths of this police department was depth. That has changed. The retirement of numerous 20- to 30-year experienced officers along with, in my opinion, retention concerns, will now see a significant increase in less experienced first-line supervisors, in less experienced investigators, and less experienced officers in various specialty assignments such as the task force investigations and school resource officers. Even the valued position as a field training officer who is responsible for training new employees or new officers can be and potentially be relegated to an officer with maybe only a year's experience. A great concern will be the increased incidence of decisions related to use of force, pursuits, and critical incidents. All of these issues could have significant financial repercussions. The risk management of many of these issues is often reduced and mitigated with experienced supervisors and well-trained employees. For years, Orem was considered one of the top-paying agencies in the state, and lateral transfers were common. I worked with dozens of officers who had all come to Orem from other agencies and from out of state because of the outstanding reputation, pay, and administrative support. This is no longer the case.

Why?

Yes, there are some external factors facing law enforcement both nationally and here in Utah. Retirement benefits changed drastically in 2010. creating a significant reduction in pension benefits. Public perception of law enforcement has also been a factor and continues to be a challenge. My question is, what has changed in Orem? Are employees valued here? Why have salaries fallen significantly below the standard that once made Orem the agency to work for? What is this city doing to actively keep and retain valued employees? I believe there is a perception that city employees are not valued. And that they can simply be replaced. I have also heard Orem city wages no longer need to be near the top, but rather middle of the pack or mediocre is just fine. In today's competitive work environment and within the law enforcement community in this state, if Orem is taking this approach, then you get what you pay for. I believe these attitudes and philosophy changes can be attributed to the city manager's office. This may come across as bitter, and I am in no way trying to, uh, make this disrespectful, but I do believe this is a matter of respect. When I retired after serving almost 30 years for this city, there was no representation from the city managers in, in attendance. I have attended numerous other retirements of co-workers in the past 5 years who experienced the same lack of respect. I recognize there can be scheduling conflicts, but it has happened too often. Also, I don't recall ever being approached or asked to be involved in any type of exit interview or meeting with a member of HR or the city manager's office to simply discuss issues, ideas, or other possible organizational improvement concepts with anyone. In conclusion, I would strongly encourage this council to look for opportunities To engage directly with city employees and actively seek information as to why Orem employees have the perception of being undervalued. Orem has to become far more progressive in seeking and keeping employees. Minor salary scale band-aids are not going to be the answer. I have the highest level of respect for Chief Giles and his staff. Gary has implemented significant changes and improvements for this department. And I appreciate all the men and women who serve as officers, dispatchers, and support staff. I often see and read that Orem is nationally recognized for being one of the safest cities to raise a family in, and there are many other great business rankings associated with the city. These can be directly attributed to all the hard-working city employees. It is time to reevaluate many aspects of how to attract and, more importantly, keep employees here. There must be a major city administrative management philosophy change in order for the City of Orem Police Department to once be— once again become a top agency in the state.

Thank you.

Thank you. Now I hear from Miriam. I think so.

My name is Miriam Hale Murphy. I've been a citizen for over, well, 50 years. That tells you how old I am.

Math.

I'm the wife of Phil Murphy. I'm here to lend my voice and support to our Orem City police officers who serve and protect our communities. A year ago this month, my family and I were able to speak to the Board of Pardons and to David Burns, the man who shot and nearly killed my husband 15 years ago here in the city of Orem while responding to a domestic violence call. Phil and I took time before we did this, but we decided we wanted to post our letter, the letter that I read to the parole board that day, on Facebook. I posted it on the day David Burns was released in November of last year, November 20th.

I'm sorry.

We wanted to get word out to the citizen. I wish I my biggest regret is I wish I had approached Orem City's Facebook and posted it on there because I feel like it would have given the citizens of Orem and members of the Orem administration some insight into what it's like being the wife. Or family member of a police officer. I would like to invite each one of you— I know Sam has read it, and I appreciated Sam reading it and his comments. I would like to invite each one of you to read it. I brought visual aids today. I want you to see what happened to my husband. The bullet went in right here through his vest, hit his scapula, ricocheted down, and stopped this far from his spinal cord. In my letter, I point out that the biggest reason David Burns is alive today is because of the remarkable restraint that Phil showed. He would have been completely justified in, in shooting David Burns. So where and how did Phil learn to have that kind of restraint? Phil was only 22 years old when Chief Ted Peacock hired him. Many of the officers Orem employs now are probably around that same age. Many of them may be fresh out of the academy. Phil and I both have talked in length about his shooting and the various outcomes that could have happened had he not had the supervision and training by some of the best and most seasoned officers through the years. Phil's calm demeanor and good training helped to save both his life and David Byrne's life that afternoon. But I also give credit to the older and more experienced officers who helped teach and train a young Officer Murphy. Does Orem Police Department have officers now who have several years of experience? Recently here in the city of Orem, Officer Joe Shinners lost his life. What a tragedy. It very easily could have been an Orem officer. Every time an officer is killed in the line of duty, I really relive the horror of one of our captains at Warren Police Department coming to my sister's house on a Sunday afternoon, knocking on the door, and telling me that Phil had been shot. I pray that this won't happen again, but are you as a council willing to put a price on the life of saving a police officer's life?

Thank you.

Thank you. I wish that Gary Giles had been my chief at that time. I have the utmost respect and admiration for him. He has already shown so many things to me as the wife of a police officer who was shot in the line of duty. He, he has gone above and beyond the programs he has implemented about mental health, um, all kinds of things. I really want to, to show my appreciation to him and the officers that you do have. Um, what's really sad to me is, like I say, I'm a— I've been here for years and years, and I'm out and about in the public an awful lot. And I will be out shopping and I'll be talking to somebody and I'll say something about police. My husband was a police officer. 2 times I've had women that I don't know who they are stop me and say, my husband used to work for Orem Police Department, but we couldn't afford to be there anymore. We had to leave and go somewhere else. And I think that's tragic. And I just want to tell you how much I appreciate this time. And but I want to tell all those who work in law enforcement how much I honor and salute and respect them. The job they do is horrific. There's no amount of money you could give. There's no amount of money you could pay. For the things that Phil and other men who have been police officers, the things they see and do are your worst nightmares. Thank you.

Thank you. Can you please hold your applause? We will now go ahead and close the personal appearance portion of our meeting and move forward to a consent item. The consent item is to approve the meeting minutes of May 14th, 2019. of our City Council meeting. Anyone on the council wish to move this to a scheduled item? Seeing that there is none, I will go ahead and make a motion that we approve the meeting minutes of May 14th, 2019. Is there a second?

Second.

Okay, we'll start with Councilmember McDonald.

I wasn't here, but I—

Yeah, do you want to vote though?

Yes.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Okay, that passes. We'll now go to a scheduled item, which is an ordinance approving the amounts to be awarded to the CARE grant recipients for the 2019 CARE granting round. Presenter is Steve Downs.

Thank you, Mayor and City Council. Each year we come to you as we complete a process of listening to and making recommendations regarding how the CARE tax that has been collected over the, over the past year will be allocated for the future year of July 1st. Again, just background, this was a CARE tax that was enacted in the mid-2000s for 8 years. It was renewed in the election in 2013 for an additional 10 years.

This year, we're—

as we'll go into, we'll be allocating a total of $2.3 million. Again, by ordinance, this is required to be a 50/50 split to arts and 50 to, uh, to recreation, and you'll see that allocated here. But in this specific year, one of the differences is we're, we're allocating some money. Over the years, we've done projects and they've come in under budget, and so we've been— we've kind of collected that money for this year and we're allocating it to projects. projects to kind of balance, bring the books back down to, to zero. We, as, as we have throughout the city, we have another wonderful group of citizens who spend their time and their things away from family. Some of them have young children, come straight from work to spend time evaluating and making the recommendation to the City Council about how this CARE tax may be allocated. And this year, Debbie Larray has served as city council liaison on that, on that board, and they heard all the mid and the mini and mid-major grant applications. I'll start with the recreation funding. This year it's been proposed that we fund the fitness center improvements to the tune of $1 million, $30,000 for operational offset for our co-sponsored groups. These obviously are baseball, football, Swimming and some of those nonprofit organizations that that operate youth programs in our city. $87,648 for the futsal project over Geneva Park. $125,000 for playground shade and the anticipated project for this will be the Altogether Playground. $550,000 for additional toddler structures at some previously reconstructed playgrounds to add some additional. 2 to 5-year-old components in those playground areas, and then $40,000 that will begin setting aside for a future replacement of the North Sarah Park playground. There will be a dedicated toddler playground. This includes, uh, the half of the $2.3 million but also $199,898 of previous recreation funding that was CARE that is allocated to make this funding possible. Mini and mid-major grant funding proposals. I won't go through each one, but again, these organizations are all nonprofit organizations that, that perform here in the city. Most of them are based here, but all of them will only be funded for performances that they do, do that they do here in the city of Orem. That's the first page and the second page. In total, the, the request from the City Council to this Care Commission was to stay at $70,000, and that's where it basically comes in at $69,998. Major and facility proposal. Again, this is all staying on the art side as well. The proposal for the— and forgive me on the, the years, but the amounts are correct— the proposal for the Hale Center Foundation for the Arts and Education is $330,000. The Utah Metropolitan Ballet of $21,000. The Sierra of $545,000. And that brings a total for the major grant applicants of $896,000. There was a request also from the library auditorium of $200,000. If we took funding those organizations at that level, taking the, the additional money plus A reallocation of $33,187 in previous funding brings us to a total of $199,939, just $61 short of—

Steve?

$200,000.

Sam Lentz has a question for you.

Could you go back, uh, one slide?

Of course.

Um, I'm just trying to understand, is this the running total from this slide and the previous slide?

Oh, correct, correct. Yeah, that—

okay, making sure I understand the math.

Yeah.

Thank you.

That continues on. The total allocation for this year is $2,533,085. Again, $2.3 million is money that's been collected or that we project we'll collect in the next couple months that will complete fiscal year 2019. And then the additional money that's been allocated to projects previously that was unspent that has been grouped together and and put into this allocation. We had an opportunity obviously to discuss this in our work meeting and, and answer questions, but any additional questions you have now, I'm happy to answer.

Any questions from the council? Okay, no questions. All right, I would accept a motion to approve the amounts to be awarded to the CARE grant recipients.

So moved.

Second.

Okay, uh, we'll start with Councilmember Lentz.

Aye. Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Okay, the ordinance passes. Thank you, Steve. Well, any communication items from the city manager? Okay, then we will go ahead. Uh, I would make a motion— sorry, I'm sorry, what?

Can I make just a moment of personal comment?

Sure.

I just, you know, my My thoughts are touched. I really appreciate our police officers, and I— even though by nature of the law we're not allowed to have discussions about the personal comments because it's not a notice and we don't give everybody a chance to participate, but I just want to personally thank you for coming and sharing your thoughts. And for me to just express, I've had the opportunity to talk with a large number of Well, a good number of police officers to let them know personally appreciate what they do and respect what they do. And I know the jobs you do are extremely difficult, and we hope that we are giving you the support and the respect and the appreciation that— for the jobs that you do. And, and I would echo that to other members of the city that also work. I respect what the fire department does and what the you know, the public works people, they do some hard jobs throughout. And I just didn't want you to feel like you came and shared your thoughts and didn't at least receive a thank you for coming and for expressing your thoughts. And I personally appreciate what you do and hope that as we address the challenges in the economy and, and the challenges with a shortage of police officers and recognize that many of our fine officers are being promoted and are being sought after because they are top quality, that we, that we can't— we do want to keep our police officers, and hopefully we'll be able to find a way to continue to do that. But just thank you for coming tonight.

Thanks, Mayor.

Thank you. We will now move on to adjourn our meeting and adjourn to the Redevelopment Agency. I move that this meeting be adjourned. Is there a second?

Second.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

This meeting is adjourned. We'll move on to a meeting of the Orem Redevelopment Agency. We have some RDA consent items. Approval of the RDA meeting minutes of May 14th, 2019. Is there a motion to approve that?

So moved.

Okay, is there a second?

Second.

Okay, we'll move ahead. Councillor McDonald?

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Okay, we have an annual review of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Orem bylaws. We have Brandon and Richard here, and we'll turn the time over to them. Well, We're not really going to lead a bylaw discussion, so we'll let you— Okay, we'll leave you, we'll leave you there until time. As far as I'm aware, there are no bylaw changes. Okay, so what we would like to do is the bylaws have been reviewed, and we would like to go ahead and Um, accept the bylaws for the upcoming year. And I saw a move. Is there a second?

I have— We've already done that, right?

Yeah, have—

is anything changing? I'm not sure what we're approving.

Nothing's changed.

We're required annually to— or you as the RDA board are required annually to review the bylaws.

Okay.

So there's, there's no requirement that you make a change. It's just Procedurally, we have to do this on annual basis.

We just approved that as one of our consent items, didn't we? Yeah, that's a consent item. We're on 15.

So the consent item—

oh yes, excuse me.

So the consent item was approving the meeting minutes, not the bylaws.

Second part.

Yeah, there's 2. There's 2.

Okay, there is 2. Okay, so We will add the annual review, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Orem bylaws, in together with the approval of the RDA meeting minutes, and we will take another vote on the consent items.

Do you need a new move?

Jody, didn't we just do that? Wasn't that included in the motion?

No, it was not.

It was not included in the motion.

Sorry.

So I move we approve both consent items.

That's fine. Mark, you want to second it?

Second.

Okay, Councilmember Lentz, we'll start with you.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Okay, that's approved. We'll now go on to the scheduling items, which is adopting the budget for the 2019-20 budget for the RDA, and that is what Brandon Nelson and Richard Manning would like to do.

Uh, thank you. Um, so as we discussed in the prior meeting when we showed you the tentative budget and gave that to you, basically wanted to just point out a couple of major items that are affecting this year's budget related to the RDA. The biggest item, of course, is the addition of the University Place CDA, which began here in this fiscal year '19, and we have now had one year of revenues. So we're able to actually at least give a decent projection of what we think that the 2020 revenues might be. And as you can see here, you know, we propose in this budget to be $900,000. That's an increase, and it's actually $1 million because of the 2 items you see below that. The 2 $50,000 items are associated with that University Place CDA in relation to administrative fee, and a— there's a portion that is required to be retained within the— within that RDA for the CDA area, and that's the other $50,000. As you look through the, the tentative budget You can see descriptions and what the impact of each project area is, as well as the new University Place CDA, which you find near the, the end. And the other— is there any questions about those particular items?

I've got one.

Any questions?

The FY20 budget on the right side there, are we missing a cell of data? Because the $900,000 plus 2 $250,000s doesn't add up to the $1.4 million.

Missing something.

Oh, you have $900,000, $50,000 and $50,000, and $1,410,000.

We're missing $410,000.

$950,000 and $50,000 equals $1 million.

So that's not a total?

No, the bottom is not a total.

No, the bottom is not total. Sorry, those are, those are the existing project areas.

So those are the old—

older RDA areas.

I see where you're going.

Yeah, I see where you're going. Yeah, OK.

Because the first column is either equal or roughly equal.

No, it does.

So the first 3 items are the University Place CDA-related items, and the $1,410,000 are the old RDA areas that are gradually phasing out.

And in the column under 19, what's the $898,547 equal?

So that is the existing rev— the revenues that we actually received for those old project areas.

And they just happen to equal the 3 lines above them? Or do they not equal? They just— oh, they—

They're close, but I don't think they equal.

Right, you're right.

I don't— yeah, that's a good, good catch.

They're close, but they don't equal.

Thank you.

So, okay, keep going, Brandon.

Okay, um, and so the, the other item, um, we are touching upon this, um, this evening are the amendments to the RDA, um, and you can see those on the very last page of the tentative budget, and those are simply to make the budget that we had for fiscal '19 equal what we actually did receive for the year. And so we've, we've trued those budgets up in relation to that. So any questions about that? Okay, that's all I have.

All right, any questions from the council? So this is a public hearing, so we would like to open it up to the public. Anyone who would like to speak, please hold their comments to 3 minutes and give us your name Seeing as how no one's coming forward, we'll close the public portion of the hearing and bring it back to the council. Is there a motion to move forward?

So moved.

Okay.

We need a more specific—

Yeah, can you read that?

I have the verbiage.

Okay.

But somebody else can read it.

He has it.

That we adopt the Redevelopment Agency for the City of Orem RDA FY 2019 and 2020 budget and the amended FY 2018-2019 budget.

Is there a second?

Second.

Okay, we'll start with Councilmember McDonald.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Aye.

Okay, the resolution passes. I would like to move that we adjourn this meeting and adjourn to A meeting of the Special Service Lighting District. Is there a second?

Okay.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Okay, we're now in a meeting of the Special Service Lighting District, and the first items— we have 2 consent items. One is to approve the Special Service Lighting District meeting minutes of May 14th, 2019, and the other is the Special Service Lighting District to the City of Orem bylaws. Anyone wish to put that onto a scheduled item? Seeing that's not, we'll go ahead and I would like to make a motion that we approve these 2 consent items. Is there a second?

Second.

Okay, we'd like to go ahead and vote on that. Councilman McDonald? Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Okay, the consent items pass. We'll move on to the Special Service Lighting District schedule items. This is a public hearing on a resolution to adopt the Special Service Lighting District of the City of Orem fiscal year 2019-20 budget, and our presenters are Richard Manning and Brandon Nelson.

Thank you.

Our budget for this year is a total of $1.73 million in the street lighting district. You can see the one thing, you know, pointing out there is obviously you can see a declining revenue stream. And the recent change with the lighting fee structure has a little bit to do with that. This may become, you know, slightly conservative. I mean, our hope is that as we've estimated that it's good. And so the change from the current lighting fee to the new $2.34 fee as that implements over the next little while. We'll obviously continue to monitor that and see how that compares to our budget and see if modification is necessary. But at this time, this is what we feel like is going to be the result of that. If there is any change to that, that will come. And as far as an adjustment in our capital-related line within the expenditure side of the budget. Are there any particular questions in relation to any of the items related with the revenue side? We can touch on the expenditure side if— in just a moment if there's no questions for revenues.

Okay.

So there you see the breakdown of the expenditures. The operations are, you know, the regular maintenance, regular maintenance and related to street lighting poles, power costs, as well as the recent power savings lease that we had with Siemens Energy and the portion of the payment related to the street lighting in regards to that. And then as well as our capital funding that continues to roll over each each year in relation to those streetlight funding.

And then—

Any questions there?

All right, this is a public hearing, so we will open it up for public comment. Anyone wishing to make a comment, please hold your comments to 3 minutes and give us your name when you come forward. Seeing as how no one's coming forward, we'll close the public comment portion of our public hearing and bring it back to the council. Um, I would like to make a motion.

You've got to quit. You've got a light on.

Sorry. Councilor McDonald.

The electric power bill has gone up dramatically this year over previous years, over '17-'18. $1,890 was up and $1,920 is the same budget. I'm looking at the detailed budget you provided us earlier. Can you explain why that went up so dramatically? Page 7 of 12, numbered 4 on the bottom of your—

Um, I believe, I believe we're budgeting, and so the, the $340,000 in the fiscal '19 year is— was obviously done prior to—

Right, the year before was $143,000.

Right.

More than doubled.

I don't know why the— I mean, the decrease from $223,000 to $143,000, I believe, is related to the Siemens Energy lease. I would hope. I would have to look into exactly why, other than I think that budget was already in place Because— so this estimated actual is primarily the existing budget, hasn't been adjusted.

And do you anticipate a dramatic reduction in the—

I, I would. And so—

Is our budget too high for '19-'20?

It—

I mean, it's plugged in there. If we were to remove it, we would move it down to street lighting construction account down below, which is generally what will happen.

Savings.

Yeah, if with any savings that happen there. But that's, that's a, that's a good point. We could obviously adjust that if necessary.

I just don't think $340,000 is very realistic. I mean, you, you should know what 10 months of this year is, and you're probably nowhere near $340,000 since the last 2 years we're averaging $200,000.

Correct.

I could, I could look at that, or, you know, I mean, like I said The adjustment would be we would be moving it down to the street lighting construction account.

Is that something you're comfortable, Councilmember McDonald?

We can move forward. We're not going to spend it if we didn't get it. We're just going to put it in a different category. I'm okay with the budget as a whole is what we're really approving, not the detailed lines.

It sounds like—

I mean, really, we look at our revenue, right, the revenue stream that's coming in, and then we, we accordingly budget the expenditures based off of what that amount's going to be. But, but I'm glad you made that point, and we can definitely make it— look at that and, and monitor that and make that change going forward.

Okay, if there's no further comment, I'd like to make a motion to adopt the Special Service Lighting District of the City of Orem fiscal year 2019-2020 budget. Is there a second?

Second.

Okay, we'll start with Councilmember McDonald.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Okay, that passes. Uh, we now will go ahead and adjourn to a meeting of the Municipal Building Authority of Orem. I so move. Is there a second?

Second.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Okay, we are now in the Orem Municipal Building Authority meeting, and we have some Consent items, 2 consent items. One is the approval of the Municipal Building Authority meeting minutes of May 22nd, 2018, and the second is the annual review of the Municipal Building Authority of the City of Orem bylaws. Would anyone like to put those items down onto a scheduled item? If not, I would move that we go ahead and accept these 2 consent items. Is there a second?

Second.

Okay, we'll start with Councilman McDonald.

I, I have a question. I'm sorry. As I'm reading the minutes, I don't see that I was either in attendance or excused, and I believe I was in attendance. So with that modification to the minutes, then I could approve them.

So you have no excuse for not being there?

No, I have no excuse for not being there.

Glad to find out that you knew where you were at. Okay, so you said aye?

With the modification.

With the modification.

Okay with that modification.

Mark said aye?

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Okay, the consent items are approved. I move that we go ahead and adjourn our meeting of the Municipal Building Authority. Is there a second?

Second.

Okay, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Okay, we are adjourned for the evening. Thank you.

Mayor, may I just note that one of you is having a birthday this upcoming weekend, and we'd like to wish you a happy birthday, Mayor. And so please join us for a treat in 107.

You did have