City Council · 2020-09-01

Purchase of land from the Alpine School District, approximately Um, 9.33 acres for the purchase price of $5.6 million.

Um, that does contain a school.

I've sent out the appraisals to everybody earlier today so that they could look at it, as well as the state code on the sale of surplus school district land.

A couple things I just wanted to mention so that we're all aware. On the sale of the surplus land, according to the code of the state of Utah, um, the land may be used for certain purposes but not for others. So it can be used for a town hall, a park, a community center, the creation of public or private jobs, it could be used for office. Also industrial, manufacturing, warehousing, distribution, and parking. But those don't line up with our zoning in that area, so those would not be necessarily apropos.

Or other public or private facilities, or possibly a charter school. Also on the resale of the surplus property, if in fact we purchase this and then decide to sell it later, then we have to share with the district equally any proceeds of that sale that exceeds the amount of money that we paid for the project. So we split the profits in half.

We had 2 appraisals done.

We had one done which was an evaluation by Valbridge ordered by the Alpine School District in March of This year, and then one that we ordered just about 2 months ago.

The one from Valbridge values the land at $2.5 million and the building at $3 million.

Their highest and best use is to be either residential or commercial, specifically office space. The other appraisal came in stating the highest and best use was office space as well. This property does not lend itself to development for high density due to the fact that we do have a moratorium, as it were, on changing the zone there to high density.

The zone is an R-7-5.

Um, so High density is not allowed.

So, if you had high density, you would have to change the University Parkway as far as another stoplight location. That would be detrimental to the mall in which the Woodburys are opposed, and UDOT is not necessarily in favor, and it would cost about $2 million. So, the uselessness of the The appraisals you're coming forward with are basically either residential or commercial, specifically office.

Um, question I have for Jamie is starting out on this.

I know that we have a park there that's about 1.61 acres. Um, it's my understanding that the Alpine School District Board voted not to split the property, but yet it's also my understanding that that property for the park is one that we can actually purchase and have the right to purchase legally. Jamie, can you weigh in on that, and maybe Greg as well?

Yes, thank you, Mayor.

Many years ago, the city entered into an agreement with the Alpine School District to lease that property for the purpose of a city park.

Within that agreement is also a provision that should the school district ever decide to sell that property, that the city of Warren would have first right of refusal to purchase the acreage to which our current city park is on. So, um, I, I'm not really sure if the school district has officially voted To not essentially split up the property. However, in conversations or emails that we've had with the school district, in both cases, they have represented to us that they are not interested in splitting up the parcel. But yes, we would have an opportunity to purchase the 1.6 acres from them per the agreement that we signed with them many years ago leasing that property.

And do you feel like that is legally sound, uh, that in fact if we chose to do that, we could do that?

Uh, yes.

I mean, in consultation with Greg, we believe that that's a binding contract.

Okay.

All right, great.

So, uh, there's, uh, really I see a couple of options there.

One is to buy the full 9.33 acres.

And then section off a park, uh, and then do what we want with the rest of the acreage. Or to purchase the 1.61, most likely we can purchase the house to the south and to the east of that property, and we could actually bring that property up to 2, 2.5 acres with that house and maybe a second house. So there are those options. One thing, if we purchase the 9.338 acres, we are required, if there's any renovation or demolition, to do testing for asbestos and then do asbestos abatement on that property. So the school was built in 1954 with an addition built in 2003. The school is—

the older part is in not good condition. The boiler gets very, very hot in one part of the school, and the other part of the school freezes.

With asbestos and the school being as old as it is, we have asbestos in floor tiles, ceiling tiles, possible wall panels, insulation around the boiler area. And then piping insulation.

So you'd have the cost of demo, which could be anywhere from $250,000 to $350,000, and then you have the cost of the remediation of the asbestos, which I have no idea what the cost is on that, um, because I have no idea how much asbestos is in the building. So, but there would be a cost, and before we could either Renovate it or demo it, we would have to spend that money.

And during our time period for our due diligence, an asbestos test should be taken as part of our due diligence to see what that cost is and what needs to be done.

Mayor, you're on mute.

Sorry, I don't know how I got you on mute.

How much, how much have you missed?

Just a little bit or a lot?

I think you said—

I think Tom's the one who put me on mute.

I'm not sure.

But anyway, so the, uh, the building has A lot of liabilities that come with it. We have to do asbestos abatement on it, and we have the fact that it is an old building.

2/3 of it is not in good condition, 1/3 is in good condition.

So as I look at it, that's concerning to me on the building, and I'm very much in favor of putting in a nice park to replace the park that's there. The park that's there is not in good condition.

The playground is in not good condition. The tennis courts haven't been used for a long time.

I think we need some pickleball courts there. I think we need new bathrooms, new pavilion. We need a brand new playground up to par with the ones we've been doing throughout the city. And all of those, I think, would be excellent.

But I think we could do those on—

$1.5 million.

2 to 2.5 acres, which we could do purchasing the property that is there as part of the park without purchasing the full piece.

So the option is to purchase the full piece and determine what would happen with it and what would be done with it.

If office space was to be chosen to be used there or built by somebody, again, we have a brand new office building going up across the street at the mall. Now, they don't necessarily want us to be in competition with the, with the mall. But anyway, there's that option. The other option is to go ahead and purchase the park the way it is, add to it with 1 or 2 houses, and put in a brand new park facility. So I have a lot of different thoughts, but I wanted to lay that as general groundwork and then open it up for the council to discuss.

Thank you.

So, if anyone wants to move forward.

Mayor, I have a couple of questions.

Yes, Brent.

Uh, I don't think you, you, uh, went over Orms' appraisal price, or else I missed it. But anyway, on the Alpine—

They both put $5.5 million.

What?

They put the building at $3 million? Is that correct?

Uh, that's the Alpine School District The Orem appraisal, they do not appraise the buildings of any value at all.

They say the buildings are beyond the useful life, they're fully depreciated, and there's no value to them. So they're—

But yet their bid comes in at $5.5 million?

Yes.

Or pesos.

So they're just considering the ground?

Yes.

So they used different comparables than did Valbridge, and then they adjusted their comparables up and comparables down.

So they used some of the Class A space out in Lehigh, some other space over in Vineyard.

Valbridge used some space in Vineyard and spaces up in Highland and further north.

Well, With what little I know about commercial property, that seems pretty well in line with our commercial property as well.

Sure, sure.

So I have a question on the, uh, the addition that was built in 2003. When I drove by that, it looked like the brick was in really nice condition. Um, is that something that we could use for City use of some sort? And there'd be value in it if you have to get rid of the older stuff?

Is that—

is there value in that particular—

I'm not sure how much of it is.

What are the percentages?

Did you say 1/3 new, 2/3 old?

Yeah, so that section there is the gym and the cafeteria.

It is in very good condition. If you were to use that and demo the rest of the building, It'd have to have a new HVAC system put in, but you're correct, that portion is in good shape.

Okay, that was my question.

Thank you.

Any other comments?

Yeah, I have a question.

How does the, the, uh, basically the 2 acres, how does that compare to other parks in Oron like Lawndale? Or some of the other parks size-wise?

So we have parks that are 2 to 3 acres.

Cherry Creek, I think, is 3 acres.

We have a couple that are 2 acres. We have some that are large.

Most of, like at Bonneville Park, most of the equipment and whatnot there covers about 2, 2.5 acres.

And then you have a retention pond which is north of that. And so sometimes people use that for football or soccer, but most times people are using the pickleball courts.

There's 4 of them there. They're using the playground, the pavilion. And within the 2, 2.5 acres, if we purchase that section, we could put that full size in that.

And Jamie had that drawn out.

It's actually— That didn't sink to you, but you may not have noticed it, but it fits in there fine.

Mayor, this is Jamie.

If you go on to forum.org under our parks section, we have a parks guide that details the size of all of our parks throughout the city. This is definitely a park that is on the smaller side. small end of the spectrum. So we have obviously large, large parks like Nielsen's Grove, for example, which is 21 acres.

We have other parks—

Springwater Park is 8 acres, Windsor Park is 8 acres. You have, as Mayor said, Cherry Hill, which is 3 acres. Um, So, you know, most of our parks are in excess of 3 acres.

And if I'm not wrong, Nielsen's, uh, Pro Park was donated to the city.

Is that not correct? Back in the day?

Well, I, I don't— I'm not mindful of the history of how we acquired that property, but we obviously spent a great amount of money And the development and construction of the park?

Sure.

I think the land was donated.

We just had 10 acres donated to us by Intermountain Healthcare, a park just west of the Oregon Community Hospital.

Yes, we're still hoping that that— in fact, that resale of that property actually is before the planning commission tomorrow.

And we have the Geneva Park there as well, which, uh, it seems like 3 or 4 acres, but I could be wrong.

Geneva Park is 3.8 acres.

Okay.

So, Mayor, this is Terry. So just to review on some of these parks you're talking about, and this is looking at the page that Jamie was referring to, the Bonneville Park is 5.2 acres. That's not counting the retention pond, which is another 2 acres. Every park in the city that's next to an elementary school, we list what the city owns. We're not counting what the Alpine School District owns, which is adjacent to that. So if we want to really compare apples to apples, for example, Cherry Hill Park, the city's acreage is 3.3 acres. But the school district is 5.3 acres, so you're up to, you know, 8.5 acres. And it would be the same, um, uh, with the Sharon Park. Sharon Park is 5.2.

I mean, you just go down the list.

Uh, the city is 5.2, but Sharon also has a lot of property at the Sharon Elementary.

Um, so I think that all of the schools have—

A park next to them. And the schools have park space as well.

Well, that's what I'm talking about, Mayor. So you can't just say— let me just finish. You can't just say, um, that Cascade is only 5.88 acres because it's 5.8 acres that the city has plus, in addition, the school which combines with that. So most schools are going to have 8 or 9 acres if you're adding the city park plus the school's recreation area. And with a lot of them, there's not a fence between between the two, so it's just a big shared area. So tell the people down in the southeast part of Orem, we're gonna redo 2 acres, is really an insult. We can't find an elementary school in Orem on 2 acres of park. And, you know, the smallest one would be—

let's see—

that's a skate park. I don't see one that's less than about 3 or 4 acres, not counting That's just what the ordinance has.

So to throw out a couple acres and say we'll, we'll put in a new pickleball court at Hillcrest would be, you know, ridiculous.

Sure, I understand.

I think it would be fair to count land from the school into the city park.

We're really just talking about city parks here.

And, um, our school Hillcrest moved up to Centennial, which has a very nice park area by it that the school owns.

So, so maybe it's just what—

go ahead, go ahead, Dan.

Is there any—

done?

Yep.

Okay, go ahead, Dan.

Did, um, Um, and we look at the due diligence conditions.

You're not coming through very well.

Okay, better.

Uh, keep talking.

So on the, uh, if I look at the earnest money agreement that was sent out, and then let's just—

that we're going to fund environmental.

It'll really take about half of what you're saying, Dave.

That's that?

Okay.

So if you look at the due diligence conditions in the earnest money agreement, okay, we— it says we have to do a Phase 1 environmental on all property purchases. Including an asbestos review.

Correct.

So is there an unwritten disagreement? I mean, if there's asbestos, then they've got to be responsible too.

No, when we purchase the land, when we purchase it, we take on their liability and we are responsible for the environmental, for the asbestos, for everything else. Now, if during our due diligence we find that this is something beyond what we really want to do, then we don't have to go through with the purchase. But the reality is we have to do our due diligence, and we are taking on their liabilities to the entire property.

Is that—

is that, uh, Jamie, is that your understanding too?

Yeah, Mayor and City Council, obviously there is the potential, I think the high potential that there are going to be— there is going to be an asbestos issue in that building, and that mitigation to some degree was factored into the appraisal that was completed. So that served as a deduct in the valuation of the property.

And I'm scrolling through the, um, the appraisal to try and identify the page where that's Specific issue was addressed. So, uh, there was full acknowledgment that they anticipated that there would be the potential of asbestos, and they tried to accommodate that within the appraisal as completed. So yes, that would be something that would need to be taken into consideration with the sale of the property. And we would complete— as Mayor Gruss has stated, we would complete a Phase 1 Environmental, which is what— which is really standard practice for us in the, um, in the purchase of all properties.

But would that give you an estimate on the cost of asbestos?

Well, I'm— they, they've, uh, they've included an amount, uh, I believe, for asbestos mitigation.

But you would not know until after the asbestos inspection.

Nobody would know.

Correct.

And NESHAP, the National Emissions Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants, requires that any school built prior to 1980 be inspected and a remediation process take place to get rid of the asbestos.

Yes, before that renovation, uh, we have, we have purchased, um, properties in the past that have asbestos issues and other issues, and that has been, um, and we have taken care of that.

So, okay, thank you, Dave.

And also, as the mayor mentioned, if he finds that the results of the due diligence testing is unacceptable, we have the right to cancel the contract.

And, and there is a cost.

So there's a cost for the Phase 1, there's a cost for the asbestos testing, not, not a great cost, and then there's the cost for asbestos abatement in the building. And again, really you have no idea where that is.

Or how much better.

Mayor or Jane, if I may, when they did the addition, would they have taken care of some of the asbestos problems at that time?

Uh, they do not relate that one way or the other.

As Debbie said, there is part of that building that is new in 2003, and there will be no asbestos in that part of the building.

But the building built in 1954, their standard practice of building then was to use asbestos around the boilers, use asbestos around the heating pipes, the water pipes, use asbestos in the ceiling tiles, floor tiles, and possibly in wall panels if they had that.

So, Mayor, I've got another question. So let's say we buy the whole 9.3 acres. And then we sell the building. So are we liable once we sell them? Are we liable for the asbestos, or does that go like we have another agreement, we're not responsible?

Well, we're liable unless we sell that liability off to somebody else.

Well, just like the school district is proposing to us, they would sell it— we would sell it as is to another interested party.

Okay, so it'd be fine.

Okay.

Any other comments or questions?

Yes, ma'am.

So, Jamie, I know that part of this purchase price is coming from park impact fees. Yes, they're off the top of my head. Could you go over where the money would come from? I know some of it's RDA, some of it's impact fees, and could you just go over that so I can remember where—

Sure, sure.

So I'm just going to share my screen here. Uh, do you see that?

Yes.

The Hillcrest Elementary purchase. So what in, in this scenario, what we would be proposing is that we would, for example, purchase all of the 9.33 acres And we really have kind of 2 pots of money that we could draw from in making this purchase. The first one being park impact fees, which we have a current balance of $1.8 million, and monies from the Redevelopment Agency of Orem, the RDA, and specifically 2 RDAs. One of them is RDA 8503B. Which here in the city, we all kind of affectionately refer to it as the Walmart RDA. That is the RDA in proximity to Sand Hill Road, and it heads up the parkway to approximately the Nissan dealership. And then RDA 8503A extends farther east beyond the RDA— excuse me, beyond the Nissan dealership, and in fact includes this parcel of property. But the purchase arrangement would not be between— be between the city of— between the RDA and the school district. It needs to be through the city of Orem and the Alpine School District. So what we would be proposing is that we borrow some of the money from the RDA 8503B We added 2 contributions that we could make from 8503A. That's not a loan but a contribution because this property actually sits in the RDA, and that we use park impact fees in part to reach that $5.605 million price tag. And And then over time, we could repay the loan from the RDA by way of, for example, a long-term lease if we were to choose to lease out the property to, for example, as the mayor stated, within state code, a charter school, for example. Or we could sell a portion of the property and take the proceeds from that partial sale. And reimburse and repay the loan, or we could repay the loan using future parks impact EOG.

So that is how the transaction would, would work.

So my question to you, Jamie, the park impact fees, have they been designated for other parks, or is all that money available for any park in Orange?

That, that money is— in fact, you know, we started this discussion about park impact fees a number of years ago as related to Southwest Forum, but the majority of this park impact fee money has been collected throughout the entire city, so it would be available for this particular project.

Okay, thank you.

That's my positive.

I, I will note that The Hillcrest area is an area that was recognized as deficient in our Parks Master Plan that we completed a number of years ago.

So, Jamie, that leads into a question that I have.

Um, the Sharon Park, the— as I understand, if I understand correctly, the pickleball courts were paid for by some other monies.

Yes, CDBG dollars.

Okay, uh, would we have access to any of that money that we could use in developing this park or developing, uh, pickleball courts specifically, or— Yes, other parts of the park.

So the Hillcrest neighborhood, or sections of the Hillcrest neighborhood, do qualify for CDBG funding.

So if I'm not wrong, we have received an additional $411,000 through the CARES Act, I believe.

Can that be used towards this?

You know, Mayor, that's, that's a good question that I posed to Kenna, and who is managing our CDBG dollars, and I believe at the onset, I think we would be hard-pressed to use use that money, that CARES-related CDBG money, for park improvements. But we could dedicate future CDBG dollars that the city receives for construction in part of this park.

Yes.

And we typically, if I'm not wrong, receive like $600,000 to $700,000 per year.

Is that correct?

Yeah, we have dedicated—

for Tampa, we dedicated about half a million dollars to those pickleball courts in the Sheridan Park neighborhood.

Okay, any other questions?

I'm sorry, who's that?

Tom, go ahead.

When you started this discussion, you talked about if we bought the land that we have the park on, and if we bought houses to the side, we'd get 2 acres of change. I guess my question is basically how much— I mean, if I buy acres of this ground, I do appropriate that, but how much is the ground that— how much is the park actually sitting on that's divided from the That's the 1.61.

Yeah, I'm not sure I understand all the questions, but we currently have leased 1.66 acres, so that, that property is property I would represent the school district is obligated to sell us.

Once you get to 3 acres or 4 acres, that's where they said, no, is your 1.66 or all of it? No, no other parts for it.

Yeah, they're—

in fact, the conversations we've had with them, they've actually expressed, you know, they ideally, they would not—

they don't want to sell us that 1.66 acres.

Yeah, but they're obligated to sell it to us.

And Jamie, if we wanted the house next door to the park, uh, do we have the right to, uh, go in with the condemnation process?

Or, I mean, I know we offer them, you know, what it's worth, but—

Well, I, I don't, I don't believe we have.

And Greg can correct me if I'm Wrong here.

I don't believe we have the power of condemnation for a park, but I would also obviously encourage us, if we are going to acquire property, we do our best to do it with interested sellers rather than in a way that is heavy-handed in acquiring a park.

Well, that—

the particular house next to the park is in very poor condition.

And personally, I think they might be open to an offer.

Well, one man's treasure is another man's—

whatever, you know how we end up.

So yeah, 9.33 would be plenty, plenty of size for a park.

I don't know if we'd want it bigger than that.

So Gary, I appreciate your optimism.

You know, it's important that we're not greedy with our city resources and that we use it appropriately.

And personally, I feel like a 2, 2.5-acre park there would be a beautiful facility. I'm not sure how we could afford, uh, you know, 25 pickleball courts over there, uh, covering them in the winter, etc.

You know, but I think that we can make a really nice park, like I've said before, and to use this in a balanced way.

Not every neighborhood has a 20 or 30 acre park, so I think this is within the realm.

And considering again how many people live there in that area that draw from that, I think that would be a good Park and would keep us out of the liability of the building or the liability of what to do with that land in the future as to how to use it properly.

So—

This is Terry.

You know, since I live in this area, I'm hearing from so many people in this area. Would you, uh, do you mind if I just read one of the letters we've all received? But I think it talks a lot about more than just dollars and cents. It just takes a minute.

Sure, go ahead, Drew.

It said, dear Mayor, City Council, it came to my attention the City of Orem has an option to buy the property— I'll skip through a little bit of this—

that money could be allocated for a beautiful city park.

I think it's a brilliant idea, a wonderful use of taxpayer money, and would be a fantastic boost to the city. Then she goes on to say, as you know, it's been devastating loss to the people of South Orem to lose Hillcrest Elementary School. This area of Orem has always been family-centered. The loss of a small neighborhood school felt like the final blow to the citizens of an area who have had to watch apartment buildings and mall expansions, parking lots, and other businesses fill the area. South Orem is beginning to feel like a small concrete jungle. It's— it is commercial.

It is busy.

It is crowded. To fill the space off of University Parkway with grass, trees, a walking path, pavilions, playground equipment, a splash pad, tennis slash or pickleball courts, or anything that suggests that Orem is still a family-centered community would be, would be a boost aesthetically and physically. It would also be a financial boost to Orem. This particular area of South Orem is full of older Some are well maintained, others are falling to ruin. But because they are small and older, these homes could be affordable to young families in what is an ever-increasing unaffordable Utah Valley. I feel that a nice city park would increase home values, lower crime rates, and draw in younger new families to help build Orem, strengthen schools, and provide a new generation of backbone to the city.

Thank you.

I realize that there is an existing park in that area. Some have suggested that if it gets so little use that it's not worth putting in a nicer park. I would like to suggest the reason that the park is lightly used is primarily that unless you live in the area, you wouldn't even know it exists. And if you did know it exists, it's not inviting. It is fronted by a dilapidated tennis court that looks like something out of Tomlinson. Honestly, it looks like a place you could run a drug deal.

Thank you.

Behind there is a hidden pavilion.

Frankly, it's a little scary.

I wouldn't let my kids play there alone. The rest of the area is blocked by a school building and parking lot. I think people are unsure whether they can even use the playground equipment since it's clearly on school property. The park is hidden and run down, and besides the elementary school equipment, it offers very little enticement.

I live—

This lady says, I live 1 mile from the park. She's north of University Parkway. And yet I drive my children and grandchildren to a park in Provo rather than go to the existing Milk Crest Park. It has no appeal and absolutely no draw.

A beautiful park—

there's just one more paragraph—

a beautiful park with more, um, with more to offer would draw people not only from this area but from North Orem and Provo as well.

At its core, Orem's strength has come from strong families. When we refuse to use taxpayer money to support and entice good, strong families to live here, we lose the very thing that Orem has meant to so many people. People in South Orem feel that tax money has been disproportionately spent in North Orem.

We feel often forgotten.

South Orem is the heart of Orem and is a blend into Provo, and it's an important link to the communities. Provo's done a good job of investing in the beauty of its city— parks, tree-lined streets, restoring historic downtown. Honoring the spirit of Center Street and South University creates a feeling of warmth that has been one of Provo's strengths. Sadly, when you leave Provo, drive up University Avenue into Orem, there's a tactical feeling of loss. A beautiful park right at that crossroads would be a tremendous way to welcome people to our beautiful city of Orem. Anyway, I think that what she says has a lot to go with the park of our heart and, you know, taking care of this part of Orem.

Anyway, I just thought that's a great letter.

It's, you know, a great comment about what we do as a city.

And it's not all terrible.

Terry, again, where does she drive to? You said she drives somewhere in Provo for a park?

The park she goes to, I know who she is, I could ask her, but for her living in South Orem, it's a more natural thing for her to drive to Provo. I actually go walking in the morning. I walk at the Carterville Park in Provo. because it's just down the hill on Carterville Road to me. That's why I won't walk over to— One comment, one other comment about people could always cross the road and go over to that little cornucopia or whatever it is that the University Park has, or University Mall.

That is probably one of the most dangerous roads in our city, that intersection.

The local bishop of that area, Lionel McBride, he'll Crest Park. He and his wife went for a bike ride. This was a few years ago. She was killed at that intersection, and he's in a bad way. But trying to ride their bikes across that intersection. So, you know, so I don't know where she goes, but there's really nothing in the southeast part of the ward to go to. And it doesn't just end at University Parkway. It's people You know, 8 South, 6 South.

Anyway.

So to that point here, I appreciate the letter.

You know, we have a beautiful park over there at Viserio, which is about 12 blocks away going across the University Parkway. And people in your area, it's not hard to get to. We have the new Cascade School, and they've redone their park. We have a park in Cascade. We have Sharon Elementary.

So we actually have quite a few parks there.

I don't think the park at University Place was meant to be the kind of park you're talking about.

It doesn't necessarily have the same kind of playground, pickleball courts, that kind of thing. But we can put in a beautiful park for 2.5 acres.

And you could also, to her point, you could use the rest of that property for residential.

And you could put in some beautiful, better looking, nicer looking, newer homes there that would help liven up the neighborhood.

So I think there's a lot of things that can be done.

The question is how much expense and cost would be to put in a very large park there. And in talking with the stake president there, you know, basically your stake has a division of 2 areas. And the area there around that park, he said that there are 3 wards there, and the primaries have all gotten smaller and smaller and smaller.

So there are less and less and less kids there.

And his comment was, there are not a lot of kids there that would be going to the park.

But beautiful park ought to be put there.

I'm ashamed that this area has been neglected.

Thank you.

Um, it is not needed or received the attention that it should have.

I'm very much in favor of putting out a beautiful park, again, with a very up-to-date playground, up-to-date pickleball courts, grass area, etc. It just really comes down to how much liability do we want to take on, how much ground do we want to buy, and what would we really do with it.

And how much expense is there going to be?

And so I think it's important that you actually balance what you look at. You know, I'd like to buy a new fire engine, maybe 2 a year, but we can't afford that. We have to buy one once every couple of years, uh, you know.

And so I think there's balance that you have to have.

And we could, we could put in a beautiful park that would uplift that community That piece of ground is zoned R-75.

You can actually, at this price, section off lots of R-75 and make them pencil to put in new homes. And so the question is, what do you do?

And if we own property, uh, you know, what is it that we would be doing?

So anyway, I, I would be in favor of buying the piece That's there that we have already updating it, expanding it, and and then having the school district move forward with the other piece.

One thing to remember is we control what goes on there by our zoning, so high density cannot go in there.

Okay, high density will not be going in.

Nobody should be telling residents or neighbors or friends that this is a high density versus a park.

It's not. There is no high density going.

In there and will not be going in there.

And so commercial, it doesn't work very well either.

As far as retail goes, because you've got this wall up on University Parkway, and that wall I do not believe is going to come down, and I don't believe the intersection is going to be moved.

If it was moved, it would create havoc at the mall.

You'd have an intersection going in right next to the west side of Carrabba's.

That would disrupt their parking.

It would disrupt the entrance into RC Willy. It would disrupt the entrance into the 3 restaurants to the right.

The Woodburys, with their 500 van into the mall, would not want that to happen and expressed their desire that that does not happen.

So you really come down to that this is a Commercial piece or a residential piece, and commercial most likely would have to be office.

May I have a question?

Yes, Brett.

Thank you. Yeah, I want to back what a lot of comments that Terry made, and you mentioned that the key here is balance. Well, this area down here has been out of balance for years. I've been by that park for Probably 15 times since we started talking about this. And as a city councilman, I'm ashamed that the upkeep of that and the zero amount of money we've put into that park, uh, it's just not fair with all the money we put in these parks to the north that we deprive these southern people. That area is getting run down. The park will improve it. And I just, I don't believe in condemnation. If that guy to the northeast wants to sell, that's great. But there's no guarantee that he wants to sell, and we're stuck with 1.5 acres. And that's, in my opinion, that's not going to fly for some part that people can use and the city can maintain equally to the other parts.

Okay.

Can I add a comment as well?

Go ahead.

Um, I appreciate the comment about, you know, the, the smaller homes over there and, and the fact that, you know, they're having less and less children in primary, but that's kind of the ebb and flow of the city. Um, that's— we've seen other parts of the city that are older that have been there for a while where You know, you have people that grow older, their kids grow up, they move away, and then there are no children there. But then it becomes an area where younger families have an opportunity to move into a more affordable home. I'd like a big beautiful park, not just a small park. I'd like to see a big beautiful park there that would be fun for them to be able to go and enjoy. the time they're together. And I, you know, the last thing we need is more concrete. And to be able to have a green space, a beautiful green park area in that part of Orem, I think would be a huge, huge blessing to be able to keep it as a green space.

Thank you, Jeff.

Any other comments? Yes, Debbie, go ahead.

I had a hand up, but you might want to—

Oh, okay, go ahead, Tom.

You're Debbie.

Go ahead.

How are you going to do it?

Well, the fact that, um, the new area of that school has a gymnasium, to me that already could create a part of a park, whether it's for basketball, junior jazz. I, I honestly think that making the whole thing a park by having that already capable gymnasium, I mean, I look at that as an asset to add to the park. And so for me personally, my son played junior jazz and there was never enough court time and there was never enough.

So for me, that—

and maybe you can convert the cafeteria into something else— that's already become part of the park that's, that's available. It's in good condition and there's no excess. So I think that, that section becomes part of a great park system. That's just what I wanted to add.

Okay, any other comments?

No, I just want to comment, Mayor.

Go ahead, Tom.

Hey, I really have appreciated this discussion, but it seems to me that we're down to 2 decisions. Do we purchase 1.66 acres or the 9 acres? If we purchase the 9 and don't keep this open to the future, are we going to keep 3, 4, 5? Are we going to sell off 3, 4, 5? So the decision I think we need to make tonight You know, are we going to buy rights and are we going to be able to do that?

Uh, let's find out first if there's any other comments.

Mayor, this is Terry.

Just one other comment. You talked about talking to the state president.

Uh, I've talked to the state president quite a bit.

That letter I read is from his wife. So by the way, he's not supportive of anything but a big park there. And his stake has been gutted by the mall. 2 wards have been collapsed because of what happened at the University Mall in his stake. So, yeah, if you want to know what the stake president thinks, that's the letter I read was his wife's.

Okay, thank you, Terry.

Any other comments? All right, Tom, if you want to make a motion, go ahead.

And Terry, I would defer to you since you said something yesterday on this, if you want to make a motion.

Okay, thank you, Tom.

I make the motion that we as a city buy the full 9.3 acres, and then afterwards, of course, we will have a discussion on the best use of that property. But I make the motion that we buy the whole piece.

So that would be to approve a resolution for the purchase of the property of 9.33 acres?

Yes, yes.

The resolution is attached to your agenda. Yes, council meeting agenda.

Yes.

All right, on that motion, if you can say, may I have a reading and effecting of the financial funding? I make a motion that the resolution authorizing the purchase of the former Ingress Elementary School property from the now-vacant school district be approved.

Be approved.

Okay, is there any discussion?

I'd also have to put down Okay, can I ask a question?

Yes.

Is that contingent on the EPA or the inspection of asbestos, etc.?

Yes, there is a due diligence period, and, and that is specifically outlined in the purchase agreement or the earnest money agreement that was put together. So yes, we will have an opportunity to, in the next 60 days, complete, uh, our due diligence relative to the property. Okay, thank you.

And in the earnest money agreement, it does state that if we find things that are not acceptable to us, we have the right to go ahead and cancel the agreement.

So this motion is for resolution for the purchase of the property, but according to the resolution that we have there, with this in our packet. So, all right, let's go ahead and vote then.

Uh, Dave, we'll start with you.

Aye.

Uh, Debbie?

Aye.

Brent?

Aye.

Tom?

Aye.

Jeff?

Aye.

Terry?

Aye.

Mayor?

Nay.

Resolution passes. And, uh, that is all that we have for this evening. Um, if nothing else, we'll go ahead and make a motion to adjourn, which I move to adjourn. Is there a second?

Second.

Okay, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

All right, we are adjourned. Thank you very much.

Thanks, everyone.

Thank you.

Thank you.