City Council · 2020-09-08

begin to read some of the information we need to read at the beginning of our meeting. This is the notice of an all-electronic meeting and opportunity for public participation. Pursuant to Mayor Richard F. Brunt's proclamation dated September 1, 2020, the Orem City Council meeting on September 8, 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 Orem City Council Chambers would present a substantial risk to the health and the 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 as 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 now go ahead and start our work session. The first item on the agenda is a discussion for utility master plans. And our presenters are Chris Shirkey, Neil Winterton, Reed Price, Mike Collins, Keith Larson with Bowen Collins and Associates. So Chris, we'll turn the time over to you.

All right, Mayor, thank you. Can everyone hear me okay? The waves are a little choppy, so I don't want to— yeah, there we go.

I don't know if you're on a surfboard or not, but—

I just wanted to introduce everybody that'll be presenting tonight. Myself as the Public Works Director, Neil Winterton, our Ore and Water Reclamation— or our Ore and Water Resources Manager, Reed Price, our Maintenance Division Manager, and then we also have Mike Collins and Keith Larson of Bowen Collins and Associates. They're our engineering consultants that we've hired. They're also the same consultants that we hired back in 2000— well, 2014 actually, to do our master plans. These master plans were updated and approved by the City Council in 2016 after about 2 years of analysis, hydraulic modeling, reviews, City Council engagement. I believe we had 3 City Council meetings that we participated in. We had 2 or 3 open houses with the, with the public. We also included a public education process that included social media campaigns as well as mailers and reaching out to the public. In fact, at the beginning of that master plan process, we decided in conjunction with the City Council to create a new commission, which is called the Public Works Advisory Commission. Quite frankly, this is the main reason why this commission was created, although it's been used for other purposes as well, including a Utopia review and other types of technical analyses that have taken place since then. The Public Works Advisory Commission will also be assisting us throughout this process, and we're grateful to them. We may have some participating tonight. I'm not sure if we do, but they will not be making any formal presentation. They will continue to provide oversight and direction on behalf of ALEAS on, uh, with the public and the city council, and they will assist throughout this process much like they did 5 years ago. So staff, in conjunction with Bowen Collins and Associates, the Public Works Advisory Commission, will provide updates to the City Council and the public throughout this process. And this is the first of such meetings that we will be providing these updates. And so I'd like to turn the time over to Keith Larson and Mike Collins, who are in Vernal, Utah right now. And I don't know if they avoided all the windstorm or not, but Keith, I'll turn the time over to you to start the process.

Yeah, it's plenty windy out here as well. I guess everybody's getting a little share of it, but we're happy to be here. We had so much fun 5 years ago, we decided we wanted to come back for a little bit more and We definitely appreciate the opportunity. Our goal today is to present kind of just an overview of the master planning process and help everybody get back up to speed on where— what we did 5 years ago and kind of where we are in the process, and then talk about some— get some feedback from you on where to go from that. So with that, I'm gonna see if I can pull up a screen here to share. Uh, okay, is that sharing with everybody?

Yes.

Okay.

Some of, some of us are tucked in by phone and won't be able to see that for a while until I can get back to our computer.

Okay, great.

We'll, uh, Try and be descriptive.

Yeah, do what we can here. Okay, uh, so, um, let's see, let's just jump right into it. Um, so if you recall, the challenge that was facing Orem 5 years ago, uh, came in 3 big fronts. You had a number of new regulatory requirements, especially on the sewer system. Relative to nutrient removal and some other requirements there. You are also facing a challenge that a lot of cities your age are facing, which is aging infrastructure. How do you replace and stay on top of facilities as they wear out? And then lastly, you have some future growth, specifically in the southwest area of the city. And so the question becomes is how do we make sure that we're prepared to meet that future growth and can provide customers the level of service that they expect. So the solution to these challenges was to pull together some utility master plans— sewer, water, and storm drain. And so relative to the— to these plans, they basically had 3 components. First, we wanted to identify all required improvements to meet those areas of regulatory requirements, replacing your infrastructure, and meeting growth. Once we identified those, we explored some funding alternatives that included looking at impact fees. And as you know, or most of you know, the City of Orem did not have impact fees for many of these utilities prior to 2014.

But that—

those were implemented and go a long way to helping provide equity between future users and existing users. We also spent quite a bit of time talking about bonding versus a pay-as-you-go approach, and we're going to revisit that here in a little bit. But that's something that we did back then and want to do again to make sure we're making the right decision there. We looked at rate increases, and as Chris mentioned, we had a long series of open houses and other opportunities for public feedback. And then the last part was executing the plan. So that included an implementation that went over many years and always included a plan to periodically come back and review and revise the plan as needed. So with that, we're going to just go through, uh, you know, these major components of where we were back 5 years ago and then talk about how that has changed. So let's start with required improvements. Relative to water, the kind of the highlights, the major projects that we talked about 5 years ago were installing a new storage reservoir. So you have traditionally relied on storage available at the Utah Valley Water Treatment Plant. As that storage there gets more and more used, there's a need for the city to provide its own storage. And so, um, and I guess it's called the, the Don Christianson Regional Water Treatment Plant now. But, um, so we, we've included that as one of our main projects. Adding additional well capacity was needed to meet your projected growth and also improve supply reliability. And then reuse is also a big component of the water plan, even though that happens at the wastewater plant. Using that existing resource to take load off of the city in the southwest corner was a huge part of meeting your future needs. So that was another component. I'm going to ask Neil Winterton if he wants to comment anywhere through here, maybe make sure I make sure I'm not missing anything. Any comments, Neil, on water before we go into the details?

No, I think you're hitting it well.

Almost everybody's familiar with it.

If they have any questions as you go on, for sure ask them.

We are in very close communication with some people to get all of these projects underway and going, whether it's some property acquisition or just finalizing the design. We are very close to these projects' realization. With the plan that we have in place right now.

So these are where the focus of the next, basically the 10-year portion of the plan, just to kind of help everybody understand perspective in terms of—

Can I make a comment there on that previous slide?

Yeah, you bet.

Go back.

One thing that really became obvious to us was that we were very deficient in our storage. And in fact, we've had numerous conversations at Central Utah Water Conservancy District's offices where they've explained to us that during their peak times, or during our peak times, we are dipping into their storage capacity. And that is not how, as it was designed or intended to be utilized. And so we've been borrowing from them. And they've encouraged us to take care of our own deficiencies as soon as possible. They've been very good to work with. We have a very good relationship with them. At the same time, they, they have been putting pressure on us to, to make sure we have sufficient storage for our needs and that we're not borrowing from theirs.

Thanks.

Relative to how this fits into the plan overall, you can see that there— this is a map of Orem and showing some projected future projects needed to convey water from primarily the treatment plant out into the system. So there's a number of improvement projects that are needed in the long term, but in the, in the 10-year window that we had 5 years ago, We had identified a number of improvements as shown here totaling about $45 million. That was in 2014 dollars. Most of this we'll show you are in those older dollars and don't include inflation, which we'll talk about a little bit as well. That did include some things like your automated meter infrastructure. That That project is well underway, and I think we're nearly complete, correct, Neil?

We are in the beginning stages of implementation. We have about 7,000 meters that we're about ready to flip the switch on out of the 23,000.

Okay.

So, but still, yes, definitely well underway on that project. And then some of the other, as Neal mentioned, are getting close— storage, one of your wells, and the reuse project. In the long term, we've actually identified about $78 million that need to be done in meeting those needs through build-out. So the other thing that goes into play— so there's your required water improvements. from a capacity standpoint. But the other thing that needs to happen is you need to make sure that you're replacing your system as it ages. So one way to look at this is to look at the value of your system replace— the value of replacing your system. And in current dollars, that is $360 million dollars for your water system, and then you divide it by the service life of the system. And in a water system, we typically say that you should plan on about around 50 years. Sometimes you can get a little more out of that, but for planning purposes, that's a great place to be. And so that would equate to spending about 2% of your of the total replacement cost each year in maintaining the system. So if we were to do that, then that would suggest that the needed replacement budget would be $7.2 million per year that you should be spending in your water system. We did that back in 2014, and what we did was we projected out a need for system investment, and that's shown— I don't know if my cursor is showing up, but that's shown with this dashed black line right here. So if we go to the year 2020 and we go up to the recommended black line, that ends up being right about $7.2 million. So we looked at that line and said, well, that is where we would like to be long term. And then in 2014 or 2015, we identified where have we been historically, and where we had been historically was this dashed blue line down at the bottom here, which was just a little bit under $2 million. And so in essence, a big part of the master plan was understanding how do we get from the level that we have historically been which does not provide us enough investment to maintain our system up to that recommended level so that we can sustainably maintain our system through these different projects and different investments.

Or another way to look at it is how do we plan an increase in revenues for the water system?

Yeah. Within this chart, you can also see that what we did then is once we identified a plan. And ultimately, the, the— what the council adopted was a 7-year phase-in plan that's shown here, in which we would slowly move our rates towards that sustainable long-term level of funding. And then underneath that, then we put in our recommended projects as shown here. So that's kind of a quick overview of what the master plan identified for the water system. We're going to talk about the 2 other systems, but before I leave it, I'll open it up for comments from Neil and Chris or questions from the council.

So I have a question for Jeff Lampson. Jeff, you weren't involved— Councilmember Lampson, you weren't involved with this process. And also Terry Peterson, Councilmember Peterson, I would be curious to know if you have any questions specifically. The other council members have been involved with this. They were involved 4 years ago in this process, and it's a refresher for them. We just wanted to make sure that you understood what our process was and what we went through as we prepared for these rate changes and looking forward to the future capital improvement projects.

Thank you.

Are there any specific questions you might have?

This is, this is Terry Peterson. Yeah, I'll just share a comment. As we knocked on doors this last year campaigning, one of the biggest issues I heard from the city is the increased water rates. So I understand, I can see the chart, I can see our wish list, and I can see where we've been and where we'd like to be. But I also have to think about that 70-year-old lady that I knock on her door and she's not watering her lawn because she can't afford her water rates. So that's the other side of the challenge on where we'd like to be as a city and making sure that there's impact fees and other ways to bring— to get revenue than people that are on fixed income or people that are young and Or it doesn't matter if they're young or old, if they don't have the money to have increased water rates, it's quite a shock to their system.

Great, thank you.

I appreciate that.

We'll— that is a real concern that we need to address. Jeff, I think I interrupted you. I'm sorry.

No, you didn't interrupt. I would just echo the same concern. You know, whenever you talk to the people of the city about water, that question always comes up. Why are my rates so high? Why have they gone up so much? And as that continues, I think that would just be a bigger concern.

So, um, okay, excellent.

I, uh, I appreciate that feedback because I know that is one of the things that we've been asked to look at and think about, uh, quite a bit as we update this master plan. I think we're going to talk about that a little bit further as we go along.

Keith, this is Jamie. I think one thing to— and maybe we can have this discussion at a later point, and we have some data that we put together on an annual basis relative to rates. But I think some of the feedback that we've received from residents related to rates is how come our rates have gotten so high The response I would offer in part is for many, many years, our rates have been artificially low, meaning we have not kept up with monies necessary to maintain and rebuild our current infrastructure. And so what residents were paying for was the price of providing the service, but they were not paying to reinvest in the conduit that actually carries the water to their home. And in order for us to have a viable— continuing to have a viable water system, not only do we need to pay for the day-to-day operations of the system, but we need to pay for the transmission and distribution systems that facilitate moving water from, for example, the treatment plant to a resident's home or a business's home. And so even now, if you look at our rates in comparison to our peers, even though we have significantly increased our rates in recent years, we still have the cheapest rates in town, so to speak. And so that is a challenge that we're facing, is for many, many years we didn't reinvest in our system. And so now we're having, in many respects, to play catch-up, and we're trying to find a way to do it to balance the needs of the 70-year-old, like Councilmember Pedersen is talking about, and the limited income that they have.

Thank you.

But also the 10-year-old who 30 years down the road will continue to benefit from the same infrastructure. How do we structure our— essentially our revenue in a way where the 70-year-old is paying and the 10-year-old is paying because the life of this infrastructure is 50 to 60 years?

Well, one thing I might like to bring up as well When you look at this, we have to continue to invest in our base equipment, as it were, in our sunk costs. And if we don't do that, things start to wear out and they get beyond their 50-year life. And then the cost to repair and to fix things that are then broken at that point is many times more than what we would have cost had you just invested as you go along each year. A really prime example of that is American Fork. So American Fork's water rates are double— let me repeat that— double what the City of Orem's water rates are. And the City of American Fork, their water system is in very, very bad condition. They did not invest as the years went along. They did not maintain, and now their system is breaking down, and to fix it's costing many times more than had they invested on a yearly basis to bring and keep their system up to date. So it's important to look at it. Our citizens want to be able to have water when they get up in the morning and turn the tap on that's not rusty, that's not deficient. But they want to have good water, and we've been rated as with the best water in the state in 2016. But they don't want to have to think about that. They want to have water for their toilets, for their sinks, for their food and eating. And the reality is American Fork is suffering because they did not plan ahead. We need to plan ahead.

Thank you.

I agree with that. I think there's, you know, in hearing this, it sounds like there needs to be an educational process along the way too, because we do become accustomed to turning on the water and there's hot and cold water and we water our lawns and there's plenty of water for everything that we need. But without knowing about the backstory, All I see is all of a sudden my water bill went up by $100 or whatever every month. And so I don't know if there's an educational/marketing budget built into this, but I think that would be helpful to let people know that, you know, they've been getting a screaming deal. And if that's what it— if that's where we end up going.

So we have done that, Jeff, but certainly I think we could do more and a better job of that. and let people know, you know, what's occurring. We are closer to getting our system up to where it needs to be to maintain it, but people need to know that. And we, we have published— the city has published the water rates for all the cities around us, and it's published every year. But yeah, we can do a better job.

So listen, Chris, if I could comment. Councilmember Lamson, you're absolutely correct. The education process, we realized early on back in '14, '15, '16, we needed to make the public aware of this. And that's part, in part, why we did create the advisory commission. And I can see that we need to— we can do better. And we will do better. And we've done, I think, a good job, a very good job. We've done social media campaigns. I think we can ramp it up this go-around as well. Like the mayor and Jamie have mentioned, we are maybe the lowest, if not the second lowest, in the, you know, 25 or 20-city comparison. But an education process needs to be ongoing. And so You have our commitment as a Public Works Department to continue to do that and to do better than what we've done in the past. And then I believe Councilmember Terry Peterson also mentioned impact fees. I'm so glad you mentioned that, Councilmember Peterson, because one of our Public Works Advisory Commissioners back in 2015 said he would not support or approve— or I should say just support or endorse The master plans without the city moving forward with an impact fee in place for all of these utilities, which we should have done, quite frankly, you know, 10, 15 years ago. We would have been in a much better place with new development paying more as it went along. But we have implemented that, and our— and we do have some offsetting costs as a result of that. We're going to get to that as well. So Hats off to the Public Works Commissioner. It was Bill Pepperoni who works for Pueblo City for really digging in and holding, holding us to that commitment. And so we've done that. The City Council supported it. It's been a bit of a lengthy and even a little bit of a painful process, but there's great wisdom in doing that. So we appreciate the direction and the support we've been given there.

One other question on the impact fees. I know from serving in a different position in the past that impact fees from city to city vary by a large, and they're not comparable. How are we, are we, where are we compared to other cities as far as impact fees now?

I would suggest we're right in the middle. We're not high, we're not low on most of these. I, I believe Bren might have some data on that. We can share that with you. Zion's Bank Financial Group did, did perform those studies in conjunction with Bowen Collins, who did our capital facilities plan then. Bren, would you have— do you have a comment on that?

Yeah, so we're actually on the lower end of that, Terry, and, and that's why we ended up getting an endorsement by the Utah Valley Home Builders Association on our overall citywide impact fees. Where we're more in the average, like Chris is talking about, is specifically for the units in the southwest annexation area. They had some additional costs to get more particularly our storm drain and I believe our sewer down in that area. And so they had some higher costs in that zone compared to the rest of the city. But citywide, we are definitely on the lower third of impact—

total impact fees per unit.

Which might be another source of revenue to look at versus the individual homeowner.

I think, if I may, state law is quite specific as to the calculation of impact fees. And it's based on particular infrastructure that is required. And the comparison of fees across jurisdictions is not something that's permitted under state law. So while, for example, we have peers who have impact fees that are significantly higher than ours, state law does not allow us to adjust our fees. to align ourselves with our neighboring jurisdictions, but rather it is driven based on infrastructure needs and capital plans that the city has developed. So in many respects, one of the reasons why, for example, our fees are lower is because a great amount of the infrastructure we need to operate the city has already been built and was built years ago minus impact fees. And so our, frankly, the development community are the beneficiaries of lower fees because much of our infrastructure is already built. In emerging communities where they don't have existing infrastructure, you're going to pay a higher amount because that infrastructure, that core infrastructure, Is not existent in those communities. Yeah, like Saratoga Springs and other areas on the west side, their impact fees are much greater than yours.

Yes.

I would just add though, it is part of kind of the overall plan here that after we go through this master plan update process, we would then look at updating our impact fees and make sure they line specifically with any infrastructure cost centers that are new or different or changed according to this master planning process.

Any other questions, or shall I move on here?

I have a question. You're talking about storage, and as I'm looking at your graph, if I'm reading this right, looks like you've put a lot of money away in 2019 and 2020. And 2021 for storage. If I'm correctly to assume that in 2021, the storage monies that will be needed to build and maintain that storage, will we be able to provide the storage so that we can wean ourselves off of what Neil said was the central Utah, you know, demand that we were taking? Am I inferring that we are at least 2/3 the way there, or what do you think?

Yeah, you are exactly right. So this plan did not include any bonding. The council at the time had, had wanted to avoid some bonding. So this plan, we accumulate the cash over a few years and then we spend it as we have the cash available. So you're correct, we have a big chunk of money available for the construction of that storage.

Okay, that's my question. Thanks.

I think the things that you've brought up here are exactly what we wanted to talk about, and we're going to have a few more opportunities to talk about it. We have a comparison of rates coming up.

Let me—

I want to go through really quickly sewer and storm drain as well. You've kind of got the format. We've thrown it out here. So we're just going to follow the exact same story for these other 2. For sewer, just the highlights are nutrient removal is a big deal. That's required by new state regulations. You had some accumulation of struvite, which is a hard buildup inside some of the pipelines and equipment in your, in your wastewater treatment plant. And so there were some adjustments. planned to eliminate those. And then also hydrogen sulfide corrosion, we spend a lot of time with that. That is a— from the wastewater, a source of corrosion in specifically in concrete pipes that causes your pipes to fail prematurely. And so protecting your pipes and replacing those that have been damaged is a big part of this plan. Neil, anything else?

Keith, I did want to mention, although there are only 3 items here that are the highlights, these are significant. Yeah, in terms of a dollar perspective. For example, Provo City is going to be spending about $250 million on its, on its water reclamation facility, and I can't remember the number for Salt Lake City, but it was Was it— what was that, Mike?

I think it's about $200 million.

$200 million. So they're looking at large costs here as a result of very small elements here. These nutrients that are causing these modifications to take place. They're not small by any means. Hydrogen sulfide either in— we've had pipe Failures that have resulted in road failures that have resulted in hundreds of thousands of dollars of costs. And so these might not seem to be a big deal. I don't know if they do or not, but they are significant in nature. And they do— they are very costly to prevent and to maintain in the future.

Thank you. Relative to collection projects, your system is actually performing quite well relative to capacity. So there are some, but a limited number. But, but as, as Chris mentions, there's some pretty significant projects that need to happen relative to those components that we talked about on the highlights. In the $10 million— or excuse me, in the 10-year plan, It was just shy of $12 million. Well, actually, this is not all of it. This is just at the water reclamation facility, just shy of $12 million. A lot better than $200 million, but $12 million there in the 10-year plan. In terms of— In the overall— And I apologize, the reclamation facility, that was actually through build-out, the $12 million, and in the 10-year plan there's $3.8 million that needs to happen from that. But about $19 million in 2014 dollars that needed to happen in 10 years and $30 million that needs to happen over time. So again, some significant improvements that need to happen. Again, if we look at the system valuation and replacement, we end up with $4.2 million per year for your collection system. That's your pipelines and pump stations. And then at the treatment plant, an additional $2 million per year, which brings the needed sustainable investment level to about $6.2 million. So again, we create the same type of curve. Showing around $6.2 million in 2020 is where we want to be. And again, this was a 7-year plan that was adopted to try to accomplish that.

And the point I wanted to make on this, if you notice this and the water, we, we were increasing rates from where they were to where they needed to be over a 7-year plan. So that first 7 years, the rates increased pretty steeply, but after that, then they flattened out quite a bit.

We were getting pretty close to the end of those really steep Yeah.

Neil or Chris, any comments or other questions from the council on sewer?

The only thing I would add to both of these is that they're not just projects that we looked at and hoped for.

These are Projects necessary to operate a successful utility. These are not wish list items of, of a new SUV or a new luxury edition belt press to handle solids. These are core pieces of equipment, pipelines, and infrastructure maintenance items. to, to continue to operate at a high level of service.

So, uh, Mike and Keith, maybe you're going to bring this up, but we have essentially decided this year to take a holiday from the increase, at least for one year. And if we were to continue to do that, we would actually have a very hard time meeting the goals that we need. And so I think it's important to realize that maybe education needs— more education needs to be done. And, you know, we're, we're not too many years off from the point where those increases don't have to happen to a very much of an extent each year. But I think it's important that we realize that for us to to sustain our infrastructure, we're going to have to keep up with the increases for a few more years.

Yeah, and we'll take a look at that in a couple of options, but I appreciate you bringing that up. That's, that is a key point. Let's go ahead and talk storm drain, and then we can talk a few more of these other financial issues. Relative to storm drain, the 3 big highlights here were We have a number of stormwater sumps. Those are basically shallow wells. They basically consist of manholes that allow us to put water into the ground during a storm. Right now you have a number of those sumps in your drinking water wellhead protection zones, so to minimize any potential contamination or problems with water quality that could occur.

We're—

part of the plan is to remove those from those areas where— to other locations where it's more conducive to putting water into the ground there. You also have a number of irrigation ditches that are no longer used or maintained, and so an important part of this plan is pulling your stormwater out of those ditches so that they can be conveyed in their own system. And that's really nothing that the city has control over. That's just something that has happened over time as there's less and less farmland and irrigation land in the city. And then finally, and this has been a pretty big deal, the West Union Canal and— oh, help me out, Reed. What's the name of the other canal?

Schuylkill.

West Smith Ditch.

West Smith Ditch, yes. So you have 2 canals that have been identified to be permanently abandoned. These are not, you know, small ditches. These are large canals that run through the city, and they have historically been used as a big part of your drainage system. So being able to pull stormwater out of those and find an alternative location or solution for their, their function is important part of the plan. Let me just show you really quick what that looks like. Essentially, the orange, red, and yellow on this map are your wellhead protection zones. So the purple are areas where we feel it's appropriate to have sumps and put water into the ground. These other areas are areas where we'd rather not do that. And so pulling out of those areas is important. What that ends up looking like, and this is really busy, but I just wanted to give you a feel. We have priority 1, 2, and 3 pipes throughout the system. And so building infrastructure specifically in these upper areas where we have those wellhead protection zones and then conveying them out safely is a big part of the plan. This is the north end of the city, and this is the south end of the city. In total, in the 10-year window, there were $18 million worth of priority improvements. Reed, anything you would add to that discussion of storm drain?

No, I think that summarizes pretty well.

Okay.

In terms of investment, the current system has a value of about $100 million. At 2%, that would be about $2 million in annual budget. And that is shown— that is approximately what we have here. We actually are a little bit higher, and the reason for that is your system currently Is missing a lot of pipe because it has all those sumps. So over time, you're going to have to build a little bit more of a system, expand that $100 million investment to something greater than that. And so we've shown a slight increase, and I think that's going to need to increase over time a little bit as your system gets a little bit bigger. So that's the summary of all the required improvements that were identified at the time Chris, am I missing anything?

No, I— but I did want to emphasize that in this graphic here, the $2 million represents what it would cost to replace everything that's in place today.

Yeah.

This is not a built-out utility system, unlike what we have with water and sewer. Those are built-out systems for the most part. At least 95— 90 to 95%. This system is really more along the lines of 20% built out perhaps, or 20 to 30%. It's not a robust system. It's— we've been relying on stormwater injection over time. The regulations are changing regarding injection, especially in wellhead protection areas where we need to protect our drinking water for our citizens. And into the future. So that is one significant difference I would suggest with our stormwater system.

Chris, you've also been using canals that you're no longer going to be able to use.

That's correct. So I would say there's a significant paradigm shift with stormwater that we need to take into account with this update.

So Chris, question for you. If we're unable to use some of our canals in the future, I mean, a canal can handle a lot of water. So how much of a strain is that going to put on our stormwater system if in fact the canal is not there to handle it?

Well, Mayor, that's a great question. That's one that we've been kind of grappling with for the last couple of years. We do know that we're looking at other alternatives in terms of deep, deep injection as an option that would save us a lot of money in certain areas. But certainly if we don't have 6 or 8 miles of conveyance to take this stormwater all the way to the lake, then we have to develop another system and put that in place. And that's what this update is going to provide us, is that update to do that. We will utilize the canal right-of-way As deemed appropriate and as, as it meets our needs. But it's not typically— it's actually inverted. The design is inverted to what you really need it to be. When you divert the water, the canal systems is much— has a much greater capacity. Then as it goes down towards the lake, it can, it can actually shrink in size. And so we need just the inverse of that. So it's not going to be as reliable for us. In addition, it's not in a very good state of repair. And in fact, we do have some known failures or soon-to-fail sections of some, if not all, of our canal systems in the city. And that, that then translates to a liability that we do not want to accept. So we will need to replace this with, with the suitable stormwater system that's more robust.

So Chris and Reed, just for comparison purposes, help the council understand, for example, how much money we're spending on the piping of the West Union Canal.

Just on, uh, we have about 3 large projects planned. One of them includes a pipe that goes down State Street And the initial estimate just for that one project is $2 million. The other projects, which would be constructed in other areas along the canal, range— exceed $1 million each. So we're looking at between $3 to $5 million just to abandon— just to address the abandonment of the West Union Canal.

So it's—

quite expensive to be able to do that. If we could, if the West Union Canal was in good repair and they wanted to, and they left, they got out of the business, we could take that canal on. But to repair the canal costs more than finding alternate solutions. So we're— that's what we're doing.

So Mayor and Council, one of the reasons we're not very anxious to continue using, for example, abandoned canals is if they're poorly maintained, then the liability that is present could overwhelm a community. A number of years ago in northern Utah, you probably recall that there were several cities that were using canals for this very purpose of conveying stormwater. And those canals failed. They were on hillsides, of course, because these canals are gravitationally fed. They failed and water ended up in neighborhoods and basements and essentially destroying— destroying property. And on several occasions, and Keith and Mike can correct me, I think actually a couple of people were killed as well. So this is not necessarily risk we want to assume, and that's why we've made the decision to undertake piping projects in lieu of continuing to use these canals that are falling into significant disrepair. And if you looked at the right-of-way of the West Union Canal, you would never want to use it to convey stormwater. It's, it's scary.

So Jamie, question. This is Terry. The canal that runs along Carterville, I don't know what the name of that one is, but that one Also is a, you know, is in bad shape. But is that, uh, is that the West Union or is that a different canal?

It is the West Union and the West Smith Ditch uses that canal as well. So that's the diversion for that is up on the Provo River at about 650 north on Orem's grid system. And then that conveys water all the way down throughout the city.

So if they abandon that, who owns it and what happens to it? I mean, if the city— if we don't want it as a city, it just stays as is or with no water in it, or what happens?

Typically, it'll stay as is, and they have no obligation or no responsibility to remove it or to restore it to any prior condition. That's my understanding. Probably need a legal interpretation on that. But it typically reverts back to the property owner through which it runs.

Okay.

And this is one of the challenges that we're facing. Many of these canals have historically been used by, you know, agriculture. They were never intended to convey stormwater. And so now we're in the process of legitimately building stormwater infrastructure and moving away from a secondary use of an irrigation canal that, you know, decades ago met the needs of agriculture but doesn't meet the needs of suburban urban Orem today. Question?

I have a question. This one's for a reader, Chris. When we're designing these systems, are we looking at a 50-year storm that's like the mother of all storms, or a storm that would be water in 100 years? What's our capacity, and what are we— is there a certain design standard that if we got it inundated with a flood, you know, that we'd be able to handle the capacity?

Yeah, so the stormwater detention facilities They're designed, I believe, at a 25-year storm event.

Yeah, the conveyances are only designed to a 10-year storm for the pipe only, and then everything else is designed to try and mitigate any potential flooding and use the roadway as a waterway.

Okay, so, and is that okay by, you know, best practices across the nation? To build them that— to that capacity?

Yeah, that's very typical.

Okay, thanks.

It's just a cost-reward question. You can't build for the worst storm ever, so we usually choose that 10-year and then make accommodations for the higher flows in the roadways.

Debbie, a good analysis or a good analogy might be we don't build our street network to accommodate Christmas traffic. You know, there's obviously a challenge getting to the store. You have to wait multiple times through a light sometimes. But to build a facility like a 15-lane facility on State Street, it doesn't make sense. That's similar to what we're talking about here with stormwater. It's cost prohibitive and it doesn't make sense.

I just want to make sure that we were, you know, looking down the future and making sure we had the— a good capacity that would handle, you know, the majority of the storms. So thanks.

Yep, thank you.

So I think I'm just about up to my allotted time, so I'm going to push on if that's okay and see if we can wrap up here. Funding alternatives, we've talked a little bit about this. We ended up adopting impact fees to improve equity, and we, as mentioned, we do have separate fees for the Southwest Annex and the rest of the city. And that revenue did reduce the needed rate increase, and so that's something that I think we will continue to do in this update, is look at maximizing those impact fees per state law to maintain that equity. Bonding versus pay-as-you-go. We did explore options without— with and without bonding 5 years ago. At the time, the council expressed a preference for avoiding debt, but current conditions may suggest revisiting this issue, and we're going to talk about that in this next slide. But just in summary, we explored 5, 7, and 10-year rate increase plans, and as mentioned, we adopted a 7-year plan for water and sewer. And a 5-year plan was adopted for storm. So storm has most of its increases have already been implemented. Water and sewer have, as my understanding, we have— we're at year 4. And then as the mayor mentioned, we've taken a kind of 1-year sabbatical there, which we'll also look at real quick. So bonding versus pay-as-you-go, the reason I say this might consider relooking at a little bit is this concept of intergenerational equity where we're building facilities that will benefit people for the next 50 years, sometimes making some bonding allows them to help pay for the facilities over time. So that may be one reason to consider bonding. We also have historically low bonding rates. The reports that I am hearing is that bonding rates have dropped down below 3%, which is really unheard of. That's historically low, as the slide says. The other thing is recent construction inflation, and I want to go to a slide. This is just the construction building cost indices collected from a number of different sources, and what you can see Is that over the last ten years we've averaged about four percent construction cost increases per year on a nationwide basis. On a local basis, that's we don't have a good you know published indices for that, but it has been even higher from what we've observed. probably in the 5, 6% per year range or even higher in some cases. But over the last 3 years, even on a nationwide basis, these numbers are suggesting that we've seen roughly 5% increases per year. So when you look at construction costs going up at 5% and bond money being at less than 3%, It starts to make a little more sense to bond, get the cheap money, and be able to construct some product— projects today.

For at least a portion of your capital plan. Yeah, yeah.

So interestingly enough, on the interest rate for bonding, the interest rates have gone down like 35% in the last 30 months. Yeah, in the last 12 months it's gone down 18%, so it's at a historic low. It's come down dramatically, and I'm not sure how much further it can go down before it goes back up.

Yeah, so relative to that, I think it just means that it might make sense to relook at bonding, and, and I, I wanted to come to This slide, which plays to the mayor's comment previously. So my understanding, this is for water. My understanding is that we've implemented the rate increases for the last 4 years, and then we're putting a little hold on that this year. So that will flatten out. So here's the story. This is roughly where we're at. This is roughly where we'd like to be long-term. And so one of the— some of the feedback that I was hoping to get from the council today is, you know, the mayor's right. If we don't do any increases and just stay at this level, we will continue to fall behind on what we think needs to be done to sustainably maintain the system and accomplish your goals of great service. However, we totally hear and understand the concerns about rates going up rapidly, especially through this steep period. So maybe there is an opportunity that we could use some bonding perhaps in the next couple of years. We could flatten this curve out and maybe, you know, maybe put in some less aggressive rate increases. What we would hope though is that ultimately we do want to get up to that recommended level of investment, even if we flatten this out a little bit. So before I solicit comments, let me just, let me just show you, we did gather some comparisons. And this is for selected Utah cities. This is not all Utah cities, obviously, but we've selected a number. We looked at where your water bill is. You're second to the bottom, just above Springville. Average city is at $70 a month versus your $50, $51, $72. Sewer, you're below average. Stormwater is right there at the average. If we add in the other facility— services, garbage, you're below average, and property tax significantly below average. Franchise fee, everybody's about the same, so it just shows you here— well, everybody's exactly the same, just shows you there. But if we add all those up and look at the monthly total utilities, Orem's sitting— And property taxes. And property taxes, thank you. Orem's sitting right here at the bottom of the list, almost half of what the, you know, the West Jordan or American Forks are paying for their utilities. So with that said, uh, I guess, uh, well, first of all, Chris, let me ask, have I covered what we need to cover here? Um, do have some summaries here, but let's talk about the financial plan here for a second?

No, I think you've covered it well.

Do we have some comments or thoughts, questions from the council on direction to go here?

Please, go ahead.

It is interesting that Provo, which is right next door to us, is 60%, 70% higher than we are. And it's important, like I say, American Fork, You can see what's occurred there, and they're paying for their inattention to that. I guess my question would be is, if we were to look at a bond to cover that difference, uh, are we talking a 20-year, a 30-year bond? How much would it be, and what would the cost of that bond be to the residents? Residents.

So Mayor and City Council, this is Jamie. As part of this overall conversation, we've retained the help of our financial advisor to work in conjunction with Bone and Collins to help us kind of understand going forward how bonding might fit into a future scenario. And Keith, if you could go back to slide 30, for example, where it talks about some of the infrastructure needs that we have. One of the questions, for example, you can see that orange kind of category across 2019 through 2021. What if we, for example, were to, rather than on a pay-as-you-go basis, pay for that tank, what if we were to take that $10 to $12 million cost and finance? the construction of this tank and amortize the cost of that tank over 20 years at current interest rates? What about 30 years across current interest rates, understanding that the life of that infrastructure is 50 to 60 years?

So, Jackie, we've brought in enough money to pay for— I think the cost of the tank is $10 million, and I believe we've saved up enough for $7 million of it.

Yeah, so if we, for example, were to finance the cost of that tank, then into future years, could we use the existing money that we have now set aside that we were planning to use for tank construction to maybe focus more on maintenance-related replacements, which are those light blue categories? Which could help obviously soften the curve that Keith is talking about.

And that's my question is, what would, what would that look like?

Well, that's what we're trying to determine right now in cooperation. In updating the master plans, we get an idea long-term as to, okay, are we still on track? Are there some outstanding infrastructure issues? That we didn't address in our last master plan update that we, that we need to include? If so, how much do they cost? If not, then what can we do and what would it cost for us to finance? And if we did finance some of this capital construction over the next 10 years, how would it impact our rates? But before we can have that rate discussion, I think, and Mike and Keith will verify this, we've got to finalize where we are from an infrastructure situation. Yeah, and our plan is to come back with you guys in, in a couple of months and with various options, with various curves, with bonding, not bonding, rate increases based on that bonding. So you'll have some option to look at what it looks like for different scenarios and then make a decision.

Can we jump down to slide 34? Because I think that leads into this discussion.

Councilmember Lamson had a question. Yeah, please.

Yeah, actually 2 questions. So looking at this and what Jamie just proposed, the maintenance, would that be a higher priority than the storage facility?

The storage facility is of critical importance because we currently are essentially borrowing space in somebody else's tank that's not ours. Okay.

Oh, go ahead, sorry.

So in accordance with our state law and rules and regulations for water, for being a water purveyor, we're about 10 million gallons at least 10 million gallons deficient where we should be today. So that's not planning for the future, but currently, and we have been for some time. So I think that speaks to that.

Okay, thank you. Then one other question. Do we have an idea of what percentage of this budget the impact fees would have, or would that be something that we would be looking at as part of a future proposal?

If I understand you correctly, are you asking how much we have right now in impact fee revenues that could be applied?

Well, as we look at increasing that and increasing impact fees in the future.

I think I can just generically speak to that, and maybe others can better than I, but obviously that could help with the rates. I don't think it's going to be substantial in any way. It is going to be offsetting to some extent, but not a significant amount. But we will also be reevaluating our impact fees on the heels of this master plan process, where we will develop a capital facilities plan and then engage with another financial consultant to modify those rates.

Neil, do you know how much you collect in impact fees per year?

Yeah, so we, from what I understand, are at about $1 million.

And we've had some recent developments that were pretty substantial that have contributed to that. I would anticipate much less than that in the future. So when you're looking at a $6 to $7 million annual budget, it wouldn't contribute that much. Also on the impact fees, as Jamie mentioned earlier, we can't just decide to raise impact fees. We would need to go through a very detailed and a very specific process that's state law requires to identify projects that are specific to growth.

And so I think moving forward, our impact fee values, let's just say they're $1,000 today.

They're not going to deviate from that because we've done all the heavy lifting up to this point by identifying the projects that are going to serve the future residents. And so they might change based on some activities or some changes in densities or some things like that, but they are not going to deviate much from what they are today. Thank you.

Perhaps one clarification for Councilmember Lamson and Pedersen. Impact fees, one of those main laws from the state on regarding impact fees is that it can't be used to cover existing deficiencies. And so, so like the storage tank and any kind of just replacement and maintenance of our existing infrastructure, that all has to be used with our regular monthly rates, not our impact fees. So impact fees has to be used for kind of the ability to keep up with new growth from new population.

And Bren, maybe you could speak to the timing associated to it as well. It's not like we can, for example, identify a project that we need to complete in 20 years and begin collecting impact fees for it.

That's correct. So we look at— we have to spend our impact fees within Well, they have to be encumbered within 6 years of when they're collected. And so what we end up doing— Chris used the term capital facilities plan. The capital facilities plan is all infrastructure through build-out. In the impact fee analysis process, we look at specifically the infrastructure associated with new growth, and we call that an impact fee facilities plan. And that looks at a total of a 10-year horizon, but more particularly what we can spend within that 6-year period.

Yes, the Home Builders Association over the last 20 years has really put limits in terms of legislation on what you can use impact fees for. In fact, if you try to do something out of the ordinary, you'll get sued usually.

Right. And so then if there was maybe something— I mean, the reason why we want to keep our impact fees updated is because if there was something that is outside of that 10-year horizon, we can't, we can't include that projected cost into our impact fee rates. And then just in terms of kind of timing on the process. State law also requires us to work closely with the development community and, you know, the large landowners to make sure that they're abundantly aware of how we're calculating those impact fee-specific rates.

So Chris, I think to kind of wrap this up, you wanted me to jump to the last 2 slides. I've had this one pulled up just as a summary. Summary of some of the things that have changed in the last 5 years in terms of, you know, what we're planning for. There's been some small changes in the Southwest Annex densities. We need to obviously update our growth and land use data. One big change is that Vineyard City is no longer projecting to be served through Orem but will be served directly from Central Utah Water Conservancy District. So that will change the city's conveyance facilities a little bit. We've talked canal abandonments, and then obviously we've heard the concerns expressed regarding rate increases. So we want to continue to discuss that, and then maybe to look at bonding since conditions have changed and construction costs are going up a little. Well, more than a little bit in recent years.

You know, since our master plan in 2015, it was adopted in '16, those construction costs have gone up around 25%. Of course, that's not annualized, but that's what it is over the course of those last 6 years as you look at your previous slides. So these are all very dynamic and independent conditions that we need to consider.

Can I make a comment?

Yeah, sure.

Um, at our retreat, there was a gentleman who talked about, you know, we've kind of had this pay-as-you-go philosophy, but basically he told us that the— and I can't remember his name— with the cost of interest being so low and the cost of, um, structure going so high, it isn't— the most conservative thing would be to bond, not to continue to to adopt the philosophy of pay-as-you-go. I know, I know for us in Utah County, we like that conservative, but bonding really has to be significant. And we can't just keep going at the pay-as-you-go. It doesn't make sense financially with interest and with costs. We owe it to our citizenry to really invest in bonding that will be multi-generational. So I'm sorry, I can't remember the gentleman's name. He was a, he was a consultant.

His name was Eric Rastan.

with UDOT.

And do you remember what he exactly said?

No, but it was essentially along the lines of construction inflation is far outpacing the cost of borrowing money right now.

Right. And so I think the conservative approach is to bond, even though for some of us it's a, it's a, it's a 4-letter word, right? Debt is a 4-letter word. But I think we really need to be looking in the best interest of our citizenry and keeping the rates low, but bonding has got to be part of this future conversation. So I just wanted to remind us that we were advised of that. So that's all I have to say.

Thanks.

Great.

Sorry, did I talk over someone?

No, I was going to say to Mike and Keith, any further comments?

I was just going to say, relative to the process here, our plan is to update the master plans as shown come back with some revised financial plan options, and then give you an opportunity to update rates and impact fees based on those results. So that's the, that's the big picture plan.

Well, great.

We certainly appreciate you coming to us, and it's certainly important that we review this and plan ahead. So thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We'll now go ahead to a discussion of the revisions to the City Council meeting policies and procedures for 30 minutes, and Greg Stevens, our attorney, is our presenter. So thank you, Chris Shirkey, for all your comments and your work on our previous discussion, and we'll now turn some time over to Greg Stevens. And Greg, are you there?

I'm here, thank you. Can you see the document that I've shared with you?

Yes.

Okay, this is something that I sent out to the council last week. I don't know if you've had a chance to look at it yet, but state law requires us to have policies and procedures for how we conduct our council meetings. The last time the city council reviewed these policies and procedures was in 2009. We thought it would be good to take another look at them. I have proposed some changes. You may or may not want to do those, or you may want to amend it a little bit, or you may want to address things that I didn't address in these proposed changes. I'm hoping this can just be an open discussion as we go through it. And the intent would be, after we have discussed these and maybe come to some informal agreement, we can bring them back to you at a later council meeting for formal approval. So I'll just start at the beginning of the changes. In 2.1, we're suggesting that we add a provision that allows us to temporarily suspend the policies and procedures during times of emergency. As we've recently experienced, you can't predict what those are going to be, but It wouldn't hurt to have a provision like this that would allow us to adapt as necessary. We clarify that in case of conflict between the policies and state law, that state law is going to prevail, and that failure to follow the policies doesn't invalidate an otherwise valid action of the City Council. These policies are not intended to be a gotcha. They're just supposed to be something that help promote efficiency and order in our meetings. In 3.2, we clarify that council meetings, or at least work sessions, can also be held in the council conference room. In 3.3, there are times when state law requires fewer than 4 votes, and so we're adding that provision. 3.5 on the minutes, instead of specifying what we do related to minutes, we're just saying that we'll follow state law. 3.6 is a new provision that you may want to discuss. This formalizes something that we've been doing informally, and that is, how do you get something on a council meeting agenda? So we've outlined 3 different ways to do so. In 3.6A, it would be items requiring City Council review or approval pursuant to an application process set forth in city ordinance or state law. And by the way, the things that are highlighted in green are things that I added since I sent it to you last week, just so you know. I'm not trying to sneak it by you. But an example of these would be, you know, in our city ordinance, if you pay your fee to get a zoning ordinance amendment, you get to have a hearing before the city council. Or in state law, if you petition to annex property into Orem, you get to have some type of hearing before the city council. Those are the ones, the types of things where the process is set forth in law. 3.6B, these are items that are going to be brought forth by staff with city manager approval that require city council reviewer approval. And then C is the one that I think I would most like the council input on, is how do council members get something on the agenda? What we've done informally is said that it was 4 council members because that's the usual vote. But that's not cast in stone. I'd be interested in knowing how you feel about that. You may even want a separate standard for getting something on a work session calendar as opposed to a regular city council meeting calendar. Any thoughts or suggestions on that item?

So, Greg, I personally like having the 4 council members listed there for both meetings, but certainly open to the council's thoughts on it.

Mayor Dave here. I think, Greg, I think I like the 4. It just seemed like last time in years past, it was like Groundhog Day and it kept coming up over and over and over and it got tiring because we had already voted it down. And I just think we need to keep it to 4 and then At least that if the council wants to hear it, then we have 4 that want to hear it and we move forward.

So that's my 2 cents.

Okay, then unless there are other comments, we'll keep it at 4. In 4.5, uh, work sessions in 2020 tend to be more detailed than they were in 2009, so we've added some things that can be discussed and work sessions. Also clarified that although the council won't be taking formal votes in work sessions, you can give general direction to staff on how to proceed with something. So in other words, you could give us direction, hey, we want you to bring this back to a regular city council meeting, or we want you to proceed in this fashion related to this issue, although it's not something that really requires a vote. 4.7 related to electronic meetings. Most of the changes are related to House Bill 5002, which was recently passed by the Utah Legislature, and that deals with having council meetings without an anchor location, such as what we're doing right now. So typically, the general rule is we have to have an anchor location to hold a city council meeting. This clarifies pursuant to House Bill 5002 that if the mayor determines in writing that meeting with an anchor location presents a substantial risk to the health and safety of those who may be present, then we can have a meeting without an anchor location. And there are certain things that we have to do to do that. The mayor signs a declaration. He announces at the beginning of the meeting how people can participate. A couple provisions that we've changed relating to noticing and see here that just comply with state law.

Greg, this is Terry. A question, a little bit on the page before, was there a clause that said that sometimes there has to be 5 votes instead of 4, or am I just—

Yeah, so there are certain situations where you need 2/3 vote. Some examples of that would be to appoint a city manager, to adjourn to a closed meeting, just things that are specified in state law. To get someone removed from a council meeting requires a 2/3 vote.

Okay, I didn't know if that was something new or if that's existing policy.

Okay.

Yeah, that's existing. The order of business, we've just tried to copy what we've been doing. Personal appearances, this has changed to reflect what we have been doing. Before, the policy said that you could only comment on something during personal appearances. If it wasn't on the agenda, but because now for most items we're only allowing public comment for public hearings, we're saying that you can make a comment during personal appearances for something that's not listed as a public hearing on the agenda. And if you want to talk about any of these that I'm scrolling through right now, feel free. 6.8 is—

I have a question.

Yes.

Public, you know, people speaking, is there a limit for time that we can set, or is it just number of people we have to allow them free speech? Is there a reason? I think in some years past we've had lots and lots and lots. I'm thinking of the student housing, right? Lots and lots of people who pretty much said the same thing. Is that just they have to be able to have their voice, or can we limit it based on what their— the pros and cons, I guess, is my question.

So it depends on what type of item it is. So state law says that for a budget public hearing, everybody that wants to speak has to be allowed to speak.

Okay.

But that would be during the public hearing, not during personal appearances. If you have an abnormal number of personal appearances, the mayor is allowed to make all points of order during the meeting. He could say, hey, I'm going to limit personal appearances to 15 minutes or 30 minutes, or I'm going to do 15 minutes now and 20 minutes at the end of the meeting, or whatever the mayor determined to make the meeting run efficiently. So yes, for personal appearances you can do some limitations. If you wanted to put something formally in your policies, we could. The way it is right now, it pretty much leaves it up to the discretion of the mayor.

Okay, I just wanted to know what the law was on that regarding that.

Okay.

In 6.8, the call for vote, this is something new. The old policy said that we call for a roll call vote basically on everything. That's not what state law requires, so we changed it to say that we'll do it when state law requires. Another thing that's been added is that it requires council members to vote either for or against the motion that's before them. I noticed in a newspaper that I thought was interesting—

got a copy of it here if I can get down to it.

There was a city in Michigan where several of the council members would regularly abstain from voting on a matter.

Council members.

He proposed a resolution to prohibit council members from abstaining, and 3 of the council members abstained on that vote. Anyway, I thought that was funny.

Tom, did you have a comment?

Yes, thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Um, you know, we had an issue a couple meetings back where you wanted to have Everyone read in, and some of us didn't want to do that. And, and, and because, to Greg's point, the mayor makes that decision, in my mind, the meeting went longer than need be. Uh, but, Mayor, you felt strongly, and that's your right as the mayor. But if 4 or 5 people don't want to read those all in, we don't have the power to override the mayor on that? Greg, is that correct as it's currently written?

It's not in the policy.

No.

So, Greg, another question. You said there that a council member needs, if he's in attendance, has to vote yea or nay, cannot vote present. Is that correct? You have to vote yea or nay but not present?

Right, so that's the way it's written, and this is a discussion that the council may want to have. I thought of some of the proposed— the pros and the cons of that. You know, one of the pros is the council's job is to make difficult decisions, and that's why you get the big bucks. And also, if a council member abstains or votes present on something, it's basically the same thing legally as a no vote anyway. However, a con would be, you know, there may be reasons why a council member just does not feel good about voting either for or against. So really, it's up to you. This is not something that's required by state law. It's just whether you think this would help resolve issues before the council. You may want to retain the ability to abstain or vote present. So I haven't had it be a problem, but in some cities it is a problem.

Well, I was going to say a present vote or an abstain vote is, as you say, really a no vote, because to pass something you need 4 yes votes. So if somebody's voting other than yes, then it's the equivalent of a no. So I don't necessarily have a problem with the present or abstain vote personally. I don't know how the rest of you feel.

Mayor, I've done it once in 6 and a half years, and the reason I did is the issue ahead of us, in front of us at that time, I did not like as it was written. But if there was a way, I could have approved it, i.e., with lower numbers as we ended up with. And so to me, a present vote was saying, hey, I'm willing to work on this, but if it's only yes or no, I was going to vote no. So I voted present, which showed I had some flexibility. If we take that away, I would have voted no and it would have died. So I kind of like the ability to keep it up and say, hey, what are you thinking? And work through the issue.

Yeah, and I don't have a problem with that personally. I don't know what the rest of the council feels, I think it's fine what Tom did.

I have no problem with that.

Okay, so I'll strike that unless I hear otherwise. I'll strike that provision and make it so that a council member could vote present or abstain on a vote.

Okay.

So going back to Tom's question about You know, if 4 councilmembers want to say, hey, we don't want that read in, or— can we still do that, or are you saying no?

No, I think they're your policies. We can make it say what you want it to say.

I mean, isn't that what you're saying, Tom? I think that was your point, and I think I agree with Tom.

Yeah, and I'm okay if it's a supermajority, because we do respect the mayor and his position. But in that particular issue, I think, David, you raised it, and I thought, well, you know, we didn't really have a way to override it because he set policy. And again, I don't think we would use that with any regularity, but it doesn't matter. It's not a big deal to me because just like I've done it once in 6 and a half years, I only think the mayor went long-winded once or twice in the last 6 and a half years. So it's not a big issue to me.

I'd probably disagree with that comment. Tom, but I think I've gone long-winded more times than that. But I would also, uh, prefer that I as the mayor have the right to control the meeting and not be overridden as far as allowing people to speak. So I, I would prefer not to have that go forward.

Not to have people speak? What do you mean?

Well, I, I would prefer not to be overridden by the council saying we're going to limit how much time these people can speak or who can speak. I think where the mayor is running the meeting, I think he should have the control of the meeting and not get into a fight on the council as to being overridden on allowing people to speak.

Well, I mean, if you look at the history of what he was talking about, was that was 45 minutes to an hour of reading things that we had already read, which, you know.

So if you remember what actually happened there was—

I do remember because I was there.

We, we had written down that anybody who sent in a comment, that would be read. Okay, that was actually written on the agenda, and the people that were writing in comments were relying upon us to do that. Now, to that point, I had a lot of people come up to me later, emails, people personally saying thank you because we wrote those comments in with the confidence that according to what you had put on the agenda, that those comments would be read. And so that's why I went forward with that, regardless whether they had written comments before or whatever. They had written, I mean, written an email to you before. They had written comments in with the assurance from what we had written on our agenda that those comments would be read at the meeting.

Well, and maybe we need to change that a little bit, that if it goes over, I mean, you have the timeframe on the regular meetings of 15 minutes and you pick 5 cons and 5 pros, what's the difference? When they were all the same, 45 minutes of the same thing over and over, which I think that was just too long.

Well, and certainly I understand that, but again, what I'm referring to is not what you're referring to. I'm referring to the fact that they were informed that their comment would be read, period.

That we need to change that comment then, that it's a time— there's a time limit also.

So I had suggested that to our staff that We put that on, and in fact, if you'll notice on our agenda, that has changed. And on our agenda it says that comments will be read aloud during the live meeting when required by law or when time permits. We didn't have that on the agenda sheet prior to this, so I requested that this item be put on there this way. So at this point, I would feel fine with limiting the amount of comments being read, but with what was written on that agenda sheet, I did not feel we would be honest by not allowing them to be read. So to your point, that's already been changed, just so you know.

So, and one point too is if, let's say the mayor is going off on a tangent and we have 4 council members say, hey, we need to We need to move on, we should be able to say, hey, let's move on, right?

Well, I think the mayor is running the meeting. If you start to have each council member try to run the meeting, then you don't have a coordinated process.

Well, it could be a supermajority.

Well, you had said 4. Supermajority is actually 5.

Okay, then 5.

Supermajority, 5.

And I'm okay with 5. Okay. I have no problem.

But wait, wait, wait. A supermajority of the council is 4 out of 6, because clearly you wouldn't— the mayor in that case wouldn't be voting for it. So it would be 2/3 of the council.

Well, I would be comfortable with 5, but not 4. And I would consider that I would have an equal vote to the council in that matter as well.

I'm fine if it's 5.

I mean, if you get 5 people, then we change this What if we only have 6 council members present or 5 council members present at the meeting?

Then it goes to 4.

So do we— do you want to set it at a number like 2/3? There are several other items that require a 2/3 vote.

2/3 would be fine.

Okay.

And I love the council and the mayor together.

All right.

I hope that that doesn't feel like an attack on you. I'm sure it's not. No, I mean, completely taking you out of the picture, I think it would be wise for, you know, down the road whoever the mayor is, if he gets into a situation that might be awkward or uncomfortable or going on and on about something, I think it would be good to allow the council to have a voice in that situation.

And I'm fine with that. 2/3 of the full 7 is what I would recommend.

Yeah, I agree. And it's nothing against the mayor, it's just, you know.

No, that's fine.

Agreed.

Okay, okay, keep going. We're actually running out of time.

All right, I'll skip past this one just to bring it to your attention. There are 2 types of motions to reconsider. There's the one we have outlined in our policies and procedures, and then in our voting— in our zoning ordinance, we have a separate method for denials of land use changes. And so I don't know the history of why we have 2 separate things. Just thought I'd make you aware of it. We could make them consistent, or we could just keep it the same. Legally, it doesn't matter. The effective dates that we have listed in 8.6 are basically for the ordinances and resolutions what's specified in state law. For agreements, instead of saying they're the date of execution, we're just saying it's the date specified specified in the agreement. Uh, we haven't been including a description of the public hearing rules in our notices, so we took out that provision. F is kind of the— 10.3F is the other side of the discussion we just had. So if a public hearing has been closed comments. Before, the policy said it required a motion of the council. I initially changed that to say that it could be approved by the mayor, and then I thought, well, maybe there are times when the mayor is not comfortable with it but the council is. So if you include the green portion, it could either be the mayor saying, yes, go ahead, make additional comments, or it could be the council saying, yes, go be ahead, make additional comments.

Thank you.

4 votes at the council saying, hey, we want to hear more comments. Again, we could go either way on that.

I'm fine with that.

Okay, well, those are the only issues that I was going to discuss with you. If you have any others that you want to bring up, I'm happy to hear them and incorporate them in the policies and procedures.

All right, thank you, Greg.

Appreciate it.

Let's go on to our next discussion. This is on the CARES Act expenditures, and Steve Downs is our presenter. We've got 15 minutes.

Mayor, Council.

Steve, are you there?

Yep, I'm here. Mayor, Council, appreciate the opportunity to share. I'll share my screen. I apologize, I won't show my camera. Greg Stevens borrowed my tie today and didn't hadn't given it back yet. So I'm here without a tie, you know, feeling embarrassed. So won't show my camera. As you probably know, the City of Orem received funding through the Coronavirus Relief Fund, or CARES Act, that was passed just earlier this year. A little bit of background: on March 27th of this year, President Trump signed signed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act. On July 1st, 2020, the City of Orem entered into an interlocal agreement with Utah County to receive funding from the Coronavirus Relief Fund. Utah County withheld approximately $1 million to provide economic support to Utah County businesses. The City of Orem then received $6.9 million and change, obviously, as its share of the Coronavirus Relief Fund. Upon anticipated receipt of the coronavirus relief funding, the city worked with all departments to identify needs in order to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. And so, so my intent here is just to give you some background on where we're at with that $6.9 million and where we're going in hopes to use as much of that funding as possible to secure our facilities, our public spaces and other— and our employees and protect them as they— as we respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. The intent of this— the funding— the CARES Act requires that the payments from the fund only be used to cover expenses that, one, are necessary expenditures due to the public health emergency, were not accounted for in the budget most recently approved of March 27th, 2020 and were incurred during the period that begins March 1st, 2020 and ends with December 30th, 2020. There's a lot of different things that have been discussed and ideas that many of you have brought forward. We've looked at other organizations that have also received funding through this act that meet some of the needs that we were looking to do as well. And so a couple of those things specifically Community Action Services received $2+ million to help with rent, mortgage, and utility assistance. So they have a pot of money there that's intended to meet those needs. One of the big things that they look for in this act is not duplication of services. What they don't want is somebody obviously receiving money for the same thing from 2 different organizations. So it's been our intent to streamline that money to community action, and we will use our funding for different things. And if there was ever a time where community action ran out of resources, we could consider further funding that organization to provide those services. The Economic Support Fund, which was organized by Utah County and is being administered by MAG, Mountain Land Association of Governments, That combined to $20 million, $15 million of it for private businesses, $5 million of it for nonprofits. This was a fund that private and nonprofit organizations were able to apply to in hopes to receive funding based on their negative impact from the coronavirus pandemic. And so they, they have been administering that money. Mayor, please.

Yeah, by way of information, And they have been able to expend out, I believe, $12 million for the individual companies. And then they have more applicants for the nonprofits than the original $5 million. So they are meeting again this week on that and determining— because the total amount The total amount was $20 million, and they're not there yet how they're going to divide that through.

Great, Mayor, thank you for that update. As we met with city departments and asked what their needs were for the employees, for their facilities, for the public, and all those areas, these were just some of the needs that came up. Obviously, protection— personal protective equipment. We've been buying a lot of gloves, a lot of masks, a lot of things that are needed for our employees and the public. Feel protected as they come into city facilities. We've been doing a lot of signage, especially as you consider us transitioning initially from the red phase to the orange phase to the yellow phase. A lot of signs were created in each of those steps, as well as just general guidance that we've put in all of our city facilities. Additional cleaning, sanitizing, and disinfecting supplies. We were, like many, looking for additional supplies supplies, they were on backorders, all that. But we have been compiling our needs to meet in case something like that were to happen again. And so a significant amount of this funding has gone to those types of supplies. We've also met with our public safety, both police and fire, to talk about some of the needs they have. A couple of things that have come that are funded and are one already here, the other in delivery, is a chest compression system. We have Chief Sanderson on the call if you need any further, but essentially it allows the paramedic to give or issue CPR without having to make the physical contact with the individual. Also, aeroclave devices, which are brought into either a city facility or an ambulance after a possible exposure, and those machines are to disinfect the entire space that the machine is rolled into. So we identified needs in both of those areas to make sure that they have what they need to continue to respond during this time. A significant amount of money has been invested and needed to support telecommuting capabilities. This includes laptops, network infrastructure, software licensing, headsets, webcams. Things that allow us to operate in this environment.

This is—

that has been across the entire organization, given the need initially to telecommute, likely opportunities that will come in the future as people are quarantined but aren't sick and want to be able to continue working through telecommuting. So we continue to invest in those resources. And then there's a significant amount of furniture and workstation improvements, plexiglass between not only employee and the public but also employee and employee areas. You think of a 311 center where these employees are sitting in pods, very close contact. There's been investments in all of those areas. Then you think of the senior center. Ken will talk about this tonight, or our police, our public safety, like break room areas where we have furniture that's shared by multiple employees, but were old cloth-type furniture that were very difficult to clean. And so we've been swapping those for furniture that will be more sanitary moving forward. We've also looked at facility improvements, auto-flush toilet conversion kits, touchless water fountains, automatic doors, these types of improvements that will make it a safer experience for the public coming in and the employees employees that are working here. Payroll costs for the Timpanogos Hospital COVID testing. Our public— our police department had employees that were staffing that facility for those— that period of time. They were all there on overtime, and we will be using some of these resources to cover the costs of those employees that were there providing a safe experience for anybody coming to get tested. An event that will be coming up, we're talking about some economic support to restaurants as that's one of the areas that has been impacted adversely during the pandemic. While some were winners in this area, specifically those with drive-throughs, not all were. And our hope is to expose our public and businesses to some of these restaurants for future catering and eating out services. And so we'll be providing some financial support to them through an event that exposes them to 1,000+ people in hopes that that allows them to launch into a brighter future than they've had the last 6 months. We've also looked for opportunities to support the school district as those people that they serve are the people that we serve, specifically touchless water fountains that they need in some of those schools. As well as other areas that may be able to benefit the school district and obviously our citizens in the process. So we look for opportunities to partner with these resources as well. But our hope again in all of those is to make Orem as safe of a community as possible in our public spaces, support our businesses by way of the fund through Utah County, as well as some of our own support so that all of us can survive and then thrive as we get out of this pandemic. As we looked for plans to spend the money, one of the challenges that we're up against is a deadline that the Utah County has given us of November 1st, whereas some of these contractors, it's difficult to even mobilize them by that time to get the work done. Now, there may be— Please, Mayor.

Thank you.

Maybe one thing I could bring up, the deadline you have there with November 1st is correct, but the federal government has lengthened out the deadline for the county by 3 months beyond what they originally had said. And the county has not come out with a change on that, but I would recommend that we go back to the county and ask them to look at what the federal government's change has occurred And what that means for us.

Okay, great feedback. Thank you, Mayor. We have the ability to reimburse ourselves for the payroll costs of employees that were substantially dedicated to the pandemic, even if those employees were already budgeted. This is a caveat. In general, they didn't want us spending money on things that were already budgeted. The out of that was, however, and I'll use one example. Heather Shriver, who's, as many of you know, a very, very important part of our city attorney's office. She spent a significant amount of time digesting, interpreting, and helping us apply the CARES Act. 2+ weeks solid, plus some throughout. So in instances like that, what the CARES Act allows is for us to say, yes, we budgeted for Heather Shriver. We just didn't anticipate her spending 2+ weeks fully interpreting the CARES Act that we didn't know was even coming last July 1st. We didn't know this was a thing. So we're allowed to reimburse ourselves for those wages given that she was substantially dedicated to the pandemic. Think of our emergency manager, human resources, some of the administration, Our finance department. So a lot of people fit that. One of the other things they talk about and has been clarified is there was a presumption made to all cities that all of your public safety payroll can be presumed that they were substantially dedicated. So we have obviously, and we have interpreted that further to suggest that's our frontline, that's our firefighters, our paramedics, Our patrol officers, our dispatchers—everything they did had to be done differently because of the pandemic. How they responded to calls, what types of calls they were responding to. As you know, domestic violence cases were up significantly. That that shifted our our patrol to a different a different a different road than we were planning to go down in in our course of work. Our firefighters, paramedics—they had to distance. They went into calls, they had to do different kinds of PPE. Again, I make the point just that everything changed with how they responded because of the pandemic. Therefore, the CARES Act allows us to presume that all of— all public safety payroll in those frontline-type positions are substantially dedicated to the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, we are able to be reimbursed for the wages that we spent between March 1st and December 30th on those employees. What that means is that we have the ability to secure the entire $6.9 million using not only the needs we've already identified, but this public safety and other employees, this, this quote unquote Well, this portion of the CARES Act that was laid out for local governments. What that means is we're not up— if we use this outlet, we're not up against the November 1st deadline or even a 3-month extension. We can still do the things that we feel are the right things to do to protect our employees and protect the public during the— from the COVID-19 pandemic, and we're not as tied to these deadlines. We're not the only city that's doing this. The entire state of Arizona, the entire state of Idaho, the city of Las Vegas, Sacramento County, the state of Michigan. In fact, the whole state of Arizona told all cities the only thing you are to reimburse on is your public safety payroll. Let's then we'll get the money to you. It'll be a very clean audit file. You'll just have the payroll, and then we encourage you to use that money. To do the things you've identified to do, but to do it on your timeline and as quick as you're able to without worry of the deadline. And so what we've talked about as staff is, is going down the road of these needs that we know we have, but ensuring that given that this pandemic likely isn't gone away by December 31st, we still have the resources available to the City of Orem to respond to the COVID COVID pandemic, whether that be January, whether that be February or March, if we use the outlet of our employees who are substantially dedicated to the COVID-19 pandemic. Any questions on that? There'll be obviously questions anytime, but at the end as well. The Treasury, just so you're reporting, and our finance department has been all over this, but the Treasury has required through Utah County that expenditures through June 30th be submitted no later than September 21st, 2020. Utah County has required us to submit by September 11th, 2020. We can amend those submissions if necessary, and we will meet this deadline. We've submitted information supporting just under $4.1 million through the June 30th period end. So that's where we're at right now with the CARES Act. Mayor, or any other council members, any questions?

All right, well, thank you, Steve. I appreciate that. Let's move on to a discussion on the CARES Act CDBG-CV funding recommendations, and Kenna Matthews is our presenter.

Good afternoon, Council. I reserve my presentation for the City Council meeting since we have to have a public hearing as part of our recommendations. But I just wanted to shortly go through what we'll be recommending tonight. This is the money that we received, the $411,000 that we received in extra CDBG money for eligible CDBG projects for COVID-related response. You've already approved $70,000, around $72,000 of this for public service and administration. And so these are additional requests that have come to us, um, in the last month or so. The commission, the CDBG commission, has approved these recommendations, and the chair will be presenting those at council tonight. One of the first recommendations for $132,000 for our senior center. These are COVID-related activities such as doors that open without having to be opened themselves, so automatic doors, an awning for curbside meal pickup. They expect to continue to do that into the, the inclement weather months. As Steven talked about, cleanable furniture and chairs. They need a fogger and UV lights. For their bingo cards and other areas in the building. Some personal protective equipment, plexiglass for their meal service, a scoopless ice dispenser. Also, a lot of their programs have gone online, and so they need some equipment for online program creation and access. A touchless coffee and water dispenser. sensors and a touchless credit card system. So those are the items that we will be presenting tonight from the Senior Center at $132,000. We also had a public service project come to us through Community Action in Provo. They are in need of about $5,000 from tech for some technology. Right now you cannot apply online for their programs, you have to go online, download a bunch of papers, and take them into their, into their organization in Provo, or mail them back, or fax them back, or scan them and email them back. So this will allow them to have an online application process. It will also allow them to have some cameras for some of their caseworkers so that they can do some online counseling over, over the computer. Computer and just update some other technology to help with some of those things. So those are the— what we'll be presenting tonight. Does anyone have any questions?

All right, thank you, Kenna. Appreciate it.

Thanks, Mayor.

We'll go on to our next discussion, which is on city retention schedule, which we've been doing now for several We've had several work sessions. Our presenter is Jody Bates. Jody.

Thank you, Mayor and Council. This is just the next step in our retention schedule.

We're starting with our Public Works Department. It looks like there's about 4 or 5 divisions there that we're looking at.

If there isn't any questions, this will come before you again at the next City Council meeting under a consent item.

OK, thank you.

Appreciate it.

Let's go on to our agenda review. Um, Jeff Lampson will be giving the invocation and the Pledge of Allegiance this evening. We have a consent calendar here. First item is approval of the City Council meeting minutes, August 11th, 2020. The next is appointment to boards and commissions to the Orem Neighborhood Advisory Commission. The appointments are Sunday Mazervi, Michelle Jensen, David Moulton, Mark Seestrand, Karen McCandless. I think most of us know the last 2, and many of us know David Moulton. He was the chair of our Planning Commission. Any comments on Sunday Mazervi or Michelle Jensen?

I think Michelle ran for Go ahead, Debbie. I was saying Michelle ran for city council, so most of us should be familiar with her.

Okay, so I have a concern with Michelle. She did run for city council last year, but one of the planks of her platform was to eliminate all zoning throughout the city. And to protect our neighborhoods, I believe that our zones are Thank you.

I think zones are important.

They should not be eliminated, and there's a reason for them to protect the health and safety of neighbors next door, to be able to get fire and police into neighborhoods, into homes. I think it would disrupt our society tremendously and go against our neighborhood plans to eliminate zones. So personally, I would not recommend Nichelle Jensen. I don't know if anybody else has any comments. I know Nichelle, I like her, she's a friend, but I disagree with the fact that she is promoting being rid of our zoning process in the city.

I don't really have a problem.

Oh, go ahead, Debbie, sorry.

I don't really have a problem if someone has different ideas because don't they have to have a, majority. I mean, she'd have to convince a lot of other people on the commission that that's something that we should do. So I don't mind having a difference of opinion. I sometimes— it vets out some ideas that you don't think of, so I'm not as worried. The other thing I do like about her is she is of the younger generation, more of the millennial type, and we have— we don't have much representation on some of our— so I'm okay. I understand the concern, but She would have to convince a lot of other people to go that way.

And just, just as a way of information, this will not be a decision-making body. They wouldn't have any ability to make any ordinances, laws, or anything like that.

So I would like to hear the comments from the rest of the council on Michelle.

Mayor, this is Terry. I do have a comment. Uh, we all received a letter from Michelle Jensen Regarding the police, and some of the things that she advocated: the following activities—this is quoting her letter—do not threaten public safety and are often used to police Black bodies. Decriminalize these activities. That once she wants to decriminalize marijuana possession, this was the letter we all received. If we want to just go back on your file, consumption of alcohol on the streets, disorderly conduct. Trespassing? I'm sorry, I cannot, I will not support someone that advocates that marijuana possession should be legalized in the city.

Terry, can I just add an amen if you're ready for an amen, Terry? While I have some concerns with what the mayor brought up, I have bigger concerns about what Terry brought up, and I too would not support her.

And this is Dave.

I don't, I don't support her either. I agree with Terry 100%. And to defund the police and all that stuff, I, I don't, I don't agree with it.

So I don't agree. Okay, well, we have 4 votes not approving her, so we will strike her from the list of appointments.

Uh, hey, Mayor, can we get Jeff? Let's get Jeff to opine too, though. I don't want him to be silenced.

Go ahead.

I, I would agree. I mean, I, I know Nichelle, I like Nichelle. Um, I, you know, I understand what Debbie's saying about the importance of having another voice, but yeah, that's, that's, those are good points.

You are not in favor, is that correct, Jeff?

Yeah.

Okay, so that puts us 6 in favor— not in favor, 1 in favor. Uh, we will not move forward on her appointment. Any comments on Sunday Mazzurbi? I don't know.

Really quick, and Greg, maybe you can— as far as choosing not to appoint, do we just strike her from this, or does there have to be any discussion specifically on her in the meeting?

So this is a consent item, and we can make our decision ahead of time. So unless somebody wants it to go You know, into a public hearing type comment situation. But we can decide right now whether or not we want to appoint her.

I'm just—I guess I just want to make sure for clarification: Do we—they're all grouped as one, or do we just do we have to pull that whole item out of consent?

Yeah, we okay. We have an appointment process on the consent item, and we will not. Include her as being appointed to a board or commission.

Okay, and Greg isn't speaking up, so I'm assuming we're good with that, which is fine with me.

Okay, right, we've listed it on the agenda with her on it. If the mayor at the beginning of the consent items articulates what it is specifically or which candidates we're voting on, then I think we're probably okay.

Yeah, I'm gonna I'm going to articulate which ones we're approving, not which ones we're not approving. So, um, and Sundi Mazervi, anybody have any interaction with her?

Uh, I, I have, Mayor. This is Terry, and a great young lady, or a great woman. She has children in the schools, schools here in Orem, uh, very passionate, been involved with the PTA and other community activities, and would be a wonderful addition.

And Mayor, just so you know too, Jeff Lamson and Brent Sumner were both on the interview process for all of these people that were coming forward. And so they have chatted with all of them too, which may help give context.

Okay.

Mayor, my oversight, I asked for Jeff to speak, but Brent hadn't spoken, and maybe I inadvertently silenced him.

I don't mean to on the McCall issue.

Brent, do you want to say something?

Yeah, sorry, I pushed my leave button a few minutes ago, so I haven't heard a lot of this discussion, but it's about Michelle, is that correct?

Yes, Michelle.

Yeah, I don't know her that well, but I did read the email she sent, and I watched her campaign a little bit, and I I, I don't think she'd be a good one for this committee.

Okay, appreciate that. Thanks, Brent. Uh, for Public Works Advisory Commission, we have a reappointment of Jim, uh, Michalis. Um, any comments on Public Works?

Michalis, I've known him for 40—

30-plus years.

I highly recommend him.

He's a great man.

Okay, anybody else?

I would second that. I've known Jim for not as many years as Tom because I'm not as old as Tom, but Jim's a great guy. Highly competent.

Summerfest Committee. Debbie, any comments on 2 reappointments there?

Debbie?

Remind me who they are. I don't have my agenda.

So we've got John Whitaker and Katrina Blau.

I think they'll both be fine. John did a great job on the car show and Katrina did a good job. So yeah, no problem.

Okay, moving down. Jamie has asked for advice and consent of the City Council on the following appointments for the Board of Adjustment appointments: David Moulton to replace the current seat held by Mickey Cochran and Juan Carlos Iglesias to fill the current vacancy. Jamie, any comment?

Mayor, just both of these representatives have served previously as members of the Planning Commission.

Yes.

Carlos and David, you've already spoken to David, but Carlos is also a long-term member of our Planning Commission, did a fine job.

Is Mickey timing out?

I don't know the answer to that.

This is Jason.

If I can just speak to that, the ordinance does not allow a planning commissioner that's seated on the Planning Commission to be on the Board of Adjustment.

That was an oversight on our part, so we just need to replace him.

OK, Vicki is currently the chair of our Planning Commission, correct?

Yes.

So he should not be at both, right? OK, 8.3 is a resolution approval of the City of Orem Finance Department Department retention schedule. Everybody okay with that? Okay, I'm assuming that's a yay. Uh, the next one's a resolution updating the city's policy regarding shutting off utility accounts. Brandon, do you want to make mention on that one? Brandon Nelson?

Yep.

Um, Brandon is is here as well. I'm just the one next to the mic, so sorry. Brandon has been working through this, him and the finance department, but this is essentially what we discussed earlier. And that's the idea that if somebody were to choose to leave town for an extended period of time, the base rates would continue to apply, usage rates would not, and then they would have the option to remove garbage and recycling. We also included in that resolution Said that these— those types of temporary suspensions cannot be for less than 1 month. Somebody who's on a 1-week vacation isn't going to be able to receive a usage deduction for the 1 week. I think that's it. That's kind of the basics of it. And then they would receive— they would have a fee for the turn-on and the turn-off, which has always been in the budget. We just have not charged that in the past. That would be charged. If we go out to turn off and on their water.

So we have discussed this. Anybody have any questions or comments? Okay, we'll go ahead and work with that and put on our consent and approve it. Scheduled items tonight, 9.1 is a public hearing on a resolution. The city will receive public comment on the community development Block Grant projected use of funds for CARES Act CDBG funding and consider approval of a substantial amendment to the 2019-2020 Annual Action Plan. Again, any comments, questions? Kenneth Ransom, will he be here tonight? Kenneth Ransom?

He will be presenting tonight.

Okay.

All right.

Any comments from anyone? All right, let's go ahead and stop there. So we do have Jeff that's going to give us a report on our city council report. Before we do that though, Jamie, do you have any comments to make?

Yes, Mayor, thank you. Just a couple of things for your information. The first one being the city did in fact submit the earnest money offer to the Alpine School District last week. It included a $25,000 earnest money deposit. The school district now has 30 days to respond to the city. And we would anticipate that the school district will run this earnest money agreement by their building and grounds committee in advance of presenting it to the Board of Education. So we are just in that process right now. I continue, I'm sure you continue to receive suggestions and encouragements as to what we should do with this project. Our focus right now is simply on the agreement and on the due diligence phase of this effort. In the event that they do accept our offer, then the city would initiate an environmental review of the property and go through some of those things in advance. Obviously coordinate the financing and the funding of this purchase in advance of having a real detailed discussion about what to do with this property. We are going to be, as a staff, just putting some details together as to, for example, some of the base costs associated with, for example, park property. If we were to put, let's say, 6 pickleball courts on property, new pavilion, new restrooms, so on and so forth, what that would cost. But I just wanted you to know that right now that agreement is, is currently in the hands of the Alpine School District. We are narrowing down our recruitment efforts in relation to our police chief. You recall we sent a supplemental questionnaire to candidates. We actually requested 4 groups of employees to review and score those questionnaire submissions. You as a council were one of those groups. We also had 2 groups within the police department that participated in that review effort, and then another group of general employees. It's our recommendation that we move forward with 5 of the 7 individuals who submitted responses to those questionnaires. And rather than moving forward with some sort of Zoom process, our plan is to bring all 5 of those candidates into the City Center for a series of interviews and assessments to which you will all be invited to be participants in that effort. We have not set a date yet. just wanted to let you know that it's in process, that we have gone and narrowed our list down to 5 finalists for the position. I think prior to the meeting today, there was some talk about the opening of the fitness center pool. This morning at 5:30 AM, we opened up the lap pool. Pool for swimming. And at noon today, we received the sign-off from the county health department to also open up our leisure pool. So right now, both pools are in operation. We appreciate the hard, hard work of folks like Chad Barth and others in our recreation department who worked through the weekend to get the pool ready.

And functioning.

I think those that will visit the pool are going to be pleased with the work that has been done. Obviously, new hot tub, it's been repainted, the spectator seating is almost complete, and we've done quite a bit of work in and around the pool deck to accommodate pool lighting and so on. But of course, all the guts of the lap pool and both pools actually have been replaced. So new boilers, new pumps, all these things that are— new steam room, new hot tub, all these things are important pieces of our fitness center project. And so we are excited to welcome our patrons back to the fitness center on a limited basis until next February when we complete the project overall. Just a reminder, Christy sent you some information about the Utah League of Cities and Towns. I know several of you have RSVP'd for their virtual conference this year. Their virtual conference will be held September 21st through 25th. If you still have an interest to participate in that conference, just reach out to Christy via email and she'll be happy to set you up and register you for the conference. Another reminder, this upcoming Thursday we have a scheduled joint city council meeting with Provo City via Zoom. I sent you some information about that meeting earlier today. And I want to make sure all of you are invited, and we will forward the details of that Zoom meeting to you as soon as we can get them. I haven't confirmed yet with Christy. I'll do that.

Mayor, Mayor and Jamie and Council, I can never come on a Thursday, so when they schedule the next meeting, a Monday or Wednesday would be preferred. Okay, okay.

This meeting was scheduled at the request of Provo City, and so I will make sure, Councilmember McDonald, that we do it on a day different than Tuesday and Thursday in the future.

Hey, Jamie, this is Terry. Just a concern, and I think you shared that in your comments to us. I'm not sure what they want from us because we might have differences of opinion about some of the topics topics they want to bring up. So give us some advice on how to handle that. I don't know if it does any good for them to hear 4 or 5 different opinions from us.

Well, we have had a longstanding tradition of meeting with the Provo City Council, what, 3 or 4 times a year, just to touch base on everything from transportation to community development issues, infrastructure issues, and I will represent that there have been many an occasion where both city councils have not agreed on a path forward in relation to a variety of issues. Now with that said, we have always had a very healthy, respectful, cooperative relationship with Provo City, and I would just encourage you to continue to, you know, voice and represent the best interests of the citizens of Orem in those meetings, understanding that at times and on occasions, you know, your input and the representation and the needs of Orem are going to be different than the needs of Provo. So I think to some degree right now, This, the issue of COVID-19 is front and center in the minds of everybody, especially as we start a new school year at both UVU and BYU. And obviously Provo City has been engaged in a healthy discussion about COVID-19 and mask requirements. I'm sure that will be a part of the discussion. on Thursday. And I think as a city, you have represented to us, the staff, what you believe the appropriate course is to follow, and that is namely strongly encouraging people to mask up, yet not making it a requirement within the city. Now, I will represent, as you well know, because you have approved of this, in all city facilities we do have a mask requirement. But other than that, we're simply encouraging our residents to mask up and to do their best to social distance and to protect themselves and the community at large from COVID-19. I don't know if that's helpful, Councilmember Pedersen.

Yeah, I just wasn't sure if this was wanting us to support support their fiasco or not. But I would love to welcome everyone from Provo to come to Orem and shop and then just turn around and go back home.

Terry, just to your last comment, just so you know, the mayor and her husband do all their shopping in Orem. They don't shop in Provo.

That's good. Michelle's a wise mayor.

So if we could, let's move on. Jamie, are you pretty much done?

Couple more things if I may. Just want to let you know that financially the city continues to move forward. And as I mentioned to you in the past, we have been encouraged by some of the sales tax returns that we have seen. Last week we received our road fund allocations. And those allocations were $100,000 less in the 2020 fiscal year. Than they were in the 2019 fiscal year. So not all revenue projections are as resilient, as strong in 2020 as they were in 2019. But we will continue to obviously work on the road projects that we have prioritized, understanding that we will have a little less money to work with in 2020 than we did in 2019. And finally, I've had several people ask me today, how are we doing with the weather incident that took place overnight? If you look at the news, parts north have borne the brunt of the wind, and thankfully we have not had any significant damage in the city as a result of the wind event. However, we also understand that high winds are expected throughout the night tonight, so we'll continue to monitor that. But fortunately for us, much of the damage and much of the concern is up in the Salt Lake Valley and farther north. So that is all I had for you today. Thank you, Mayor.

Thanks, Jamie. I wish to report on one event that occurred on Saturday, and that was the groundbreaking for the Orem City Temple. It was a beautiful day. There was no wind. The sun was shining. It was very warm. We had the full area presidency of the church there, and we had Mayor Fulmer and her husband, and my wife Tammy and I were there. Only 30 people were invited to participate, but it was a beautiful groundbreaking. They gave us a shovel engraved with the date and the event on it, and it turned out very, very well. Had great discussion with all the General Authorities. They're very excited. It was interesting to listen to them talk about completion of the temple, not in just 24 months, but into 22 to 24 months. So, they're anxious. Lastly, they were very complimentary towards Jamie and towards staff. They said Orem's been the best city to work with out of any city they've worked with on putting up a new temple. So congratulations, Jamie, to you and your staff. With that said, let's go to Jeff Lamson, and he'll give us a report on his responsibilities.

Jeff?

Jeff, are you there?

I'm here. I'm just trying to unmute myself.

Okay.

Thank you, Mayor. So my— the 4 commissions that I work with is the CARE Tax Commission, which they've done their good work and all of that is moving forward. I also work with the Natural Resources Stewardship Committee, and they're very engaged in their work and the things that they're doing. They've been doing some, some exciting things. I think they've actually been out and meeting with some of the farmers and the farmlands here in Orem and near areas and talking with them about possibilities in preserving their farmlands and keeping the green space that is few and far between. They've had some good visits and some, some good inputs there. They've also been running a social media campaign where they've done some really fun things, posting, and especially during COVID-19, things that people can do to get out of the house, to get out and to enjoy some of the beautiful trails and the parks and the things that we have all around us that a lot of times we don't even know are there. And also posting fun things for parents to do with kids, like go outside and see what kind of birds you can see, and then share pictures or share what you found on their on their Facebook page. They're also in the process of creating some education stations. They're working with the library. And apparently there's some open space on the 2nd floor that is an outdoor space that they would like to use to open up to youth, you know, teenagers, preteens, even children, where they would have some printed material that they could see the benefits of being a good steward of our natural resources. And then one other thing that I thought was a great idea that they came up with, they're talking about running a contest for Orem businesses, and it would be basically a renewable energy contest, kind of like our neighborhood beautification awards where, you know, people are awarded with doing a good job in making their yard beautiful and and a beautiful upkeep. They'd like to do something similar in the arena of businesses that are conscientious about their renewable energy. So again, they're just doing a wonderful job and very engaged. Another committee that I serve on or help with is the Utah Lake Commission. And They're in the middle of a really big project right now with the Provo River Delta, which is basically a government— excuse me, a federal government-funded project to help recover the endangered June sucker. And so they're engaged in a major workout there. They took us on a field trip, and fun to see the things that they're doing there to restore some wetlands and also to preserve that endangered species. Also, some other things that they've been working on, they've been doing some— they've contracted with a couple of different companies, 2 different firms, to conduct algae treatments to the Linden Marina and also the Utah Lakes State Park and the Lincoln Marina. To kind of, I guess, keep some of the algal blooms and some of the other things going on there under control. And so they've been, they've been doing some testing and some treatments, and they don't have the final reports in as of yet, but based on what they have seen so far, their initial observations are very promising that the water clarity has drastically improved, that the algae presence has greatly diminished. And so they're very encouraged about that. Also working with some, some things along the shoreline to kind of help some of the natural habitat to come back that's been overtaken by phragmites and some other, some other things that are taking over some of those things. Let's see. Oh, and then talking about, they've done some fun things with nesting boxes for ospreys. And as you go along the shore there, you'll see that they have these nesting boxes for different species of birds. And they're particularly excited that they've actually seen some ospreys nesting there and young chicks that are present. And And, you know, hopefully to have a greater presence there along Utah Lake. So, and then also the Transportation Advisory Committee, which is always doing a wonderful job keeping people moving, whether it be in their cars or on their bikes or pedestrians, light rail. And Sam and his commission are doing a wonderful job there.

Thank you.

Hey, Jeff, I have a question. Did the commission have the Utah Lake Festival this year, or was that postponed?

They postponed it this year and hoping to do it again next year. They came up with some other activities. They did a scavenger hunt, and, you know, they've done some fun things that way to try and get people down, you know, near the lake and enjoying the resource that that is.

Okay, thanks.

Thanks, Debbie.

Thank you, Jeff. Any other comments or questions? Um, one thing I wanted to mention, uh, Jeff, you brought up about, uh, Rocky Mountain and energy and so forth. Rocky Mountain has approached me and wants to meet with Jamie and I and then with the council. They have a new program that they feel like will be beneficial for the citizens to save money. This is not an opt-out program. This is a program that everyone who wants to participate can, and they've done it in one other city and saw great results. So they're supposed to be contacting us here in the next couple of weeks. Also at the library hall, if, if you've seen, if you've been on the tour, there is a patio out to the north of the library hall that looks like a beautiful place to sit or do some minor activities or whatever, together with the area on the children's library up on the second story. And the algae bloom thing going on in Utah Lake is very successful. I know they have to finish up their tests, but I'm really hopeful that's going to really help our lake in the future.

Yep.

So thank you. If nothing else, let's go ahead and adjourn. We'll take a break and then we'll start back up at 6 o'clock for our city council meeting.

Thank you.

Hey, Mayor.

Hey, Jeff.

So Darla is actually here with me, and I had asked her to do the Pledge of Allegiance if that's okay. If not, I can go ahead and do both.

No, that'd be great.

Okay, I'll let her know she's on.

I will make that change.

Any word on power up at your house?

Um, I haven't heard from them yet, so I don't know. Hopefully it's on again. The timing was pretty suspect that Kind of made a mess.

Yeah, one of those things that we take for granted, you know.

Yep, at least it's not 20 below zero, so.

Yeah, at least it's not in the middle of January or February.

Yeah, we have one gentleman who has a big generator at his house, and so when the power goes out, his lights are always on.

Oh wow.

I would like to buy a generator for my house too.

So yeah, that would be nice to have that backup plan.

Yeah, I want a solar generator so that, you know, I don't have to buy the gas.

You want one or you're—

I do, but they're like 2 grand. Yeah, but they're sold.

Okay, I'll run down there.

99 cents or, uh, $299.

Not sure how much power you get, maybe for your blender.

You know though, if you kept— if you just kept your fridge going, that'd be worth the money.

Yep.

So when the power goes out at our house, my wife says, don't anybody open up the fridge. And I go, all right.

So my, you know, I'm from Lincoln, Nebraska, and they had a power outage that lasted a whole week. And my parents literally had refrigerators, like those deep freezers. They just put sleeping bags and all kinds of things, insulated them, and they lasted. So they went a whole week.

Wow.

In the middle of the winter.

Wow.

And it's tough.

It is bitter cold.

Yeah, I, uh, out on the plains, man, it gets cold. I, I worked up in Wyoming for 2 years, and I'd, I'd be standing there and my coat would be straight behind me because the wind's so strong and be freezing to death.

Oh yeah, your breath could almost freeze. Yeah, it was not my work. I, I literally almost froze to death one day coming home from school. My mother had to get the wagon and come rescue us, me and my sisters.

We were frozen.

Oh wow.

Yeah, well, glad you made it.

Thanks, me too. Didn't want a death by frostbite.

Really?

It was so cold. We literally— our fingers, our legs were all frostbitten.

She had to literally—

you know how you have to kind of very slowly warm them up? Yeah, we could have We had a little bit of damage, but we didn't lose any of our toes or fingers, which was good.

So your mom put them in warm water and just gradually warmed them up?

Not really warm. It's kind of more of a tepid, and you kind of go back and forth. I don't know. They teach you those things in Nebraska where frostbite's a real problem.

Yeah.

One year we had blizzards so bad that we couldn't get out our front door, so we tunneled— we created tunnels to our neighbors. We tunneled it.

Wow.

I'm not exaggerating. I am not exaggerating.

Wow.

There's a reason we lost a few people at winter quarters.

It's—

when we say wind chill, I mean 4 or 5, you know, 40 below.

It's so cold.

Your bones, your bones are cold.

So like I said, I've been up in Wyoming. I've been Out by Martin's Cove and all the rest of that in that environment, but I've also been there by the Sweetwater in the middle of the summer. And if you go by where everybody carved their names into the rock, the mosquitoes are so bad there you can hardly stand it. I mean, you're just getting bitten alive. So I don't know if the summer is any better. All right, well, it's 6 o'clock, so let's go ahead and start our meeting. I would like to read a notice on our electronic meeting. Pursuant to Mayor Richard F. Brunt's proclamation dated September 1, 2020, the Orem City Council meeting On September 8th, 2020 will be an all-electronic meeting. There will be no anchor location for this meeting. The city cannot ensure the recommended minimum of 6 feet for 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/comment. Thank you, Mr. Comments or citycouncilpubliccomments@orum.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 as time permits. Once an item has been voted on, that item will be closed.

Thank you.

to additional comments. Thank you for your cooperation during these challenging times. I would now like to call this meeting to order, and we would like to invite Jeff Lampson to give us an opening prayer and his wife Darla Lampson to lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Our beloved Father in heaven, we humbly come before thee in prayer this evening with gratitude in our hearts For this opportunity of being together. We are grateful to thee for the privilege and opportunity of living in this wonderful city, and we're so grateful to live in this beautiful valley. We're grateful, Heavenly Father, for the good people who live here and who make Orem such a wonderful place to live. We pray, Heavenly Father, as we are together this evening, that we might have thy Spirit to be with us to guide and direct our thoughts and The actions that will be taken. We pray for Thy Spirit to inspire us, to guide us and direct us in all that we do and in all that we say. We pray, Father, that Thou would be with and bless those who are going through challenging times at this time, whether it be weather-related or from the pandemic or other concerns. We pray that Thou would bless them. And we pray, Father, for again, for Thy guidance and direction. We thank thee for all which thou hast blessed us with, and we say these things in the name of Jesus Christ.

Amen.

Amen.

Please stand and repeat the Pledge of Allegiance with me.

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, Darla, and thank you, Jeff. Appreciate that. Um, we now go to our personal appearance portion of our meeting. Uh, Steve Downs, do we have anyone who has sent in comments for personal appearances?

No comments, Mayor.

Okay.

We will go ahead and open it up though for any comments that wish to come in for 1 minute starting right now. Okay, our 1-minute is up hearing, and seeing that no comments have come in, we'll close the portion of public comments, personal appearances, and move on. We will now move on to our consent item agenda. Our consent item agenda has 4 items on it. If anyone wishes to have those items taken off and be put on the scheduled item, please let me know. If not, we will go ahead and read the consent item agenda. 8.1 is the approval of City Council meeting minutes of August 11th, 2020. 8.2 is appointments to boards and commissions. The first one is appointments to the Orem Neighborhood Advisory Commission. The appointments are Sunday Mazervi, David Moulton, Mark Seestrand, Karen McCandless. Next is Public Works Advisory Commission, a reappointment of Jim Michaelis. Next is the Summerfest Committee reappointments of John Whitaker and Katrina Blau. And Jamie Davidson has asked for the advice and consent of the city council on the following appointments: the Board of Adjustment appointment of David Moulton to replace current seat held by Mickey Cochran, and Juan Carlos Iglesias to fill a vacant— a current vacancy. The next item is 8.3, which is a resolution Approval of the City Orem Finance Department retention schedule. And the last one is 8.4, which is also a resolution updating the city's policy regarding shutting off utility accounts. I move that we accept the consent agenda. Is there a second?

Second.

Okay, I'd like to go ahead and vote on this if we can. I'd like to start out with Debbie Larey.

Aye.

Jeff Lampson.

Aye.

Brent Zimmer.

Aye.

Tom McDonald.

Aye.

Dave Spencer.

Aye.

Terry Peterson.

Aye.

Mayor, I vote aye as well. Our consent agenda passes. We'll move on to our scheduled items. The first one is 9.1. This is a public hearing. on a resolution that the city will receive public comment on the Community Development Block Grant projected use of funds for CARES Act CDBG-CV funding and consider approval of a substantial amendment to the 2019-2020 Annual Action Plan. Kenneth Ransom, our Advisory Commission chairperson, and Kenna Jo Matthews Our community services manager are our presenters, and I will turn the time over to them.

Hello, Mayor and council members. This is Ken Ransom. Can you hear me?

Yes, Ken.

Very good.

Glad you can hear me. All right, so hope you can see the presentation in front of you there, and we'll get started. So if we'll go to slide 2, please. All right, the City of Orem has received additional allocation of $411,983, and previously we presented and the council approved allocating $72,950 for public services to RAW, Kids on the Move, and the Family Support and Treatment Center, and for CDBG administration for the city. So the remaining balance to allocate is $339,000— $339.32. Sorry, having trouble speaking there. I apologize for that. Next slide. And the funds are used— are to be used to prevent, prepare for, and respond to the coronavirus pandemic, and they cannot be used to offset revenue shortfalls or for duplication of benefits. Next slide. Thank you. Previously, the City Council— and this is what our commission used to guide our deliberations Prioritized projects serving Orem residents, first responder support, mental health, and domestic violence programs. So that's what we use to guide our deliberations as we considered these requests for funding. Next slide, please. So the senior center, their COVID-related needs, you can see the list of what they're requesting there. I won't read all those, but their total request is for $130,000. $32,000, and they are really— they've said they need those to help them deal with the COVID pandemic. Next slide, please. And the Community Action Services and Food Bank technology needs, they've requested $5,000 for webcams for their case managers and web-based client portal database and to allow for online application process and text communication. And so the total recommendation for those two, those two requests is $137,000, and the commission recommends that the that the council approve those recommendations. And there's a balance to there's remaining balance of funds of $202,032 that are still not appropriated, or we don't have we have not made any recommendations on that yet. And there'll be additional— there are some additional requests, is my understanding, that are in the pipeline that will be coming. So the next steps for the commission— excuse me, for the council— is to support the funding recommendations and adopt the resolution approving a substantial amendment to the City of Orem Annual Action Plan for fiscal year 2019 and 2020. And as I mentioned, the advisory commission will have some additional recommendations in the near future as some of these Additional requests work through the pipeline. Are there any questions?

I have a question. Is, is there a deadline for, for allocation, or is it just as needs arise?

I mean, there is. Um, we need to have it recommended by next August in 2021, but then they have between 3 to 6 years to use the funding.

Thanks, that's great.

Any other comments or questions? All right, well, this is a public hearing, so we will go ahead and open it up for public comment, um, and we will start the time for 1 minute to see if any public comments come in right now.

And Mayor, while that minute runs, I do have one that was emailed ahead of time. So this will probably take us through that 1 minute. Dear council members, I want to express my appreciation to the CDBG Commission for its recommendation of allocating $5,000 to Community Action Services and Food Bank to help with COVID-related technologies. I also appreciate your consideration of its recommendation. We at Community Action are seeing a significant increase in the number of community members who need help with basic needs. Fortunately, Community Action has been able to remain open to serve our community. We do not know what the future holds, and there may be a time when we would have to temporarily close. We will be using the money to purchase hardware and software so our employees can continue to serve our community remotely. While we cannot provide food pantry services remotely, we can provide rent, utility, mortgage, and emergency shelter assistance remotely, provided that we have the necessary technology. The technology will not only be able to be used if we are closed, but can be used while we are open to minimize contact with the public. Again, thank you for your consideration. Karen McCandless, Executive Director, Community Action Services and Food Bank.

Okay, the minute has ended and we will go ahead and— are there any other Comments that have come in to you, Steve?

Nope, no further comments.

All right, we will close the public comment portion of our public hearing and bring it back to the council. Any comments or questions from the council? All right, seeing none, I would like to make a motion that the Orange City Council support the projected use of the CDBG-CV funds as listed this evening. And adopt a substantial amendment to the 2019-2020 Annual Action Plan. Is there a second?

Second.

Okay, let's go ahead and vote. I'd like to start out with Debbie.

Aye.

Okay, Jeff Lampson.

Aye.

Brent Sumner.

Aye.

Tom McDonald.

Aye.

Dave Spencer?

Aye.

Terry Peterson?

Aye.

Mayor Brunstad? I vote aye as well. The resolution passes. We will now move on to any city manager items. Jamie, do you have anything you wish to bring forward?

I do not, thank you.

Okay, thank you, Jamie. Then I, with no further comment, move that we adjourn this meeting. Is there a second?

Second.

Okay, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

This meeting is adjourned. Thank you very much.

Thanks.

Thank you.