City Council · 2020-08-11

is not doing very well. She's in the hospital.

So it's—

I have some risk factors with my diabetes and my hypertension, so I have to be extra careful.

Well, we'll watch out for you.

Thanks. I've always been a mask wearer since the beginning, so I'm good about that. I know you have too, Mayor.

Yep.

It's important to be a good example and important to protect those around you.

I was surprised you didn't have a mask on last night, Mayor. You've been so, you've been so good at that.

I had the mask on last night. You mean when I was on stage?

Yeah, I didn't see it, but that's okay. No biggie. I just, I I thought—

no, I had the mask on the entire time except when I went up on stage for the picture.

Makes sense.

Mayor, we're still a couple minutes away, but I think just Terry Peterson is the only other council member we're waiting on.

Okay, well, I'm going to start on time. Terry can join in. So we have a quorum.

Hey, Brent, are you first?

How you doing, Jeff?

Good, how are you doing?

Great.

Good, glad to hear it.

Okay, all right, so it's— hello, Char— it's, uh, 4:45. Let's go ahead and get started. Uh, we'd like to start our work session, uh, the City Council. I'd like to read a statement. Uh, this is a notice of all— of an all-electronic meeting and opportunity for Public participation pursuant to Mayor Richard F. Brunson's proclamation dated August 3rd, 2020. The Orem City Council meeting on August 11th, 2020 will be an all-electronic meeting. There will be no anchor location for the meeting. The city cannot ensure the recommended minimum of 6 feet of social distancing for meeting participants at the usual anchor location in the Orem City Council Chambers. Therefore, holding the meeting at the City Council Chambers would present a substantial risk to the health and safety of those who may be present at the meeting and may contribute to the spread of COVID-19. 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. To view the meeting, please go to orem.org/meetings. To make a comment, please submit your comment through orem.org/comments or citycouncilpubliccomments@orem.org. Comments will be accepted before and during the meeting. All comments received will be entered into the record. and forwarded to each council member for review. Comments will also be read aloud during the live meeting when required by law or when time permits. Once an item has been voted on, that item will be closed to additional comments. Thank you for your cooperation during these challenging times. We'll begin with a presentation on our city retention schedule by Jackie Lambert, our deputy Deputy City Recorder. Jackie, we'll turn the time over to you.

Okay, thank you, Mayor and Council. In the agenda packet, you've been provided the proposed retention schedule for the Finance Department. This is just the next in our series of steps to go through the different records for each department in adopting an Orem-specific records retention schedule. If you have any questions at this time about the records that are in this packet, I'm happy to address those. Otherwise, we anticipate bringing this forward at the next City Council meeting, as we've done in the past with our other sections.

Any questions? All right, well, thank you, Jackie. We'll go ahead and move on then.

Thank you.

We have a discussion on the care tax policies and procedures, minor adjustments. Uh, Steve Down is our presenter. Steve, I'll turn it to you.

Uh, Mayor, thank you. Give me just one minute, I'll pull up a short, um, a small PowerPoint presentation.

Mr. Hynes.

Mayor, council, each, you know, every couple years or so, or as things happen that necessitate, we look through our caretak policies and procedures just to see if there's any minor updates or in some cases major updates. that we want to make to the program. As we were going through this, Greg Stevens and myself, a couple things that we happened upon that we thought we could add clarification and some additional— yeah, essentially additional clarity and then one additional reporting requirement. Mid-major applicants, we ran into a— not really an issue, but a kind of a question, I guess, that came up as we were Handling a mid-major applicant that was applying to be a major applicant, and anyways, in as we went through the proposed changes, what we wanted to clarify was how mid-major applicants will be handled. Many many grants have always had in their policies and procedures the language that preference will be given to applicants that also manage and present in the city of Orem, and for some reason when we put in the mid-major. We just didn't put that clarification that we're still looking as a preference to support Orem organizations when possible. And so we just wanted to add that clarity to mid-majors. So now that is in mini, mid, and major applicants. Uh, we— the preference is that, that we will, um, support the applicants that manage and present in the city of Orem. The second point of clarification was as it relates to audits. We, when we started down the road of requiring reimbursements as opposed to just cutting checks, one of the, one of the outs that we created was an opportunity for an organization, if they can prove sufficient internal controls in how they handle their money, then they would have an opportunity to receive the whole check as opposed to submitting reimbursements. throughout the year. So we put in a satisfactory audit would be required. Well, satisfactory audit has led to some additional questions of what does that mean and who needs to do it. So we wanted to further clarify that this is an audit that must be done by a CPA, not just somebody who has auditing experiences in a volunteer capacity or in their ecclesiastical duties or whatever it might be. that for them to bypass the reimbursement requirements, and it would be an audit done by a CPA. That's the second point of clarification.

Is that a yearly audit or is it every few years?

Yeah, yearly audit. These are what— this is why the majors get a check every year, is both the Sierra, the Metropolitan Ballet, and the Hale all submit an annual financial report as a 501 with an audit. Um, done. And so those ones, uh, we were able to just cut the check. So it'd be an annual thing.

Okay, thank you.

The 3rd point of clarification is something that our, our commission has asked for us as they review each year. One of the questions that always comes up is how much money have these organizations spent year to date, because we usually meet in February. And as we started to look through the reports, We had quite a few organizations who haven't spent any money on the books, but they have done their programs. Just the way that they handle their cash flow is they submit for reimbursement at the end of the fiscal year. And so it makes it difficult for our commission to evaluate these organizations and whether or not they're using the money we've allocated to them if they're waiting till June to draw down their money. And so one of the things that we're asking is that any organization who has drawn down little to no portion of their grant by January 31st would be required to submit a brief progress report showing how they plan to spend the money or explaining the difficulties preventing them from spending the grant by June 30th. We will be encouraging all applicants to draw down the money as they go. But we want to make sure that we're— what we, what we've had happen in the past is we've run into an issue where we funded again an organization. That organization, we find out at the end of the fiscal year, never spent the money we gave them last year, and we've already funded them for the next year. And so what we're trying to kind of pin down is if an organization isn't going to spend their money, we don't want to give them additional money. So we want them to draw it down as soon as possible, or if they haven't, submit a report that would say something to the effect of our event is in April and that's why we haven't drawn it down yet, something to that effect. So it's just additional reporting requirement that we believe will help our commission make more and better informed decisions on allocating this grant moving forward.

Steven, has that been a problem? Not a big problem, not spending their money?

Yeah, not, not a huge problem, but it does happen from time to time where a small organization will leave you know, $1,500 or $2,000 on the table. And obviously, our— we would have loved to have given that to an organization that would have spent it. So it's, it's not a huge problem, but we, we just want to make sure that as we go into our allocation discussions, we have a really good picture of where each of these organizations are with their money.

Okay.

Yep, good question, Brent. Those are the 3 changes. Any, any other questions?

I have one more question. With COVID preventing a lot of these groups from performing, will you make a little more lenient decisions? They may not be able to spend some of their money just because they haven't had the ability to perform or get together to practice.

So yeah, I think I— yes, yes, great. And I'm glad you brought that up for clarification because that, that has been a big, big deal this year as these arts organizations have struggled well, you know as well, if not better than me, to pull off events and do concerts, do performances. But what we've— what you as a council have decided to do with this most recent allocation is what can we help? Well, while we may not be able to fund you to the full extent because you're not doing these performances, we want to make sure you're in a position to come back out of this able to to perform. One of the perfect examples that you as a council decided was with the Colonial Heritage Festival. We didn't give them their typical $9,000 because there was no event, but we did give them $1,800 to pay for all of their storage this year so they're ready to go next year. And so that is the, the last sentence you'll see there is either how they're going to spend the grant or explaining the difficulties that's preventing them from spending the grant by June 30th, because it is a consideration that I think we'll make is You're not going to spend the money this year, but it's because you can't have a concert. But in a typical year, you will have a concert. Therefore, we will consider funding you in the future still, as opposed to an organization who says we wanted to do these school programs, but what we found is no schools are letting us in there to do the program. Therefore, we don't want to continue to fund that organization to the same level.

It makes sense.

Thanks.

Yep.

Any other questions?

Just a comment, Steven. Thank you for staying on top of that and carrying that forward. We had a good discussion on that as we were meeting together as a committee, and I appreciate you just staying on top of that and making sure that that was nailed down. Thank you.

No problem.

Thank you, Jeff.

All right, let's go ahead and move on to our annual update on service line warranties.

Mayor, just one final thing is this— the next step is what we will— we will put these changes into a resolution and put— bring this forward on a consent agenda item on September 8th.

Okay. Anything else?

That's it.

Okay.

So let's move on to the service line warranties, and you are the presenter.

Well, I— yeah, I will be introducing Steve and Justin with Service Line Warranties of America, and they will— they have a presentation for you. But as, as we bring them into this discussion, they're both here on the call. Let me just start on a personal note thanking them for not only commitment toward this program and what it's done for our community, which you'll see, but in a philanthropic way to our community.

These—

they were donate— donors to our All Together Playground. They helped make that project possible. They fund every year $5,000 to help low-income families pay utility bills, which is a program that people have taken advantage of. And most recent, they are a key sponsor in tomorrow night's car show and family barbecue. And the plan was for Steve to be out here and be at that event with us. And but obviously the circumstances surrounding have prohibited that. But not only are they creating a program that is benefiting our citizens, which you'll see, but they have been intricate in our community and just helping move projects forward and making life better for people. that are disadvantaged, whether that's physically by the playground or financially through their support of the utility relief program. So Steve and Justin, with that, I'll turn the time over to you and you let me know. Steve, I've made you a co-host so you can share your screen if you'd like, or I'm happy to pull it up either way.

Yeah, well, first off, thank you everybody for letting us join Mayor Council. I wish I could be there in person. I was watching extra episodes of Price is Right lately to show how to present a check. So I was ready to present it, but unfortunately I couldn't be there. But yeah, Steve, it might be easier if you just present and I can just let you know.

No problem.

Yep, give me just one minute.

Ah, forgive me, I'm pulling it up.

No problem. While we wait, yeah, I just want to— I agree with Steve. City of Orem has been the definition of a partnership. You guys have been great. We really appreciate the partnership that we share with you. We really love that we can serve the residents of Orem, and we continue to look forward to serving them in the future.

Okay.

Okay, so like I said, I wish I could have been there in person. Hopefully in the future I'll be able to make a trip out and meet you all face to face. But I just wanted to give you kind of a brief overview of where we stand right now with the partnership. So I do know that we have a couple new council members, so I just wanted to give a brief overview of the partnership for anybody that might not be as familiar with it. We started in 2015, so we're coming up on our 5-year partnership anniversary. What we do is we service the water and sewer line coverage. That's the resident's responsibility. And one thing that we, we really like to stress in these mailers, it's always voluntary. And one nice thing from your end, no public funds are ever used on the program. You know, we mail out everything from, from our offices. And one thing that's really nice from a resident standpoint, once they enroll, we like taking the burden off their shoulder. So if unfortunately they do have to file a claim, we like to tell them that that's all they need to do is give us a call. There's no deductible or call-out fee for if they would need to submit a claim. We take care of contacting the contractor, the local contractors within and around Orem. And another nice thing is there's no coverage cap on the claim, so whatever it is going to cost to fix the issue for the resident and complete it up to city code, we tell the contractors whatever we need to do to get it up to city code, go ahead and do it. There's no cap, so whatever it costs, we're gonna fix it. And we're the only program endorsed by the National League of Cities, and we recently just joined the Utah League of Cities and Towns. And I was actually out there last, last year for the annual conference, and it was great.

You guys put on a good show.

All right, so just some of the numbers. This, this is as of the end of last week, there was a little more than 3,500 households that are covered in the City of Warram for about a little more than 5,500 policies. So residents for the most part, are enrolled in more than one coverage. And we're currently at 13.4% of eligible households. And that's a great number.

We do—

somewhere around 25% is where we start to mature with a partner. So there is still room to grow, but 13.4% is a great number to be at. And the information that you're probably all interested in, As of the end of June, we've completed 539 repairs for a little over $700,000 during the lifetime of the partnership. So in the 5 years, it's been, you know, coming up on a quarter of a million dollars. So that, that's something that we're really proud of, to be able to pass that savings along to the residents and reinvest it back into the community. Does anybody have any questions on these numbers?

Okay, great.

I have a question.

Sorry, I was having a hard time getting unmuted. So are you noticing— and the question that I get asked from time to time is, is there a, I guess, a time that a homeowner where it's more beneficial for them to join this? I mean, if they're, you know, having things done because they've been in their home for 30 years, 40 years. We have a lot of older homes here and occasionally we get asked those questions.

Is this a good thing to do or is it something we should really look into?

Yeah, no, that's a great question. So Yeah, if you're living in a new housing plan that's 4 or 5 years old, you're probably pretty good for a number of years. But for instance, my parents, my parents lived in their house for coming up on 40 years, and it was about 10 years old when they bought it. So, you know, almost about 50 years old, and infrastructure's not— they're not made to last forever. So, you know, what I would say is is have them give us a call. They can tell us what's going on. Our call center is in Chattanooga, Tennessee, so when they call, they're going to get a nice little Southern voice.

Um, the—

they're not there to sell them. They're there to answer the questions. Um, our big thing is to educate the residents on their responsibility. Um, and if this— the program and the coverages work for them, great. You know, we'll take care of them. Um, but that's our big goal, is just to educate the residents. So— You know, if— I would say, you know, older houses are definitely where this would come into play. If maybe they've noticed maybe water pressure or something hasn't been as great as it has in the past, you know, maybe those are the type of things they could be on the lookout for. It's just a 30-day wait to enroll once they enroll before they can file a claim. The nice thing is there's no contract. So when they sign up, they don't have to sign up for a year or 2 years. They can cancel the policy at any time. So that's another thing too. So even though we're at 13.4%, that number could have been definitely higher, you know, a year or 2 ago. It's just, you know, it could have been residents have filed a claim and, you know, canceled their policy.

So.

You know, I hope that answers the question.

Can I make a comment as well? This is Chris Shirkey.

All right, Chris.

So I wish Service Line Warranties of America was in Orem 5 or 10 years ago because I have replaced my water and my sewer laterals. I did a lot. I put in a lot of sweat equity into those replacements and it still—

they still cost me About $12,000.

I know today to do a sewer lateral, if you have to go out into the road, it's going to be over $10,000. So I would— I fully endorse this program. I wish it was around back 5 to 10 years ago when I was experiencing my problems. At the time I had my replacement challenges, my home was about 35 years old. So that might give you kind of an indication. Galvanized water lines in areas where there's corrosive soil conditions, those lines may only last 25 to 30 years. So those lines were put in though in the '70s.

So I've heard some concern when people have tried to have it serviced that they don't know who to call. They call a a plumber on their own and they have a— and then they— then that's not covered. Can we make it very clear who they call and how they go about it? Because I don't think it's clear, and I have this warranty and I don't— it isn't clear for me.

Yeah, absolutely. That's something we could definitely do.

There's—

when we do the mailers, you know, we do try to stress that they can contact us. Our phone number is on there as well as our website. But during the next mailer, we can definitely try to maybe bold it or make it stand out just a little bit more, and I can work with Steve on that for, for the next campaign. But I can also let you know, residents can enroll at any time. It doesn't need to be through the mailer. So if they want to enroll today, they can either give us a call or they can go on our website. All they need to do is enter the zip code. And it'll show them the water and sewer line. coverages that they can enroll online, or if they have questions before they enroll, they can definitely call our Chattanooga call center.

Hey, and Steve, just to piggyback what you were saying about older homes versus newer homes, I know for a lot of my municipalities I work with, a lot of it's what's right. Is it terracotta? You know, that clay is just going to break down way faster than galvanized or even PVC. So, you know, those questions come up, that's always, you know, again, direct them to our call center. We have 500 agents in Chattanooga, so they'll be able to kind of help educate. And like Steve said, it's not going to be a sell, it's going to be validating, you know, does this make sense for me or am I okay?

Okay, any other questions?

I got a question, Mayor.

Go ahead, Brent.

Yeah, last year when you gave the report, you stated you were considering having this warranty or insurance on multifamily units. Have you made any change on that or progress?

Steve, since you weren't here, I can probably answer that one a little better. Thanks, Joe.

Yeah, so there has been—

it just comes down to where that Y connection is. So it would be covered to the Y connection. And I know that you all worked with Sammy or Samantha in the past, so I can look to see, you know, what specifically she had for you all, just to see where that's at. But right now it can be done, but it's too that Y connection so that, you know, if it's coming from a townhome, it would go to that point. Okay, thank you.

And the last thing I wanted to cover is something we're really excited about. It's called the HomeServe Cares, and this is primarily for residents that might not have one of our plans and something comes up, an emergency, repair, and for all intents and purposes, we'll put them in a really tight spot. So that's what the HomeServe CARES was started for. They can go in and apply, and HomeServe will cover the cost of all the repairs, no cost to the homeowner, and work with the local contractors to get the repair taken care of. But in addition to that, we also have periodically— and Steve, I'll send you Some more information. We have, as of right now, we have home-served grant rounds where we have 5 different grants totaling up to $10,000. And this is all about everything that's affecting everybody nowadays, COVID. So this would be for, you know, community centers, food programs, shelters, to kind of replace the privacy barriers, restocking hand sanitizer, toilet paper, you know, the essential items, and try to help protect them. So, you know, like I said, Steve, I'll send you some more information on it, and I definitely recommend Orem go on and apply for it.

That sounds great, Steve.

I look forward to that.

Perfect. And the last slide here is just my contact information. I just want to make sure everybody has it, feel free to always give me a call, shoot me an email. You know, I'm always looking forward to hearing from my partners, and if you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer anything.

I have a little question. So when someone— Tom said there was a difficulty knowing who to call. Do you send them something saying, now that you're enrolled, you know, call this number if you have a problem? I mean, is there a reason there's a disconnect between Have they not been provided information? Is there not a little magnet that goes on your fridge? I'm trying to understand where that— where's the disconnect?

Yeah, we do have what we call the welcome packet. So once they enroll, we do send them a package, uh, tells them what, uh, they signed up for, how to file a claim. Um, but, you know, I'm sure a lot of people are like me, they get something in the mail and put it in the junk pile. Um, you know, that could be something, or you know, we definitely try to provide them as much contact information as we can. So, you know, I'm sorry that, you know, that does come up. And again, I'll be more than happy to work with Steve on future campaigns to try to make that stand out as much as we can.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Mayor, council, maybe if you wouldn't mind, let me kind of just, especially for Jeff and Terry's —benefit, but probably for all of us. The history of this is in 2015, when we went down this road, we made a kind of a big decision to endorse this program, which meant that as we sent out these letters, it went with the city's logo to suggest that we are endorsing Service Line Warranties of America. This was done through a bid process. We talked to multiple companies that that provided a similar service. We chose Service Line Warranties of America as, as our partner in this. The number 2 organization that we looked at was HomeServe, and they've since joined forces and have partnered together as well. So that's kind of the road we went down. Now, when that happened, when we first sent the letters out, we got quite a bit of pushback of why is the city endorsing a private company, and, you know, this shouldn't be allowed. Insurance companies that were maybe a little bit frustrated because they had somewhat of a product that might have done something similar to this. That, that started in 2015. Since then, with very few exceptions, the only, only phone calls we get now from residents are, hey, I remember getting a letter this spring or last fall, and my neighbor just had an issue with their sewer line. Who do I call to get that product? And so More and more people are starting to recognize the issue that we were in. Chris Shirkey can speak to this better, but we used to get calls regularly of somebody saying, hey, my sewer line just busted and I need the city to come out and fix it. And that's the moment that they realize that that's their responsibility. They didn't recognize that up until that point. And now with a $10,000 problem in front of them, they're learning that their responsibility is is their sewer line. Same with the water line. This— if it even— you know, he represents 13.4% have taken it. I would suggest almost 100% of people now at least know it's their responsibility whether they choose to take the product or not. They know that if something does happen, it is their responsibility. So those kinds of calls really don't happen anymore.

So—

Whether somebody has taken the product or not, we saw a benefit to Orem citizens to know that it is their responsibility. And they can either prepare for that financially by saving or using a product like this or go searching for another product. But we— the benefit to Orem City, the big benefit to Orem City was every homeowner knowing what their responsibility is and what the city's responsibility. We hadn't had an effective way of communicating that. and getting the people's attention. This partnership with Service Line Warranties of America not only has saved Orem residents over $700,000, it has informed almost 100% of residents what their responsibility is. So that part of it has been a big win for us.

Thank you, Steve.

Yeah, we're happy to serve the residents.

Well, thank you, Steve and Justin. We appreciate you, uh, Presenting and appreciate the fact that you donate and help our residents. So appreciate what you're doing for Orem.

Our pleasure. Thank you.

Okay, you have a great evening.

Okay, thank you, Steve.

Thanks, Justin.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Go ahead and move on, um, to our agenda review. Um, we have, uh, our personal appearance, our Prayer and our pledge is going to be given by Terry Peterson. Terry, are you able to come on with a mic yet, or are you still having trouble?

I'm still— actually, we're—

can you hear me?

Yes.

Okay, I left— I gave up on my iPad. I'm using my phone, so we're working on it, but yes.

Well, as long as your wife is around, then we're comfortable.

Well, that's what I keep saying, Sherry, and I don't know if I'm being muted when I'm going, Sherry, but we're good.

We're working on it.

Okay, good. All right, so I have personal appearances this evening. Then we have some consent items. The first is a motion to cancel the August 25th, 2020 City Council meeting. The second is approval of City Council meeting minutes from July 14th, 2020. The third is approval of the City of Orem Development Services Department retention schedule, and the fourth is amending Section 19.7.5.C of the Orem City Code. Staff recommends that the City Council approve a motion to amend Section 19.7.5.C of the Orem City Code to remove the requirement for a parking enforcement company to contact Orem City Dispatch before it places a boot on a vehicle and other technical corrections. Hopefully everybody's had a chance to read that. That's actually been creating a lot of work for our police department and not much results, so there's a benefit to that. Is everyone comfortable with those 4 consent items?

Yes.

Okay.

All right, let's go on to our scheduled items. The first one is a public hearing. This is a resolution amending portions of Chapter 2, Land Use, and Chapter 6, Transportation, of the Orem General Plan, updating the land use map and pedestrian and bike path map and language pertaining to the southwest area. Jason Bench is the presenter. Jason, any comments?

Just to briefly— this is a follow-up from our March 10th meeting with the City Council as we had that discussion with the Southwest area. We've started the process and this is the culmination of that process through the neighborhood meeting, through the Planning Commission, and this is now brought back to the City Council for adoption. So we'll be glad to explain it during the meeting.

Okay.

Number 2, 9.2, the scheduled items is a public hearing on a resolution. Adopting the Sunset Heights East-West and Lakeview Cherry Hill neighborhood plans and amending the Orem City General Plan to include the Sunset Heights East-West neighborhood plan and the Lakeview Cherry Hill neighborhood plan in Appendix Z of the Orem General Plan. And our presenter is Grant Allen. Grant, are you there? Any comments you want to make?

He may not be on. Well, yeah, this is the final 2 neighborhood plans that we have to present. This completes our neighborhood plan program. We're extremely happy to be here at this point to have this done. With COVID it was interesting to have to use, you know, the Zoom meetings for a neighborhood meeting, but the citizens were very engaged even through this process, and we're just happy to be here at this point.

Great.

Thank you. The next scheduled item is 9.3, a public hearing for an ordinance enacting Section 22-14-21D and the Standard Land Use Code 5945, Orem City Code, pertaining to requirements for retail tobacco specialty businesses. Jason is our presenter. Jason, any comments you want to make?

So this is spearheaded by the business licensing. They have had some issues with people licensing themselves as the vape shops, different things. We have currently 8 vape shops plus 2 distribution centers. And what we're finding is Orem seems to be the hotspot for these types of shops, and we want to limit or bring forward an ordinance to limit these to 1 per 15 1,000 residents, which would limit it to 6. Obviously we have 8, so we would have our fair share for quite a while. So this is kind of our way to limit it based on land use. It also obviously steps in and helps with the issues with vaping and different things like that, the health issues. But the Health Department will also be on the line during the meeting to address those questions. But this is— we're coming from more of a land use perspective to limit these types of uses to Based on the population.

So are you saying that the 2 that would be over, that we would, after we enact this, if we do, that they would be grandfathered in but not 2 more would not be reallowed again?

Correct. So they would, assuming they're legal, right? We do have some issues with some of them operating without the proper licensing. So we may or may not be able to whittle it down. But if they have a legally established business prior to this, they would be able to You know, maintain themselves. But if once they leave, we would limit it to the total of 6.

So with the legislature changing the age for those who can purchase tobacco, is that going to affect these at all, or do you know?

That I don't know. I know Steve Earle and John Ditto were on the line, the legal eyes that kind of developed this. But so I don't— I'd have to defer to those 2.

Okay. All right, let's go on. The next scheduled item is 9.4, a public hearing. on an ordinance, street vacation, vacating a portion of 450 West South of 500 North to approximately 475 North in the R7.5 zone. Jason is the presenter.

So this is a request by the applicant to basically vacate a portion of the street. It's a stub street, which I'll show you in the presentation, that it basically is not going to go anywhere. Because of the development that's already happened to the south. So staff is in agreement that this could be vacated and developed as part of the deep lots, which we'll show you. So I think we're in favor of this.

Okay. Any questions?

We are in favor of it. Sorry.

Okay.

All right. Jamie, do you have anything you wish to bring up at this time?

Mayor and Council, Jamie wanted me to pass along his apologies. He ended up having to go home a little early today. He was feeling under the weather, so he asked me to kind of fill in for him this evening. So just a couple of quick items. One is, if you haven't had a chance to drive by the City Center to see the wonderful work of many staff members, I think we had a little over 60 employees one day, a little over 50 the next day laying sod in front of our City Center here. So we had a ton of great participation, actually got it done quicker than we anticipated, and it looks just beautiful. The design is beautiful as put together by engineering and parks, and a nice beautiful contrast and curb appeal between, you know, the rocks around the trees and the new grass that's in. So if you haven't had a chance, check it out. I think you'll agree that it looks quite, quite well done.

And Brent, if I have heard correctly, The trees all have electrical connections to them and will have lights to them. So we will have our Christmas lights this year at all of our trees.

Correct. That is the plan.

Yep.

And then just wanted to turn time over to Brandon Nelson. He wanted to go over and discuss with you a utility billing item. Um, Stephen, is, is Brandon on the Zoom meeting?

Yes, he is.

Okay, Brandon.

Hello. Um, so this is somewhat of a procedural issue, but we will— we felt like it was, uh, magnitude that we wanted to discuss it. And then so you would know that we will be coming forth with a resolution regarding it in our next council meeting, but wanted to discuss it with you. What the issue has, has kind of been brought to our attention is in relation to 2 things, but it started with a landlord who wanted to come in and in essence, close their account and then 2 weeks later reopen the account because they have, you know, a renter that's moved out. And so then they wanted to prorate all of the fees associated with that in that process. That led to a discussion in relation to snowbirds as well. And the discussion revolved around the idea that our base rates are exactly that. They're infrastructure-related. So whether or not we should allow a— someone to close— physically close their account rather than suspending if you will, temporarily suspending their account. And even if they— so if they were to close the account, what we would like them to do, be able to do, is to say, hey, all of those fees are still applicable, so we're not going to allow you to close your account unless you can provide documentation that you no longer own the property. In which case, obviously, you're selling— you've sold the property or selling the property. And in which case we can go ahead and close the account. Otherwise, all of those base rate fees are technically still applicable. The same goes for a snowbird. When a snowbird— current practice is a snowbird comes in and wants to close their— and they don't necessarily close their account, but they lock the meter so that they have no bill for the time they are gone. But so they don't, they don't pay any base rates over that entire time period in which they're gone. So in, in thinking through both of those scenarios, we've come to the, in our opinion, the conclusion that we should be charging those base rates. Obviously they can save on the garbage, they could You know, by not having that, they could save on the sewer usage and potentially on the water usage depending on which way you would go. And so— but we think we should continue to charge the base rates during the period which the account has been temporarily closed, suspended, whatever term you want to use. And then that should only be allowed during the winter months. That should not be allowed during the summer because they should be continuing to take care of their property, watering their lawn. So while— so we shouldn't be allowing them to necessarily close their account and turn off the water during the winter— I mean, during the summer, sorry.

Interesting.

So we would automatically, in essence, open those accounts back up on April 1st when they should be, if not earlier. I hopefully you can get some idea of what we're trying to do there, which is we don't want number one landlords and/or snowbirds coming in, especially landlords coming in closing an account. Oh, I don't have a renter. Two weeks later, I'm going to come back in open the account back up. And by the way, neither of those groups would currently be paying a disconnect or reconnect fee. We would also want to charge that $25 on each end fee, number one, to discourage the practice of opening and closing an account, but number two, every time they do that, we have to send somebody there to disconnect or reconnect. So it just seems like, okay, if we have to send somebody to the property to do that, they should be reimbursing us for that practice. So that's where we really want to go, is with bringing forth a resolution that outlines that we will continue to charge those base rates even if an individual comes in and temporarily suspends their account. Are there any questions around that? Hopefully.

Sounds reasonable to me. Any questions?

Brandon?

Yes.

Do they, uh, do they need some verification they're leaving town, or, um, I mean, it seems like you're going to get a lot of can of worms here, possibly, if, if you're letting people, uh, shut it down.

Um, well, yeah, so they, in order to close an account, they obviously Or in this case, if we go through this and temporarily suspend an account, they obviously have to notify us that they would like that to occur. Otherwise, we just continue billing them as normal. You know, a lot of the times— I know the snowbird stuff, a lot of the time the problems are, well, where do you send the bill? I don't want to have to have my bill. I'm going to be gone. Well, given the circumstances now between email and all of the electronic payment capabilities we have, we just don't feel like that is a concern any longer. I mean, that's not a good argument any longer. Maybe I should say it that way. So, you know, if somebody's leaving, they have a way for those, those base rate charges to continue to be billed and paid wherever they might be.

And—

So, Brandon, when someone's like a senior missionary and goes away for a period of time, what are most of them doing? Are they just leaving the water on, or what's—

what's the difference?

Right, so we don't know. I don't know what— if they must be, because I'm assuming they're not allowing their yard to go dead.

So they must have somebody living in the house.

So I think you're right, Mayor. That's a lot of the time the cases, or they have family that's just coming over and taking care of the yard while they're away. Okay, you know, we don't want this to end up being an NPU issue.

They're not turning it— they're not turning their utilities off, they're just keeping them at a minimal. Is that what I'm hearing?

Right.

Yep.

Brandon, perhaps you could describe Just to kind of kind of bring home the point, I think you know while they're gone for maybe five months in St. George, Arizona, wherever they may snowbird, how it the practice is now is they're not paying any street lighting fee. They're not paying any storm drain fee, and these are services that continue to benefit their property whether they happen to be there or not. If the rainstorm happens, whether they're in the home or not, that storm drain is still there to prevent their home from being flooded. So we didn't see any good reason why those base rates don't still apply as the infrastructure will continue to serve their property whether they're physically in the home or not. I mean, the extreme could be taken of somebody saying, you know, I'm going on a month vacation with my family. I'd like to have my account turned off so that I don't have to pay that bill this month, and then I'll be back July 1st to pay the bill. So the same logic would apply, and it just doesn't seem to make sense to allow people to kind of turn it off and turn it on when the infrastructure continues to benefit their property.

Brandon, I have a question. So did you say a $25 shutoff fee and then $25 to turn it back on?

Yeah, so that's currently what we charge. So If we have to, you know, turn your account off for not paying, you currently have to pay a $25 fee to have it when we go turn it off. And then you also have to pay— come pay us a $25 fee to turn it on. Why would these be any different?

Yeah, I wonder if that might be a little light just based on the amount of time someone having to take a truck, the fuel, wear and tear on the vehicle. You know, just wondering if that should be upped a little bit.

I don't disagree with that. Steve whispered in my ear that would certainly be something we can look at in our next— next time we do a fee study, as far as evaluating whether that fee is applicable at that rate or not.

Okay.

And perhaps if it were a little more, it would be more discouraging to want to do that.

Yes.

All right, thanks, Brandon. Steve, anything else?

No, I think, Mayor, we'll be writing up the resolution and bring it forward in a future kind of consent agenda, potentially a policy plan.

Okay. And, Brandon, is that it for you?

That was it.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you. So going back, We have Brent Sumner, who is to give us a presentation on his committee assignments. So Brent, let's turn the time over to you.

Thanks, Mayor. You're only giving me a half hour? That's not enough time.

You've got about—

That's okay.

15 minutes max.

Okay, thanks, Mayor. The commissions or committees you assigned me to First, a little bit about the Public Works Advisory Commission. In 2016, they upgraded their master plan, and that's the time we put in that tier water rates. And we've been going along pretty good, but this coming year, we decided as a council to freeze those or put a hold on the water and sewer. And the Public Works Commission at this time, they're updating their master plan. Oh, let me— the stormwater, that fee was continued as the rates needed on that. So, but the water and sewer is no increase for the coming year. They, uh, we'll be getting a financial plan from our financial people for a new master plan, and it's kind of, uh, we've had some problems with the Western Canal, uh, shutting down. That's created a little probably a little more urgency to redo their master plan. And anyway, that, that's currently what the advisory commission is in the process of. But just to mention a couple of the stormwater projects, they just completed the 250 East, 400 North 24-inch pipeline at a cost of about $914,000. And then the 2000 South, a 24-inch pipeline is currently in process. And then they have several others that are planned for 2020. Now they, uh, in this new master plan might be, uh, reprioritized. So there are the 424 East detention drain, uh, the Well Bypass drain, uh, the 900 South improvement, 18-inch pipe. And then the State Street with our nodes, they've, they've got to do something with UDOT, and I think Provo's in on this as well. They have to put in a new water line down State Street. And Chris, correct me if I misstated that, but that's, that's down the road, but that's, that's in the budget. And then Springwater's had some flooding problems, and there's a 54-inch pipeline planned for that. And that's currently— it's planned for 2021. But again, some of these priorities may change with the new master plan. Yeah, as I mentioned, we've tempered or put a hold on the water and and sewer. And then the discussion comes up about bonding or pay-as-you-go. And as the council's directed the Public Works Commission, they— we need to look at the bonding going forward. Uh, understand now you can get money for as low as 2%. I think that's what they said in the commission. So that's something they'll be looking at as well. Let's see the use. Yeah.

Maybe one thing I could mention in regards to our water system, I know that through our fee structure that we've been planning for a new 10 million gallon water tank, and we have saved enough to cover 2/3 of that. So that's, that's pretty admirable. And I know we're looking at maybe a few adjustments here or there, but it's, it's good to know that we've already got 2/3 of it paid for.

That's good. Thanks, Mayor. Another board I'm on, the UCCU board at UVU, and like all organizations, COVID's hit them hard. I've got, oh, I don't know, it must be 24 events they either canceled or postponed, which has cost the university and especially the events center there a lot of money this coming year. And hopefully they can get back on track with those events. It's— I was really surprised at all of the money and the costs that they're— right now they're losing.

They're losing.

So That's where we're at on that. Let's see, the Library Commission. Of course, all of us have seen the new library hall going up. Currently, correct me if you're wrong, if I'm wrong, Charlene, but attending October 20th grand opening. The library's been open since May 4th. They encourage patrons to set up a reservation to come in, but they, they don't turn anybody away if they're—

if they walk in.

They have 500 families signed up for their summer reading program. They come in and get packets on that, and that's still been very successful. And they've ordered a new self-checkout machine, and that's supposedly coming in the next month or so. The Orem Read Program series, they've put that online. But tip of the hat to Charlene and keeping a lot of these things going, and, and it'll be exciting to have the ribbon cutting October 20th on the new library hall. And then let's see. Well, I'm on the Historic Preservation Commission as well, and I know before this COVID hit, we talked about a time capsule or something to that effect. And Stephen and I talked about it a little bit, and then all this chaos hit, and I'm not sure where we're at on that, but I think it'd still be a good idea to put a time capsule within the grounds of the library somewhere. Anyway, that's open for discussion. So I think, I think that's pretty well what I have, Mayor.

Okay, well, thanks, Brent. I hope that we can do the time capsule. You know, it's pretty exciting. They opened up the time capsule at the Salt Lake Temple, and the things they found were pretty instructive and pretty enlightening. I hope that we could do the same thing, particularly with our 100-year anniversary. We have a lot of wonderful things that we can put in there. So, but appreciate what you're doing.

I'll look, I'll continue that with Stephen and Charlene and see, and Jamie, and see if we can put something together.

Yeah, we could. I think it'd be fun.

Thank you.

Okay, well, with that being said, We'll go ahead and adjourn this meeting, um, and take a break and then start again at 6 o'clock. Um, and, uh, everybody's comfortable? The meeting's adjourned.

Thank you.

You bet. Thank you.

A child could never be in a time capsule. Yeah, that's right. What episode is that? It's hard to remember because it's a little hard to— Well, they're doing that time capsule thing.

Oh, okay.

It's the Twilight one. Okay, well, it's— you watch the Twilight ones. And Plus Yourself.

Yeah.

So they have a public forum about it. And people go crazy. They just said, I don't see why we can put the Bible in, but we can't have this painting of Mom and Donald. So is that in the drafts or something?

What? That post?

No, it should be in the publisher. It was scheduled to go. Go down, Mom today. Oh, this one here. And then just go to unexpected. The mayor wanted to do it a while ago. He wanted something that they've still been pursuing. Well, we had it come change for February, and then this whole COVID thing happened. Nobody thought about it. Okay, so nothing's on that? No, no. We have stuff we could throw in there, like, I mean, Twilight books. Yeah, Twilight books.

All 12?

Yeah.

Okay, let's go ahead and cut there. Just so you know, some genius subcontractor here was trying to get us on off-prem for about $400 a month. They also sunk the line in the road and they're trying to pull it out, so we'll be paying for repairs. Just so you know. Has anybody boomed it up? Grateful Jamie wasn't in his office watching it happen.

I did enough swearing.

Okay, thank you. I'll save that might have bomb for later. Thank you. So yeah, Pete, right, we have some stuff we can throw in a time capsule. Yeah, it's just because we had the discussion about what do we put in, right, you know, and where do we put it. My last email was an email from there asking me to put one of the seats in. Did you say yes?

Yeah.

All the fashions of the day. Oh yeah, yeah. Oh, we should put a mask in. Yeah, an Oram mask. I think just a bunch of Oram swag. Yeah, what's just clear-out crap you want to get rid of? I have some stuff. I have some pins we can get rid of, a box of notepads.

Yeah.

Okay, Jason, what's the process of renaming a street? Is it pretty complicated?

You have to make an application now, and I have a big denied stamp.

Okay, and it just gets denied?

No, there is an application you can fill out.

Okay, I may bring you one.

Okay, after a certain person or—

Well, no, no, it's, uh, so we're buying a new house and half of the house is on 300 East and the other half is on 320 East, and the road just kind of bends a little bit. So it goes 300 East, bends a little bit, 320, and then goes back into 300. And, you know, what's the problem with just keeping it at 300? That's my question.

I just—

whoa, before you give any benefits to this guy.

Oh no, no, no. The thing is, it's causing all kinds of problems with the mail.

Best case In my case, I like to filter those benefits and then call them brenifits. There you go. I'll keep that in mind.

But, you know, I don't know if that's going to jack up everybody who's truly on 320, you know. This new neighbor comes in and freaks the streets up. Change the street. That's one way. Welcome to the neighborhood.

We just changed your street.

Yeah. Seek no favor, public servant. But it makes no sense. I mean, it's like a 5-degree angle.

Yeah, it's like a little jog.

Exactly. Yeah, and then it goes right back into 300. It's just this like— there's like maybe 5 or 6 houses on there. You gotta just go knock on their doors. It's just like, hey, would you be cool if we changed the street back to 300?

No, I don't know.

Well, I've already done it, so I was really hoping for a yes. Yeah.

Didn't really think how to respond when you said no.

Well, that's me against you. Yeah, screw you too. Plus, just you know being on just an even three hundred that just sounds better. Yeah. Yeah. They say no, just be like, all right Phoenix, and then he just goes and just have him pee on the mailbox or something. Is Phoenix excited about the new house? Not really, because he's not grasping the concept.

Oh yeah.

Because he's like, he's worried that we're gonna leave behind things.

Oh, okay.

Because he's like, well, do we get to bring the cats? I was like, yeah, we'll take the cats to the new house. Take all 10? Even though we'd like to leave them behind. Oh, you know what, Phoenix, we can't. This new house, no cats in this new house.

Yeah, HOA.

Yeah. And then, you know, then he's asking questions about like, well, can we bring the apple tree with us? No, that's gonna have to stay behind. Yeah, so there's just parts of it that he's just having struggles with. Transplant the apple tree.

Yeah.

That'd be sweet.

You think you'd plant any?

Is there really room to do that? No. We might be able to do some like roseberry or some raspberry bushes and some blackberries and stuff.

Oh, grafting!

That's a good idea.

Little Jacob—

go with Jacob Fymos.

That's right. Dang, Jackie, scriptorian.

Jackie Five.

Oh man, so I met Glory's boyfriend yesterday at the event, and his name is Joshuah, which I guess is— what he told me is it's a name in the Bible, and it means I shall Which is funny, because he's about ready to leave on a mission.

Joshuah.

Joshuah. Are you familiar with the story of Joshuah? I don't think so. I had a friend named Japheth. You could see her mom saying, we only date people with biblical names. Oh, did you hear her story about eating shrimp? No, I didn't hear any of that. So, they're taking— I mean, there's a couple things we need to improve. One is, we got our hurry and make a quick decision because if Glory takes the mic, she just like—

we got to stop her from herself.

Yeah, we don't have a hot mic here. Okay, so she starts telling the story and like suggesting like, what's the most embarrassing thing that happened to you while you were in Miss Orontine? She said, well, or while you're in the world. She said, when I was in Miss Orontine, I went to this nice dinner and they had shrimp. She's like, and I never eaten shrimp before. She was, she was 14 or something. She's like, so I grabbed the shrimp, it was like shrimp cocktail, and she's like— and I just start eating it by the tail first. And she's like, I'm like chewing on the plastic part of it, kind of. And she's like not having any clue what to do. So finally someone's like, hey, you don't eat that part, it pulls off. And then, but like, she's like, I was so embarrassed because everybody at the table was just like—

maybe by 14, I don't know.

I don't know if you've never had it. Yeah, I guess it's That's true.

Yeah.

But I'm just like, oh, Pete, Pete, hurry, make a decision.

I don't care who wins.

Well, that is one thing I talked with Jesse about, is we got to have some like little intermediate type stuff, right, that they can either read or something that they can interact with the crowd.

Yeah.

Because some of those acts take a long time to set up.

Yeah.

And so it'd be nice to kind of keep the— Without giving the mayor the mic. For more than a minute.

She was fine for her first minute.

Well, she should have just kept performing.

That's true.

Sing another song. Or maybe we do like— maybe we do like a sing-along. You know, we just put on some music that everyone knows, maybe a few tunes from Hamilton, and go from there. Did you get to try the True Fruit? I did. That's good. That is good stuff. Parker does.

My Parker?

Mm-hmm.

Oh, oh yeah. Steven's 2-year-old son. Yeah, he can sing it. The whole thing? The whole thing. So Becca will say, I'm not going to miss my— and then Parker will say, up! I had an email, I talked about being like the— what was the founder? The founding—

Founder's Circle.

Founder's Circle, like, for the fitness center, just like a donor. And so Keith and Grant put together this thing of like the founding fathers all standing in front of the fitness center. It looked cool, honestly. But I thought it was a missed opportunity to put Hamilton and the founding fathers and all of them. It's a community. Oh, this is something. Well, it's so funny, people have taken a political stance on that show.

Seriously?

Like, watching it. At least a few people, you know, far right wing, they say that it goes against their principles to watch it, even though it's mainly history. Well, they just think it's like political—

we're just trying to be politically correct for making it a Black vision.

Yeah.

When my people laugh, I mean, people say things. You shouldn't have laughed. You're slaves. You should have slaves. Then we'll watch it. But what Lin Miranda says— Lin-Manuel.

Or Lin.

Yeah, Lin.

Close one.

Yeah, very close. He says that the thing that got him going on this Hamilton The thing was that the story of Hamilton, Alexander Hamilton, is the immigrant story. You know, he comes from the Caribbean, has nothing, you know, makes a name for himself in the United States. Well, maybe one of the presidents calls him a Creole bastard or something. It's in the show.

Oh, okay.

I haven't watched it.

It's a lyric.

Okay. Yeah.

Did you see it ever or just watch it on like Disney+? We never really did. Char did. When it came to Salt Lake, she saw it. Ashley Smith saw it 12 times. Whoa.

Who?

The owner of Bellatrix.

Oh.

Yeah.

That's what it takes. Yeah, bro. Dude, speaking of, okay, so they sell it for $1.4 billion— or sorry, they pocket $1.4 billion after the money. The sell-through rate though was 1.4. And now SAP, who owns Qualtrics, is now taking Qualtrics public. Qualtrics? Wow. It's now going public after the private sale. And Ryan Smith is apparently still the single biggest owner of shares for Qualtrics. So he's gonna kick in again? No way. You think that by the time SAP got involved— Yeah, so he must have gotten options, right? He must have said, like, hey, I still want some ownership when this goes public. I imagine this was always the plan. But so he probably knew it. So he's going to do it again.

I mean, probably not to the same level, but—

That's nuts. So SAP is still going to be the majority shareholder. So they're going to sell 49% or less of shares to the public. And in that 49%, Ryan will be the single biggest owner. Are you going to get in? I don't know. I just think of you. What, what employee? You were number 15? What was my employee number? I don't know. That's culture too. Just a little batch that I had in the corner of the office building in Provo. The guy who was my boss cashed out at 15 million. I mean this in the best possible way, but do you ever feel like the Forrest Gump of Utah County? He's just like always in the mix of things. I'm trying to remember what's— I haven't— it's been so long. Well, he just like, he meets the president, he goes to Vietnam, he like helps invent stuff accidentally. You know, there's just like, he's just always in the right place at the right time. Yeah, but it never like, he never capitalizes. Yeah, yeah, yeah, exactly. That's right, that's right. I need to watch that again. Classic. Yeah, the force can bring you back in. Because I just feel like you've always been in kind of the same orbits of these things. I just keep missing it. I'm that meteor that shoots out of orbit and burns up as it's getting down. But hey, your bubblegum shrimp company, it's coming. It's around the corner. Eventually, force does work. That's my idea.

That's right.

Here, tell me, how about this business idea? I don't know exactly how this would work, but we're down in St. George a few weeks ago, and we just go to a park early in the morning, and it's still 95 degrees. But 2 hours later, or an hour, whatever, we leave, you know, the car is just burning up. And, you know, a lot of people have like these shade things to try to block the sun, but I'm just thinking right now, Wow. Couldn't— there's just got to be like the ability to put up that shade but have like on the panel that's facing out just some thin solar type panels that creates the power to like somehow put a cooling effect into the car too. So there's like fans or something going. It's still like really thin.

Right.

You just like, you just put it up there and then like let the power of the sun just cool the car as opposed to just keeping the dash from getting hot.

So Mayor, can you hear me? This is Terry.

Yes, son.

So we had this beautiful flag that's incredible. I was telling Jamie how beautiful that is as you come up the Orem Hill. And, and I talked to him about last week, it's gone. Like the day after I was telling him how beautiful it was, it's gone. Do you know anything about that?

I don't.

So I know that that flagpole is an expense. Experimental flagpole for our, uh, our utilities, our PMIs.

Yeah.

Oh, and that's what Chris is working— maybe Chris could answer that question.

Yeah, I'd be happy to. So that flag, um, had already gotten tattered and we are replacing it at that location. Uh, as you might imagine or know, we get a lot of heavy canyon winds and We are actually looking into a flag replacement program and getting these flags replaced on a regular basis to make sure that they don't look bad. So we're working with, um, I think it's called, uh, Colonial Flag up in Salem. Yeah, yeah, it's a huge flag too.

Oh, it is so beautiful. Jamie was saying they talked to the neighbors and told them it would be noisy, and the neighbors said, hey, We'd love it. Yeah, you know, basically, like, we'd be honored to have that flag.

We've received calls from Provo citizens saying how much they love it coming up out of Provo.

Oh, listen, I go walking by there most mornings, and I just walk around the corner and see that flag going, this is so cool.

Yeah, thank you.

Good. I was afraid someone took it or something.

Oh no.

Where's this located?

It is on 1400 South. As you head east of 800 East, it's right adjacent to the former RLDS property at the end of that street.

Awesome. Oh, what a location.

So if you're coming diagonal from in Provo, you'll see it to your left. It's right up on top of that little knoll.

Sweet.

And it's amazing.

It was strategically located there for a couple of reasons. One is for the AMI, for our connection to one of our 12 AMI receivers and transmitters. So that's actually on the pole. And we've done this at the cemetery as well, where we put the AMI— it's called the CGR. That's a device that transmits the data after it collects it from all of the water meters, or will collect it after all the water meters are installed.

Mm-hmm.

And so we coupled that with the flag in an attempt to generate positive goodwill with the community as well as primarily actually for the AMI, the advanced metering.

And so, Terry, the flag at the cemetery was looking terrible. Yeah, it was worn and beat up and ragged. And so I contacted Jamie and Chris and asked that it be replaced. And so it's a brand new flag there. There's 3 flags, they're all brand new, and they look beautiful.

Sweet.

The only thing we need across from that flag coming up diagonal is a better Orem sign. You know, we've got one of those metal ones.

Well, I was thinking we could do one over the top of the University Parkway.

Yeah, that's okay.

This is the gateway to Orem, and then on the flip side we could say, so sorry you have to leave us, or something.

Okay, now you got 2 votes for that, yours and mine.

So Councilman Pedersen, we, we did put that steel or the metal sign in there just to start this conversation. For example, we would love to put something in there that is maybe a fountain or something like that with a larger monument sign there. I think would be beautiful coming up out of Provo.

I totally agree.

Yeah.

Great idea. All right. Well, it's time to go ahead and start. Hopefully our council members are back. Looks like we've got 4 or 5 of us anyway. So I'd like to begin by reading. This is a notice of an all-electronic meeting and opportunity for public participation pursuant to Major— to Mayor Richard F. Brunson's proclamation dated August 3rd, 2020. The Orem City Council meeting on August 11th, 2020 will be an all-electronic meeting. There will be no anchor location for the meeting. The city cannot ensure the recommended minimum of 6 feet of social distancing for meeting participants at the usual anchor location in the Orem City Council Chambers. Therefore, holding the meeting at the City Council Chambers would present a substantial risk to the health and safety of those who may be present at the meeting and may contribute to the spread of COVID-19. 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. To view the meeting, please go to orem.org/meetings. To make a comment, please submit your comment through orem.org/comments or citycouncilpubliccomments@orem.org. Comments will be accepted before and during the meeting. All comments received will be entered into the record and forwarded to each city council member for review. Comments will also be read aloud during the live meeting when required by law or when time permits. Once an item has been voted on, that item will be closed to additional comments. Thank you for your cooperation during these challenging times. We would now like to call this meeting to order and begin with a prayer to be given by Councilmember Pedersen, followed by a Pledge of Allegiance also given by Councilmember Pedersen. Terry, go ahead.

Okay.

Our Heavenly Father, we are thankful for the opportunity to meet this evening as citizens that are concerned about our city. We pray that Spirit will be here, that we'll be directed to know what best to do and say and support the future of Orem. Grateful for the opportunity to serve in the community, and we pray Thy Spirit to be with us this evening. And we say this in Thy Son, Jesus Christ.

Amen.

Amen.

And I want my wife— I'm gonna, I'm gonna have my wife do the pledge.

Okay, that's great.

Test.

Okay, everybody ready?

Please stand.

Test.

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, Sherry. Thank you, Terry. Okay, we will move on. This is the time for personal appearances. For any item that is not on the agenda that has a public hearing. Steve, do we have any comments for public appearances that have come in?

KP?

No, Mr.

Chair. Okay, thank you, Pete.

We'll go ahead then and close the personal appearance public comment portion of our meeting and move on to consent items. The first one is a motion to cancel the August 25th, 2020 City Council meeting. The second is approval of the City Council meeting on July 14th, 2020. The next one is approval of the City of Orem Development Services Department retention schedule. And the last one is an ordinance amending Section 19.7.5 of the Orem City Code to require— to remove the requirement for a parking enforcement company to contact Orem City dispatch before it places a boot on a vehicle, and other technical corrections. Would anyone staff or council choose to put this— any item on a scheduled item? If not, let's go ahead and take a vote. I move that we go ahead and accept the consent items. Is there a second?

Second.

Okay, let's go ahead and vote. First of all, Brent Sumner.

Aye.

Okay.

Aye.

Okay, Dave Spencer?

Aye.

Debbie Laree?

Aye.

Terry Peterson?

Aye.

Tom McDonald?

Aye.

Jeff Lampson?

Aye.

And Mayor Brunstad, I vote aye as well. Consent items pass. We will move on to our scheduled items. The first one is 9.1, a public hearing. On a resolution. This is for amending portions of Chapter 2, Land Use, and Chapter 6, Transportation, of the Orem General Plan, updating the land use map and pedestrian and bike path map and language pertaining to the southwest area. And our presenter is Jason Bench. Jason, we'll turn it over to you.

It helps if I figure out how to unmute this thing, I guess. Can everybody see my screen okay?

Yes.

Okay. Yeah, talked about briefly in the pre-meeting, this is bringing back the general plan that we've talked about for many months. We brought it back to the council, brought it forth to the council for discussion item back in March before we started into the the COVID issues. Anyway, we move forward with this and we just want to go through and present what we have, the conclusions we've come and bring forward an amendment to the general plan. This is the existing general plan that you see. Remember, the light industrial was west of Geneva Road. A low-density residential was east. We do have— let me turn on my This is where the Mansell property is. The medium-density residential is at this location currently under construction. We do have a single-family subdivision that's under construction in this location. And then the majority of this property on the— between the tracks and Geneva Road is low density. Between— excuse me— Geneva Road going west was the light industrial. These roads represent the Geneva Road and And then of course the Lakeview Parkway, which would eventually come through. So this is the existing general plan. What we're proposing is to make some modifications as we've discussed with the council, with the neighborhood, with Planning Commission, and want to now discuss it with you. A couple of different changes.

Jason?

Yes, sir.

Just out of curiosity, you've got the LDR Temple. I'm not sure what that is.

Well, the LDR, so we just left that low-density residential.

So instead of making it the southwest, I want to make sure you weren't missing an S there and you're actually meaning an R.

So LDR right now in our current general plan is just low-density residential. So we'll just leave the site low-density just to be consistent with other churches and other things that we have in the city. So we'll just start there. So that's the temple location, simply stating that's— that was currently in the city. We're not really changing any designation on that per se. The green outline is the clinger piece that is not part of the city at this point. The darker colors that you see are representing what's currently annexed into the city. Let me just start at the north. So the Johnson property, which is currently, or was already previously in the city, has agreed to come in with this general plan process to designate the front portion of their property low-density residential with the southwest, and I'll explain what southwest means as we go through this presentation. And then as we go further south, to Dave— Mr. Spencer's comment many months ago back in March to calculate and look at future annexation areas and actually bring them in as part of the ERU calculations. And so we've done that, and I'll go through that as we go through the process. So these are all designated as future light industrial. This portion here that actually fronts directly across from the temple would be a future light or low-density residential with an SW designation. This property would be light and— excuse me, low-density residential. And then when we have the Lakeview Parkway and Geneva Road and the future installation of this road and the connection of Geneva Road at this location, felt that a community commercial you know, grocery store, things like that would be appropriate in this location. Light industrial is existing, and that's an existing project that was already rezoned and currently in the process. Medium density would just match the current density that's going out currently under construction. And then this is existing in the current general plan, which is a community commercial. Eventually, when this Lakeview Parkway comes in, that could be developed as community commercial. Going— this is 2000 South. Going on the corner of 2000 South, we have had some requests to put a, you know, commercial piece in the corner. So this represents that, that it could be community commercial and rezoned to some type of commercial project. This portion would remain low density, but we put the southwest designation on that. This is where the school currently is located. This is currently a conservation easement, Byron Taylor's piece here, which is currently a conservation easement. So we've left it at rural density residential because the rights have been sold or given, donated. And so that would not be developed in the future. It'll be left as open space. This property would be designated as low density residential with a southwest designation. And of course, this future portion here, when that's annexed, would also be adjacent south of the temple and would be designated as low density residential.

Thank you.

residential.

All the property between the 2 tracks, with the exception of property directly east of the temple, that would be left rural density, as the mayor indicated, I think, in our last discussion. Anything south of that could be developed with some light industrial designations. So with this plan, and including the portions of the properties that have not been annexed to the city, if you look over here on the right side of your screen, the existing ERU count back when it was annexed was 1,248 ERUs, equivalent residential units. The proposed ERUs in the existing annexed area increases to 1,764, so an additional 516 ERUs. When we look at the future area, so those areas that are currently not part of the city, would be equivalent to an additional 763 units, or 300— 736 units, excuse me.

736.

For a total of, if and when this all gets annexed, 2,500 ERUs, or an additional 1,252 over and above what the existing general plan allocates. Now remember that the 1,248 is simply properties that are currently annexed. We did not calculate at the time when it was annexed in 2015 any of those properties that are outside of the annexed area. So the 1,248 was simply those properties that were annexed.

At the time.

In addition to that, we've— staff looked at the addition of different trails and other features that we thought were appropriate as we look at redoing this general plan as requiring these types of trails to connect not only to the Powell Slough and other areas, but make sure that Lakeview Parkway has a required trail, the Geneva Trail, which has started further north, but that continues down. Through the city, a rail trail that would also go along the trail, and then also the Waquara Way Trail, which would connect out to the lake and connect into that infrastructure. These symbols just indicate that we're not going to have a direct route, but developers that come in will have to designate and show how they're going to connect east-west as well as north-south within this area. Any questions on this, the trails map?

Any comments or questions?

So moving on just really quick. So this represents the modification that we just did. This is the actual plan that would be in the general plan. These indicate what I've showed you previously, just in the formal format. And then as part of the land use language, we also want to introduce a new classification in the general plan, which is what we're low-density residential/Southwest. Southwest would indicate that we would allow PRDs, but they'd be specific to the Southwest area, which would allow multiple-story and additional to a basement if and when they provide a soils report that would indicate that basements are allowed. A standard review would be basements typically are not allowed in this area because of high water table. But there may be some properties, and based on a scientific study, there may be areas that would allow for basements. The PRD current standards allow either a basement or a second story, whereas the PRD Southwest would allow for both. So if somebody could do a basement, they could also do a second story as well. And then of course the definition of what that would be, it could be from 4 units. So we still would allow in the Low Density Residential Southwest single-family lots, and then they would also be able to do a PRD, which would be up to 8 units.

per acre.

A typical PRD now within the city is roughly 7 units per acre. And this represents, of course, the map, the trails map. This is currently in the Transportation Master Plan as well, so we would update this area to indicate the trails that we've previously just talked about. And then as part of Chapter 6 in transportation, the red line indicates that developers that come in would be required to connect those trails through their property, whether it's stubbing into the north or, you know, whatever direction, so that they would be on the understanding that when they develop in the southwest, they will have to put in the trails that are associated with their property. By the way, information, we did hold a— on May 13th, 2020, we did hold a webinar. We ended up with 38 individuals that came out of the meeting. We did notify just over 2,400 households of that meeting. So we did have some pretty common— and the comments are outlined in your report. Obviously, there are some property owners out there that are current owners that want to keep the status quo of how it is. But then there was a majority, or I don't know if it was a total majority, but a lot of people wanted to see some increase in density to allow for development around the temple site. So going forward, we will need to do an impact fee analysis update to that impact fee analysis and impact fee facility plan, similar to what we did in 2015. It would indicate the increase from the 1,248 to the 2,500 ERUs. As the city public works is looking at updating their utility plans, that number would then be used to make sure that we can accommodate the infrastructure moving forward. We are working on a PRD Southwest ordinance that will be brought forth to the council in a work session and then a regular session coming up in the next few months. And then we would require or rely on property owners to make application for rezones. We're simply changing the general plan. It would still be up to the discretion of the council and the applicant to make application for the council to rezone to a PRD or, you know, R-8 or any other type of zone that would fit within that designation. Planning Commission did review it and did make a recommendation that the council not only update the— that we're proposing. So I'd be glad to address any questions.

Jason, this is Terry. Yeah, so I'm a little confused because we aren't— so basically what we're doing is doubling the ERUs, is that correct? We're going from 1,248 to 2,500.

What we're also doing is allocating or calculating what the future areas that are currently not annexed to add into those numbers. So it's not necessarily doubling, it's just accounting for the areas that we didn't account for prior to these areas that are not annexed. But if they were to be annexed, what the ERUs would be. So when that— when it was originally annexed into the city, we typically only Well, we only use the areas— if you can follow the outline, we only calculated the 1,248, only represent those properties that are currently annexed. So what we did, what the 736 represents, are these properties that are not currently part of the city. So it doesn't necessarily double, but we do add another 516 units in the existing areas of the city that are already annexed.

So we are adding density to the existing units.

Yes.

And I don't remember as a City Council we were supportive of that. You're saying that that was something we were all supportive of before?

We were given the direction to move forward with this, not necessarily this plan, but we moved forward with a direction to look at modifying the plans. We came up with 4 alternatives which we took to the neighborhood meeting. The majority of them, you know, with a few changes with the condition of the CC down here, the majority of them were supportive of this plan.

Wow. So address Mr. Taylor's comments. I think he's got some good points about increased traffic with the temple and what they were told before about Lakeside. Have you had this discussion with him?

He was at Planning Commission. I know Sam Kelly is on the line. Maybe I'll turn this time to Sam. The traffic on Geneva Road obviously will be something that moves forward. I know that UDOT is looking at widening the road. I know we have the Lakeview Parkway Trail coming— or Lakeview Parkway coming in. That will increase capacity as well.

So, Jason, I could address that question. So there's real concerns over Geneva Road in that area. If you go north of the temple, coming off of University Parkway, north of University Parkway, it's a 5-lane road. As you come south on Geneva Road, it goes down to a 3-lane road, and then when you get past the apartment complex there, you go down to single lanes each way with no sidewalk, curb, gutter, streetlights, no anything. So that's been a real concern, and Jamie and I have been meeting with UDOT. We've been meeting with MAG. Last week we had a meeting, combined meeting with 2 representatives from UDOT, several representatives from MAG. We had a member of the state legislature over transportation for the state of Utah there.

We—

I've been in discussions with Jim Evans, who's on the transportation Committee for the state. And so, just to let you know, the temple is planning on actually widening the road at their expense in front of the temple to a 3-lane road. So they would take the road and put a lane in the center that you can turn east or west off of, and then separate the 2 lanes that go north and south. And, and then have an area on temple property there where you can turn into. But we feel that that is inadequate. I have spoken with the church temple project committee and explained. And just so you know, the church did a traffic study on this area in November of last year. Geneva Road is either at fail or at almost fail along that whole path. The temple does not add that many. It'll add 150 people onto Geneva Road during the weekday and 250 on Saturday. But the problem is your background traffic is so heavy now going up and down there. Of course, down in Provo, You have the new Provo High. You have all the new houses. We have Mansell's Apartments and houses in our own area. So the traffic has gone up exponentially on Geneva Road, where if you try to pull out from the temple site right now, you're about ready to get run over, and you've got to wait a fair amount of time until you can find a spot to pull out. So So again, we've brought that up with the traffic coming off of the temple. In the traffic study, that shows Geneva Road failing completely. Not only the road, but the areas where the other roads come in, that fails as well. And so that's a real concern that we have a traffic study showing, and this is to the point of this gentleman's comments. That in fact that road is in failure mode. So one thing that we're trying to do, attempting to do, is to see if in fact UDOT would join together with the temple, with the church, and pay for the other 2 lanes and widen that. So if you look, you have Lakewood— Lakeview Parkway Trail— I mean, Lakeview Parkway Road coming up. That's going to be being built in the next 3 to 5 years, and then that's going to require a 5-lane road up there. So why would you leave the Geneva Road in front of the temple as a 3-lane, and then all of a sudden after you build it, have to come back in 2 years later and tear it all out again— stormwater, lighting, curb and gutter lanes, all of that— and start over and make it a 5-lane at that point? So I have made it a point to bring it up with UDOT, with the legislature, with our transportation committee for the state, for everybody involved, that we ought to join forces. And if we do it, the state would pay for half, the temple would pay for half, and we would get our 5-lane road put in now. So it would not have to be torn up and rebuilt, and it would handle the traffic that's there.

There.

So everybody has been notified. Everybody is working on it. Kay Christopherson's working with the legislature on a road bond, trying to see if we can fit money in there. Jamie and I just met last night. This road is supposed to be improved, and it's sectioned out as Phase 1, Item 33. On MAG's priority list of roads. And we're saying, let's update that and move that quicker so that we could rebuild the area in front of the temple at the same time the church is building their area. So it makes no sense for the church to go in and do 3 lanes right now. And like I say, not to repeat, but tear it out and 2 years later, and then put in 5 lanes that the state's gonna have to pay for. So we're working very diligently on that, just to let you know.

Here, I have a question. Sure. Jason, it's my understanding that most PRDs are up to 7 per acre, but I noticed in the notes it was 4 to 8. How come up to 8 instead of 7?

As we— I don't know if you recall back when Ryan McDougall came forward with the council for a PD zone, right? Or 14 units. The council kind of gave an indication that they may look at increasing that density. So we felt that, you know, going from 7 to 8 in the southwest area might be appropriate.

So is that like a compromise instead of the 14?

Right.

There's no guarantee that somebody's going to be able to develop to the 8 units. Right now, PRDs within the city that are developed are typically around 6, just because they can't really maximize with the streets and all the things that are required. landscaping and such, we're getting about a 6-unit-per-acre PRD. Okay, even if we do 8, or if the council is comfortable with 7, I mean, that's, that's a direction that obviously why we're here tonight, but that was kind of a compromise to allow a little bit more density if they can actually physically make it work.

Okay, I do appreciate that the low density— I know I've talked about twin homes, the ones at the Chapman. I think those will be quite appealing around the temple. So I appreciate that you've got a lot of low density around that. So I think it looks good. I'm, I'm probably still want to stick with the 7 PRD, um, unless there's an overriding reason to go up one more. So that's just my personal opinion. Keep it consistent.

Any other comments or questions? All right. So this is—

Just one more comment, Mayor. This is Terry. I'm confused why we would increase density With all the issues we're studying, and I would think we'd be going the other way. So I don't— why would we want to throw more density into this area when we're trying to figure out the roads, the infrastructure, and there's going to be a temple there, which, which a lot of times increases property values for the lower density homes. I mean, that seems backwards to me to want to increase the density.

So I know some of this is future planning and it's not necessarily in the works right now, but one concern is, as Dave Spencer has brought up repeatedly, is are we putting enough infrastructure in for what might occur here?

Yeah.

Most of this is not high density, it's low density residential, but it was set up to be industrial for a lot of it. And with the temple going in, that's kind of changed the whole picture where industrial is not really attractive for being around the temple. And people are wanting to use their property now for low-density residential rather than industrial. So, I think that's part of the reason.

So, if I can just address, you know, the Lakeview Parkway and Geneva Road, both will be widened in the future as we move forward. As our city engineer indicated, as projects come forward, there will be obligations for developers to, to add their portion of that infrastructure. So the Temple, for example, is making improvements on Geneva Road. Any other developer that comes in would also have to do likewise. So if there's a portion of Geneva Road or Lakeview Parkway or whatever, they would have to either contribute or make those improvements as it goes forward. So this is, like the mayor said, this is a a long-term general plan, but understanding that as developers come in, they will be putting in infrastructure to match the requirements of that project. So as the city grows, these types of improvements are just part of development. If the council, you know, chooses not to go that, that route, it's understandable, but this is a plan to move forward with that. It doesn't guarantee the developer can do a PRD. It's still a rezone through the council. So this does not guarantee a developer to be able to get a a 7-unit-per-acre development. They may be forced, if the council denies it, to do a low-density residential development, but it gives them options to come forward with this general plan.

All right, this is a public hearing, so I would like to go ahead and open it up to the public. Anyone wishing to make a comment, please email your comment into the sites that we have given, and we will go ahead and consider them. And we'll go ahead and take 1 minute for anyone who wishes to do that, starting right now.

Okay.

I'll need to stop. So have you received any other comments?

Okay.

Okay, any other comments? What was her name again? Okay, any other comments? Okay, thank you. So we're going to go ahead and close the public comment portion of our public hearing and bring it back to the council. I wanted to make a couple of comments in regards to what's been brought up. First of all, I wanted to make a comment. When we originally did this annexation in, we had 2 groups, Mansell, and then we had Ryan and his group, which is where the Wilkinson farm is. Asked for zoning changes so they could put in high density. We ended up accepting Mansell's property and he has put in townhomes and homes. It's a beautiful development, but it's 2/3 of the way done. Ryan's development was rejected on the Wilkinson Farm property because it was apartments. So it was not condos or homes for purchase, but rather apartments. At that particular time, the 14 acres there that the Wilkersons were leasing, everyone was concerned that they were going to lose their farm. In fact, they were leasing from a gentleman who owned the land, who was not paying his bills and was going to lose the land himself. And he was there likewise at the meeting. So that— there was no way the Wilkerson Farm was going to continue under those circumstances. But interestingly enough, after the meeting, I met with Richard Wilkerson, and I explained to him that we appreciated having a farm there that people could come and help raise crops on their own and purchase fresh produce. And I suggested to him that he go out and find a benefactor. And he said, well, what's a benefactor? And I said, well, you need to find somebody who believes in your cause and will help you purchase the property and will allow you to be on that property without, you know, concern for eviction because they're not paying their bills. So he actually did that. He went out and found a gentleman who had started a company who was very wealthy. The gentleman really liked what he had to say, so he purchased the 14 acres. He has given Richard a lease on the property. All he requests is some fresh produce every year, and he's liked what Richard has done enough that he pre— picked up and purchased another 14 acres on 2000 North, or 2000 South depending on the city, Right across the street, and they're doing the same thing there. So that came about through someone's good nature who was willing to promote and keep the production of food within our city for anyone who wants to come raise it right there. The other land that was, you know, that they're talking about is land that was set aside as some easements. and others as farms, but farms that could be developed. So quite a few of the landowners wanted to develop their land, and they were, they were helpful and behind the idea of this annexation. And so we set in place a situation where they could in fact stay a farm, or they could in fact develop, many of them into light industrial. Some into low-density residential. What we're looking at here is getting rid of most of the industrial. There is one industrial section right in the middle that is already underway. That's why that's still there. And the rest of the land is mostly being set aside as low-density residential. So we are not going to medium density for the most part, except for Mansell's, which is already there. And that was agreed upon when we started. And the rest is not going to high density or medium density. And part of the program when this started was that we explained that we as a city council were not going to put in the improvements. We were not going to spend the $8 million of city money to put in improvements and utilities, but if the contractor wanted to do that, We would in fact do impact fees and have him pay back. So Mansell did do that, and he is the one that has paid for all of the utilities, and the utilities were sized for what was occurring at that time. With the addition of the temple, that has changed several landowners' minds where they want to develop their land into low-density residential. who were not planning on doing it before. That does increase the demand on the utilities, so we are looking at doubling or increasing the size of the utilities. But you have to be fair to both sides of the landowners. Some of the landowners wish to develop, some wish to keep a farm there, and those that wish to keep a farm are welcome to do so. They are not being forced out. They can keep their farm. But you can tell that most of them, a lot of them actually would prefer to develop their land. So I feel like this is a good compromise. We are looking at the 4 to 8 units per acre. We are not looking at high density. We're not looking at medium density, and we are trying to build and work with on the Temple site. what would be beneficial, and we are trying to get Geneva Road improved to handle increased traffic. So that's all I've got to say. Does anyone else wish to say anything?

I have a question for Jason, and Jason, maybe this is a little, a little bit off track, but in our Natural Resources meeting the other evening, they were talking about opportunities for farmers and landowners to be able to put their land in a trust. And do you remember what that was called?

I don't, to be quite honest.

Okay, yeah, it was a, it was a term that I wasn't familiar with, but I'm wondering if any of these properties would fall in that category or if that would be property that is west of what you have outlined on the map?

So if I can, if you look at the screen, so this area right here and then this area right here are currently conservation easements.

Okay.

So it's basically the same that we talked about. They have donated, I believe they've donated their development rights for this piece and this piece, so they will be left as farmland in perpetuity.

Okay.

So this one here, the ag easement, which is through the county, Utah County, Does give rights to the property owner as far as protection from entities coming in and putting water lines and different things. They have to kind of skirt around those, but it doesn't give them protection that the property owner can't— I mean, they can take it out if they choose to and develop it. But this plan would not prohibit this developer, for example, to come and do the same thing that they're doing here and put it in a conservation easement. The difference is that this for whatever reason donated the rights. Typically what they do is sell the rights, right? They get paid for the development rights and then they leave it as agricultural protection. So I mean, that's still an option for these property owners, but right now it's currently only in an ag protection, which is from Utah County and not— they still have development rights attached, they just have chose not to develop it at this point. Whereas these 2 are in a conservation easement and they've basically Sold the right to develop.

Okay, so those property owners then, they could still be contacted to see if, if that's something that they would want to do similar to the, the other lands that will be there forever?

Absolutely. Yeah, if there's funds available and they're, they're wanting to get, you know, recoup some of their profit instead of developing, get some payback for that, they could sell to a conservation easement that, you know, had the funds to pay them for those rights. I mean, that's definitely within their purview to do. They've chosen to just do the Aggies, at least on this one here. That gives them some protection, like I say, but it doesn't preclude them from developing in the future.

Right. Okay.

They definitely could look at that if they— if the property owner wants to do that, they could do that.

Definitely. Okay.

Thank you.

Okay. If there's no further questions or comments, I would like to make a motion.

Mayor, I have a hand up.

I'm sorry, it wasn't noted.

Okay, go ahead, Tom.

Jason, I think I'm going back a little bit to Terry's original question or comment. It seems like when we talked about this before, we weren't anxious about any higher density, and that's what it sounds like we're hearing here. Can you walk me through the pieces I've missed that that kind of had this boomerang back to the Planning Commission and help me understand if it is indeed additional density. I realize that you've also planned in for area that may one day be annexed into Orem but isn't currently. I may be the slowest guy in the room, but I'm still not understanding that fully. Could you help me go through that again?

No problem. So when, if you recall, Back when Ryan McDougall came through for a PD zone, roughly in this general area here. It was a 14-unit-per-acre request. The staff was opposed to it. The council ultimately recommended denial for the general plan change. But there were several on the council that encouraged that potentially they could come back with a PRD-type development. PRDs are within the 7-unit range, right, as Debbie indicated. So what we took from that is that maybe we should prepare a plan that would allow for, which is what the LDR/SW would put anybody on notice that this could potentially be a PRD development. It doesn't necessarily have to. But based on those comments, we brought a plan forward that anybody that looks at this and recognizes that this could be potentially developed as a PRD. Or it could be developed as low-density residential. So this is just a plan that would indicate, by, by this plan and creating the new LDR/SW, is that more likely than not, people are going to come in and request a PRD. This would support that request. So that was, that was the determination, kind of a compromise between a 14-unit or plus higher density versus a PRD, which we allow everywhere, anywhere in the city through the rezone, up to 7 units an acre. It was kind of a compromise to allow for both. So somebody could come in and do a standard 8,000-square-foot lot development, or they could come in and request through the council a rezone for a PRD, which then, you know, depending on whether you go 7 or 8 units per acre, that would be the maximum somebody could request. So the twin home developments that you see a lot now in the city, that's the type of development that we would foresee in this. or a townhouse type thing that would be a, you know, 2-story with a basement type thing. So that was kind of the direction we went based on the direction that we had, not only from that meeting, but also previous discussion with the council that a PRD might be more palatable. And so that's kind of the direction we took with this plan is to bring back an option for not only single-family, but also PRD, which would still be the lower, you know, lower end of the density range of 78 units per acre, which are the twin home developments.

Yeah, Jason, to use an example, is Penny Lane something like that?

Penny Lane is a PRD, correct? And that's about 6.5 units per acre, roughly.

OK, so at least I'm familiar with that. Perhaps other members of the council are, so I can get a visual on that. If they come back with a PRD, but we aren't— we still have to approve the look and feel, so it's not a guarantee they get it. It still has to be approved by staff and the Planning Commission, I'm assuming.

Yes, that is correct. It is a rezone process. The rezone is a discretionary thing through the council. So the council, just because this is a general plan that allows for that, does not mean the council has to rezone it to that. So it is discretionary, and you can just, you know, deny it for any reason. Our intent was that they would be, you know, come back with a development that would actually make sense, look good. feel right and the council would approve it. But it's still up to the discretion of the council to do that. This only gives them the ability to ask for that and gives them rules and regulations similar to a PRD, but it would be a little different in that we would allow full 2 stories and a basement, for example, and we would allow townhouse style, so they're attached versus a typical twin home. So there are some— We'd bring that back at, you know, in a couple months as as far as the ordinance is concerned, but it's very similar to a PRD that we have in other parts of the city.

And to my question about the net increase, it's— the net increase is not 1,200, but it is indeed 500. We're going from a 1,248 approval and a proposal now to go to 1,764, an additional 516. Am I reading that correctly?

That is correct. And the reason is that we're taking the worst-case scenario, right? We're taking the total 8 units per acre. and multiplying that up through the total acre. Now, are we going to get all those developed at 8 acres, probably, or units per acre? Probably not. But we want to be able to have the infrastructure sized to the point that if in fact the council decides that, hey, let's do the full density, then we would have the ability based on the infrastructure to supply that. So we're not having the same argument in, you know, 2 or 3 years when somebody else comes in. We basically size our infrastructure accordingly at the worst case scenario. So that's why it's the 516, because we're taking it at 8 units per acre. But I'm guessing we'll get a mix of, you know, 4 units per acre up to the 8 units per acre.

And again, to go one step further on infrastructure, since the mayor brought that up earlier, are we building an infrastructure for 2,500 for future maybe annexing, or just for the 1,764?

What is your proposal currently?

This plan will incorporate The entire build-out at 2,500.

Okay, so we would be building in the pipes, etc., etc., so it only tear up roads multiple times.

That's correct. So basically we're looking at lift stations to be able to handle the future capacity now rather than trying to piecemeal it as we go forward. So the 2,500, if, if approved tonight, would be used as a number as we do our utility upgrades, you know, the master plans, so that if and when we When we go to size a lift station, it will be sized according to the 2,500, even though we may not get to that number. We may only get to the 1,700, but at least it's sized accordingly to fit that going forward. And that's, that's the whole point of this, is to get a number that would entertain the entire area so that we can size it accordingly. And that's kind of the direction we're going based on what happens tonight. Councilman McDonald, this is Ryan Clark.

One thing that was pointed out to me is we are changing some of the zoning to community commercial that previously was not. That actually is 8 units per acre versus 4 for low density. So we're picking up 128 additional ERUs of that 516 are from those commercial areas.

And by the way, I think myself and everyone else got a note from a Mr. Taylor, Byron Taylor, saying we're not able to hear any of the public Comments. I don't know the issue there. Someone on the tech side could probably help reply to Mr. Byron Taylor.

I have a question.

Go ahead, Debbie.

So Jason, I really liked the Penny Lane look, the Chatwin Homes. Is that considered just twin home? Is there a way to just have twin homes and not have the townhouse look? You said townhouses, 2 stories. How is there a way to limit it to just twin homes, or does PRD allow twin homes and townhouses?

So right now, PRD, the current configuration of the PRD ordinance would allow the twin homes, but not a townhouse type where they have multiple, you know, basement and a second story. Right now we only allow either or. Either a second story without a basement or a basement with a first story. So we're looking at modifying it for this specific area. But if that's the direction the council gives us, that they just want the typical PRD, then we would move forward with that and not bring forward a, you know, a southwest PRD type thing, which would allow the townhouse style with a basement. So I guess that's the direction we would need to know is if, if you're wanting the full 3 stories with a second level and a basement. Or or if it's simply like the PRD we have now, or they can have one or the other. That's kind of the direction we would— that's kind of why we've come up with the Southwest moniker is to differentiate between the PRD typically in the other parts of the city versus this one.

Right.

So, in the direction you want to go, that's what we would do.

Debbie, one thing I might want to mention, the Chatwin Homes, Penny Lane, et cetera, Are beautiful units. They're now selling for $600,000 to $650,000 per unit.

Yeah, I know.

And your townhomes are in the $250,000 to $350,000 range. And we really do need more affordable housing. Most people, at least families, are not able to pay the $650,000. Those are for retirees. I love the look. I know where I can see where you're going. At the same time, I think in our city we need a mix of housing that's available to all residents. And I think if we personally, if we, if we stay with just the single-level homes, twin homes, I think it will price out for families that really need additional housing in our city.

I still like that look around the temple, though. I really think it's attractive, and I think the person that will want to live around there will like that look. So I don't know if going, you know, more south, it makes sense, but around the temple, I do like that twin home.

Sure.

But that's just my 2 cents, my preference.

Again, again, as Jason said, In each case, they would have to come before us for a rezone and put in a PRD. So we could limit it around the temple to where it's that housing look, the more expensive homes.

I don't know how others feel, but that's my preference around the temple.

So this is Terry. Yeah, I think Debbie's got a good point. If we do nothing, you're not going to have twin homes next to the temple. if we voted for this, then each time it's going to be a battle. And I just point out, Mayor, 40% of our city is rentals. 40%. So what number do we want to have? At what point are we saying we've done our share? And, you know, so I think thinking that we— anyway, I just think that the townhomes do not solve that problem. We're doing more than our share.

Thank you.

Other cities need to do their share.

So on the rental side, statewide, we're about 35% rentals and 65% single-family homes, and it varies by 5% either way. And in Orem, we're about that same mix, and we were actually at that same mix 20 years ago. If you go to Envision Utah, and look at what the mix was at the turn of the century, we were at the same general mix. So, you know, we've done a lot to limit, I think, apartments. We've put in restrictions on all the major roads within Orem to not change from residential or commercial to high density. We are looking at this as low density residential. Not high density. So I feel like that this is a reasonable mix for our population to be able to have a place to live. And like I say, you know, if you look at the temple right now and you look to the north of the temple, those are all a huge mix of 3-story apartment complexes. And we're not going that direction. But we can go to the single-family homes south of the temple and possibly to the west of the temple if that farmland develops, but right now it's not. And so I think there's plenty of room for the single-family homes, but I personally feel like we do need the townhomes for our kids to be able to find a place to live. And that's the tough part that they're finding right now. And there's a lot of property. There's 250 acres. So we're not talking just the small area around a 16-acre piece. We're talking twice that. I mean, 20 times that much property in 250 acres that we're dealing with here.

So.

Sure, go ahead, Steve.

Okay.

All right, well, if there's no further comment, I'd like to go ahead and make a motion. And I move that the City Council amend portions of Chapter 2, Land Use, and Chapter 6, Transportation, of the Orem General Plan, updating the land use map and pedestrian bike path map and language pertaining to the southwest area, including one change that the amount allowed per acre be from 4 to 7 and not 4 to 8 units per acre. Is there a second?

I will second.

Okay, let's go ahead and vote. We'll start with Brent Sumner.

Yeah, Mayor, I'm I'm going back and forth here. I'm a little nervous, you know, probably anywhere else in Orem I would go for this, but I get a little nervous about the townhome-type look, and I would rather keep it just residential, you know, forward to a lot. So I'm going to deny that. Thank you.

Aye.

Okay.

Councilmember Spencer?

Aye. Okay.

Councilmember Larray?

Aye, with the caveat that I want twin homes around the temple.

Okay. Councilmember Pedersen?

Nay.

Councilmember McDonald?

Nay. Oh yeah, I was unmuted.

Nay.

Nay.

Okay, Councilmember Lamson.

Aye.

Okay, Mayor Brunstad, I vote aye. So the resolution passes. We'll now go ahead and move on to item 9.3, which is a public hearing for a resolution adopting the Sunset Heights East-West and Lakeview Cherry Hill Neighborhood Plan and amending the Orem City Plan to include the Sunset Heights East-West Neighborhood Plan and the Lakeview Cherry Hill Neighborhood Plan in Appendix Z of the ORM General Plan. Is Grant here, Steve?

Yes, Grant, you should have permission to share your screen.

Great.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Excellent.

Go ahead.

Okay, I just had to make sure my correct screen Thank you, Mayor. As we came before to the work session in June, the end of June, just bringing the, you know, reviewing one more time the process of the neighborhood plans that we've started last September. And due to the coronavirus, are now presenting it to you for resolution.

Thank you.

So again, you've seen some of this information, but just as a quick review and highlights of some of the process one more time. These are the last 2 plans that we are adopting as part of our 5-year process to do neighborhood plans for all the neighborhoods in the city. Just a quick highlight again, review of the schedule. We did our kickoff meeting last September, and then during that kickoff meeting, interested neighborhood members can sign up for advisory committee. Then after that, subsequently, we held 9 advisory committee meetings centered around different topics. We did an extra 2 neighborhood meetings during this process. different from other neighborhoods. One, because Utah Valley University is in the boundaries of the Sunset Heights neighborhoods. So they were gracious to come and actually present just from representatives from Utah Valley. And at the beginning, just, I guess, reviewing, we had over 100 in attendance to that kickoff meeting. And had several sign up to be on the advisory committee throughout the time of the advisory committee meetings. Representatives from departments would present, and then you see there on March 5th, we kind of had our last meeting, and then right after that, it was when COVID-19 restrictions went into place. So we kind of had to circle back a little bit and determine how we would finish up this plan involving the neighborhood. So June 23rd, we held a Zoom webinar. We had 58 participants who were able to ask questions of the plans, of related topic questions to the plans. Then this was presented to the Planning Commission on July 15th, who recommended it to you all. Just some more Sure. So just a few other highlights of during this process. We did have notes and information from each meeting from the advisory committee available on our website. Subsequently, during the process of having the neighborhood meeting on June 23rd, until now, we've had this neighborhood plans page website up where the drafts have been available for review and a recording of that of the June 23rd neighborhood meeting webinar. And then just showing some more participation.

Grant?

Yeah?

Can I ask a question? Do you know how many views you've had of the website that's been up?

I don't off the top of my head, but I could try to get that very quickly here in a minute if you— while you— if there's any questions I could try to check back and see if I could find that. Just to show some of the participation that we had at different meetings with the advisory committee. Then this is just kind of a cover showing the draft and the neighborhood boundary. This is the vision statement that the neighborhood advisory committee Sunset Heights East and West came up with and developed. And included in the plans is these vision statements and goals that were really shaped by these advisory committees in conjunction with staff support. And then also there's information in these plans kind of at that larger city— citywide level boiling down to to the neighborhood level. So then we have the Lakeview Cherry Hill vision statement that was developed from them. And then just a sample again showing you, for example, land use chapter showing the citywide land use map, but then also the land uses found in this case, the Sunsites East and West And then a sample, kind of example of some of the goals that the advisory committee came up with for land use in that area. In the past, we have had a final chapter of the plan include an implementation section for goals to be focused on. As you're all familiar, very familiar with those. This year we've developed this neighborhood plans goals website. So these goals from these 2 plans will be following tonight. And we're shifting our kind of focus to work with you all to implement these goals and have that be a focus. And these are just a reminder of the Those goals that are focused on those five categories, with the six kind of showing the goals that we've accomplished. So yeah, again, it was presented to Planning Commission on the fifteenth, and it was unanimous to recommend to you all at City Council to adopt these plans. I'm happy to answer any questions, and or also Mayor, if I.

Your request—

your question of how many views, I can see if I can research that really quickly while I wait for other questions.

One thing I was going to mention in that statement for the neighborhood plan, it was missing the word A when it says neighborhood. It should have said A neighborhood.

Okay.

So anyway, just a minor item. Any questions or comments?

I do, Mayor.

Yes, go ahead, Debbie.

So I have read through most of the plans throughout the city, and I must say this is probably the most comprehensive one I have seen. Every area of focus had 8 to 10 goals. I know this is a very engaged neighborhood, and I am happy to see that. So I appreciate the input of the neighborhoods. I appreciate the people that came And I guess I'm excited about implementing all of these neighborhood plans, and as many as we can, and always using that as a document to set priorities of what we do, where we improve, everything from sidewalks, parks, land use. So I just want to recommend that we follow these. People spend a lot of time saying what they want, so now let's make sure we follow. But kudos to you and the people that helped you put this together.

Thank you.

put this plan together. I think it's very well done and one of the most comprehensive ones I've seen. So thank you.

Thank you, Debbie. I just wanted to follow up Debbie's comments. I would hope that, Grant, that once a year we could revisit these plans and look at any progress, any things that we need to do. I would hate to see these plans just be round-filed and not looked at again for years. I think there's a lot of work and I think they're great, but I think it requires us to revisit these plans once a year each year. So I would— I don't know how the council feels, but I would like to recommend we do that.

I think that's an excellent suggestion. We as staff, we've, as I mentioned, Not to shift our focus towards this, this goals effort, but also to kind of reconvene after a bit and say, what do these plans look like going forward? Is it the same? Do we do another effort in 5 years? I think there is a revisit that we will do towards the end of this year when 2020 census data is available. One of the brief updates we will do is go through each plan, starting with the oldest that was done 5 years ago, and, and just do kind of an update on the demographics from that really recent 2020 census data, just so we can have a really quick look at each neighborhood and have that fresh data to kind of look at and see how it's changed from the time we did the plan before to the 2020.

Sure. You know, it's interesting that earlier last year we were discussing with our NPU officer a home that's situated at 725 West, 800 North that had pretty much been abandoned. The owner lived in another state and neighbors were very concerned because there's beautiful homes there, but a car sitting there, branches over the road, fence Fence in bad condition, weeds up to four feet high, and so the NPU made it a strong effort to go in and find that owner. And we changed the code whereby if a home is not being taken care of and it requires city attention, we can do that and then charge the homeowner for that. And anyway, that home today has been redone. It looks much better. It's in much better condition. And that's, I think, part and parcel of us wanting to protect our neighborhoods, keep them in good condition, and be aware of the needs that may be out there to bring our neighborhoods up to par.

So.

Thank you.

Any other comments from the council?

Mayor, this is Jeff. Just a brief comment. I think this is a wonderful testament of citizen involvement and the citizens of Orem being able to have a voice in what they want to see happen in their neighborhoods. So great big thank you to staff for taking time to do this. I know it's been a long, arduous process. Process in meeting with all of these people and all of these meetings, some being canceled and then recalled. And but I just want to say thank you for doing this. And I think that's a great idea to revisit it at least annually just to see how we're doing and kind of have something to measure the progress that's being made.

I think that would be fun to look at that and to see the actual progress that's Can I also ask that we pull these out budget time and make sure that we are implementing— like, I'm thinking of sidewalks and some parks. I mean, let's make sure that, that these items that our neighbors have requested are getting a priority, either capital improvement or an easy fix, because people will get frustrated if they don't see any changes. But small improvements like sidewalks small and simple changes they'll be very happy with. And people love to know that their voice matters. And I love, I love my voice. So just make sure it's part of the budgetary. I don't know if that comes through city administration or public works, but let's, let's take these and get real dollars behind some of these requests.

Good point. And there are sidewalks that need to be repaired. And we need to do it as a city.

I mean, to me, that's just— that's an easy fix, you know. Let's at least do that minimally.

Sure.

Mayor, Council, um, do we have— in fact, I think you'll see that as we approach this future budget season. Obviously, neighborhoods and focus on neighborhoods is one of the goals that came out of your retreat. So I think you will start to see more of these budget requests being tied to specifics. I know many of you know this already, but for the benefit of our new council members. Our rental licensing program was a direct outcome of these programs. 9 of our 11 neighborhoods identified the need to begin licensing or have some program to try to crack down on absentee landlords, and that system was an outcome of, of these neighborhood plans as well. So it is our intent to continue to use these as we make decisions both capital and budget related, but also policy related, as we try to again strengthen these neighborhoods and, and continue to make them places people choose to live again.

To that point, Steve, we've spent a lot of money on recreation, improving all of our parks throughout the city with new playground equipment, foosball, pickleball, etc. So I think we've tried to liven up and help, and that's good. Did somebody else have a comment?

Mayor, this is Ryan Clark. I just wanted to add that one of the outcomes of this neighborhood plan was a request for sidewalks on 2000 South. And while you adopted the plan tonight, engineering has already taken that to heart and designed several stretches of missing sidewalk that will be installed this this summer before the end of the construction season.

So on 2000 South, is that west of State Street going towards Sand Hill Road?

Correct. It's from approximately 200 East heading to the west down.

Okay. It's Nielsen's Grove.

Yep.

Okay.

Any other comments?

Mayor, I just wanted to add, earlier this year, before— as we were finishing up this plan, these 2 plan processes, myself and Jason and one other staff member sat down with Sam Kelly and began the process to identify previously identified capital improvements, sidewalks, intersections from the previous goals. And so we've begun that process to identify those, and now we can include these goals from this plan and refresh that very soon.

Good.

That's great.

Well, hearing no other comments, this is a public hearing, so I'd like to open this up to the public for public comment. If you have a comment, please email it in, and we have 1 minute to do that, so we'll start now.

Mayor, just while the clock is running, uh, to Tom's point about that comment not being heard, we did see—

find the issue.

There was a, a button on our screen that was muting the stream coming into Granicus. However, what we will do, and we always do, is those written comments will be posted in full with the minutes to, um, as we post. So the public will have access to those.

Okay, thank you. So our minute is up. Do you have any comments, Steve or Pete?

No comments.

Okay. So we will close the public comment portion of our public hearing and bring it back to the council. Any other comments from the council? All right, then I would like to make a motion that the City Council adopt the Sunset Heights East-West and Lakeview Cherry Hill neighborhood plans and amend the Orem City General Plan to include the Sunset Heights Eastwood neighborhood plan and the Lakeview Cherry Hill neighborhood plan in Appendix Z of the Orem General Plan. Is there a second?

Second.

Second.

Okay, let's go ahead and start with Brent Sumner.

Aye.

Dave Spencer.

Aye.

Debbie Laree.

Aye.

Terry Peterson.

Aye.

Tom McDonald.

Aye.

Jeff Lampson.

Aye.

Mayor Brunstad, I vote aye as well. The resolution passes. We'll now go on to item 9.3. which is also a public hearing. This is an ordinance enacting Section 22-14-21D and Standard Land Use Code 5945, Orem City Code, pertaining to requirements for retail tobacco specialty businesses. And our presenter is Jason Bench. Jason, we'll turn the time over to you.

Thank you, Mayor. Can everybody hear me okay?

Yes.

So this is a request from the Business Licensing Department, as they've had issues moving with these types of shops. The vape shops typically is what we're seeing a lot of influx in the city. What we're looking at is to modify our ordinance to limit some of these shops as they come in. So what we're proposing is to add under the supplementary regulations as a retail tobacco specialty business category. The definitions that you see on your screen are taken directly from the state code, which basically defines what a retail tobacco specialty shop is. Typically, what we're finding is those that want to sell more than 35% of their total receipts are from some type of tobacco product or vape product. And so that's taken directly out of state code. Separation requirement is also out of state code. What we are requesting is that the council add number 3, which is no more than one retail tobacco specialty business shall be allowed for every 15,000 citizens, which would limit the number to 6 based on our 100,000 population. And that's kind of what we're here tonight is to limit the impact of some of these businesses, not only on the social aspect of vaping and other things, but also the The land use perspective is that the more that we get, the less that space is allocated or allowed for other businesses to come into the city as well. We're creating a new land use code, 5940, which outlines that they would be permitted in the C-2, C-3, M-1, and M-2 zones, provided that they meet the separation and other requirements. This map indicates the 8 that we currently have, with 2 2 in blue representing the distributor. They don't have retail sales there, but they do manufacture and distribute vape products. So our opinion is we have our fair share and we really want to limit those. As you can see, the next list shows Orem is kind of, except for West Valley City, has kind of the lion's share of these types of facilities. And we would like to limit them to the 6. Granted, as we talked about in the pre-meeting, we do have 8, and so we would basically be putting in a holding pattern. They would be legal nonconforming, assuming they're legal to operate. And once somebody leaves the city, we would not allow more than 6 at any one time. You can see some cities are at the 10,000 request. The Planning Commission recommended 15,000. You can see Lehigh has a capacity of 1 per 50,000. So there is a variety of different ways that cities are limiting these, but we felt that 15,000 is reasonable. The Planning Commission recommended that we move forward with that 15,000 limit. So with that, the Planning Commission did make that recommendation and would be glad to address any questions. I know that we do have Brittany from Utah County. I think she's on the line. If you have issues related to health or, you know, the youth vaping things, we can address those questions as well. I'm coming from more of a land use perspective, but be glad to address any questions.

So Tom, would you like to go first with your question?

Thank you, Mayor. You know, I'm, I'm not a user of these products, so I have no clue if one every 15,000 or one every 5,000 or one every 50,000 is necessary. So I, again, I, I don't want to exclude people who would like these products to be able to get them. But I don't know, you showed other numbers. I just don't know how, how, how much data we use to come up with the 15,000.

It was basically just a number that we felt comfortable with, the number of businesses in the city. You know, right now we have 8. I don't know that with 100,000 people we need 8 vape shops in the city. You can see Provo has 4. Spanish Fork has one, Lehi has one, Payson has 2. I mean, Salt Lake City and West Valley City, of course, has 10, but I don't know that there's a specific number based on population, how many you need. I think we're just wanting to limit them because we continue to have on a regular basis people coming in and wanting to locate in the city.

Well, my guess is if 8 was— if 8 couldn't be sustained, they'd be shutting down. So I don't know that that I fully embrace that argument, but anyway, that's my thought process on that.

And part of it is we have several of them that actually have agreed through an agreement that they will not sell more than 35% of their total sales. What we're finding is that they are actually increasing and kind of going over and above that agreement. And so what we're finding is that they are not living up to that agreement of selling less than 35% of their retail sales. And so this kind of gets a hard line of saying, if you're going to be it, let's just call you what you are. You're a tobacco retail sales, and we're going to limit the number that we have in the city, rather than having, you know, 8 or 10 or 20 that are selling only 35%, when in fact they're probably selling more than 35% of their total retail sales. So that's kind of why we're putting a cap, because there's kind of a gray area between 100% tobacco vape shop versus a 35% vape shop where they sell other products. What the county is finding out is that although they agree to that, they ultimately are not abiding by that agreement. And so that's kind of why we're wanting to put a hard line on that and limitation on how many we can have in the city, similar to what we did with check cashing. I don't know if many of you are on the council at the time, but many years ago we put a limit, a cap of 1 per 10,000 for check cashing businesses. Right now we had at the time like 16. We put a cap 1 per 10, which right now we're totally slowly whittling those down to 10. But it just kept going incrementally. So this is kind of a step for us to kind of prevent that going forward. Getting more— we're kind of centrally located in the county, and it seems like that's kind of where people are locating because it's centrally located and easy to access. So that's kind of why we're wanting to limit it.

Councilmember Sumner, you got a question?

Yeah, I was just wondering, Jason, if If a business changes ownership, can they still be permitted in Orem, or is there any effect if they change ownership?

Yeah, if it's a new owner and— well, if it's a legal establishment, they could go in that same location. But if it's a new owner, I don't think they would be allowed if it's over the cap.

This is Steve Earle.

Let me jump in there.

You know, if we—

I would anticipate we would treat these the same as check cashing businesses, where if they, if they do stay at the exact same location but they do transfer ownership, I believe we have allowed them to continue operating. It's, it's really when they want to move to a different location, and then they're at that point they're required to get a separate business license that you know, they might be— they might get cut off at that point. But if they're at the same location, we have in the past allowed them to continue operating.

Can they expand at that location?

Yes, they could.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, a couple of questions. Jason, does the state code in regards to definition, in regards to separation That you've listed, is that in our city code right now?

No, that is why we're bringing it forward so we can have it codified in our code.

Yep.

Yeah, that's huge. That really needs to be there. And then Steve Earl, a question for you. Riverton, on their application, restricts those that have been convicted of felonies in regards to tobacco products and alcohol products. Is that something that we could adopt?

And what would your thoughts be on that?

Yeah, that's, that's something that we could consider.

I mean, that's not something I've really looked at, you know, at this point. I guess the question is, is there a rational basis for doing that?

Could you look at that and get back to us?

Yeah, we could look at that.

Okay.

I mean, what they've got listed makes sense to me, but I'd like to see what our legal department thinks.

Okay, we can look at that.

Consider that.

Mayor, can I ask a question?

Sure.

This is Jeff. Jason, huge concern with the health, you know, the health aspect of this with the youth, with younger people. If we Just out of curiosity's sake, if you said that if we went, you know, if 2 of these businesses left and we went down to 6, would there be a point in time where if another one left, we could move it down to 5? We could change the per capita stores per capita?

Yeah, I mean, that's always something that we could consider. Sure, if you, you know, put a cap at 6, and in a couple years you decide that, well, it's getting worse and worse, we could always come back and make that modification so that future businesses would then have that cap of 5. That's definitely something we could do.

Okay, thank you.

One, one thing to remember is the legislature last year passed a law that in 2021 you have to be 21 or older to purchase tobacco products. And that's being phased in over a couple of years, but that's a great law that everyone worked hard to see passed. So that will, that will affect these tobacco shops as well. Any other question or comments?

I have a comment. This is Terry. In the planning, I was in the planning meeting where they were going back and forth, and it was a very interesting discussion, I thought, Jason, about the different opinions people had, but vaping is a very dangerous thing as far as your lungs go, and that's another story. We were in a hospital the other day, the nurse was telling us about the problems that kids are having with their lungs, but I really don't want Orem to be the vaping capital of the cities. Right now, next to that chart you just showed, I think we're second to West Valley in the number of vaping And Tom's comment was interesting because if you want to buy the product, if you lived in Springville, there are no vaping stores. If so, if you're in Spanish Fork, there's one. If not, you've got to drive to Provo, who has 4, or you can always go to Orem, who's got twice as many. So the proposal the city has to do, you know, 1 per 15 would be 6. But Jason, I thought it was interesting in the comment in the Planning Commission meeting that we don't have to do 15. We could do one for every 25,000 residents, which would mean the city ordinance is 4. And like the mayor said, the current people would be grandfathered in, but I don't see any reason why we need to be the capital of the state of Utah for vaping. I would propose that we, we do— or is one per 25, which means there's only 4 allowed. which still puts us the highest in Utah County, where we tie with Provo. Anyway, that'd be my proposal, is we change that to 25, 1 for every 25,000.

Any comments?

I agree with that.

Yeah, Dave here. I agree with Terry.

I think 1 for every 25,000 would be Perfect.

I personally agree with it as well. So, um, if no other comments, I'll go ahead and open this up for public comment period, and I would like to start that right now for 1 minute. So our minute has ended. Let's go ahead and bring Close the public comment portion of the public hearing and bring it back to the council. Any further questions or comments from the council? Okay, well, I would like to make a motion.

Mayor, just no comments from the public either.

Okay, thank you. I'd like to make a motion that the city council enact Section 22-14-21D and the Standard Land Use Code 5945, Orem City Code, pertaining to requirements for retail tobacco specialty businesses, with the change that we look at one shop, tobacco place, per 25,000 citizens rather than per 10,000 citizens. Is there a second? Second.

I'll second it.

Okay, we'll go ahead and start with Councilmember Sumner.

Aye.

Councilmember Spencer.

Aye.

Councilmember Larray.

Aye.

Councilmember Pedersen.

Aye.

Councilmember McDonald.

Aye.

Councilmember Lamson.

Aye.

Mayor Brunstad, I vote aye, and that passes. And thank you, Terry, for that suggestion. That change. Okay, we'll now go on to our scheduled item 9.4, which is a public hearing on an ordinance for a street vacation. This is vacating a portion of 450 West south of 500 North to approximately 475 North in the R7.5 zone. Jason Bench is our presenter. Jason, is the applicant here?

I believe Mr. Thomas is on the line.

Can he identify himself?

Yes, this is David Thomas.

Okay, and what is your first name again?

David.

Sorry, I have a mask on.

And good for you. And David, how are you related to this land?

He's the owner.

Sorry, he has hearing aids.

Okay. So he owns all 3 parcels we're looking at? Or 4?

Yes, they do.

Well, he owns the 2 parcels and the aunt, his sister-in-law, owns the property across the street to the east.

Okay.

All right. Okay, Jason, if you could go ahead and present to us.

So this is relatively 500 north, 450 west. We're talking about this piece of property right here that they're wanting to vacate. If I can just point out the fact that there is existing development at this location. There's existing deep lot developments here, so this street will, will not, for all intents and purposes, go through. Working with city engineer, they've determined that that is okay to be vacated. So what they're requesting is that portion of the street be vacated. It's just under 5,000 square feet. Half would go to the property to the east, half would go to the property to the west. And then what they're proposing to do is some deep lot developments. You can see 2 existing homes will remain, 2 deep lots will be proposed, and there will be a 5th future lot that would come in at another time. And then the access would come back here. The only thing that we would require is that a public utility easement be maintained because there is a public sewer and water lines that are there so the city can come through and maintain those if and when they need to. The Planning Commission did not review this. It's simply a City Council review, and so they're before you tonight to vacate that street, and then we'd move forward with this plan that was approved by the Planning Commission subject to the street being vacated. So be glad to address any questions that you might have.

Sure. Tom, do you have a question?

Yeah, Jason, it looks like they'll still have— they'll still basically use that street to access the 3 flag lots, if you will, but it will no longer be a public street. They'll be responsible for maintaining it. Is that correct?

That is correct, yes.

So the street won't be torn out or anything. They'll just go from a public street to a private.

True, they could if they chose to take out the sidewalks if they wanted to. They just need to maintain the 26 feet of asphalt. I'm not sure what their plans would be, but the city— the only stipulation we would have is that that be maintained as a public utility easement.

Thank you.

Hey, Jason, just, just to clarify too, what they'll do with that public road is they will actually just have 26 feet of asphalt. They will tear out the curb gutter and sidewalk because those areas will be utilized to handle their storm drain runoff, so they won't have All right, so you can see that there's a detention here and then over here as well.

Okay.

All right, Councilmember Sumner, do you have a question?

Yeah, I was just wondering, Jason, do they— we're city property, do they pay us anything for that, or what? How does that work?

The way that that works is it— when it was dedicated originally, it was dedicated from private property to the city, and so the city just simply reverts it back to Private development. If we would have paid for it or bought it at the time— typically how they do it is they dedicate it to the city, so we don't charge them for property that was given to us originally. We give it back. If we bought it, we would have charged them.

Okay, thank you.

So Jason, a question. As Tom alluded to, these people will be responsible for the condition of that road. Are they responsible for snow removal? And with regards to that, if there was an emergency and they did not do snow removal, what kind of situation would that put us in? And then one other question is, what is the location of the fire hydrants? So you're putting 3 lots way back there, and we're vacating the road. So is there just a fire hydrant towards at the beginning that would have to stretch all the way back? Could we not require that fire hydrants put it— be put at the proper distance to these 3 lots in the back?

Yeah, yeah, we do. I mean, to answer the order there, this is the public street, so they are going to put this knuckle in. So that will be part of that, and that's what the city would maintain as far as snow removal or any street improvements. It would be this portion. This would simply strictly be private. When this development came through, the fire marshal did— and I don't know where the fire hydrant is, but there is one within 150 feet. And that's the requirement for the fire department so they can hook on and then service these if and when there's a fire. So this does comply with the fire code as far as being in proximity. If there wasn't one locally, the fire marshal would have required a new fire hydrant to be installed. So this does comply with those requirements.

Just, just to make a comment to Jason, there is an existing hydrant there at that southeast corner of that drive. If you keep going south, if you keep going down at the end of that vacated road, southeast, right there. Yeah, right, right over there.

Right there.

Okay, that makes me feel better.

Yeah.

So, but as mentioned here, any snow removal, any plowing, any maintenance is a private issue. with these 4 or 5, up to 5 homes. That's not the city's concern at this point. Once it's vacated, they assume responsibility.

So a question for Mr. Thomas. So it sounds like your sister owns the lot across the way, and then you guys are owning these lots together. I'm not sure. And what is your intent? Are you Looking to build some family homes there or just develop those lots to speculate on homes? So what are you planning on doing?

I have 2 daughters. One is going to build on Lot 3 and the other is going to build on Lot 4. And the future Lot 5 will be a lot someday in the future after I die, but right now it's It's our family park. It's a neighborhood gathering place. It's a place that we've had ward parties and block parties, and it will retain that as a grassed area, but the other 2 lots will be built on probably within the next year. They're drawing up house plans and so forth right now.

Okay.

All right, thank you. Any other questions or comments from the council? If not, it's the public hearing, so I'll open it up to the public for public comment for 1 minute, and we'll start now. All right, our minute has ended. We'll close the public comment portion of the public hearing and bring it back to the council. Steve, repeat, have we received any public comments?

No comments, Mayor.

Okay. Any comments from the council? Seeing none, I'll go ahead and propose a motion that the city council vacate a portion of 450 West south of 500 North to approximately 475 North in the R7.5 zone. Is there a second?

Second.

Okay, we'll start with Councilmember Sumner.

Aye.

Councilmember Spencer.

Aye.

Councilmember Laree.

Aye.

Councilmember Pedersen.

Aye.

Councilmember McDonald.

Aye.

Councilmember Lamson.

Aye.

Mayor Brunstad, I vote aye as well. The ordinance passes. Thank you, Mr. Thomas. We'll now go towards the end of our meeting. Bren, do you have anything that City Manager's Office wants to bring up?

Nothing else, Mayor.

Okay, with that, I would accept a motion to adjourn.

So moved.

Is there a second?

Second.

I was worried about the second there. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Okay, hopefully no, uh, nays. We are adjourned. Thank you everyone for being to our city council meeting.

Can I just make a quick comment? Please join us for Summerfest this week, everyone. Uh, car show on Wednesday, pool party Saturday, so please come in as much as you want. Come and enjoy.

And Debbie Luray is going to be there.

Yeah, pool party Friday, Debbie, which I think was what you meant. Fireworks Saturday.

Yeah, pool party Friday, Geezer Fest, little children's parade on Saturday, fireworks. So lots of activities.

Debbie, will the children's parade be there in the park just on the sidewalk?

It will. It'll be socially distanced, and so it'll be appropriate. It'll be kind of around the park. So they do want the kids to to, if possible, write who they're grateful for or who's a hero. So that's kind of the theme. So they can decorate their stroller or their bike, whatever. But kind of, kind of a fun thing. Um, do you have anything else, Steven, about that parade?

Nope, covered it well. Say it starts at 6 o'clock, 6 to 6:30.

How are we handling the dinner and car show tomorrow?

So I'm sitting actually in front of a We have 1,000 paper bags filled with everything but a hot dog, and we will have the hot dogs cooked and wrapped in foil, and we'll be giving out sacks with everything in it as opposed to creating the lines of people getting things.

But we're—

I think we're cooking at 5. If anyone wants to cook a hot dog, is that correct, Steve?

Yes, I appreciate you saying that. Yeah, we'll start serving dinner at 6 o'clock, and so about 5 o'clock Is the plan to start firing up the grill and cooking the hot dogs. We have a warmer, of course, to put them in, and then we'll be starting to hand those out at 6 o'clock.

With, I'm assuming, gloves, masks, the whole—

Yep.

You know, we'll have all that.

We've worked with just, you know, for— we have worked with Utah County to get their permission. We went through a detailed plan and they they gave us the nod to go ahead and move forward with this event.

That sounds exciting. That's great.

Free dilly bars on the pool party. So if you want a good dilly bar, come Friday night.

And we had a pretty big crowd out for Orem's Got Talent last night. It was really nice. So, all right, well, we are adjourned, and thank you everyone.

Thanks, gentlemen. See you tomorrow.