City Council · 2020-06-16

Yeah, let's just test whatever we need to to make sure we know it works.

I just want to make sure this audio—

Jackie, this is where you sing.

Yeah.

I've heard rumors that are confirmed that you can sing.

Yeah, maybe. Dude, we gotta count to like, say, I want to do the national anthem instead, and then we call her out. What? Oh no, you'd just be left with a real awkward silence. Or that's when you step in and go, okay, and then you like just sing and wave to like, whatever after that. Like, uh, that's when Birdie sang it at the NBA All-Star Game.

Yes.

Did you hear that? I remember that, yeah. Oh, okay.

We never asked Birdie again.

Yeah. Like, some of the players, the camera was panning over their face, so the player was like, oh. Is it?

Oh, 3/8.

Jeff, can you hear us?

No.

There we go.

Really good, really good.

You know, we actually have one conflict with City Council for games, and that's tonight.

Ernest.

Hey, Ernesto, we're struggling with some—

Joseph or Jackie, do you ever hear—

is Jerry presenting in here, or do you know?

I don't.

I can't remember. I assume he is, but I'm not sure.

Okay. Yeah, for the most part, well, I— because I know Chris Sherman's probably doing it remotely, but I don't know about future. I've seen him around. I've seen someone that might be there. What are the comments mostly about? Well, there's one guy who wants to talk about one of the land issues, and then there's a bunch of police stuff that people want to get Excellent. Where do those go?

To Slack.

No, no, no, after. Oh, I think they get entered in, right?

Did you see the names that pull up?

Did you let Terry— from there?

Yeah, perfect.

Okay, just want to make sure it's working.

Okay, for some reason when they're talking, we're not just—

we're not hearing it through.

Oh, okay.

So I can hear them if I unplug this, I'll hear it through my computer. Once I plug it in, I don't hear it there, but it doesn't come through these speakers either.

And I don't know if it's a setting on my—

You don't hear anything at all through the speakers?

No.

Yeah, you can hear—

see Jeff talking and stuff. He's not muted.

But when I do this—

Check, check. All of our Petersons that work for Orange City are EN, and I didn't want to insult him by typing Ian. And then every time I see Julie Spencer's name pop up, like, oh, this is gonna be great, Julie's on the meeting. And then Dave's face pops up and I get—

she's a little cute.

How was the wedding?

How was the wedding?

It was good.

It was, uh, Mayor, just so you know, Brent Sumner is at a UCCU meeting that starts at 4.

That should be pretty quick, and then he'll join us as soon as he can.

Okay. So Steve, I don't see— this is Terry. I can hear everybody, but I don't see my picture. Or am I good?

Yes, unless you— I think you just have a button at the bottom right next to your mute button that says start video. And then we can see if you have—

yeah, there we are.

There it is.

You got your assistant with you. I had to find that button at the bottom. Okay, we're good. I couldn't see you. So who are we missing? Is someone on board?

Yeah, we got everybody but Brent, who we know will be A few minutes late.

Next to us, we've got Jamie Walton.

They see the name change.

Yeah, I changed, I changed your name, Dave. I didn't want to give the public False hope.

Hey, um, Gary, are you presenting anything from your Sorry, Stu, I'm, uh, just now getting started. So, you know, I'm not going to be presenting anything from my screen.

I'm just leading it.

Okay, perfect.

I'm just going to talk about it. Which is great.

I just would need to change the settings to let you share your screen, but that's perfect.

That works great.

I didn't know exactly what to necessarily prepare for. I just ended up kind of filling questions and answers and going there. Yep.

Chief, do you wear your uniform at home usually just to kind of remind people who's the chief?

I actually sleep in it. I got my day uniform on and my night uniform.

Okay.

Yeah, it goes to sleep in it. Does it include feeding pajamas? It's a zip-up. I can jump around.

Christmas Story.

Tom had passionately tried on one of those a few years ago at our party.

Yeah, oh yeah, I was there.

We have Chris Shirkey on the line there, Steve.

I, I'm here, yes.

Okay, good. We got 30 seconds and then we'll start. All right, let's go ahead and get started. We want to welcome everyone out to our Orem City Council work session this afternoon at 4 PM on June 16th. I would like to read an item of information. To minimize the potential spread of COVID-19 and as authorized by Utah Governor Gary Herbert's March 18th, 2020 executive order, the Orem City Council meeting on June 16th 2020 will be an all-electronic meeting. There will be no public access to the Orem City Council chambers. Those desiring to view or participate in the meeting must do so electronically. Those wishing to make comments should submit those comments through orem.org/comments or to citycouncilpubliccomments@orem.org. Comments will be accepted before and during the meeting. All comments received will be read into the record during the live meeting. Once an item has been voted on, that item will be closed to additional comments. The live meeting event may be streamed at orem.org/meetings. We appreciate your cooperation during these challenging times. We will begin our work session today with a discussion on Stormwater code amendment, and our presenter is Chris Shirkey. Chris, we'll turn the time over to you.

Thank you, Mayor and City Council. It's a pleasure to be with you tonight. What I have before you for discussion is an introduction actually to the proposed amendments To the Orem City Code modifications from Chapter 23, our stormwater utility chapter. We will be reviewing more in concept some background information and introduction materials for you and then answer any questions you might have. We will not be presenting the actual changes to the code. That'll be coming on June 30th. So in 2 weeks, we'll be bringing the text. of that to you in advance of that meeting. So moving on, we wanted to cover a few stormwater concepts and definitions to be— before we jump in to the meeting. These definitions you can read, but I'd like to also discuss with you a couple of these in a little more detail. I might reference this term UPDES. That stands for Utah Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. We have a UPDES permit with the Division— or Department of Environmental Quality, the Division of Water Quality in the state of Utah. That's managed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. So the state of Utah has primacy. and to act on behalf of the US EPA regarding stormwater and other water quality issues in the state of Utah. The City of Orem is considered an MS4. What that stands for is Municipal Separate Stormwater or Storm Sewer System. So municipalities that have a storm sewer system then would be managed under this permit, the UPDS permit. There's another term called LID, or low impact development, and that refers to engineered systems, whether they're natural or structural systems, that use or mimic natural processes to promote infiltration, evapotranspiration, or reuse of stormwater as close to its source as possible in order to protect water quality and also aquatic habitat. They're also available to also minimize private property damages that could occur as stormwater runs off sites in an uncontrolled fashion. These would be implemented to control the quantities and the quality of that stormwater as it's being discharged to the city. There are best management practices that are, that are also utilized by the City of Orem and throughout the nation. These are basically methods that have been determined to be most effective or practical in the form of reducing nonpoint source pollution. So in a rain event, the water will run across the site. It might pick up metals or other volatile organic compounds or other types of pollutants that could be discharged eventually into our lake or to our Provo River or other streams, or even injected into this groundwater system. So these methods or practices are used to help prevent pollution and to help mitigate pollution and also private property damage that may result as a form of runoff from the site. We're going to be talking a little bit about percentile storm events. The 80th percentile storm event is what we will be discussing in a little bit more detail. As you consider your statistics from college or high school, you know, the 80th percentile in, in respect to a storm event is an event that yields stormwater to a depth equal to or less than 80% of the storms over an extended period of time. In this case, we're looking at at least 25 years. They also cover a specific geographic area, and that data is collected at a specific location. In this case, we're looking at the city of Orem. So if you had a 100th percentile storm event, that would capture all of the events, including the worst event recorded in, in the history of Orem in this case. So we're looking at the 80th percentile storm event. Does anyone have any question regarding percentile, the definition of percentile or storm events, the 80th percentile storm event?

So Chris, what was the worst event we've had in the city of Orem? Well, it—

I don't have a date on that, although I do have the records that I could pull that up for you. But we've had the worst storm events we've had collected in a 24-hour period are just over 2 inches. Wow, inches of rain in a 24-hour period.

Wow, that would be tough.

I—

yeah, it would be, especially without any of these best management practices in place. And so do we have Dave Spencer on the line? I think we do.

Yes.

Dave, can you, can you take yourself off mute? Maybe he's not there. Let's ask Terry.

I think Steve can mute him. Steve Downs can mute him.

Okay, Terry.

Yeah.

When water— I'm just going to ask some really basic hydrologic questions or rain event questions. When, when it rains and the water falls on a development, let's say it's, let's say it's Shopko right over here. across the street from the city center. What happens to that stormwater? What goes through your mind when you think of a rain event? What do you think happens from the point when it falls out of the sky to where it leaves the site?

Well, it's going to go to where the slope is on the asphalt at Shopko and hopefully to a drainage system that will start taking it off the Asphalt.

That's correct. And so when rain falls, it'll, it'll follow the path of least resistance. And on these sites that have been developed throughout the city, there's a, there's a grade or a slope that's associated with the ground or the asphalt or the parking areas that have been designed very specifically to route the stormwater to stormwater inlets. Those inlets accept the water, they take the water, they route it into pipe systems. systems, or in some cases into an injection well, or into a swale or other landscaped area, or maybe even a stormwater detention area. And then in the end, it'll either be retained on site, it'll evaporate from the site, or it'll be released from the site over an extended period of time. So there are 2 terms that are often used interchangeably. incorrectly. One is stormwater retention and the other one is stormwater detention. So retention means to retain all of that stormwater on that site where the water has fallen. You might think, well, that would be very challenging, and it is without proper LIDs or BMPs that we put in place. But there are solutions that allow us to retain as much water on site as as we require, as required by the US EPA. So in this case, we're looking at retention for an 80th percentile stormwater event or storm event. Another definition is stormwater detention, which refers to detaining water on a site. So you probably— and I'm going to show pictures of some examples here— but detention facilities allow water to be detained on site And then to be released at a prescribed rate over time. Another way that stormwater can actually leave the surface of the site is percolation or injection. That's when water passes through a porous body like a subsurface granular soil where it can percolate then and be injected into the ground. Water can also evaporate or transpire off of plants. So that's called evapotranspiration. And so here's a graphical representation of evapotranspiration. So water can— to leave a plant, it can transpire, and it can also evaporate from the site itself. It could infiltrate into the ground and then go into groundwater systems. In the state legislative session this year, in 2020, There was a bill that was presented and, and also approved and adopted by the state legislature. And in this bill, it refers to— it enacted provisions related to stormwater management and stormwater permits and requirements for post-construction retention requirements. This piece of legislation that was brought before the legislature was approved or adopted in its second iteration, or its second amendment. And this is really the impetus for our discussion, in a large part, for our discussion today. Prior to the state legislative session in 2020, the US EPA and, and the State of Utah Division of Water Quality both endorsed and supported the 90th percentile storm event that would require all sites to retain water for the 90th percentile storm on their site. However, there was some pushback and there has been pushback over the years. It's been reduced from 90— the 95th percentile to the 90th, and now in Utah it was adopted as the 80th percentile. So what happens as you look at a lower percentile storm event, the actual amount of water that needs to be retained on site is reduced. And so there was some heavy lobbying efforts on behalf of the developing community and the housing authority and so forth. So this is that piece of legislation that we will, we will refer to. Erica Gaddis is the Director of the Division of Water Quality in the State of Utah. And so she had to represent this back to the United States Environmental Protection Agency that the legislative session concluded and that the recommendation was to go to a lower value. And so since they have primacy in the state of Utah, she had to represent the state and all of those agencies that are regulated by the DWQ. And it was represented and accepted then that the state would then adopt this new 80th percentile plan moving forward. What, what you see before you here on this, on this graphic is a representation of our rainfall events over the past about 27 years. This particular site is located at the Olmsted hydroelectric power facility at the mouth of the canyon. When you're calculating an 80th percentile storm event, you need to use reliable data that has long-term datasets that can produce a repeatable value. And so that's what this is. This was obtained through the NOAA website. NOAA stands for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. And they're a clearinghouse of all things weather and environmental data, climatological data and environmental data and so forth. There are 60 sites in the county that actually report to NOAA, and of which there are 2 sites in Orem City that had data that, that was used to make this recommendation. In the end, the 2 sites that were used that are referenced are the Olmsted Hydroelectric Power Plant at the mouth of the canyon and the Orem Water Reclamation Facility, which is down by the lake. We've used both of those datasets to make a recommendation to the City Council to adopt the 80th percentile storm event using this NOAA weather data, and that yields a half inch of water. In other words, what this means to the layman or the developer when they come in is that they will have to retain a half inch of water on their site before it is discharged to the stormwater system. There are several documents that we have used over the years. This, this particular utility is becoming more and more heavily regulated by the US EPA and the State Department of Environmental Quality. Much like what we've seen in the past with the water utility and the sewer utility, stormwater is now becoming more, more and more heavily regulated. So we— it's necessary for us to produce and to follow guiding documents as a city. And also make those available to engineers and to developers so they know when they come in and develop a site what the requirements are and how to develop a site in accordance with these new rules that are, that are being adopted. And so this particular stormwater management plan, it provides 6 key components, and there's a large public education component associated with this document. Public education and outreach, public involvement, meaning with the landowners, the developers, the engineers, the contractors. It's really a team effort to be able to produce the best solution in the end on a site-by-site basis. We also manage illegal discharges. We have to report those to the state of Utah. We have to help mitigate any illegal discharges. that might go into the waters of the state. We manage construction sites. That's all identified in this document. And then we also have a long-term stormwater management plan by way of agreement. We, we make agreements with individual landowners and developers as they come through. If there are any modifications to their site that are inconsistent with their approved and adopted plan, then we need to work with them to address those deficiencies. This also addresses pollution and basically good housekeeping for every individual site in the city. The State of Utah also contracted with Michael Baker and EPG to produce this guide to low-impact developments within the State of Utah. This was published in 2018. It provides guidance and a series of examples we're going to review with you right now. It minimizes adverse environmental impacts as well as private property damage potential. We have also a Storm Drainage System Design and Management Guide that is very similar to what was produced by, by the State of Utah. So it works hand in glove with that document. This was actually produced by Bowen Collins and Associates as a part of our master planning process in 2016 when our water, our sewer, and our stormwater master plans were adopted. This was also a document that Bowen Collins and Associates prepared for us in conjunction with our staff here at the city. It provides guidance and examples to, again, to developers and engineers. I have a series of about 10 pictures I wanted to show you of examples of things or best management practices or low-impact development designs that have been implemented. Some of these— none of these are specific to Orem, but they are— some of these are actually found in Orem City. For example, this bioswale, you can find something similar to this If you ever shopped at Best Buy or over there in that, that development site, Carillon Square, in the middle they have parking with a bioswale. Stormwater has been designed to flow into that, then it percolates into a French drain, and then it is discharged into the ground. So the main goal is to retain as much water on site. There are vegetated strips like this or swales like this One, one site like this that comes to my mind is Mighty Light over here on 400 North. There's a vegetated strip or bioswale along their whole frontage of their, their property. You may have noticed these types of tree box filters at the City Center, at the library parking lot, and other areas at the City Center and other commercial sites and developments. So this promotes stormwater injection. It also helps to water the plants on the site. This particular example is a surface that you can drive on. It's also a pervious surface. It's not 100% pervious, but it does allow stormwater to inject in between all of the cracks in the bricks that you can pay— that are these paver blocks or bricks. that are on this parking area. You may have seen infiltration trenches. The water will just sheet flow off of the site into a gravelly area, cobbly area. Below that, there's probably some cobbly rock, and also it's— there's probably a pipe that is perforated that allows the water to go into that pipe and be conveyed off the site. So it's a little more decorative and probably aesthetically pleasing to the eye. These larger retention or infiltration or detention or retention basins can be multi-use in nature. They can be also parks or play areas or other types of areas where you could recreate. One that comes to mind is our pond over here at 1200 West and 400 North. You've probably seen others that are like this but may not have known that they are a pond at Bonneville Park. And Timpanogos High School, there are infiltration basins at each one of those sites that we've designed in-house and maintain also in-house.

So Chris, just so I'm clear, the football field for Mountain View High School is not a retention pond, right?

Mountain View High School, no.

It looks just like this.

Okay, right. Yeah, it is not, it is not that, and it's not been designed to be that. So—

I know, it was just a joke. I'm sorry.

I got you.

But at Timpanogos High School, where they play, the girls play soccer on that, in the past they have at least, they've played soccer on that grass field. That was their soccer field prior to them putting in the artificial turf at the Timpanogos High School. And that is a detention infiltration basin where water is actually injected into the ground, into the subsurface material there, and they played soccer on it. So there are some athletic fields that do, do, that are used also for multiple purposes. The state of Utah allows for stormwater harvesting and reuse up to 2,500 gallons per site. I'm not certain how well that has been received or how effective these containers are. These, I believe, are 50-gallon containers. You could put 2,500 gallons altogether of these on your site and use these for detention or for use to water plants and, and so forth on your site. It's not perhaps the simplest and easiest thing to do, especially for a residential property owner. They might need to pump it out of these cisterns or other, other means. They could, they could slowly let it to run on the site and then be used to gravity feed to other, other vegetable or flower garden areas. These really don't promote or provide a lot of practical use, in my opinion. In some sites, they have underground infiltration galleries, is what they're called. And so, one area that comes to mind is if you— any of you were around at the time Costco went in and saw some of that construction that actually occurred, they have this type of underground infiltration system where the water is actually injected via these types of sumps or injection systems. That's all underground, the park— under the parking there that's there currently. This right here is our classic Class 5 injection well.

This is—

we call this a sump. You'll notice that there are holes in this as you look down in the manhole lid. In this, it holds about 500 cubic feet of water, but it injects that water into a gravel envelope that surrounds that sump. So there are a lot of different types of LIDs or best management practices that we implement here in the city and that we promote through our stormwater management plan and our design guide that will be used in conjunction with these proposed amendments and changes to the stormwater code in Chapter 23. This is the COVID letter of the actual permit that we have. The permit that we have through the state of Utah is 46 pages long. This permit was modified in February of 2020 and it will expire in a year. And this will then include some adoptive changes that the city council will be adopting on the next city council meeting on June 30th. So we are required by the state of Utah, the Department of Environmental Quality, And the US EPA to adopt an 80th percentile storm event in our case. We will bring that language to you in, in detail at the June 30th council meeting, where we will address some minor changes to the definitions and also some technical changes to minimum control requirements that are outlined here. We wanted to give this to you in the work session as background information in advance of the actual code change that's being proposed and that's being required by the US EPA. With that, are there— I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have regarding this presentation or stormwater controls in general.

So Chris, the city has a number of older sumps for getting rid of stormwater, and we have been updating the city with retention ponds, with piping, etc. How are we doing as far as making progress on that?

Oh, we're chipping away, I would say. We have in the city, we have over 3,500 of these types of wells that you see here on your screen.

We—

it's an ongoing process for maintenance. We have to make sure that these are cleaned on a regular basis. We need to visit all of our infrastructure and make sure it's been cleaned on a 5-year rotational basis. We're looking at stormwater detention and retention facilities, inlets, injection wells like you see here, and the pipes. So, We are doing a very good job on the maintenance and the operations of the facilities and the systems right now. As new sites come on, we ensure that they are compliant with all of these requirements, and all of the new infrastructure that is built is in compliance with these standards as well. We are— our greatest focus that we have right now in stormwater will be along the West Union Canal area. As you're aware, the West Union Canal Company has not completely dissolved, but it's limping along, I would say. A lot of our attention has been rerouted to the canal system where we have conveyed stormwater. We are strategically looking at implementing improvements along the stormwater canal system in anticipation of that being turned over to the city. With that, there's a large responsibility associated with that to ensure that there isn't any private property damage or flooding, and we work hand in glove with both the West Smith Ditch and the West Union Canal companies. So I would say over the last 5 years, we have had some We've made some strides and efforts in our stormwater development. We've installed new sumps, new pretreatment manholes, new stormwater drains and systems. I don't know if you're aware of this, but we are currently looking at reevaluating our stormwater, our water, and our sewer master plans, and hope to have those documents refreshed and updated by the end of this calendar year. So that we can redirect some of our efforts and prioritize them in conjunction with the canal abandonment.

Chris, this is Terry Peterson. I've got a question for you. So there's the canal that runs along Carterville Road. Is that the one you're talking about? That, that is that— tell me the status of that canal.

That canal has 2 names. One is the West Union Canal and the other is the West Smith Ditch. The West Smith Ditch Company— they're both functioning and we have agreements with them to assist them in the maintenance of those canal structures, inlets, and so forth and help to ensure that they're cleared and free of any debris that might cause backing up of water and damage. So we do jointly manage and utilize those facilities, the West Smith Ditch and the West Union Canal. So that's what, that's what that is at that location.

Okay, because they, I think they have problems with the canals leaking and things like that. Is that the city or is that the canal company that takes care of those?

Yeah, the canal company owns the canal system. And we assist them in their efforts to make sure that the canal is not blocked or that it's free from debris and so forth. It is their responsibility as a private— they're a private entity altogether. They have shareholders, they have interests, financial interests in that company and success. And so it is up to them and their board and their shareholders to make sure it is managed properly. and that they maintain it. But we do provide assistance.

Thank you.

Any other questions or comments? All right, well, Chris, we appreciate your presentation and, and thank, thank you for the information.

Thank you. We'll see you in 2 weeks when we make our presentation on the actual amendments. Thank you.

That would be great. We would now like to turn some time over to Police Chief Gary Giles to discuss gang loitering areas within the city.

Thanks, Mayor. First of all, just making sure everybody can hear me. I am off mute and everything, correct?

Yep.

You sound good.

Okay. Just making sure. So the first thing is very quick. I just want to talk about the gang loitering. For most of you, you have already been through Year after year, back in 2009, the Orange City Council had a resolution adopting some gang loitering areas. I just want to just review that really quick. Part of that is that every year we just have an annual report on it. Utah Code 76-9-902 actually outlines and defines what a gang loitering area means. What it means is a person remains in one place under circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to believe that the purpose. or effect of that behavior is to enable or facilitate a criminal street gang to, 1, establish control over one or more identifiable areas, 2, intimidate others from entering those areas, or 3, to conceal illegal activities. You know, over the years we have done, I think in Oron we've done a super job. I think the planning of our parks, I think the, you know, for example, the pickleball courts, Things like that have really kept our parks free of all of this kind of stuff. Back in the late '90s, we had a lot of juvenile street gangs that were kind of coming into Orem. As a police department back then, I was actually working undercover at the time, we were able to really just kind of quash them down. Several people went to jail for a long time. We were able to get rid of those street gangs, but I really think that it's a lot of the planning within Orem. Our prior councils, the current council, you guys have done a great job in planning our parks and inviting the good people in there. And I think what that does is it disperses out the bad people. So we haven't really seen a huge problem with this. We don't have any parks in Orem that I can tell you are a major issue where we have gangs that have just taken over the park. But the code, but Utah State Code gives us that opportunity to outline what is a gang loitering area. And then 76-9-905 allows the municipality, allows Orange City body, the legislative body, to designate areas within our jurisdiction that would be a gang loitering area. So on August 25th, 2009, the city council designated all city parks and public schools as being gang loitering areas. areas that would be subject to state law. I just would like to give you our annual report. We haven't seen any major issues on that this year since our last report. But again, I, just like last year, I feel like it's a good law to have in place. It's a tool that we can use if ever we start heading down that pathway. I did notice, for example, I go to the Vasa Gym up on 1600 North. I noticed there was a lot of graffiti on the wall just at the tire— behind the tire business there off 1600 North. And that kind of graffiti is starting to mark territory. And I worry about things like that because as it starts to spread out of— I would assume that a lot of that is coming maybe even from that trailer port that's right there because it's just around the wall from that. But those are the kind of things that back in the late '90s, again, that's what we were seeing near our parks. That's what we were seeing in the neighborhoods, is kind of claiming dominance and territory. And fortunately, we just aren't seeing that in Orem right now. We've done a great job as a police department, as council, and as city administration, I think, of keeping that at bay. But again, let's just— we'll keep doing that. We'll keep planning ahead. We'll keep people playing pickleball and soccer and tennis and all the other sports and keep out the gangs.

Thank you. Great.

Any questions or comments? Well, appreciate it, Gary. That's a— that is a big effort to keep that out. And I remember that a few years back, gangs started to come back in, and I think they have not proliferated. And I know that our patrol looking at neighborhoods and homes that need to be updated and worked on, I think has made a big difference as well.

I agree.

We'll now go over to a discussion on law enforcement accountability update. And again, you are the presenter, so we'll turn the time over.

I am, and I'm opting to have just to kind of lead a discussion. I think there's going to be a lot of questions. I can't really— I can predict a few of them, and I'm going to try and answer some of them, but I just I would like to lead a discussion and try to answer any of your questions. I am sure a lot of you have had some constituents and the community getting ahold of you. And I know, Mayor, I know you have had a lot of emails because you and I are both in the same boat. We have had a lot of emails since the riots and the George Floyd killing that we have had a lot of questions pop up. And I just want to talk about some of those and try to answer some questions. Obviously, our legislature is currently looking at some state legislation. I just listened to the Criminal Justice Committee met today. I listened in on that for a while. Obviously, if you've seen the news, you probably have seen that President Trump passed an executive order on some police reform today. So I want to, I want to just kind of talk about some of that. And I want to say, first of all, Orem, I understand there's always room for improvement. But I do, I think most of you have seen the letter that I put out to the community. I put it out on social media after I was getting probably 8 or 9 emails a day asking a lot of the same questions. What is Orem Police Department doing to prevent that kind of a situation that happened in Minneapolis from happening here? And so the things that I want to talk about that we'll get to is talking about some of the things that we're doing, some of the things that we can do in the future. You know, obviously I only have about a week and a half left before I'm retiring. And so a lot of this is going to be up to the next chief. But I think we're on the right path. I really do. I think as a police department, Orem is the only police department in Utah County. We have 2 full-time mental health officers. We have a part-time social worker. We're one of only probably 3 or 4 agencies in the entire state that have those kind of resources with full-time mental health officers as well as the social work aspect of it. When you hear people across the country calling for the defunding of police departments, they're not really saying, hey, just do away with police departments. What they're trying to talk about, I think the discussions are more along the lines of having non-police social workers and mental health advocates be there and be available, an available resource. Well, that's something we've been working on for a long time. And so while I understand that we can improve and we will head down that pathway and always be improving, I think we're ahead of the game in a lot of areas. We're certainly not LAPD, NYPD, Minneapolis PD, no offense to any of them, But we are Orem PD, and I am very proud to be a part of Orem PD. But let me start this, first of all, I want to go back and refer to an email that the mayor and I have received from a lot of different individuals that basically has— it is a campaign called 8 Can't Wait. A lot of these 8 points, a lot of them kind of repeated themselves within other emails. So some people, you know, had 4 points that they wanted us to look at. Some had more than that. But I want to go back and just kind of point out that a lot of what we already do, our policy already covers a lot of this. So number 1, the first thing that this 8 Can't Wait campaign says is that they want to ban all chokeholds and strangleholds. Now that's a bigger discussion, and I'm going to come back to that in just a minute, because that's going to be a little bit bigger discussion. The knee to the neck that we saw in the Minneapolis George Floyd situation, that has never been accepted. I condone it— I don't condone it, I condemn it. It is not something that we do. That is not a carotid chokehold that would ever be acceptable within the Oro Police Department. And so we'll come back to the use of chokeholds. The second thing is the required de-escalation. Now, we already try to de-escalate. I've talked to you guys before, and I had it in my letter, that we, as a police department, we try— we have a goal of having 100% of our officers CIT certified. What that means is Crisis Intervention Team. CIT is a national model on mental health, dealing with mental health and people in crisis. Now, right now we have a lot of discussion on race, but in all reality, what police— what the police deal with on a regular basis and the most violent people sometimes are people in crisis. They're people with mental health issues. And so if we can learn how to de-escalate and deal with the mental health issues, We can learn how to de-escalate any situation. On a national level, the CIT program wants us to certify 25% of our law enforcement, of our force. We have a goal of 100%. Currently, we have about 80% of our officers that are CIT certified. We actually lead the way. Officer Sergeant Jeremy Jameson is our county contact for CIT training. He meets often with People within the Salt Lake PD, West Valley PD, Unified PD, and we actually are the— we're the contact for Utah County. So we take a big role in the CIT training within the state of Utah. The reason that we only have 80% right now is, as you guys know, is that we have been hiring a lot of people. We've had about a 25% turnover every year for the last 4 and a half years. We are now, with the 2 that we just had start this week, we are now at full capacity. So we are finally, after almost 6 years of being chief, I can say this for a week and a half that we're finally at full capacity. That's great to hear.

It is.

I'm very happy about it. But that's why we have a few people that they're new on the street. They haven't had a chance to go through the training yet. But 80% is a great accomplishment. It really is. And we keep those officers certified. That is, there's a lot of de-escalation training within that. We also have a culture of de-escalation. We don't go in and have a culture of using physical force all the time. We don't. Our culture is that we try to de-escalate as much as we can. I'll be honest. The worst thing for police officers is having to do long reports. We hate it. And we have to do a lot of reports. When we use force, the report becomes 10 times the length of what it would be if we don't have to use force. Officers don't want to have to use force. We want to de-escalate situations, make it as easy as possible on the suspect, on the officer, and the report is a lot shorter. I can tell you that right now.

Number 3.

on this list is to require a warning before any type of shooting. State law already does that. Our state law, 76-2-404, it says, if feasible, a verbal warning should be given to the officer or by the officer prior to any use of deadly force. Some of you have seen, for example, the shooting we had on 800 North right by Timpanogos Hospital where the vehicle tried to run over our officer. I posted that on Facebook after we did a press conference. That officer didn't have time to tell the people, hey, stop or I'll shoot. He was trying to just save his own life. Same with the last shooting that we had a couple years ago where a 17-year-old came after our officers with a knife. The officers didn't, they didn't have time to back away. They told, they yelled at the juvenile as he was coming at them with the knife, but There's not a lot of time most of the— in most situations where an officer can actually back away, tell the person stop or I'll shoot, and then shoot. Most of these are so dynamic that they just happen so fast. But state law already has that in it. Number 4, exhaust all alternatives before shooting. Our policy already has this in it. We have an escalation of force. When we get there, we have a continuum of force which goes from an officer's mere presence. So when we have, when we have a situation that officers show up and we're in uniform, 80% of the time that calms it down. People see that the police are there. They know that they could get in trouble if they continue the problems. And so 80% of the time things calm down with our mere presence. There are times that people become violent. They're out of control and we have to go hands-on. Sometimes we have to maybe grab them and push them up against the wall and get their hand— get some handcuffs on them. That's an escalation, one step. Another step may be the use of pepper spray, the use of a taser, which all of our officers have, the use of a baton and striking them with a baton. That's another escalation that's a little bit higher than— Maybe even the taser. And it goes up even higher would be the use of the carotid hold, a carotid chokehold. And again, we'll get into a little more discussion on that in just a minute because I think that's the bigger discussion. But that, that escalation of force, we always try to keep it as low on that continuum as we can. Whatever the lowest amount of force that we would have to use, that's what we're going to use. And that's— so we already have that within our policy. Number 5 is that they wanted— they want us to institute a duty to intervene. I think the big thing with the Minneapolis situation was you had several officers that were there. You had the one officer that was kneeling on his neck. You had, I believe, 3 other officers that were there that didn't ever intervene and tell him, get off, you need to get off. I think part of that was there were some newer officers, but in our policy, and our entire policy manual is online on our website. So if you go to, if you wanna look at our policy manual, in an effort to be transparent, that's been there for almost, I think over a year now. But you could go to orem.org, go to departments, police, and then—

Policy.

Over on the right-hand side, there's a policy tab, and our entire policy manual is on there. But under Policy 299 is the use of force policy, and 299.2.1 is the duty to intercede, which says that any officer present and observing another officer using force that is clearly beyond that which is objectively reasonable under the circumstances shall, when in a position to do so, intercede to prevent the use of unreasonable force. So we already have that in place. That has been our policy for many years and is already there. Number 6 is ban shooting at moving vehicles. Within our policy already, again, we, and it's 299.4.1, is that shots fired at or from a moving vehicle are rarely effective, and so we discourage the shooting at a moving vehicle. But again, you can go to our Facebook page and you can actually go back a couple months and see the shooting on 800 North where the vehicle was actually used as a weapon and tried to run over the officer. And that's when he drew and shot at the driver and accidentally struck the passenger. But again, we're not banning the shooting of moving vehicles. We discourage it, but there are always situations that are beyond our control. When they turn a vehicle into a weapon, that's when an officer has to use his discretion. And that officer, you know, he didn't stand and think about it. He had to react very quickly. Number 7 is establishing a Use of force continuum. That is all the way through our policy. We have that continuum. We issue our officers out, again, pepper spray, tasers, batons. We have less lethal shotguns. So they shoot out a beanbag that we can, you know, and that's a little higher up on the escalation because obviously we're not going to come out with a shotgun and shoot at somebody that's not You know, that's just not complying. But we have used that when we had somebody that may have, say, a knife or something else where it could be a deadly force situation. I've seen many lives saved by tasers and beanbag rounds. But we— that's why we issue officers out all of those different tools, is that we have that use of force continuum. So as things escalate, the officers can maintain their safety but still use the amount of force that would be required. We don't want to jump from our mere presence to shooting somebody if there's something in between that would work. Obviously, we want to use the lowest level. And number 8 would be to require all force reported. We've been doing that for many years. The entire time I've been the chief, we have required that any use of force is reported and investigated. So we always have a lieutenant level, which is an administrative level, review of all uses of force. force, even if it's just 3 officers that have to jump on top of somebody to control them. That would be a reportable use of force right there. We look into it. We see if there's any training issues that need to be dealt with. We see if there's any disciplinary action that needs to be dealt with. And then that would be brought to a command-level board and presented to us. Now, I did have one person who, who had an analogy. And when I put my letter out on Facebook, they, they want— the comment was, Well, why would, why would the police review the police? You know, that's like me, you know. He said, I'm not going to ask my kids what punishment they want. Well, yeah, the parent is the one that's going to look at the child and, and decide on a punishment. It's not, you know, the reason the police investigate the police as far as the use of force And I think in the future, one of the things that we need to look at, and maybe the next chief needs to look at, is bringing on some community advisory boards. But most of you, or at least some of you, went down— do you remember when we went to the shooting simulator in Provo? Yes, I do. Some of you went. You know, that is— that's a great— that's a great tool that we can take the community into and let them actually feel what it's like to be there in that situation. I wouldn't, I'm not a doctor, I would have a hard time judging a doctor based on just being somebody from the community and then somebody just have me go and review how a doctor did a surgery. I think it needs to be somebody that's been there and done that. And that's why I do agree that the community should be involved in a review, but it doesn't just go out to the community. It needs to be somebody that understands police work. Why did the police do what they did? Some people have never been in a fight for their life.

It's—

I've been there. I've been there where somebody's been trying to get my gun and I'm convinced they would have used it on me had they gotten it away from me. I understand what it's like to have to escalate that use of force. up the scale. We review all uses of force. We have found that there are times that officers have needed to go back for retraining. We have found that there are times that maybe we need to train everybody a little bit better. But we require the use of— we require a report on all uses of force already. And so of those 8 things that we saw in that email, Mayor, you have seen a lot of them.

Yes.

We already do all of those. So before I go into a discussion about the use of chokeholds, does anybody have any questions so far?

Yes, go ahead, Debbie.

So you have a couple mental health officers. Tell me, what is the criteria for calling them out? Or do they just go on domestic violence calls? Tell me how do you utilize them and when?

Okay, so when, number one, all of our officers are trained in the mental health area. A lot of times during the day we have Officer Jameson and Officer Wright who are both involved in the mental health. If they're available, a lot of times they will go out because what we want them available for is not necessarily for the one situation we're dealing with right then. It's for the follow-up. Because the people that are in a mental health crisis, crisis, it's not usually just for that day. A lot of times they've gone off medication. They have stopped seeing their doctor. And if we don't intervene and we don't follow up with them, you know, for example, if somebody is suicidal on a Saturday, it doesn't mean they're not suicidal Monday. So that's what happens is when our officers go out, for example, on a weekend, if Sergeant Jameson and Officer Wright are not on duty, They may call them if there's a major crisis. If our officers can deal with it and actually deal with that, the immediate situation, they'll refer that case over to them. And then Sergeant Jameson and Officer Wright, they will get with the social worker that they work with part-time. They get with other Wausau Township Mental Health, and they actually can talk about what's the best thing for this person. What do we need to do for that person? And the good part is that instead of dealing with them 8 or 9 or 10 times, we deal with them 1 or 2 times and then get them help, get them back on their medication, get them involved with Wasatch Mental Health. And so that's what, that's what this program with mental health has really done for us is it helps us reduce the number of times we have to deal with people. It helps us to actually know our resources and have that follow-up done. As a patrol officer, especially in Orem, you know, it may not even be the same crew that's on when they deal with them on a Thursday versus a Sunday. They may not even know really who this is, but Sergeant Jameson and Officer Wright, they do. They know them. They know them by name. In fact, a lot of these people that are in mental health crises, will actually ask for them by name and say, hey, I've been talking to Sergeant Jameson. Can you call him?

Can you?

And so that's what— that's when we really get them involved. They do listen in on the radio when they're there during the day, and they'll respond out a lot of times just even before they're called. If they get a mental health crisis, they'll just respond.

Question is, if you— if money were no issue, Would you want 1, 2, 3 more mental health, or you feel like you're covered right now with the 2?

I think that that needs to grow a little bit more. I think we need some more social workers involved. Right now we have a part-time social worker. I think eventually that would be a nice thing to have a full-time, if not 2 full-time social workers involved. I really think that that's the future of policing is getting non-police involved in that. And that's the social work aspect of that because that that social worker can then be the link in with the mental health community. HIPAA laws are very difficult because, you know, when people are in a crisis, HIPAA laws may or may not apply. But as they head down a road for treatment, that's where social workers can kind of bridge that gap. And that's what I would suggest is as we head down a road, as the city grows and expands, I think We need more officers, but at the same time, we need them on the road as well. But I would really suggest that down the road, we start looking at maybe, again, one full-time social worker to start and maybe eventually get another one to kind of come on board and bridge the gap.

Okay, thank you.

That was my question.

Chief, I was just going to say, I remember a couple of years ago, a few of us went through the Citizens Police Academy. And, and in doing so, one role play I had to deal with was to de-escalate some domestic violence between 2 parties in a home, which was very difficult, and also to deal with being attacked out in the park by 2 individuals and having to know which one was coming at me. And I would encourage our council to all asked to participate in the Citizens Police Academy to gain a greater understanding of what it is that our officers have to deal with. And to me, it was very interesting to see how quick events happen, how quick events change, and how circumstances come at you from all different sides. And I appreciate our police that have to deal with that and they've dealt with it in a good way in Orem.

Yeah, it— and thank you for pointing that out, Mayor. Our Citizens Academy, I think most everybody has been through it. It is important because I think it's important to have to see that evolving, that very rapidly evolving set of circumstances that officers have to deal with. You know, it's funny because years ago, when the body cameras were definitely the big thing in police work, you would think that officers wouldn't want to have body cameras on. You would think that that would just be, you would feel so invaded because you're now, everything you do is being recorded. We don't hear complaints. Officers love the body cameras. And the reason we do is because of the current situations. It has, I mean, there are very rare times that the officer is actually You know, where we can go back and actually watch body camera where the officer did the wrong thing. It's actually something that when we get somebody that comes in and complains or says that the officer said this, in all reality, we go back and watch it. And a lot of times, even the person that comes in and watches it with us, they'll say, oh, I didn't remember it that way. Well, it's kind of hard when it's recorded. And it's right there. Because when they go back and they rewatch it and they see it and it didn't happen quite the way that they remembered, it is a good thing. And that's one of the things that, you know, I wanted to talk about some of the things that we do as a department. And let me just pull this, the letter up. I want to just go through some of the things that we do in an effort to try to make sure that we're serving the community the best, that this kind of thing of what happened in Minneapolis is not going to happen here in Orem. One of the things is the body cameras. They're expensive. They really are. In fact, we pay a good amount of money for storage. Number one, for the body cameras. Number two, a lot for the storage. And number three, for the software and the licensing. But we have paper records.

When you're talking— excuse me for just a second. When you're talking about storage, you're talking about storage of the film of the incidents or of his round for that day, et cetera?

Absolutely. And, you know, part of it is the software. And that's why, as I was looking several years ago at what body cameras to go with, one of the things that we were looking at is how do we deal with the storage? Do we have our IT department Just buy more servers? Do we, you know, and how long do we retain those videos? How long can we delete them after a certain amount of time? I mean, traffic stop, a typical traffic stop with a speeding ticket, you don't need to keep it forever. But at the same time, you gotta have software that's gonna go through and actually tell you when it can be deleted. And, you know, there are other things that need to be kept forever. And so that's why we went with the Taser Axon body cameras. was so that we could actually have all of the storage offsite. We weren't going to have to continually maintain and buy more servers. We actually went with, just last year, we replaced all of our in-car cameras, which used to be Panasonic. We replaced them with the same system. So we now have Taser Axon in the cars as well as on our officers' bodies. And so we have great recordings of most all situations. In the last shooting that was up on 800 North a month and a half ago, it wasn't the body camera that actually caught the best view, it was his dashcam. And that dashcam was very revealing as to what happened. As a city, I think that honestly the money that we have paid toward the body cameras has been money extremely well spent. And the reason being is because I think it saved us from a lot of litigation. I think it saved us from a lot of, a lot of problems when it came to critical incidences. But we do have body cameras for all of our patrol officers, all of our uniformed officers. We don't have it necessarily for admin. I'm not wearing a body camera. You'd be probably bored to death with my day because I'm in meetings most of the day. But we do have it for all of our, all of our uniformed officers. Our mental health officers have body cameras. We have body cameras that can be checked out by our investigators. And so we have a lot of cameras that are out on the street. And our state law actually determines when they can be turned— when they have to be turned on, when they can be turned off, when they can be muted. And I think our state law— I worked last legislative session with the Chiefs Association, with legislators. I think we have a great state law as to when when we can, and there's great guidance on what we have to do as officers in regards to the body cameras. Obviously, we've talked about the de-escalation training and the CIT training. The next thing I pointed out to the community is our community outreach. In Orem, you know, we've gone through, we've gone over through a lot of change in the police department over the last few years. Obviously, we've had, you know, for example, Craig Martinez went to be chief in Springville and We've lost some other, some other key players in, in the police department over the years, but we, we have an assigned officer for the Hispanic outreach program. We also have a liaison with the Black Student Union at UVU. We have a great community outreach. For those of you that follow us on Facebook, we have about 58,000 followers. That's more than most— huge city police departments have. We have a great base and we have a great community outreach. We try to stay transparent, but that community outreach has done us very well. You know, even like I said, the Hispanic outreach is a little easier. That's probably our biggest minority base within our community. It's a little harder, for example, to reach out. We had a hard time trying to decide how to reach out to the African American community. Because it's hard— it's easy to go to a Spanish-speaking event because most of the people there are Hispanic and we can interact with that group. We had a hard time trying to decide how to interact with necessarily some of the other minority groups. But the great part, the great thing that we have in Orem is we have Utah Valley University. We have a large university that draws in a lot of students. They have a lot of clubs. They have a lot of unions. They have a lot of student organizations. And so we've jumped on board with that, and we've been able to really interact with the Black Student Union there at UVU and try to reach out to a broader base of our minority community. And so that's something that obviously we can always do better, and we're going to try to keep doing better, but I think that we've been trying our best to reach out to those minority groups. One of the things I pointed out was just our policies. We do have a policy on profiling and implicit bias. It's already in our policy manual, and we do train our officers. With the recent things that have just happened, we just required all of our officers to go through an online training again on implicit bias. But we also have a class that we send many of our officers to at UVU and— or through UVU. Obviously with COVID it's been It's been more online, but we do have an implicit bias training that is guided by the Black Student Union. And it really is eye-opening for the officers that are going through and some of the things that they're able to come back and say, you know what, I really never thought about this. I didn't realize this until we sat down and had an open discussion. And so that's been a great training class, but we can't get all of our officers through that at once. We usually have 5 or 6 go through, and then the next quarter we'll have another one and another one. And so it's been a good training, but it's been one that's been just slowly building up. And then I talked about our use of force review policy. We review all uses of force. And so that is something we've always done since I've been chief. They'll continue to do, I'm sure, into the future. But it's something that I think in the future the discussion is going to be how do we include the community a little bit more in that review? And that's going to be a discussion as we lead into the future. The last thing I wanted to say and just bring up, and then I know I'm kind of running short on time, but is the banning of chokeholds. That's been a big discussion right now. Orem does— Orem Police Department does have a policy that we do allow the carotid hold as a part of our continuum. It's right up there close to the use of deadly force. It's not down toward the bottom. We don't just run up to somebody and try to, you know, apply a carotid hold on them. A lot of people think when we say a chokehold that you're just grabbing hold of their neck. That's not a police hold. That's not something that a police a police officer does. Years and years ago, I trained in jiu-jitsu for, for about a year and a half, and that's— those, those karate holds are really a big part of the jiu-jitsu training. I think there is a place for it. A knee to the neck is not a karate chokehold. Absolutely not anywhere, anything to do with police work. But I think it's a bigger discussion than just outright banning it. The governor has come out and said that he's banning it for all state agencies. Today, I've just read some of the news, but it sounds like the president came out and wants to limit the use of chokeholds, which we limit that as well within our policy. And again, our Utah State Legislature in a special session is also looking at that, and they are in discussions with with Chiefs of Police Association, with other law enforcement agencies, the Sheriffs Association, on what, you know, where does that use of the carotid chokehold, where does it come into play within the police departments? And I think that's a bigger discussion. But I'd be happy to answer any questions that you might have. And that's kind of the presentation that I had. I just wanted— One other thing I just wanted to let you know, all of the The protests that we've had here local, all of them seem to be very, very peaceful. We haven't had any problems in Provo or Orem, and I think everything's gone pretty well up to this point. We've had great community support. We have people bringing us food constantly. So when people are asking officers, how are you getting along in these difficult times? Honestly, the citizens of Orem have come out of the woodwork. They've been awesome. I think we've got, we've got so much support for the Warren Police Department right now.

Chief, I just wanted to mention one thing. Over the years, you've worked hard to have community picnics with the populace. You've done big Halloween events, trunk-or-treat together with the fire department. You've had events out in the park with the kids and with the families. And I just want to thank you for the efforts that you've made to reach out to the community. There's— I think we've had a lot of inner contact between the community and our police department. I think our teenagers and our young children are familiar with who you are and what you do and have a favorable feel towards and view of the police department. And I think developing that relationship is huge within our community of working together instead of against each other.

I agree.

And I, you know, it's been a lot of fun. Those events have been the highlight of my career. They really have. Interacting with the citizens of Orem and surrounding communities that have come in has been, again, it's just the highlight of my career. I loved it. I loved every minute of it.

Well, appreciate it. I just wanted to mention that as the mayor, and I'm sure the council will say what they want to say and chime in, and Tom, you can make a statement here in just a second. I just want to thank you for being our police chief for the last 6 years. You have done a very admirable job. You've brought a lot of change and improvements. And for me, it's been a pleasure to work with you. I just want to thank you for the service that you've given to all of us city staff and the residents within Orem.

Thank you, and it's been a pleasure to work with all of you as well. Thank you.

You bet. Tom, did you want to say something?

Yeah, a couple things. It's always tough when a man younger than many of us on the City Council is retiring, but I wanted to wish you very well, Chief. And it's always good for kids to know who you are But as a kid, I was glad the chief of police didn't know who I was. So I hope you don't know too many of them because of trouble, but thank you for what you've done in the community. Again, I wanted to echo what the mayor said, and no doubt others feel the same way.

So thanks for your service.

Thank you, Tom.

Mayor, this is Terry. I'd like to make a comment also about the chief. So my wife's involved with the Freedom Festival in Provo and Most of you, I think, have had children be in part of Hope of America where all the 5th graders in the valley come. So Sherry talked to Chief Giles— excuse me— anyway, just a few— just a year or two ago and was asking the chief, she— they love the first responders and she was wondering if there would be somebody from the Orem Police Department that would say the prayer at Hope of America. And so our Chief of Police, Chief Giles, said, I will, which was a huge statement for those kids to see a policeman, the Chief of Police, saying a prayer for all the 5th graders in this valley. Anyway, thank you, Chief.

So thank you, Terry.

I'm sorry that you're having to go through that list of 8 things and, you know, account for that. So you need to understand that's a very small minority that's going through this list. The silent majority loves you guys, appreciates what you're doing for our city, and there is no list. And I certainly hope that there's never a time when the police decide they have to fight fair. They've got to protect themselves and protect each of us. So whatever it takes to do that.

Thank you.

We appreciate you, we love you, and please don't ever apologize. We're thankful for our officers.

Thank you.

Any other comments? Jeff, do you have a comment?

May I say something too, please? Yes. You know, thank you for your vision and your being proactive. on this whole situation that we're in. You know, I can't tell you how many people I've said, or I've had people say to me how grateful they are for our Chief of Police putting that statement out as quickly as you did. And it, just knowing that and having the complete confidence in not only you, but the entire force. And if I could just also say amen to the Orem Citizens Academy. That was a great experience, and I'm thankful to you and all of the officers for the insights that they gave us to help us to understand what professionals you are, and not only professional but compassionate. You know, I was just touched over and over and over again And if I could just say something about Sergeant Jameson and Officer Wright. I don't know Officer Wright as well, but I was able to personally witness Sergeant Jameson on the phone for a very long period of time after his shift was over, talking to a lady that now looks at him as if he walks on water because the way that he has treated her. And it was one of those situations where, you know, just a mental health situation that went really bad, but he was able to turn that around. And, you know, that's just one guy, but I know that the whole force are just— we love them. And we love you, Chief. Thank you for everything that you've done for our city.

Thank you.

You're a good man, so thank you so much.

Thank you.

So, um, I appreciate you, Jowson. I support you. You know that. So I appreciate your police force and, you know, your policy and your leadership. And you're a great man, and I think you have great individuals working for you. And I know the city of Orem and the citizens appreciate the police department and the fire department.

So Thank you.

Hopefully you, where you go after retirement, you find peace and find a good job. So I appreciate you, thanks.

I plan on going up in the mountains, that's where I'm headed.

Good for you. Any other comments? Councilmember Larey?

I also do want to echo my thanks for you and all of the career ladder that you've been working with to retain these great cops and training and It gives me great— I sleep well at night knowing that you guys are doing a great job. So I too have done the academy, and I really— it gave me new insights, and I appreciate it. So thank you, and best of luck, and please come in occasionally.

I definitely will. Thank you.

Any other comments? All right, well, Chief, thank you again very much, and it's been a real pleasure. So appreciate your comments. All right, we'll go ahead and move on to a SETI retention schedule. Jody Bates is our presenter, and we'll turn the time over to you, Jody.

Thank you, Mayor and Council. You can hear me?

Yes.

Okay, just want to make sure. We talked about this about 2 weeks ago in a work session regarding the retention schedule that we've been working on for the last year or so. We have our first couple of departments that we're putting through the system to be approved. We have the rec center, which also includes the senior center, and the library that you had in your packet for your review. If Steven will put up the presentation or the slide, this kind of describes one of the reasons why we do this is due to the State Archives Meshing everything together, we have things like this. The first one is from the State Archives, sports teams records. If you look off to the right, it says that it's to be retained permanently. This became effective in 1995. Well, 25 years ago, maybe that was feasible. You didn't have a lot of sports teams. But nowadays, in order to keep lists of umpires and prizes and awards and just the team rosters, permanently is just not feasible. So now you see below that, you see what your— the recreation department has suggested for pretty much the same thing. They feel that they can retain that for 2 years and then destroy it after that. There's really no need to keep that information, names, dates, those type of things. Things change, teams change, and they feel confident that They can keep those for 2 years. This is my favorite because it's such a huge gap between permanent to 2 years. Most of the retention dates and timeframes that are given in from these departments do coincide with the General Retention Schedule. They may change a year or 2. Very few will be this drastic from permanent to 2 years. So that was given to you for your review. Since we do have an ordinance in place, In our code for retention, we are able to take these now and move them onto the consent calendar on the next city council for your approval. So does anybody have any questions?

Okay.

No.

Okay.

Thank you.

I think that's a good effort to do. We'd like to move on to a discussion as far as the mayor pro tem. assignment July through December of 2020. As you know, Debbie Luray has been serving as our mayor pro tem for the last 5 months, 6 months, and has done a wonderful job. Thank you, Debbie, for your efforts there. And I would like to suggest and put forward that Councilmember Terry Peterson be nominated for the mayor pro tem for July through December of this year. Is the council okay with that? If you can unmute your screen and let me know.

Aye.

Okay. Debbie, you're good?

Aye.

Dave Spencer, you're good?

Good.

Jerry, you're good?

Yes.

I'm good. Brent? I don't know if Brent's with us yet or not.

Yes. Can you hear me?

Yes, I can hear you.

Okay, I tried to make a comment, no one called on me, but that's okay.

I'm sorry. Are you, are you okay with Terry Peterson from AirPro 10?

I think he said yes.

Okay, well, I will go accordingly. So anyway, Terry, we appreciate your willingness to serve and look forward to working with you in that capacity.

Thank you.

Great. Greg, did you have a comment?

I was just going to say that actually the formal vote for that should be in the meeting, the regular meeting, not in the work session.

Okay.

Do we want to put that on for our next council session because it's still in June?

Mayor, I would suggest that.

Maybe.

It actually is on your agenda, your next meeting agenda.

Can it be a consent item, Greg?

Yes, it can.

Okay.

All right, good. Let's go ahead and move forward. We typically would go right to agenda review, but since we have such a large agenda, I would like to give Tom McDonald a chance to present on his area of commissions that he serves on first in a fairly quick manner and then move on to the agenda review. So Tom?

Many of my— many of the items I work on have been COVID-affected, as you might imagine. The Orem Youth Council hasn't met in the last month— 3 months, excuse me. The Heritage Advisory Commission, I just applaud what they did for Memorial Day, and frankly, not only the commission but the staff of Christy and Brynn did a great job of making that come off. And I don't know who the bandit was who was conducting because he was masked. He was a criminal of some sort, I think. But he and the speaker did phenomenal. It was great to witness all that and be able to watch it again. So if you haven't, I highly recommend it. IHC Outreach was kind of silent for the first couple months, but they— we did a Zoom or some form of meeting. It wasn't Zoom, it was another brand. And we are going again on the hospital. So again, they have been somewhat at parade rest the last couple of months. But look forward to them kicking up again. There is a very brief report, Mayor, but there is not a lot to report.

All right. Well, thank you, Councilmember McDonald. Appreciate your efforts and good work. So if we go through the agenda, We are going to have a report by the Senior Advisory Commission with Kay Bradford. For our consent items, and then we will do personal appearances. For our consent items, we have approval of meeting minutes of May 26, 2020 City Council meeting. We have ordinance approving the amounts to be awarded to the CARE grant recipients for the 2020 CARE granting round. We have already Discuss those, and of course they're listed in our packet. And then we have a resolution approval of amended and restated interlocal agreement with Utah Risk Management Agency. Anybody have any concerns or questions? Is everybody okay with these 3 items?

Aye.

I'm good.

Okay.

We're good.

Okay.

Hi.

All right, we will then go ahead and move on to our scheduled items. The first one is a public hearing having to do with the CARES Act CDBG funding. As you may remember, we received an extra $411,000 for our CDBG from the CARES Act funding. Kenna, Joe, I don't know if you're on board. Anything you want to mention?

Yes, so we are just recommending about a little— almost $45,000 in public service money for public service requests and another $30,000 in admin money for this money. And then we will come back to you probably sometime in July or August With more requests for some of the rest of the money that's available. So we still have about $330,000 that will be left after we make these recommendations today.

Sure. Okay, good. All right, the next item, 9.2, is also a public hearing, design standards for the Orem City Code pertaining to accessory buildings in the Canyon Crossing District. Our presenter is Jason Bench. Anything you want to mention, Jason, on this?

No, we're just prepared to do a presentation in the regular meeting unless you have questions.

Okay, I don't unless somebody else does. Okay, 9.3 is a public hearing amending Section 221133 on a PD-21 zone student housing village on Geneva Road to allow drive-through windows. It's my understanding that the natural gas station is being taken down and that a— some kind of drink facility is being put up with a drive-through window. Is that correct, Jason?

That is correct, yes.

Okay. 9.4 is a public hearing on flood damage prevention. This is amending our city code to meet the Requirements outlined by the state and FEMA. Jason, anything you want to mention there?

Just to make sure that you each received the email this morning outlining the redline strikeout that I sent out.

Yes.

Okay.

Yeah, we just want to make sure that you knew that there was quite a bit of information that's being amended. It is mandated by FEMA to do that. We'll discuss that, but that's kind of a mandate that we will be presenting to the council.

Okay. Next, the next one's 9.5, a public hearing on enterprise fund transfers. Brandon, you want to make mention of what's occurring with that? And I hope that most people at this point in time understand that we're, you know, doing this in a proper way where we have to pay for our own utilities, and then the general fund puts money back into our— Accounts and that it's a proper transfer and there's nothing shady about what's going on. So we have also on 9.6, public hearing, approving and adopting our fiscal year 2020-2021 City of Orem budget. We've gone through this several times. Brandon, you want to make mention of anything?

Sure.

And I know the state legislature is going into a special session later this week to discuss their budget for the state of Utah because they are having to trim their finances due to COVID-19. just as we and all other cities in Utah are having to do. Our next one is 9.7, which is a resolution authorizing the pickup of specified employee contributions to the new Public Safety and Firefighter Tier 2 Contributory Retirement System. Jamie, you are the presenter. Do you want to talk about that?

Yes, thank you, Mayor, members of the council. Several years ago, the state legislature amended retirement law specifically for Tier 2 employees in the Public Safety Retirement System, and they changed the level of benefits that Tier 2 public safety officers could receive. And as a result, the cost of those improvements increased the contribution rates for, uh, participation in the retirement system. They also required cities to pick up at least 14% of those contributions. And then thereafter gave cities the option of picking up the remainder of the contribution associated with the Tier 2 amount or essentially passing that responsibility on to employees of the Tier 2 system. So essentially what we're doing here tonight as a city is we are agreeing for the next fiscal year to pick up both the employee and the employer contribution associated with the Public Safety Firefighter Tier 2 Contributory Retirement System. So a total amount of 16.27%.

Okay.

And the Utah Retirement System requires that we do this by way of resolution and an agreement that we sign with them.

Okay. And I appreciate the fact that the city is taking care of that. The next one is 9.8, which is a resolution approving the interlocal cooperation agreement between Utah County and the City of Orem for disbursement from the Coronavirus Relief Fund. Jamie, you're the presenter again. Do you want to discuss that?

Yes, Mayor. This is a proposed interlocal agreement that would facilitate Utah County transferring approximately $6.9 million in CARES Act monies from the county coffers to the City of Orem. We actually received this agreement on Friday and have been in the process of reviewing it, or specifically Greg has been reviewing it, and we identified 2 or 3 significant concerns with the agreement, and we have been trying to work with all the cities throughout the county yesterday and today to try and recommend some changes in the agreement's language. Because it is something— because this is something that's done by interlocal agreement, it requires your approval. However, we're not at the point yet where we have language that we believe is appropriate, and Greg can speak to some of the concerns associated with the language. But our recommendation this evening would be that we continue this item to a future meeting, potentially a meeting that we would need to schedule, a special meeting that we could schedule, and we could take care of this action in a matter of a few minutes. But until we get the language straight, our recommendation as staff would not be that we move forward and agree to the interlocal as currently drafted. Greg, can you just speak to the 2 or 3 concerns we have with the agreement?

Yes. There is a provision, I don't know if some of you saw it or not, There was a Highland amendment to the agreement that I think was supposed to address this, but I didn't feel like totally addressed it. But one concern is that we want to make sure that we have the ability to accept money from other funding sources for our COVID-19 response without jeopardizing our county allocation. There's a provision in the agreement that says if it's eligible for reimbursement under the county agreement, and we accept money from another source, that we have to return that amount of money to the county. And I would just like to clarify that, and I think the county agrees with this, but clarify in the agreement that we acknowledge that we're not going to double dip. We're not going to claim the same expense from 2 different funding sources. But just because we accept, say, some CDBG money for our COVID-19 response, that shouldn't reduce the amount of our county allocation. The second issue that we're looking at is related to the termination clause, which basically states that the county can terminate the agreement for any cause with 60 days' notice. We are hoping to get some specifics on when they might do that, what it might mean for allocations that we've committed but haven't paid yet. And the third issue is related to indemnification. We feel like we— it would be appropriate for us to indemnify the county for our own actions, but not have to indemnify them for their own actions. So the city attorneys have been trying to work with the county on this. It's been a late— an effort that we had a meeting this morning. We've had some contact with the county. Our understanding is the county is going to try to approve the agreement tomorrow at their county commission meeting. We are hoping that they will agree to some changes to the agreement before the county commission approves it.

And you are involving a number of cities on this discussion, correct?

That's correct. I think we have reached out to all of the cities in Utah County. In the meeting today, we had about 10 to 12 of them participating.

All right, well, thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you, Jamie. Um, we could go on. We are going to go into a meeting with the Orem Redevelopment Agency to approve meeting minutes, to go over an annual review of the bylaws, and to also have a public hearing on adopting the fiscal year 2020-2021 budget, after which we'll go to a meeting of the Special Service Lighting District to do the same— approval of the meeting minutes, annual review of the bylaws, and a public hearing to approve the present or the current year budget. We then will move on to a meeting of the Orem Municipal Building Authority To again approve the meeting minutes, go over the bylaws, and then I don't believe that there is any budget that we have to approve. And that is it. Jamie, did you want to bring anything up at this point?

No, thank you, Mayor. I think we're good.

Okay. With that said, we've gone through the Agenda fairly quickly. We're excited to have— I noticed that Kay Bradford is there with Gina, and we're excited to have her on board at the beginning of the meeting for the Senior Advisory Commission. Anybody else have anything from the council? If not, we'll go ahead and take a break and then start back up with our city council meeting at 6 PM.

Thank you.

So our work session is adjourned at this point.

Thank you.

Maybe you take a nap.

Yep, just taking a nap in the chair there. All right, so this is a great privilege to have the Spencer family take care of everything tonight.

Well, since it's hard to try to find somebody to dial in, right?

So Yep, that's true. It's a good point.

Yeah, so they, they, uh, they were willing, they wanted to do it, so that's good.

Yeah, no, that's great.

This technology is out of this world, isn't it?

How are you, Kay? Oh, oh, how are you, Tina? I'm fantastic.

Let me show you this.

Oh my gosh.

Hey, Kay, how we doing? When are we gonna start meeting again, Gina?

We're doing great.

It's gonna be a while.

Is it?

Yeah.

Can we Zoom?

You know, I think that would be really fantastic, although I don't know that everyone has the capabilities. Yeah, so we're gonna do our best. We're excited to give you a report of what's been going on.

Good.

So how are you guys doing?

Good.

Yeah, are we near the beginning?

You're at the beginning, yes.

Yay!

That's because we're the coolest.

You're the first ones on the list, but we first have to have a prayer and a pledge, and we have to read a statement.

Do I have a flag in here?

I think Kay's the coolest, and then Gina, you're next, okay?

I will take second fiddle to cake.

All right, good.

Okay, okay, all right, I'm gonna turn our microphone off until it's really our turn. All right, thanks.

So are you relaxed now that the wedding's over?

Uh, sure, but we have to do it again in August, so I We could not have done it without Tammy.

So that's what I heard.

Amazing.

So because she was the gofer— go for that, go for that. No, I was the gofer.

No, she was— you should, you should come see it. I mean, she was amazing. She was planting plants and it looks so pretty.

So that's good. She is an amazing woman.

I've seen no pictures.

Um, everybody wants a picture.

So they had one, one of Hannah's friends did the pictures, but I think they're not posting it on social media just because they're waiting for the ceiling in August.

I'll send you an inside one.

Just send me one. I just want to make sure. I love, I love brides. They're beautiful.

So I'll send you what I know.

She's, she's got something posted on one of her Instagram pages. I'll just send that over to you.

That'd be fun to see.

Send that to Tammy as well.

Okay.

August 20th is the big day. August 20th at the temple.

Sounds great.

And how many people are they going to allow?

Don't know.

We'll see. If you're lucky, the father and the mother of the bride.

Yeah, and now those will go on Yeah, so announcement was to go out then. Did we lose Debbie?

What'd you say?

Well, you froze, Debbie, so I didn't know if we lost you.

Oh no, I'm, I'm expecting an announcement because I'm good for money or a gift.

Well, we can do money and gift. That's sweet.

I just might. Depends how generous I'm feeling.

Am I in?

You're a cheap person.

I'm not in.

No, I'm in, Brent.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah, Brent, you can turn on the video. portion down on your bottom left if you want to be seen, but maybe you don't want to be seen.

I don't know.

Uh, where's that? Bottom left?

Bottom left, you've got mute and then you've got stop video and you just hit it and you unstop the video.

Okay, tell Debbie I just sent her some.

I just texted her pictures. Just click now. Yeah, where it says stop video, click on that.

Did you get it, Debbie?

I did. They're darling. Who's the little girl?

It says—

okay, now you can see me, right?

No, no, it shouldn't have the X in there, Brent.

He has the video on, but I'm not sure if the camera's pointing to him. All right, we're going to go ahead and start our City Council meeting, but prior to the start of it, I'd like to read a statement. This is a notice of an all-electronic meeting and public comments. To minimize the potential spread of COVID-19, and as authorized by the Utah Governor Gary Herbert's March 18th, 2020 executive order, the Orem City Council meeting on June 16th, 2020 will be an all-electronic meeting. There will be no public access to the Orem City Council chambers. Those desiring to view or participate In the meeting must do so electronically. Those wishing to make comments should submit them through orem.org/comments or to citycouncilpubliccomments@orem.org. Comments will be accepted before and during the meeting. All comments received will be read into the record during the live meeting. Once an item has been voted on, that item will be closed. to additional comments. The live meeting event may be streamed at aurum.org/meetings. Thank you for your cooperation during these challenging times. We now would like to call our meeting to order, and we would like to begin with having a prayer to be given by Taylor Spencer, after which the Pledge of Allegiance will be given by Julie Spencer. Taylor, we'll turn the time over to you.

Awesome.

Our dear kind Heavenly Father, we come humbly before thee at this day to thank thee for our many blessings and for all that thou hast done for us. We're grateful that we're all able to be here to have the city council meeting, and that we ask thee that thy Spirit be able to be here, that we'll be able to continue to make the right decisions for what's best for Orem and for the people in it. And we're grateful for all the people on the city council and our mayor and for all that they do for our city and for the people around them. And again, Heavenly Father, we're grateful for Thee and Thy Son, Jesus Christ. And we say these things in the name of Thy Son, Jesus Christ. Amen.

Amen.

Thank you.

Okay.

Okay, will you please rise?

Rise.

Right, everyone please rise. Repeat the Pledge of Allegiance with me. I pledge allegiance to the flag I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. You may be seated.

Thank you, Julie. Thank you, Taylor. Appreciate the Spencer family. Um, we will now move the meeting forward, and it is called We will begin by having a report from the Senior Advisory Commission, and Kay Bradford is the committee chair, and we will hear from her.

Actually, you're going to hear from me for just a second as I introduce you to the amazing Kay Bradford.

She—

I'm so delighted she was willing to come here today and visit. She's gonna say a few words and then I'm going to give you the rest of the report. So let me turn the time over.

And Gina, when you do that, if you can tell us who you are.

I am Gina Bertelsen, the queen.

And what position do you occupy?

Oh, queen isn't good enough. I'm sorry, I'm the director of programming for the Orem Senior Friendship Center.

Okay, thank you.

Well, hello, hello there, Kay, to all you wonderful City Council and our Mayor. We are so blessed. It is a terrific Tuesday and my lucky day to tell you all about our Senior Friendship Center. I really get excited when I'm able to talk about the wonderful work that Carl and Gina do here. You know, Gina is a cupcake with vanilla icing, and the grandsons in heaven continue to cheer her on as she brings joy and peace and happiness and love to all of our members. There is no doubt we are all going through these difficult times, but Gina continues to go the extra mile To see that all of our members are well taken care of. She uses as her guide the song that we all love so well, Have I Done Any Good? Have I done any good in this world today? Have I helped anyone in need? Have the sick and the hurtured been upraised? Have I cheered up the sad and made someone feel glad? If not, I have failed indeed. Has anyone's burden been lighter today because I was willing to share? Have the sick and the weary been helped on their way? When they needed my help, was I there? Gina and her staff called every active member to make sure that they were all okay and if they needed anything during this virus-19. Now, since the center has been closed, I'm going to let Gina give this report, but I want to thank all the City Council, the Mayor, for the great work you're doing. Remember, relax, God's in charge. I love all of you. Okay, Gina, it's your turn.

She could have her own show, do you agree?

Yes, she could have her own show.

Yep.

And then she says, and then take it away to the band. Okay, well, um, we currently have 3,553 patrons on our rolls. At this time last year, we had 3,422, so we continue to see growth even with the closure of services inside of our building. In 2019, we began an educational journey for our patrons with Brilliant University. We offered 12 classes for 2 semesters each year with a variety of interests, including belly dancing, ukulele classes, personal history classes, astrology, art and literature classes, and even a class called Hobby Haven that introduced students to 5 new hobbies they might be interested in. One of those classes took them to my own home where they learned about keeping chickens in their backyard. I had 25 different seniors who all, for the first time in their life, got to hold a chicken. And the joy on their faces was something I will never forget. They have learned how to be smarter than their iPhone, map their birth chart, and be a rockhound. They've learned calligraphy, how to read music and lips, and even learned sign language. 455 patrons participated in the first year of Brilliant University. They've enjoyed discussions, friendships, and learning. all adding to the quality of their life. Our theme for 2020 was Perfect Vision, Perfect Happiness, and it was a program that I created as a way of raising the personal happiness level of each of our patrons that wanted to participate. We did this through daily journaling, practicing gratitude, meditation, and exercises. We included all types of classes to help them learn how to do these things and have open discussions on these. We start every Monday with a TED Talk where we learn from experts ways that we can increase our happiness. The first TED Talk we listened to was, What Does It Take to Lead a Happy Life? And it was from the director of Harvard's longest-lasting study of people that so far has gone over 70 years. In fact, some of their participants that are still living are in their 90s right now, and they are still meeting with them every other year and having them participate in their study. They are continuing to study not only them, but their children and their grandchildren. Through all of these years, it was astonishing to them to find that it did not matter how much money you had. where you lived, if you attended college, or even if you were married with children, the one factor that they found to leading a happy life was strong relationships with others. The very thing we strive to create and nurture within the walls of our Orem Senior Friendship Center. During the last 3 months, our staff have taken the time, as Kay said, to make one-on-one phone calls to each of our patrons. Now, some of them did not answer the phone, and I'm pretty sure it's because we have taught them that if you don't know the answer, or if you don't know the phone number, don't answer the phone call. But we did get a lot of phone calls back after they heard our message, as we called to check on each of them and make sure they had the things they needed. We created a friend-to-friend calling list so that anyone who wanted to could be put on a list, and we We would— they would give their permission for us to share their phone number with others so that they could be matched up with different patrons and be able to give them a phone call throughout the week, trying to increase that human contact that is so very needed. We had one of our seniors turn 100 years old, and we hosted a drive-by birthday that actually made the front page of the newspaper. It also made her day. In fact, she couldn't believe that so many people cared enough about her to take the time to drive by her house and wish her happy birthday.

That's great.

Yep.

As weeks turned into months, we've created ways to connect online with Zoom classes and even Tuesday bingo on Facebook Live, where we've had special bingo callers People from different senior-based companies that have sponsored us in different and participated with us in different activities. We had that person come in and call bingo. We even had a mime call bingo very quietly, but it was a lot of fun for those who participated. In the last 6 weeks, we've added We have even added 26 new patrons who wanted to participate in our meal program. We've also seen patrons that have never had a meal inside of the walls of our building start participating in the meal program. It takes all hands on deck with our dedicated staff, and I'm telling you, we run. We run to serve this meal Monday through Friday from 11:30 to 12:30, where we bag the prepackaged meal components. We still are having our volunteers pick up food donations from different stores, and that's picking up more now that stores have plenty on their shelves. And we slide a little surprise into that bag and deliver it right to their car. In fact, if you drive past the senior center any Monday through Friday from 11:30 to 12:30, you'll see a line of cars ours as we quickly try and get—

Wow.

Yeah, quickly try and get them through that line. We are currently averaging about 150 patrons daily with that meal program. That's more than we normally have on any given day, unless it's a really big special event here. So really, hands, kudos to the staff. It's been a great boost to the seniors during the COVID-19 quarantine to be able to see some friendly faces, pick up a good hot meal, a kind word, and a virtual hug. There have actually been several tears shed as we hand that meal to them, and they are so grateful to see us. I had one gentleman tell me that he felt like he had been put away. That they had had no contact from anyone else other than us at the senior center, and that he was so happy that he was able to even drive to our building and see us and get that meal. The senior center is an extension of their home and a huge part of their life. The staff and patrons are their chosen family. They would come here several times a week to share their stories. visit with a friend, let someone know they're still kicking, and of course win at bingo. There are even some who come so regularly that if a day goes by that we don't see them, we call because something is amiss. The mental fatigue and lack of human contact for the seniors in our community during this time could be considered a plague all its own, one we could refer to as Isolation 2020. This is the exact opposite of what the Harvard study found that was needed to lead a happy life. We look forward to and pray for a quick return to welcoming our seniors to be within our walls, playing bingo, laughing, learning, and enjoying a meal together. I've decided that together is our favorite place to be. I want to thank the mayor and city council, and especially Carl, for supporting us during this trying time and being mindful of this amazing generation of our community members. We're grateful that our leaders recognize the relevance and value of having a senior center in the community and what it provides for the entire population. If you have any questions, I would love to answer them.

Very good.

Any questions? So I would just like to say thank you for the service that you're providing. I know one of the Biggest, most important things is that relationship, is that human contact, is the ability for those within the community that you serve to talk and visit with other people. It gives you a sense of community and a sense of hope. So yeah, for what you're doing.

Thank you.

And, and just out of curiosity, while we have Kay for a second, I'm wondering, Kay, can you tell us how many days a week you work out, you exercise?

How many days a week do you exercise?

I do tai chi at home. I can stand up and do my tai chi.

Okay.

I can tell you're in great shape.

Every day, every day, every day.

Okay. All right, thank you. Well, thank you both for that report. We appreciate it very much.

You all look just great. Okay, thank you.

We'll move on now to our personal appearance portion of our program. Uh, Steve Downs, do we have anybody who's written in any comments? Okay, and that's you, Pete, right? Okay, go ahead. And they don't have, uh, Any name or any way to respond to them?

Okay.

Well, I mean, just so they know, we voted not to move forward with the Rocky Mountain Power Renewable Energy Act. And so we are not spending any money on it.

We're—

no one's obligated to join in with it at this point. Let's go ahead and move on to our consent items. We have 3 consent items, and if any of you would like to move these consent items to a regular scheduled item, let me know ahead of time as we go through this. The first one is approval of the City Council meeting minutes of May 26, 2020. The second one is an ordinance approving the amounts to be awarded To the CARE grant recipients for the 2020 CARE granting round, which we have discussed before and which is in the packet. And the third one is a resolution to approve the amended and restated interlocal agreement with the Utah Risk Management Agency, which also is in the packet. Anyone wish to make any any of those to a scheduled item? If not, we'd like to go ahead and take a vote. I move that we go ahead and approve the consent items as listed. Is there a second?

Second.

And was that Tom?

Yes, sir.

Okay. All right, we'll now go ahead and vote. Yes. We'll start with you, Tom.

Aye.

Okay, Dave Spencer.

Aye.

Debbie Laree.

Aye.

Brent Sumner.

Aye.

Terry Peterson.

Aye.

Jeff Lampson.

Aye.

Okay, the consent items have been approved. We'll move on to our scheduled items. The first one is a public hearing, uh, and this is a resolution. The city will receive public comment on the Community Development Block Grant projected use of funds for the CARES Act CDBG-CV funding and consider approval of a substantial amendment to the 2019-2020 Annual Action Plan. And Kenna Matthews and Ken Ransom are our presenters. So we'll turn the time over to them.

Well, good evening, Mayor and Council. I appreciate the opportunity to share our recommendations with you tonight. Actually, Ken Ransom, our chair of our CDBG Commission, will be making the presentation, and I will just answer questions if you have any. So we'll turn the time over to Ken to make that presentation.

Thank you, Kenna, and hello, Mayor and City Council. Can you hear me?

Yes.

Oh, good.

All right, so we can proceed to the next slide if we could, slide 2. So the City of Orem has received $411,983 that the Community Development Block Grant Commission is making recommendations for. And these funds, the limits of those funds, the purposes of those funds can be spent for are listed below on that slide. If you could proceed to the next slide, please. And this is where the— this is the guidance that our council— our commission, excuse me, received. We wanted to focus on projects serving Orem residents, first responder support, mental health, and domestic violence types of services. Next slide, please. So these are the requests that our commission received. I won't go detail each of those individually. individually. And if you're interested in seeing those, you can read through those. And next slide, please. So these are our commission— our commission recommends $30,000 to Orem City Administration for CDBG administration, $29,859 to the Family Support and Treatment Center. Well, that's a partnership with Utah County. They're contributing funds as well. And to RAH, the Rehabilitation and Habilitation Services, $8,091. And then finally, Kids on the Move, we recommend $5,000 be allocated to their request. Next slide, please. So the total of those 4 recommendations are $72,950, and that leaves the remaining balance to still allocate of $339,000.

$32.66.

Next slide, please. So the next steps are listed there, and the note at the bottom, our commission will meet later in the summer to consider additional recommendations for that remaining funding. We're holding off to see what the needs are and how that money can best be spent, and also see if the commission has any— excuse me, the city council has any recommendations they have for us, for us to consider. So that's our recommendation, and I thank the city staff that's helped us through this process, and I thank our— my fellow commission members for all their help with this process. So thank you.

Thank you, Ken. Councilmember Luray has a question. Go ahead, Debbie.

So the $30,000 for administration, is that for the total amount, the $411,000? There won't be another allocation for the $300,000, or will there be additional for If there is more work related to the other $300,000? That will be for all administration for that money. Okay. So for the whole thing.

Okay.

That is what I wanted to know.

Any other comments or questions from the council?

Mayor, I have a question. This is Terry.

Go ahead, Terry.

So $30,000 administration. So we are already city employees that are administering this. What's the additional $30,000 cost? I'm confused about that.

So we have, we have an intern that has been hired for the year that will be helping with this part of the CDBG process because it's an additional piece of that. Also, Steven is spending more time with CDBG than he has in other times, so we reimburse part of his salary or hours for CDBG, either out of CDBG or the CDBG-CV money. So that's where that $30,000 comes from. And then there's just some additional supplies and things like that, some trainings and things that we need to go to for this money.

Okay, thank you.

You're welcome.

Any other questions or comments? Okay, well, this is a public hearing, so we will Go ahead and open it up for public comment, and we will hold for a minute while we wait for any comments to come in, starting right now. Okay, Pete, why don't we wait until we have the full minute to see if we have any others, then we'll read them all together. Okay, Pete, if you want to read any comments you received. Okay, and that was all you received, right? Okay, so we will close the public comment portion of our public hearing and bring it back to the council. Any other comments or questions from the council? Okay, seeing none, I'd like to make a motion That we go ahead and approve of a substantial amendment to the 2019-2020 Annual Action Plan in regards to the projected use of funds for the CARES Act CDBG-CV funding. Is there a second?

Second.

Okay, and Sumner seconded it. We'll go ahead and vote on that. Tom, we'll start with you.

Aye.

Okay, Dave Spencer.

Aye.

Debbie Laree.

Aye.

Brent Sumner.

Aye.

Terry Peterson.

Aye.

Jeff Lampton.

Aye.

And myself as mayor, I vote aye. So the resolution passes, and we will move on to our scheduled item 9.2. This also is a public hearing. This is on an ordinance amending Sections 22-24-3F1A and 22-24-3F2D in regards to design standards of the Orem City Code pertaining to accessory buildings in the Canyon Crossing District Zone. And our presenter is Jason Bench. Jason, we'll turn it over to you. Jason, are you there? Do you want to unmute?

That would help if I unmute. Sorry about that.

Okay, thank you.

Can you see my screen okay?

Yes.

Okay.

So just by way of a little brief background, the CDX, or the Canyon Crossing District, was approved back in October of 2017. 2018. As part of that district, we only allowed any new applicant or any new progress or site plan to come in to meet the Canyon Crossing standards, with an exception of a 15% addition to one building in that district. It could come in as long as it was attached, would not have to meet requirements of the district. That was set back in 2018, like I said.

We're having a hard time hearing you, Jason.

You hear me okay or not really?

Now we can hear you. Yes.

Okay, sorry about that. So in 2018, this was passed, the ordinance, the Canyon Crossing District You can see outlined in orange. Next slide, if I can get to the next slide. Purple here, you can see the underlying properties, the aerial photos. What was allowed back then and since is a 15% addition to an existing structure. We did not and currently do not allow any accessory structures to be built in the district without that structure meeting the Cannon Crossing District's What we've had is an applicant or a property owner come in and wanting to add some accessory structure behind an existing building. Staff met with them a few times over the last year and come up with what we feel is a compromise to allow a 15%, similar to what we've allowed with the 15% addition to an existing building, to allow a 15% addition for an accessory structure. Would be part of that same property. There would be some standards that would be allowed. Would be an exception to the one-story height. Right now, the Canyon Crossing District requires a two-story minimum. This exception would allow it to be one story. And there's some other standards that you can see there. And so we felt that 15% was consistent with what was currently allowed with a one-time exception. One exception that if they've already had that exception, they can't have multiple exceptions. They can either have one or the other. So if the property has not had that exception where they can have the 15% addition, it could have the 15% accessory structure behind the building. So this section here dictates the height. The next section would allow then the minimum setback exception, which would allow it behind the building. The Planning Commission has reviewed it and recommended that that be approved as this option, which is, I think, in our opinion, consistent with what we have currently. I'll be glad to address any questions you may have.

So if I'm understanding this, the 15%, instead of being 15% as part of the building, it's 15% as part of the property. Is that correct?

Yes, the 15% will be based on one building. So for example, let's just use Macy's as an example. So if they would take the square footage of the Macy's, they could have a 15% addition behind their building for storage or things like that, or any other facilities. So if you take a Q-Lube or whatever on the— in that area, then they could do, based on that one main building, 15% of that could be an accessory structure, provided they comply with these standards.

Question, Jason. So Macy's, they don't have the property behind it.

Right. There are other properties though along there, like the Oh, the electrical wholesale place. I mean, they have a large building. So I mean, the more you get above 15%, the more likely you were going to get larger buildings that we really don't necessarily comply with the standard.

My question is on the— hold on. My question is, can you pull up the Canyon Crossing zone or node or whatever it is? So my concern is I don't know who— why did we even include that into the State Street node when it's way off the base, way off the path?

And that was part of our discussion when the council reviewed it back in 2018 when we brought that forward when Storehouse Market and Vasa was going out of business. They wanted to have that as part of a redevelopment project. We brought that in as the council agreed that that could be part of the district and And that was what was rezoned at that time.

I'm looking at the map and I don't see really any buildings that you could have a 50% structure behind their building.

Yeah, there's several buildings along the—

So what, maybe a handful?

Maybe a handful, yeah.

Okay, so my question is, we're talking about the Marco's Pizza, The lube place and the coffee shop. And I do business there. And I think this statement that we're doing is— we were saying this is a good faith effort, but I don't think it is. I think this is anti-business. I really do. Because those 3 businesses need storage. And they also own the car wash to the left. I don't know if you can do an aerial shot, but— Yes, we can. I don't like the wording and I don't like this note at the moment.

I really don't.

Well, I don't— they don't own the property of the car wash. They may own the car wash itself, but they do not own the property.

Right, but they have a 30-year lease and they have 18 years left. So that's pretty much— they own the building. So to me, I think that's a— we're cutting hairs here and I don't think I mean, I talked to you before about this with the library hall. We automatically, when it didn't meet code, we changed it immediately. And this, you're saying, oh, we're giving some stuff, we're giving 15%, but I don't agree with it because we know exactly how much— how that building, they bought it 3 or 4 years ago and it's 1,800 square feet. So we know that they can't do a 15%, and that's just a kind gesture, but no, it's not going to work. So I disagree. So I think we need to look at, as a council, if we include those 2 properties, it's almost 11,000 square feet frontage. So in reality, it needs to be 18%, and they can put that building in the back and they can have storage for their businesses.

Well, it's not counted on the property itself, it's the buildings themselves.

Understood. The buildings are 5,944 and 4,764. It's almost 11,000. 11,000 square feet, those 2 buildings.

So what you're saying is change it to 18%? Yes.

Okay.

So including, including the car wash, you'd have to include it because they have a 30-year lease. Why wouldn't that mean that they— I mean, they own the building. It's not like they're renting it. They own the building.

Well, they own the building, they don't own the property. And that's the difference.

But it's a 30-year lease.

So Jason, we're considering only the Canyon Crossing District on this amendment, correct?

Correct.

And the node was extended to include this area specifically back in the day to help VASA with what they're doing for any development there.

Right. It was property owner requested and we, you know, went through the neighborhood meetings and all that and informed all the neighbors. And so at the time, everybody was aware of what was coming into the property.

And the Marco Pizza and the Lube and the coffee shop are in property between the main part of the node and that extension for Vasa.

There's nothing behind them. It's just— it's apartments. And one other point too is 24 Motors was not supposed to be in this node, and it is. On the end of it.

But Dave, are you comfortable with 18%? Does that help?

I'm comfortable if, if they can put that building that they made the pre— they already bought the prefab building. If we can use the wash and that, I'm fine.

I don't know that building would work at 18%, but if they're confident it will, I guess that would work.

I, I, I, I don't know if If they have anybody on the line. I think Eric Watts is online, the construction guy.

So we have a couple of comments here. I want to go to Councilmember Sumner first.

I was just wondering how do we— Jason, how do we handle this and the other districts with a similar concern? And also, can you— if they're close to percentage, like within a couple, can they get conditional use permit? Or I guess, how can you make this just a little bit more percentage-wise? I mean, can you get a conditional use permit? I guess what I'm asking.

Well, this is basically an exception to the rule, right? Right now, all the districts don't allow any accessory structure whatsoever. So if anybody comes in and wants to do an accessory building behind their building, we would tell them no, they cannot meet it because it doesn't allow it in this district. What we're, what we're asking, and because of this property owner came in, we at least come with some sense of ability for them to do it. Now granted, they bought the building many years ago when they knew that they couldn't put it in. So I can't speak for why they bought it without really understanding whether they could or couldn't put it in. But I don't really want to write legislation for one building. When we could have other buildings. That's, I guess, where we're kind of at a disconnect with 30%, 15%, 18%. We feel 15% is reasonable because right now there's 0% is allowed right now in this zone.

Is there anything in there that it can't be seen from the 8th North or from the The street view, or does it have to be—

Yeah, right now it has to be behind the primary structure. It can have no water or sewer connection. It has to be, you know, accessory to the main— so it couldn't be a separate use. So they couldn't have a— if somebody, you know, the Marco's Pizza or the tire lube or whatever, they couldn't rent it to somebody else that wasn't on that property. It has to be specifically exclusively connected to the primary use on the property. So if these guys agree that that's, that's the case, 18% works for them, I guess that would work. But the other districts would not have this exception at the moment.

Jason, this is Terry. So question, so this is just a storage unit, right?

Wouldn't be a storage unit. Well, yeah, for storage for the business itself.

For the businesses. So how many stories high is it?

One.

So it doesn't— it's not blocking anybody's view.

This is just Making—

this is just helping a business have a place to store their stuff.

Correct.

Okay.

That—

boy, I hope that we— I think we have to be really careful that we're business-friendly. We don't want to have businesses that have 2 or 3 buildings and we're not gonna let them have a place to store their stuff. I know there's— I know there's this 15% rule, but we might need to look at that.

And right now they're currently storing their stuff on their site now, right? They don't have an existing storage unit. What we're doing here is trying to help them build a building that they previously purchased and realized at the time they can't build it. So that's kind of why we're writing this ordinance.

But it has to be at least 18% or— because we know it's a 30 by 60 building.

So Jeff Lampson has his hand up. We'll turn some time over to Jeff.

Thank you, Mayor. So obviously these people have an idea of what it is that they want to build and the size that they want to make it. Is what they're proposing, is it the 18% or is it something bigger than that or is it something— I mean, are we in the neighborhood of what it is that the business owner wants?

Yeah, the way it's worded right now, they can take one building. So the way Councilman Spencer is saying that we would have to count multiple buildings, multiple main buildings on other properties to get to that 18%.

Which is next forum.

If we just take the Marco's Pizza and do that, then they could, you know, the 18% would not get them what they want.

They would need to be 30%. Right.

And to me, that, that is a little extreme, but, you know, that's up to you guys, I guess, to determine. But 30% in my opinion, is contrary to the whole purpose of the district at this point.

So do we know how big the building is that they want, Dave? And then do we know how big the one building that they can access is?

It's—

well, I think supposedly Eric is supposed to be on the line. I think he was in the waiting room or something, but I don't know.

Well, I left Eric on, but we haven't heard from him. So Eric's been allowed on, but he's not making—

I'm pretty sure it's a, it's a 60 by 30 building, 12 feet high, 6 storage units, um, which they'd use for the wash, car wash, the, uh, lube, Marco's Pizza, the coffee, uh, grinders, and then also they wanted to store their, uh, Barbecue truck or something in one of them.

So Jason, how big is the building that we could use as the base building, square footage? I left Eric on, but we haven't heard from him.

It's about 5,500 square feet, roughly.

Okay, Eric, you're on. Do you want to speak?

Yeah, uh, Mayor and, uh, Council, thank you for the opportunity to, to address this. I just wanted to explain why this accessory building is so vital to the operation of the multiple businesses owned by the Overton family.

Can everybody please mute their connections? We're getting a lot of feedback. Go ahead, Eric.

Mayor, I think somebody's watching the Granicus in the background, and so you're getting that echo.

Coming through.

So mute the computer.

That's me.

That's me. I'm sorry. I've been trying to turn it off, but I can't.

Council, thank you for the opportunity to address this. I just wanted to explain why this accessory building is so vital to the operation of the multiple businesses owned by the—

Am I okay to proceed?

Yeah, is there any way you can turn that off?

I don't know, I've been trying. I'm not sure what to do.

Can you just hit mute on the bottom?

And he can't.

You can't do that.

Um, okay, I've been trying to turn it off, but I don't know how we're going to be able to hear you if we're getting it 3 times.

Can you turn the volume down on your computer or your phone or whatever you're watching the stream on?

Just turn it all the way down.

Am I okay to proceed?

Go ahead.

Walk away from your computer if you need to.

There, can you hear me now?

Yes.

Okay, so, um, this In case, uh, any— anyone is not familiar with the property that we're talking about, it's just east of Maverick on 8th North.

We know where it is.

They own and operate what they— the car wash, the Super Lube, uh, they lease the Super Lube, and they own the Marco's Pizza, um, and then they— then they lease a space to the coffee shop. All of these businesses require a lot of equipment pieces and parts and, and a place to store it and a place to store them. It's not as simple as removing a piece of equipment and replacing it with another piece of equipment. A lot of the existing equipment can be pulled out, stored, and then cannibalized for parts. So it doesn't make sense for them to to throw them out. So therefore they need a place where they can store these parts. In years past, a lot of these parts have just been, you know, laid out on the, on the ground and exposed to the elements and, and also to the public eye just to the rear of the business, which is, everyone can imagine, is a lot more unsightly than a steel accessory building where they can organize all these pieces and parts and equipment and have them secured and, you know, locked out of the public view. I'm appealing to the council to allow for the 1,800-square-foot building footprint as the footprint that the Planning Commission is, is presenting is woefully inadequate for what they need there.

How much square footage are you asking for? 1,800.

It's a 30 by 60 building.

But if we're tying that to the 5,500, then yeah, basically that's 30%, right?

So if you do the LUB, it's almost 4,800, and if you do the car wash, it's almost 6,000. So it's almost 11,000 square feet total if you combine those 2.

But Jason, you're saying only one building can be used?

The way that it's written, one primary building can be used. We don't allow multiple properties. And again, they may lease the property. They don't own the property. And this basically takes that exception away from that property owner and gives it to the other property owner. So if we're going to make this change, which I'm not necessarily supportive of, but you can do the 30%, but if you do combine both properties, we'll need to change the way that it's written because right now it only allows one primary building.

Well, I mean, how do we take into consideration, Jason, that it's a 30-year lease and they still have 18 years left on the lease and they own the car wash? I don't know. I think it's a different circumstance than I guess that was before, you know, thought of, I guess. I don't know.

Yeah.

Well, and I have some concerns if it's the 6th, base storage unit and they're going to start storing other properties that aren't related to their business. I think that's a little excessive also. So I think we're getting a little extreme on what they're wanting. They've bought a building previously and now we're trying to amend the ordinance to allow it, which I don't think that's really good planning. We need to plan for something that's acceptable for the entire district and not write it specifically for this one property because they bought a building prior to knowing what the rules are. I understand, I understand the predicament, but I don't know that the city needs to be the one that resolves their issue because they purchased the building prior to knowing this.

Well, my thought is on the station master plan, I mean, it's a little— it's way— it's a big jog. And, you know, maybe even though VASA asked for it, maybe we look at and change that and take them out of the zone. I don't know.

Well, I don't think you can do that because I know VASA is Planning on doing some development and they need that zone to do it.

I don't know, but I mean, my thing is, is Orem business friendly or not? I mean, I've heard a lot of things with the State Street Master Plan that the businesses want to move, and maybe that's what Orem wants.

I don't know.

But I think, you know, I think we need as much sales tax revenue as possible. And we need our businesses to stay in Orem, period. So that's my, that's my 2 cents.

I don't disagree.

This is Ryan Clark.

Can I make a comment?

Sure.

Yes, go ahead, Ryan.

I'd just like to remind the council that we went through a very lengthy public involvement process and reached out to the business community to garner support for the districts. If, if we had faced much opposition, we would not have moved forward with them. Jason makes a valid point. We have a lot of people that come in all the time that want to do things to their property. Properties, including residents that want to put on awnings and build accessories onto their houses. And based on ordinances, they're not allowed to do that. And so we say no quite a bit. It's not fun. We don't enjoy it, but it doesn't meet the ordinance. And in this situation, we were approached with something that did not meet the ordinance, and we tried to come up with a compromise where you could take that 15% that you can modify your building and instead apply it to an accessory building. So we have made this application in a good faith effort, and that's kind of why we're here today. Just keep in mind, an 1,800 square foot accessory building is equivalent to a single family home in many neighborhoods in Orem in terms of square footage. So it is a fairly big building, so.

But it is behind the business. That's the point. It's not in front, it's behind the business. And I have no problem if people want to build a building behind the business.

This is Eric.

Go ahead, Eric.

So, um, my understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong, Jason, but, um, but the Overtons bought the building and then the ordinance was changed. Isn't that, isn't that your understanding or not?

Well, that's what they— that's what they state. They were building their building at the time, but that was not included in any site plan approval that they obtained. So whatever reason they didn't obtain the site plan, if they would have done that when they bought the building, we wouldn't be here in this situation. But apparently, after they got approval, apparently according to Todd, they bought the building after the fact and the ordinances changed in between. So that was never approved as part of their site plan.

Councilmember Sumner, do you have a comment?

Well, that's just— now, Eric, uh, he's not, he's not on the agenda tonight. We're really not talking about him. We're just talking about this 15%. Is that correct? And then also, um, I, I'm kind of a visual guy. I, I, I would like to see what exactly he's gotten mine back there. And is there any way, Eric, you can make that building smaller? I mean, you're not talking very much.

Well, it's a— the problem is, is it's, it's a pre-engineered steel building, and so any modifications made to the steel building would have to be completely re-engineered, and that's something that we were hoping to avoid.

So the, the building is not constructed at this point even? It's just engineered to that size?

Yeah, the building is actually sitting on the property. It's just in crates, so it hasn't been pulled out of the crates since it shipped. I don't know how many years ago, but, uh—

Hey, Councilmember Pedersen, you have a question?

Yeah, so I'm just trying to figure this out. If we're trying to make it easy for businesses to be here and we're talking about 3 or 4 businesses, what's so magic about 15%? I mean, we're talking about a one-story building that's not impacting anybody, but it helps businesses and it keeps us a city where businesses want to locate. The family that owns this property, I I believe also owns property throughout the state of Utah. I would love us to be a place where they say it's easy to do business in Orem. So I'm not sure what's magical about 15% if it doesn't impact other businesses, if it doesn't impact neighborhoods. It's a one-story building that they're storing stuff in behind their business. So I'm just questioning why we'd even give them a hassle about it.

Thank you.

I know we need to change the— if we need to change it, let's make sure— let's change it if that helps businesses. Let's don't lose these guys.

Ryan, do you have a comment?

Yeah, if I could chime in to address Councilmember Pedersen's question. Part of the whole reason we went through the State Street District process was to change State Street moving forward. Yes, if I can remind all of you, many people think it is not an attractive corridor. It is haphazard planning. It doesn't really have an identity. And the goal of that process was to create a sense of place and a sense of future opportunity for redevelopment to occur, to get bigger and better in Orem. Now that is not to knock the current business state that we have. But we have a lot of rundown properties that definitely have a higher and better use. Limiting those to a 15% addition is an incentive to redevelop. If we allow them to, to do whatever haphazardly, we'll continue to get what we have now. We'll have the same going forward, and that's fine. We can do that. But keep in mind, that is why the districts were adopted, allowing this storage building to be whatever size it wants to be and opening that up, then we are just encouraging additional storage to be built within this corridor and within this district, basically adding to a gluttony of storage that we already have within our city. And you may remember some time back we took storage units out of many of our zones because based on the national average, we have far more storage in this city than in any area around us. So opening this up, we're just encouraging more development of continuing, continuing with what we have and adding more storage throughout any of these areas in here and basically encouraging storage development with metal-sided buildings. Now they may be in the back, but you'll still see them from the main corridors.

But Ryan, I don't think it's not, it's not rental storage. And that's what we were looking at getting getting rid of. It was regular storage for businesses, and that's— I think that's the point that I'm trying to drive home. Also, Terry, that it's for business, not for rent.

I understand that, but that will be extremely difficult to regulate if that's really used by the businesses on site.

So Ryan, and you're— I mean, you're talking about the, you know, the master plan along State Street. I knocked up and down doors all along State Street, and there is a different feeling than what you're saying among a lot of these business owners where they've come to the city and wanted to expand, and they're told they have to build up 2 or 3 stories, they have to either have multiple use. I mean, there's a lot of feeling. So I understand there's been some work going into this, But we're losing businesses and we have some very upset businesses too. So we have to, we need to talk to the current businesses to make sure we don't lose who's currently paying our taxes. I mean, that's a whole nother philosophical question, but we want to be sure that they feel that we're business friendly. And we're talking about a one-story building that nobody's going to see behind multiple businesses. So anyway. I hear what you're saying, Ryan, but I just caution you to be—

Mayor, if I may?

Yes, go ahead, Tom.

I typed a question in. I think there's 2 issues. One is this specific building, and 2 is opening the door so far that anyone can put up a metal building. So I— because you— because to Brent's comment, we haven't visually seen this. Is this something where we can approve the overall design that's in front of us, but make an exception for this building where he's bought the product? And I would argue that a capital lease for 30 years is like unto ownership, to David's comment and to the owner's comment or to the lessor's comment. And can we make an exception to that while holding true to these other things so that other things don't slip in the back door that maybe aren't as well thought out as this one.

Dave, one question. How many buildings are there on the property and how much square footage total?

And Mayor, I would like the staff to comment on my last question.

Sure.

Go ahead while you are figuring that out, Dave, staff.

We could definitely look at that. We'd probably want to continue this item to make sure we can review it with Steve Earl and other attorneys to make sure that the language we propose would be doable. So I don't think we were prepared tonight to approve this with stipulations without having it reviewed.

So, so—

Dave, how much square footage is there on the 3 buildings?

Well, so the car wash is 5,944. And the Lube and the Marco's Pizza and Grinders, I think it's 4,764. So it's 10,708 square foot. Do you need about 17.9% to get that 1,800 square foot building?

So if you were to do it, you'd almost need to include the 3 buildings instead of 1 primary building.

Correct.

And then at 18%, you could actually do that.

Well, you'd have 4 buildings because you have the car wash, the lube, Marco's, and the grinders, which is—

So let me, let me throw this out. So Woodbury, for example, owns the Macy's on the corner. They own the underlying property. They own all the leased spaces around. They own all the different buildings. So if we allow— let's just play this out. If we allow 4 buildings to be used then the Macy's or any other building along that has ownership of multiple buildings could have quite an enormous structure. So I get what you're saying.

But if they have room in the back, right, Jason? I mean, Macy's, there's no room in the back.

Well, I haven't looked at it, but there are other properties along the storage unit that would—

this, this isn't the only property that has that exception ability. So in order to allow, you just got to remember that if we allow multiple buildings, we may be biting off more than we want in future site plans. That's all I'm saying.

I mean, could you cut out the Maverick, the car wash and that, and then take the VASA into the State Street Master Plan?

Say that again. Sorry, I missed the comment.

I mean, if you put— can you pull the map back up?

He's saying keep VASA in the state.

So if we could take a little node out, the little node, and then just keep VASA in the State Street and jump over that, would that solve the problem?

That's doable, I guess. We'd have to leave the street in, I guess.

Because behind it, behind that is all apartments.

No, it's single-family homes. These are all single-family homes right here.

Yeah, I mean, but so all the way down there, there's apartments or single-family homes.

Yeah, these are apartments over here.

Would that mean these are 18% or what are they?

So, I believe that there's a lot of— I couldn't hear you.

You kind of went out of reach. Do you want to repeat the question? Sorry.

I was going to say, I believe that there's a lot going on here as far as direction, discussion, qualification. I would be a lot more comfortable to continue this and let the parties involved meet and Jason meet and determine feasibilities and not feasibilities. Because I feel like we are quite a ways away from where we are at. So—

Mayor, could I insert something, please?

Sure, go ahead, Jeff.

This is Jeff Lambson. So if this building is in a crate, is it, is it not a permanent structure? Is this something that would be a temporary building? And if so, you know, could that be taken into consideration? I completely agree that we don't want to be chasing businesses out of Orem. At the same time, I understand you know, where Jason and Ryan are coming from and trying to maintain a certain feeling and a certain look and keeping, you know, within the standards that have been set. But I wonder if there could be a little bit of, I guess, more working together if we were to look at that as a non— If it were a temporary structure versus a permanent structure?

My understanding would be a permanent structure.

So, like I said, I believe that we've still got a lot of issues here that have not been solved or worked through. So I would like to make a motion that we can move to continue this. to another future City Council meeting after all the parties have come together and worked through the details. Is there a second to that motion?

I second.

Yes, Brent?

Yeah, I just got— is this whole— Jason, is this whole change in the ordinance, is it tailored just for Eric and no storage shed, or is it presented for that reason?

That was the initial applicant. We wrote it for the entire district, not for this specific property, because we wanted to have the standard apply across the board, not just for this property. If we're writing it for this property, then 30% is what we would need, and that's kind of why we didn't go to the 30%, because it does affect anything within this district. And so that's kind of where we came to the middle ground, understanding they previously bought the building, but that's kind of where we've directed it to. And I want to let everybody know that I'm not opposed to obviously keeping businesses in town. That helps obviously all of us. So I'm not opposed to any business and are trying to help them get ahead. But I also try to, you know, make sure we have good planning as we go forward. So that's why we're coming with a 15%.

So we do have a motion on the floor. floor in a second. Tom, did you have another comment you want to make?

Mayor, I want to make a comment, but after—

I thought you spoke up a while back.

Okay, fine. Dave, you want to make a comment, and then we're gonna take a vote?

Yeah, so Jason, can we look also at the wording? If it's, you know, maybe it's 2 properties and it's 18%, but I think if we continue it, then that's fine, but just food for thought.

We can do that.

Thanks, Jason.

Mayor, comment? Yeah, but we do have a vote and would like to take that. Go ahead.

This is Greg. I was just going to suggest if we're going to continue this item that we continue it to a specific date and time. Otherwise, we're going to have to re-notice it all.

Well, Jason, and you think you can get all this done in 2 weeks, or—

I would prefer July 14th.

Okay, so we'll make a motion to continue this to July 14th. Is our second okay with that?

I'm fine with that.

Okay, let's go ahead and vote. Tom McDonald?

Aye.

Dave Spencer?

Aye.

Debbie Laree?

Aye.

Brent Sumner?

Aye.

Terry Peterson?

Aye.

Jeff Lampson?

Aye.

Mayor Brunstad? So this item has been continued to July 14th, and that should get everybody time to meet together. Eric, Jason, Ryan, Dave, I would hope everybody would get together on this during that time.

Okay.

Let's go ahead now to number 9.3, which is a public hearing. This is an ordinance amending Section 22-11-33F, PD-21 zone, Student Housing Village, 1200 South Geneva Road, of the Orem City Code to allow drive-through windows. And Jason is our presenter.

Thank you, Mayor. This is a very simple, I think, item, but the PD-21 zone is the Wolverine Crossing, as you remember, This is along University Parkway. If I can point out with a pointer here, we're discussing this property right here, which is a natural gas filling station. There is a Subway sandwich shop which is next door to the east. They are proposing to take down this shop. Most of the infrastructure is taken out. I just talked to the applicant a little while ago, and most of that is down except for the canopy, which will be coming down very shortly. They're ready to proceed. Years ago, this Subway shop was approved with a drive-through window. Even though the ordinance prohibited it, fast food was a permitted use. So one of our staff, I think inadvertently interpreted that as allowing fast food drive-throughs, even though it was not permitted at the time. And so the ordinance— you can see some pictures here of where this is located. So this is the location that we're looking at right here. The ordinance itself, basically under the permitted uses, does not allow drive-through windows. And so we're basically asking that this be stricken out since there is already an existing use. This is one of the last property— vacant properties in this district, or in this zone, excuse me, that can be developed other than this larger development, which will not be fast food. And so we'd recommend that the Planning Commission recommends as well that we take that out and allow drive-up windows in this particular PD-21 zone.

Jason, who is the applicant?

Jared Osmond.

And what are they trying to build there?

So let me go back so you can see. Here's what they're proposing. It's more of just a small convenience, whether that's a drive-up drink shop or some type of ice cream shop or something. That's what his big push was with this COVID that we're having when people are are relying more on drive-through windows, a business that would support that type of infrastructure. So that's kind of what he's proposing. It's very limited space. This regulator site will remain. So this frontage is what they're proposing to develop. Existing landscaping will remain. But it would be a small drive-up window business.

So that is a natural gas filling station. So the regulator site is where they get the natural gas To go to the pumps and the regulator site is staying?

I have to double-check, but I think that site is staying. Whether that's part of the natural gas distribution system or not, I don't know, but that might be one of those type of facilities.

I mean, they would have to dismantle that according to regulation and specification so there's no danger to the public, correct?

Yeah, my understanding is that's staying. staying put. And it's probably some type of Questar or whatever regulator station that will stay.

Okay.

All right. Any comments or questions from the council?

I have one.

Yes, go ahead, Debbie.

I actually live in this area and I drove by this the other day and the thought actually crossed my mind is since that natural gas is now defunct, it would make sense to put some sort of food right there. We have a Domino's, we have a Subway, and I think it makes sense with what's already there with the apartments. And so I think it's not a difficult fit to change this, and it actually makes sense for what's already currently there.

Okay, Councilmember Sumner, you have a comment?

Yes, I was just, you know, since the COVID pandemic. I, like all of us, I've used the drive-ups a lot. In fact, I haven't even been inside a restaurant to sit down since, but, you know, that's another point of view. But anyway, I've been to a lot of drive-ups, and have we— are we doing any study on the backup of cars? It seems like the ones I go to is creating traffic problems. Egress and, you know, the flow of the traffic. I was just wondering if there's any observation of this at this subway. I, you know, I have no idea if that's a problem, but I noticed it's problems with others that's converted to a drive-up.

That is definitely something we look at when sites come in. We've had several recently that come in and we've basically kind of made them change some of their configuration based on backup and actually coming out into a public street. So if you look over here on the subway, it actually wraps around this direction. So you'd have to have probably 25 cars to get out, back out, you know, out into the street. Same way with this, it would have to back up through here and even out here before it ever got back.

Okay.

So we definitely look at that as a site plan comes in to make sure that We don't ourselves approve something that's going to cause a hazard. We definitely look at that through the process. This has not been approved at this point. It simply would have to be approved here tonight, and then it would go back through Planning Commission for the actual review. So this hasn't been reviewed at this point, but we would definitely use that as a method of review to make sure that doesn't cause issues in the flow of traffic.

So, Brent, I think is excellent and If this were a So Delicious or a Swig, they will get 20 cars at a time lined up. So we'd have to be careful.

And Mayor, if I can speak to that. So we have talked several times with Swig, and they basically try to do a 3-minute, you know, if they have backup, they actually take people out and do an order like you do with Chick-fil-A and others, and they would actually park them out of, you know, over here.

pending and they had run out of drinks.

So they are definitely aware of the backup and they try their best to get that moving through. So that is definitely something that we also make sure they understand and communicate back and forth to make sure that they move that traffic through and not cause a hazard.

Okay. They get some very long lines, so that would be a— you would really need to look at that. Any other comments from the council?

I was going to say, the Subway— I solicit that Subway and Domino's, and they have maybe 5 or 6 cars. So if it were— obviously a Squig would have more, but if there were something, sandwich shop or something similar to what's there, the backup doesn't come into the road at all.

No, it really just comes down to whether or not it's one of these drink shops. And like I say, if you got a Squig or So Delicious, Delicious on Center Street, Swig on 1600 North, you'll see how far the lines back up.

Yeah, that's true.

I agree.

All right. No further comment. This is a public hearing, so we'll go ahead and open it up to the— for public comment. And we will give it 1 minute of time starting now.

That's 1 minute, Mayor.

Okay, our 1 minute is up. Pete, have you seen any comments come in?

No comments.

Okay, we'll close the public comment portion of our public hearing and bring it back to the council. Any further comments or questions? Okay, well then I will make a motion that we amend Section 22-11-33FPD21 Zone, Student Housing Village, 1200 South Geneva Road, of the Orange City Code to allow drive-through windows. Is there a second?

Second.

Okay, Jeff Lampson. We'll now go ahead and take a vote. Tom McDonald?

Aye.

Dave Spencer?

Aye.

Debbie Laree?

Aye.

Brent Sumner?

Aye.

Terry Peterson?

Aye.

Jeff Lampson?

Aye.

Mayor Brunstad and I vote aye as well. And that passes. That ordinance passes. We'll move on to item number 9.4, which is also a public hearing. This is an ordinance. Amending Chapter 10, Flood Damage Prevention, of the Orange City Code pertaining to updating the ordinance to comply with the State of Utah and FEMA, Federal Emergency Management Agency standards as it relates to the revised flood insurance rate map and other requirements outlined by the state and FEMA. And Jason Bench is our presenter.

Thank you, Mayor. As you note, this is the first update to this ordinance since 1990. It's been a 30-year ordinance that's done well, but the FEMA people and the state of Utah have both come back and asked every city that actually uses the floodplain areas and actually uses the flood insurance program to actually amend their ordinances the way that they want to have them read. Basically, what they're trying to do, obviously, is to protect the flood areas from damage and also, you know, build homes higher than the floodplain so that they have less claims and other things like that. So they basically mandated the state— any city within the state of Utah and probably throughout the nation to amend to the standards that they have adopted. The state of Utah come up with a standard, the FEMA has reviewed it and has accepted those, and that's kind of what we base these amendments on was what the state of Utah came up with. We've had Steve Earl from the attorney's office write those that would fit to our ordinance, and we've had FEMA then review those and make sure. So what you see tonight is what's been approved by FEMA as meeting that requirement. And so we're here tonight to have this approved. The whole point for this document is to keep current so that people within the city that are in these floodplain areas can stay Allow, or at least apply for flood insurance through FEMA. Without these standards adopted, FEMA would basically not allow anybody within the City of Orem to buy that insurance. And so that's why we're here tonight, is to amend them to the standards that they want us to have. So we've added some additional definitions. We've designated a floodplain administrator, which in this ordinance outlines the Development Services Director, And then he would assign someone— currently that would be me at this moment, at this point— to administer the floodplain area. And then additional standards have been added, and the main standards was any new construction or substantial improvements in a special flood hazard area would be subject to these requirements. So it's not a citywide requirement, it's just those areas that are particularly located within the flood hazard areas. If I can just show you a couple of new maps. that will be effective on Friday, June 19th. You can see that they've got a lot more detailed from when they— our last maps were, I think, 1991-ish, '84. So they've got a lot more detail. They've spent years in looking at and studying these, so you can see the areas along the river, whereas before they weren't as detailed of where the Provo River actually was. These actually now follow the river. And that Gives you a little more detail out at Clegg's Pond, the Sleepy Ridge area, kind of outlines that as floodplain. Then you can see along Utah Lake where it actually outlines where that floodplain is. So they're a lot more detailed, a lot more site-specific, and a little better to manipulate or maintain, I should say, the floodplain areas. And so these floodplain areas and the ordinance that we're talking about tonight only apply to those areas in that floodplain area. So it's not a lot. We don't have a lot of development in these. We have a few homes along the Provo River, a few homes obviously out by Sleepy Ridge, but it doesn't— it won't affect the majority of the homes in Orem. It'll only affect those that are actually within that area. But the whole purpose is that those that build in that area could then apply for flood insurance and have that protection through the FEMA requirements. And so that's kind of why we're here tonight. The Planning Commission wasn't required to review it, so it comes straight to the City Council. We just recommend that the council adopt these changes as proposed. Be glad to address any questions.

Any questions from the council? One question, Jason. We had a major 100-year flood in 1983, and it seemed like the level of the lake went up 8 feet. Your floodplain design there, does that show that or not really?

Well, I think this is all the Powell Slough area.

Right.

So that is, you know, the lake right now is down in this area, so I think that does represent the area that was flooded or potentially could be flooded if the lake, you know, got to that level again. So this area shows that that is a potential area for future So as you look in the southwest area here that we're looking at for the general plan amendment, that is not within that floodplain area.

Any other comments or questions from the council? All right, this is a public hearing, so we will open it up for public comment, and we will start with a minute right now. Okay, our minute is up. Pete, have we received any comments?

No comments.

Okay, then we'll go ahead and close the public comment portion of the public hearing and bring it back to the council. Any comments or questions from the council? All right, seeing none, I'd like to make a motion that, uh, we as the Orem City Council amend Chapter 10, Flood Damage Prevention of the Orem City Code, pertaining to updating the ordinance to comply with the State of Utah and FEMA standards as it relates to the revised flood insurance rate map and other requirements outlined by the state and FEMA. Is there a second? Do we have a second?

I can second.

Okay, thank you. Debbie Luray seconded that. Okay, let's go ahead and vote on it. We'll start with Tom McDonald.

Aye.

Dave Spencer.

Aye.

Debbie Luray.

Aye.

Brent Sumner.

Aye.

Terry Peterson.

Aye.

Jeff Lampson.

Aye.

And the mayor votes aye, so the ordinance passes. Thank you, Jason, appreciate it. We'll now move on to item 9.5 of our scheduled items, which is a public hearing also on the enterprise fund transfers, and Brandon Nelson is our presenter.

Yeah, I'm sorry, man. I'll have to figure that out. Okay, come on in.

All right, Mayor.

Trying to see— apparently the slides for the enterprise fund transfers are not included.

So—

The enterprise fund transfers proportion of the budget is required because, as I mentioned, about 5 years or so ago, the state auditor as well as the Government Accounting Standards Board kind of required that pay— use of city facilities primarily related to enterprise funds, that those services be recorded as revenue to those enterprise funds. In the past, and all for a long, long, long time, the utility rates that the citizens paid included the cost of those—

oh, okay—

included the cost of those services. And like I said, 5 years ago When that change was made, the general fund began to pay the enterprise funds for services such as water, sewer, street lighting, and stormwater. And the city, in essence, to make the general fund whole since they were now paying for all those services that they were not before, Transferred the money back from those enterprise funds back into the general fund, the amount of— the exact amount of money that the general fund paid to those enterprise funds. And then we were required to, in essence, notify entities that— Just let me get up to scroll.

Okay.

So then that's where this slide talks about sending them— the general fund paying those utility— for those utility funds. And then as we mentioned, those funds are then sent back to the general fund to make it whole. And as part of the requirement to do so, we have to notify the citizens that we are making that transfer back to the general fund from those enterprise funds. And you can see the transfer amounts there in the middle section related to each one of those funds and the amount of money that not only did the general fund pay to those funds but that now is then being transferred Transferred back and the associated percentage related to total expenditures that that transfer is related. As part of the requirement in relation to transfers, we're required to show the various utility revenue information related to each one of those funds. As you can see here, the lines that we're specifically talking about are the contributions from— they're part of those numbers. We're also required to show the relative utility expenses related to each one of those funds and the breakdown. This is in kind of summary format. As well as in a specifically related to admin charges, internal service charges, as well as whatever other transfers we might have in relation to other services provided to those funds. We have also are required to show each of those enterprise funds the detail in relation to their expenditures. You can see a breakdown here of what those expenditures are. Again, the bottom line transfers out shows the, the 4 transfers that are being sent back to the general fund. And then also as part of that, we are to break out any of the contracted services that we— that are enterprise funds are paying for. And you can see those elements there. And basically, that's the enterprise fund transfers. Are there any questions related to those transfers?

Okay, seeing that there's none, this is a public hearing, so we will go ahead and open it up for For public comment, which will open it up for 1 minute starting now. All right, our 1 minute has expired for public comment. Peter, any public comment come in to you?

No comment.

Okay, so we'll close the public comment portion of our public hearing and bring it back to the council. Any other comments or questions? So this is not a vote. It's strictly a public hearing to give the information out.

Correct.

We will now move on to— thank you, Brandon.

You bet.

To 9.6, which is a public hearing on an ordinance. to approve and adopt fiscal year 2020 and 2021 City of Orem budget.

Thank you, Mayor.

How many slides do you have?

Oh, how many slides are there?

Just curious.

Oh yeah, there's a lot.

Okay.

Not as many as last time, though.

Okay, go ahead.

We'll go through them relatively quickly, so go ahead. So just a quick, um, showing of, you know, some of the budget, um, things that we discussed in various dates throughout earlier this year, which, you know, obviously there were some things that were thrown in there with COVID but just to give kind of a brief outline of the discussion point and timing. We touched on some of the budget highlights related to this, which there are probably more lowlights than highlights, but these are some of the items that have been addressed in this budget. Of particular importance, obviously, the modification of expenditures and revenues related to the COVID crisis, but more importantly to many of the employees is, you know, the coverage of any health insurance increases, that those are entirely covered by the city. And then some, some changes in relation to how things are set up as far as funds go related to a new facilities maintenance fund. We'll touch on the fleet replacement and some capital project related items specifically related to streets. So just as a quick overview, the revenue Total is $125— just a little over $125 million. As you can see, it's a slight decline from the prior year. Obviously, a portion of that is in relation to the sales tax and building permit fees, which we'll touch on in just a little bit. As you can see in the, the top line, the revenues line of $101 million, obviously those are— you can see in the appropriation of surplus line that the increase in that line, which is primarily related to approximately $2 million, just a little over $2 million, which is being in essence using fund reserves to make our, our budget balance for fiscal '21. Just a quick overview in relation to the revenues listed out by major fund to give you an idea of kind of the size of those, of each fund, and how those relate to the total. Specifically related to the general fund, we have— which, you know, is the major fund of the city— just a little over $56 million in that fund. Again, you can see the impact of the sales tax decrease and The building permits decreased primarily in relation to that revenue line item. Again, just pointing out how important the tax line is, sales taxes in particular. That does include property taxes, which are stable, and franchise taxes, which are also stable and not growing. And so sales tax has a big impact on the fluctuation in relation to that category. Touching on sales taxes, you can see in the current estimate for the current year, $22 million. I will tell you that's an approximate 1.7% decrease. if we were to hit that. It's a little, a little higher. It gets, you know, to get down to that exact $22 million, it's— it would have to result in a 3% decrease, which, just to give you an idea, to get down to that level would mean a 40% decrease in our April sales tax number, a 25% decrease in our May sales tax number, and a 10% decrease in our June sales tax number. So, you know, we have yet to see what the impact is going to be. We should have some information obviously before our next council meeting near the end of June, but we're hopeful that we will potentially exceed that $22 million, but I don't think it's going to be by much. The $18.8 million in the current fiscal '21 proposed budget Represents a 14.5% decrease from that $22 million. It represents a 20% decrease from what we budgeted this year, which was the $23 million— $23,500,000. The 20% is not across the entire board. We started with a much higher number percent and phased that in during the year so that, uh, To give us some latitude as far as earlier in the year, hopefully— well, not hopefully, but was anticipated to be worse than as we move along during the fiscal year. So in the net of all of those reductions is a net 20% reduction.

Thank you.

As I mentioned, building permits significantly reduced. As far as— it's almost a 50% reduction there. We'll wait to see how that— what the impacts going into fiscal '21 really are going to be. But since we budget pretty conservatively in that nature, you know, anything over and above that, we can determine it, you know, those future meetings, what we want to do with that, or whether we just Let that go, and eventually that falls into our fund reserve and we, we use in our capital plan. Again, outlining, just kind of giving a citywide where the dollars are spent in broad terms. You'll notice personnel is 38.3, operations 43.8. I want you to contrast that when we look at the next screen here. and you look at that top line in general fund, personnel represents 66% of the total general fund dollars. And so a significant portion of our personnel are in that particular fund. You know, obviously fire, police are 2 of the biggest components within that fund. There are a few things that were added to the fiscal '21 budget. Those items are listed here, and we've discussed those briefly. These are items that we felt of big importance that they get done here within the fiscal year that could no longer wait. And so accommodations were made to be able to get those into the budget. We have various fleet replacements. You'll notice a pretty significant decrease from fiscal '21 versus fiscal '20, but that said, we, we did buy a fire engine in fiscal '20, so that was a big component of it, and we did hire 5 new police officers. And so we don't have those 2 particular elements here going into fiscal '21, and so those are a Big portion of why that decreased. Streets capital projects, with the addition of the transportation sales tax fund this current fiscal year, those dollars are then spent here in fiscal '21 as we work from a kind of a similar to CARES tax where we get the money first, and once we know we have it Then we can— then we decide how to spend it. So this is the first year of the transportation sales tax fund as far as spending those dollars. You can see kind of a general makeup of the projects that we're talking about in relation to those 2 particular street funds and where those dollars will be going. Brief synopsis of the water funds. And how the breakdown of that fund goes. You know, some big elements within the water fund are the AMI system, the storage tank, and various impact fees. Whether we spend those impact fees or not, obviously, is up for— you know, we still have that in planning phase, but those dollars are budgeted as we receive those impact fee dollars. You'll notice on the right-hand side that we are proposing no water base rate or tier increase for the given year as we reevaluate those master plans and the associated fees and the structure, whether that be cash-based or whether that be cash and some debt component. That goes for not only the water fund but the water And the transformation fund as well. You can see kind of a general breakdown there as well. In the stormwater fund, you see the breakdown. We are proposing a base rate increase based on the master plan from an ESU rate of $760 per month from a prior $735 per month. The recreation fund, you do see a proposed increase in the revenue line there in relation to the actual, as we anticipate an opening of the pools as well as the entire fitness center in February. And so we're planning ahead for, for that exciting day, those exciting days. In the solid waste fund, we receive and work with Waste Management and North Point. We work with them in determining what fees need to be set in order to cover the contract that we have with them. And you can see here the change in each of the various first can, second can, recycle, and green waste.

Thank you.

waste that we do— that we work with and the proposed fees increases for each one of those. And then just to give an idea of when we add up all of the utilities, where Orem sits in relation to counterparts within the valley as well as other entities that, you know, are of similar size and where we fall, which is is still in a very good position in relation to those other entities. At this point, are there any questions in relation to the budget?

Any comments from the council? All right. Well, this is a public hearing, and we'll go ahead and open it up for public comment. And we'll start right now for 1 minute of public comment. All right, 1 minute for public comment is up. Pete, have we received any public comments?

Uh, yes, we have 1 comment from Dave Bousaith.

He says, can you assure us that the water fund is being used wisely?

Okay.

I am—

we can assure him of that and be happy to talk to him about it. If there are no other comments, we will go ahead and close the public comment portion of our public hearing and bring it back to the council. Any comments or questions?

Yeah.

Councilmember Spencer.

I have a question. So it is mainly on Exhibit B.

The budget?

On the library hall fees. And I think maybe Brent might have put this together, I don't know. But my question is, how did we determine these rates? Did we go to Provost, you know, the Covey Center in Provo to compare rates, or how did we come up with this rate structure?

Dave Mayer, this is Bren. Yeah, we did go through a process of looking at not only Provo but other auditorium, city auditorium or municipal auditoriums and looked at their fee schedules, but also the school district and their different rental rates. And then also essentially kind of wedding venues around the more in the county type area. And so you'll notice that there's different levels there. And then we also did kind of an internal comparison with other rental rates, whether it's, you know, we rent out Timpanogos Park for weddings, or we have the senior center that has, you know, a big area that rents out. So we wanted to make sure that all of those rates included in that fee structure were kind of comparable in nature and that we were taking every— everything into account. So you can see there's different levels and a number of different charges.

Yeah, thanks, Brent. So the question I have also is, so these rates, are they just an average or are we lower or are we but a little higher? I mean, what, you know, my concern is we're going to build this thing and then maybe businesses in Orem might get hurt because they won't be going to them, they'll go to the library hall because they're cheaper. So that's my one concern to safeguard Orem businesses. So that's my concern on this. I don't know, I don't know where they come in at, so I don't know that.

I mean, Char can probably speak in more detail than I can, but I would say in general, to start off with, so that we can in practice see how we compare to overall market, our intent was to be on, you know, the conservative side of average.

Okay, so I mean, we can revisit that if businesses are all coming to Orm Library Hall and and they're not going to the home businesses that had the business, then we probably need to look at that, right?

Yeah, we—

and I mean, that's why we look at all of our fees every single year. So we needed to have a starting point for this first year and do the best we could to anticipate. But yeah, just like we do with everything, we will absolutely look at all of our fees yearly.

Okay, and then on the Class 2, The government-sponsored facility use, is that the people that get the CARES tax money, the mini and the medium?

Is that the—

would they fall into that?

Char, I see that you're on the meeting. Can you confirm? I know that we wanted to pattern it after, to the extent possible, what we do with with recreation. But, Char, can you give a little bit more, a little bit better definition?

I don't believe that that particular area was for our CARE tax. I believe it was more the community partner type of area that we were going to focus on that. It kind of depends on what the CARE tax recipients would like to do. If they're just presenting their program for the library patrons and the community through the library as they normally do. That would be a different scenario than if they wanted to charge for tickets or things like that. But we did anticipate that there could be usage from other government entities outside of the City of Orem, and so that rate was more intended for that use.

So, Char, so on that, if, if I'm a choir and I want to practice every week it's going to be free at the library hall?

No, it is not, it is not something that we can accommodate to have a recurring free practice. We want to work with people, and if there are opportunities that we can partner with them to make the facility available, or if they want to rent the facility, but it is going to be a facility that's very hard for people to have a all the same practice night. Usually people want like Thursday at 6 or 7 o'clock, and if every choir wants Thursday at 6 or 7 o'clock, then that's going to be a real challenge. So we want to work with our presenters who present with the library and make sure that they can have limited access to rehearse before they present through the library's programming calendar, and then the rest of of the applicants we would just have to work with through the fee structure and through whatever their current circumstances are.

Would it be smart maybe to have another class, you know, like maybe 7 or 8 classes, meaning the second class would be, you know, CARES tax recipients, maybe they get a discounted rate. But, you know, if it's a practice or whatever, I think everybody thinks it's going to be free and that building costs more Yes, yes, we can certainly look into something like that.

It would, it would be appropriate to make sure that we are covering the costs of using the building.

Yeah, that's my concern. I mean, go ahead, Mayor. I'm sorry.

No, that's all right. I was just going to turn some time over to Debbie Luray.

Okay.

All right, Councilmember Luray, you want to unmute your—

So I had a question. This is for Brandon. We had received notice that we received a Department of Justice grant for, I believe, 3 new cops for, I think it was $375,000 if we hired them for 4 years. Can you tell me, did you include that in your budget, or would that be something additional that we could Debbie, this is Jamie.

We have yet to include that in our budget. We have yet to accept the grant. And as such, once the grant has been essentially accepted and received, then we would recognize that revenue.

Okay, that was my question. Could that be used for a social worker, mental health officer that Gary was talking about his need for? Or does it have to be strictly a street cop?

So that—

so those monies are specifically related to community-oriented policing. So we would actually have to look at the parameters of that grant to determine whether or not something like that, for example, a mental health officer, would qualify as a community-oriented police officer.

Okay, that was my question.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you, Debbie. Um, any further questions or comments?

I, I still have one if somebody doesn't want to go.

Go ahead, Dave.

Okay, so going back to Exhibit B but moving on to the, um, recreation of the co-sponsored groups, um, I, uh, I still think our fee structure is out of whack, and I've talked to Carl about that. But, um, I want to look at the soccer, um, Group 2, and I don't believe that there's 2 seasons in there. So I think that that fee should be knocked— cut in half as it was before, um, because they don't have 2 seasons and we don't charge the Celtic Storm and the Rangers 2 seasons on their fees. So I think that might be something wise to do. And then also on baseball, I'm fine with the participation fee, but I don't agree with the field prep fee. And for the Group 3, which is the Monday Night Lights, which they play on Monday night, 50% of the teams are from Orem, and the other 50 come from outside of Orem. So we're basically penalizing them to use this league for Monday night. So I, I would propose that Group 2 and Group 3 are $4 participation fee, and that's it. And that's my 2 cents.

Can we, can we have that screen pulled up so we can see what Dave's talking about?

Page 40 on Exhibit B.

Yeah, give me just a second, uh, Terry.

Thank you.

Mayor, while they're pulling that up, could I make a comment?

Sure, go ahead, Jeff.

So on the soccer, my wife served on the soccer board for years, and I've coached soccer for, well, not anymore, but I did for a lot of years. It used to be, you know, half that amount for a participation fee. The season— for instance, if a boy or a girl is playing and they're under 12 years old, they're in a U-12 category. And that season for their U-12 league would be—

Mm-hmm.

—games in the fall and games in the spring. You don't really do soccer in the middle of the summer, but that fall and spring was considered one season. And so, you know, you would pay— that would be your one season, the participation fee. But it looks like we've doubled that up now and we're charging them for 2 seasons when that used to be included as one season because that was your— your 1 year of participation in that league.

So can everybody see the screen?

So, so show us again, Dave, what you're talking about so I understand.

Okay, so when you look at baseball, you've got Group 1, which is the— Orm City does that. Group 2 is Orme Youth Baseball, which is— back in the day was $4 participation fee, and now there's a field prep fee of $675. So basically it's $1,075 a kid. My concern with Orme Youth Baseball is you have a $2 million insurance policy that they have to pay for, uniforms, balls, and they have to pay the umps and Nobody gets paid in Orem youth baseball. So my, my thing is, um, if I look at the, the softball that the Orem City runs, they don't just— they don't differentiate from if those kids are from Orem, those teams, or from outside. So I think Orem youth baseball is getting penalized on the Monday night league when, um, I think that should just be a participation fee right now. Ormeath baseball has 640 kids that play Tuesday through Saturday, 165 kids from Ormeath, so that's 805 kids. And the rest, um, it's about 83% Ormeath kids if you combine them. So I think, I think we're just doing them a disjustice, um, on the fees. That's just my opinion. I think we need to go back to the basic, and if, you know, if the library hall, you If we're gonna— if it's a, you know, CARES tax recipient and they can use this for free, I mean, maybe all sports should be free, but I don't, I don't think we need to go that length. I think we can just go with $4 participation fee on Group 2 and 3 for baseball and a $4 participation fee for soccer in Group 2 and Group 3, and I think we're good.

Mayor, may I make a comment? This is Jamie.

Sure.

So these fees specifically relate to our co-sponsored relationships with groups that are not run and operated by the City of Orem. So in this particular situation, these participation fees are the only fees we accept from participants for any and all of these sports that are listed here on an annual basis. This requires— this is the only money we accept for, in the case of our fields, mowing and maintaining them, maintaining the parks as a whole, the cost of electricity to power the lights associated with those activities. As it relates to softball, that is an Orem-specific run program, and within our service fees, we actually build in costs like this. And that revenue actually goes to the City of Orem and not to these co-sponsored groups. So these co-sponsored relationships are such where these are separate organizations. And they are using our fields at essentially the costs that are outlined here. If there are no fees associated with it, then all of these groups are using our properties for free. This was a conversation that essentially triggered during the Great Recession when— Asked the question. Well, who are using our fields? What percentage of them are Orem-based teams and participants? And why should the City of Orem be subsidizing the activities of, for example, participants that are not Orem residents, teams that are not coming from Orem? And in addition, these are activities that are outside the just everyday use of our parks but are tied to specific activities that have specific costs associated with maintaining fields, striping fields, backstops, soccer goals, obviously pool activities. These are all things that are funded above and beyond just turf that we have within each of our respective parks.

So thanks, David, for that comment. I just— my question is on the, you know, the city-run programs. You still pay people salaries, and we don't pay any salaries to the volunteers that run the programs to help the kids of Warren out. I think that the maintenance is in the parks budget, if I'm not correct. And not the recreation budget?

No, it's in the parks budget. It's part of the general fund. What we pay for parks maintenance is money we can't dedicate to other services like public safety, for example.

Well, I just think that, in my opinion, I think that the fees need to be down a little bit. And that's what I proposed.

So I have a question. We're talking about the same fields, right? The same fields that the city uses and that other groups use?

Well, we don't— we generally don't program, for example, soccer. We run— we essentially provide opportunities for Orem kids to play soccer through a rec league that's organized by Orem Youth Soccer or through competitive leagues that are organized by way of Orem Youth Soccer or, for example, Celtic or Rangers. Baseball, it's the same situation with— as you get obviously older, we do have some recreation programs at a very young age. Lacrosse, we don't run any lacrosse programs.

Generally.

So much of this activity is activity that is managed by separate organizations that use our fields to run their programs.

Okay, so, but I'm just confused. So, but the same— so the same fields though that we're already paying for as a city are the ones that the private groups are using? So, I mean, we're already going to mow the lawns and water them anyway, right? Whether it's private or—

Yes, but we're not going to stripe them. We're not going to essentially prep them every day if we're not running programs. If somebody else wasn't running programs on these fields, we wouldn't be doing, for example, what we do. We mow these fields twice a week, let's say, which is double what we do in all of our other parks. So if they are parks that are suited specifically for active recreation programs, we maintain them at a much higher level than we do any of our other parks.

I mean, all I did is I gave a proposal, and that was my proposal. So if the council doesn't like it, then they can But that's— that was my 2 cents.

So your proposal is to change, to bring those fees back to what they used to be, the $4?

Correct.

Okay.

I have a question for Jamie. Is the $6.75 Based on real costs that's associated to mow those extra times? I mean, where are you getting $675?

The $675 is just a small piece of the costs associated to prep these fields, to prep these, you know, activities for gameplay. This was a negotiated number when we started years ago, and we have incrementally increased it Based on the costs associated with the materials, for example, that we use to maintain the facilities. And obviously the cost of goods is increasing on an annual basis.

Is this just an arbitrary number or did you base it on real costs? So that's my question.

No, this was, this was a floor that was arbitrarily set many, many— well, not many, many years ago, It was set about 7 or 8 years ago, and it is dramatically less than the cost that we incur to maintain these facilities to a general standard.

So is there a way to give an Orem kid a discount? And what I mean by that is maybe it does cost us the $10.75, but to Dave's point, maybe an Orem kid pays $4 or $5 less. I don't know, maybe you don't want to keep track of that.

No, I mean, that, that was the whole intent of setting up the group system, was provided kids qualify as Orem residents in specific groups, then the fees charged are different than, than other— the higher groups, for example, where there is a greater potential. And they have to, on an annual basis, they have to show us their rosters so that we know who is playing on those fields. And if they have— and I can't remember the percentage right off the top of my head— but if they have a majority of participants that are Orem-based kids, then they drop to a lower cost category.

And that, that was my, you know, my hope is that, you know, if we have some kids that come from situations where they're not, you know, I mean, mom and dad are scraping everything together so that they can play soccer.

And that's— and those dollars are available by grants that you already approved through the CARE program. Okay.

And with, with this, with the Orem Youth Soccer, don't they maintain those fields down there? I mean, don't they mow them and stripe them and—

No, they stripe them.

Okay.

Councilmember Sumner has a question.

Yeah, I have a couple of questions. First of all, I'd like to go back to what Jeff said, uh, the fall and the spring as far as seasons. Way back a lot of years ago when I did soccer, it was one season. I think that's what Jeff said. And now if I understand correctly, it's 2 seasons. Or 2 fees, I guess, is what I'm saying. Or is it just one season and one fee?

Excuse me, Brent, I can't speak to that specifically.

Well, I, I think, yeah, I think, I think that's something I'd like to know. And then I, I am Very concerned about. You mentioned the roster needs to be at a certain percentage of these traveling teams. Boy, I I think their their fees and participation dollars should be a lot higher than than you know our local kids. That that concerns me when these traveling teams come in and there may not even be a a kid from Orem on there. And again, I don't know the percentage there.

Well, so Brent, on the Monday Night Lights, the idea was to pattern it after Spanish Fork's baseball Monday night league. So the Orem kids didn't want to travel their teams down to Spanish Fork. They wanted to travel— they want to stay in Orem. So we thought that would be a best— when I was on the board back 8 to 9 years ago, that was the idea, to keep the kids in Orem but to play other competition. But the Monday Night League, it's not a super league, it's an instructional super league. So it's the kids that don't play Rocky Mountain baseball, or they don't play, they don't play, they sit on the bench. It gives them an opportunity to pitch, you know, play first base or whatever. So it's more of an instructional league. But You know, the— what I see is we're penalizing Orem youth baseball because of the Monday Night League, because 50% of the kids are coming outside of Orem, but the total kids in Orem youth baseball is 83%. So I see, that's my dilemma. I don't get it.

I don't know how to raise my hand on this, Mayor, but what I see are a bunch of numbers. I don't know what the economic impact are. So David has suggested some numbers. What's the total financial impact of his proposed change?

I'm assuming that— I mean, baseball got charged about $13,000 for 2.5 months last year. So I'm assuming it's probably around 50% or 60% cut.

I just hate to make a budget approval without knowing the total dollar impact.

Well, I mean, right now if you take the number of kids, 970 kids times 4.

But, you know, I mean, my sense is—

this is Jamie—

my sense is you're probably talking about $25,000 to $30,000 annually for all of these activities. So that's $20,000 to $30,000, $25,000 to $30,000 That would need to essentially come out of the general fund.

So you're talking $30,000 for baseball and soccer?

I'm talking about all these group fees.

So we were talking baseball and soccer. So soccer was $4, and they have 2,500 kids, that's $10,000.

But respectfully, you're going to have— You're going to have other groups approach us and say, you're doing the same— you're doing this for baseball, you're doing it for soccer, but why can't you do it for us?

But it's— soccer and baseball, they're not getting paid. Nobody gets paid. The other groups get paid. They pay their people. That's the difference.

Well, I—

That's the difference in my mind. They get paid. Their coach gets paid. People get paid.

I understand that. Just, that's $25,000 to $30,000 that we need to take out of the general fund to essentially— we have to divert additional general fund money to these programs in lieu of those charges.

So baseball, you charge them $12,000, and soccer, you charge them $20,000. So that's $32,000.

Again, this is a conversation that I wasn't prepared to have. I don't have those specific numbers right in front of me.

Okay.

Is Carl on the line?

He is not.

I thought, I thought I saw him. Sorry, I thought he was here.

He was here earlier, but he's actually on vacation and, and he has a sketchy So, Jamie, this is the mayor.

So if this is of a concern and the council wants to look at it, if we were to adopt it as it stands, can we come back and make an adjustment after we've had a study? And as Tom said, yes, all of the information and you've had a chance to prepare?

Yes, you can. You can— we can come back. As I've represented, our plan is to come back with relative frequency this next year in amending the budget, and this, this in fact is something that could very well be amended if desired.

So could I ask that Dave maybe write down what it is that he is proposing? send it out to the council, and then you have our staff, Brandon and so forth, put down the numbers and how it relates. And so the rest of us can actually get a picture of both sides of the issue.

So, Mayor, if I may, I, I have been getting some information from recreation as we've been talking. Recreation soccer, as confirmed by our recreation department does in fact have 2 seasons, and the proposed— and the required Orem participation percentage requirement is 60%. So if you have less than 60% participation from Orem kids on your team, you drop to the next category.

And my point there is, if you take the complete Orm Youth Baseball, it's 83%, not 60%. So you're getting penalized for that Monday night thing. But I don't, I don't believe that the Orm has 2 seasons. And that was put in there about 2 years ago by Carl, which we didn't catch and we passed it. So I don't believe it has 2 seasons personally.

Well, I'm happy to confirm again with our staff who run the programs in cooperation with Jeff, do you want to make a comment?

Mayor, Council, this is Steve Downs, and I only know this because we're looking at it with our son right now. And there, there is a spring and fall season that you're required to enroll in for Orem Youth Soccer.

But it's one, it's one sign-up, one payment?

Correct.

2 seasons, one sign-up. But you can't, you can't opt out of one.

You have to do both.

You have to pay for both.

But they are split into 2 seasons.

That's my understanding as well in terms of the Utah Youth Soccer Association, that that's what they require. And it says there on the fee schedule, it's a participant cost per year. And so that includes a fall and a spring season. It doesn't include like summer tournaments and that sort of thing.

So, Mayor, my comment is just, as we're talking about this, it's not about dollars, it's about kids. And if anything we can do to get our kids off the couch and participating in sports is a, is a great investment. I mean, we subsidize a lot of— we subsidize the library with, you know, a budget of what, $3 million or so, that, that because it's something we want to offer to our community. And so I just hope that my fellow people on the City Council, when we're looking at this, it's not $20,000 or $30,000. It's, would this be a better thing for the kids in our city? And would this get more participation and more children out of what we were hearing earlier about gangs and all these other things and have them out doing sports? So that's the issue, not—

Thank you.

And Councilmember Pedersen, I completely agree. I think the genesis of this conversation, though, years ago was the fact that they weren't our kids.

Yeah.

That a majority of them were kids from elsewhere who were participating in our programs. And at the time, the question was, why should we as a city be subsidizing Springville kids and Linden kids and Pleasant Grove kids Let's by all means be sensitive to the needs and the budgets of Orem families because they're the ones who pay the property taxes. But should we extend that same consideration to Springville kids and Provo kids and Lehi kids, so on and so forth?

Yeah, that's fair.

And I mean, if we're going to get to the double— seasons things. If you look at the Group 4, which is the Celtics, Stormin', and Rangers, that's a yearly rental, 5 weeknights and a Saturday for one fee, and they have 2 seasons. So I just— I don't know, we just need to talk about it, I guess.

All right, well, maybe what we could do is go move ahead with this the way it is right now and then have you, Dave, get together with Carl and Jamie and go over this. And if we need to then come back and revisit it at the approval of the council, we can do that. So this is a public hearing. We have had public comment. I would like to make a motion if there's no further comment from the council.

Second.

And I would move that the City Council by ordinance approve and adopt the fiscal year 2020-21 budget, adopt the compensation programs, adopt the fees and charges schedule, set the property tax, franchise tax, municipal energy sales and use tax, telecommunications license tax, transient room tax, and E911 fees.

Second.

Is there a second?

Second.

Okay, Brent Sumner seconded. We'll go ahead and take a vote. I will start with Tom McDonald.

Aye.

Dave Spencer.

I want to make a comment that we do revisit the fees at a later date, and I say aye.

Okay. Debbie Lurie.

Aye.

Okay, Brent Sumner?

Aye.

Terry Peterson?

Aye.

Jeff Lampson?

Aye.

Mayor Brunstad? So the ordinance passes and we'll move on to item 9.7. Thank you, Brandon. This is a resolution authorizing the pickup of specified employee contributions to the new Public Safety and Firefighter Tier 2 Contributory Retirement System, and Jamie Davidson is our presenter.

Thank you, Mayor. The resolution before you tonight is essentially a follow-up to the budget that was just passed that allocated 16.27% for a retirement contribution for all Tier 2 public safety employees in the Tier 2 retirement system. The Utah Retirement System requires by resolution that the city recognize that it is going to, for this next fiscal year, pick up the employee portion of this retirement contribution. And so that is the resolution that is before you tonight for your consideration. The city is required to make a 14% contribution. to the retirement system for these Tier 2 public safety employees. And in addition to that 14%, this year the city agrees to pick up the additional 16 point— or excuse me, 2.27%.

2.27%.

That has been designated or identified as a potential employee contribution. So in essence, The City of Orem will be assuming responsibility for all of the contribution made into the Tier 2 public safety retirement system for employees.

Okay. Any questions or comments from the council?

Mayor, I do. Jamie, and I assume that information was all built into the budget we just blessed.

Correct.

And this is happening with all cities throughout the state?

Correct. This is based— this change is the result of legislation actually a year and a half ago that improved or enhanced the retirement benefits extended to Tier 2 public safety employees.

What's the figure on that, Jeremy?

It's approximately about $150,000.

Okay, thank you.

Jamie, this is Terry. I'm just curious, are a lot of other cities doing the same, or are there some cities telling the employees they need to pick up that difference?

Yes, so there are, there are a number who are opting to pick up the difference, and there are other employee Employers who are essentially going to have their employees pick up that share of the contribution.

It would be nice if our employees know that the city is picking that up. That's a bonus that the city is doing for them. I hope they know that.

Yes, and that is a message we have made already to employees, making them aware of the, the additional contribution.

Terry, one of the reasons behind that is that, as you know, it's a very competitive world out there for our public safety employees, and we really didn't want to be in a situation where other cities are paying for that and we are not, and then we become less competitive. So good move. All right, any other comments from the council? Okay, this is not a public hearing, um, and so I would like to move that the city council authorize the pickup of specified employee contributions to the new public safety and firefighter Tier 2 contributory retirement system. Is there a second?

So moved. I'll second.

Okay. Let's go ahead and vote. We'll start with Tom McDonald first.

Aye.

Dave Spencer.

Aye.

Debbie Laree.

Aye.

Brent Sumner.

Aye.

Terry Peterson.

Aye.

Jeff Lampson.

Aye.

And the mayor, and I vote aye as well. So that passes. We'll now go on to 9.8. This is a resolution approving the interlocal cooperation agreement between Utah County and the City of Orem for disbursement from the Coronavirus Relief Fund. Jamie is the presenter, but it's my understanding the agreement has not been finalized, so it is the desire that we go ahead and postpone this. Until a special meeting later this month of the council to approve the agreement once it has been written and agreed to. Any comments or questions? Seeing none, I'd like to make a motion that we continue this resolution until a special meeting of the council later this month. Is there a second? Second.

Second.

Okay, we'll start with Councilmember McDonald.

Aye.

Councilmember Spencer.

Aye.

Councilmember Laree.

Aye.

Councilmember Sumner.

Aye.

Councilmember Pedersen.

Aye.

Councilmember Lamson.

Aye.

And Mayor Brunstad, I vote aye as well. So that has been continued. Jamie, do you have any city manager items?

No, I don't. Thank you, Mayor.

Okay. So at this point, we would like to adjourn to a meeting of the ORM Redevelopment Agency. And I so move. Is there a second?

Second.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Okay. We now are in session with the Redevelopment Agency. Okay, next up we have the Redevelopment Agency of Orem. We have a consent item to approve the RDA meeting minutes and to also approve the annual review of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Orem bylaws. Anyone wishing to move that to a scheduled item? If not, we would like to take a vote. I move that we I move to approve the consent items. Is there— of our RDA. Is there a second?

Second.

Okay. We will go ahead and vote. Tom McDonald?

Aye.

David Spencer?

Aye.

Debbie Larey?

Aye.

Brent Sumner?

Aye.

Terry Peterson?

Aye.

Jeff Lampson?

Aye.

Mayor Brunstad and I approve. So the consent items pass. We'll go to the RDA scheduled item. This is a public hearing on a resolution to adopt the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Orem fiscal year 2020-2021 budget, and Brandon Nelson is our presenter.

Thank you, Mayor. You can see on the screen before you the budget amounts for our existing RDAs, which we have 9— well, 8 RDAs and 1 CDA, CDA being University Place. The other 8 in the old RDAs, those will be expiring over the next 3 to 4 years. The CDA with University Place runs until 2038. Thank you.

Okay.

Any questions?

That's really all we have related to that. If there are any questions related to the RDA.

Okay. Seeing there's no questions, this is a public hearing. So we'll go ahead and open it up for any public comments, starting right now for 1 minute available. All right, our minute for public comment is up. Pete, have you received any public comments?

No comments.

Okay, so we'll close the public comment portion of our public hearing and bring it back to the council. Any further questions or comments? Okay, seeing none, I will go ahead and move and make a motion that we adopt the resolution to adopt the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Orem fiscal year 2020-2021 budget. Is there a second?

Second.

Okay, start with Tom McDonald.

Aye.

Dave Spencer.

Aye.

Debbie Laree.

Aye.

Brent Sumner?

Aye.

Terry Peterson?

Aye.

Jeff Lampson?

Aye.

And Mayor Brunstad? I vote aye. Resolution passes. I move that we adjourn to a meeting of the Orem Special Service Lighting District. Is there a second?

Second.

Okay, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Okay, we will call the meeting of the Special Service Lighting District to order. And we have 2 consent items to consider. If anyone wishes to move it to a scheduled item, please let me know. First item is the approval of the Special Service Lighting District meeting minutes of May 12th, 2020. And the second is the annual review of the Special Service Lighting District of the City of Orem bylaws. I move that we go ahead and accept these consent items. Is there a second?

Second.

Okay, we'll start with Tom McDonald for a vote.

Aye.

Dave Spencer?

Aye.

Debbie Laree?

Aye.

Brent Sumner?

Aye.

Terry Peterson?

Aye.

Jeff Lampson?

Aye.

Mayor Brunstad, I vote aye as well. Consent items pass. We'll move on to a scheduled item for the Special Service Lighting District, which is a public hearing on a resolution to adopt Special Service Lighting District of Orem fiscal year 2020-2021 budget. Brandon Nelson is our presenter.

Thank you, Mayor. So just pointing out the existing budget that is proposed for fiscal '21. The main item of note is the contributions line. As you can see, a significant decrease in that line that is primarily related to— not primarily, it is related to a franchise tax that used to be transferred from the general fund into the street lighting fund to cover debt.

That's right.

That was issued as part of the whole street lighting program. It is no longer needed within the street lighting fund, and so therefore has been removed. Associated with that, obviously we have a balanced budget, and the corresponding debt that used to be in the street lighting fund is no longer there as well. Are there Are there any particular questions in relation to the streetlight? Well, I should mention also, there we have street lighting fee. We have an increase from $2.34 for the neighborhoods that have already been in place to $2.39 based on the plan that was set forth. And we knew this year the bottom line, the Aspen, Heather Ridge, North Ridge, Sharon, they now drop off of the old fee and go to the new fee. You can see the effective dates on here for the other neighborhoods. Those neighborhoods started paying the original street lighting fee later than these neighborhoods. So as they paid their— I forget the exact number of years. They had a set number of years that they were supposed I think it was 17 years. That sounds right. They would pay for that many years, and then at that point, they would drop off. And then we have instituted this— the new fee. You'll also note down at the very bottom of that screen that businesses pay that street lighting fee in a lump sum at the beginning of the year when they renew their business licenses. So if there are any questions—

Okay, seeing no questions, we'll move forward with the public comment portion of the public hearing, and we will start for 1 minute right now. Okay, the one minute has ended for public comment. Pete, have you received any public comment?

No comments.

All right, seeing no comment, we'll close I'd like to close the public comment portion of the public hearing and bring it back to the council. Are there any comments or questions? Seeing none, I'd like to make a motion that by resolution the Orem City Council adopt— I'm sorry, the Special Service Lighting District of Orem adopt the fiscal year 2020-2021 budget. Is there a second?

Second.

Second.

Okay, we will go ahead. Who did we have for second? That was Tom, and who else?

I did.

Okay, we will run with Tom. We will start with Tom for a vote.

Councilmember McDonald says yay.

Okay.

Councilmember Spencer?

Aye.

Councilmember Laree?

Yes.

Brent Sumner?

Aye.

Terry Peterson?

Aye.

Jeff Lampson?

Aye.

And Mayor Brunstad? I vote aye. Resolution passes. I move now that we adjourn to a meeting of the Our Municipal Building Authority. Is there a second?

Second.

Okay, Jeff Lampson seconded that. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Okay, we are now moving to a meeting of the Municipal Building Authority and calling it to order. We have 2 consent items. 19.1 is the approval of the Municipal Building Authority meeting minutes of our meeting of May 28th, 2019. And then item number 19.2 of the consent item is the annual review of the Municipal Building Authority of the City of Orem bylaws. Anyone choose to put that into a scheduled item? Seeing not, I would move that we go ahead and approve the consent items. Is there a second?

Second.

Okay. Councilmember Spencer seconded. We'll now go ahead and take a vote. Tom McDonald?

Aye.

Dave Spencer?

Aye.

Debbie Laree?

Aye.

Brent Sumner?

Aye.

Terry Peterson?

Aye.

Jeff Lampson?

Aye.

Mayor Brunstad? I vote aye as well. Consent items pass. 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.

Thank you.

Okay, we are adjourned and the evening is over. Thank you everyone for participating.

I appreciate it.

Thank you.

Hey everybody, cheers.

Bye.