City Council · 2021-01-26

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 aurum.org/meetings. To make a comment, please submit your comment through aurum.org/comments. Written comments will be accepted before and during the meeting. All written comments received will be entered into the record and forwarded to each City Council member for review. Written comments will also be read aloud during the live meeting when required by law or when time permits. As technology permits, the City Council may also accept oral comments. 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 now would like to begin our work session via an electronic meeting. We'd like to start with a discussion of Rocky Mountain Power North Orem Transmission Line Project. for 15 minutes, and Michael Lang with Rocky Mountain Power is our presenter. Michael, we'll turn the time over to you.

Oh my gosh, how, how on earth?

Thank you very much, Mayor. I am joined today by Spencer Fowler. Spencer is one of the project managers, senior project manager for Rocky Mountain Power, and we're here today to discuss a project that most of which is inside the city limits of Orem. What this is, is a project to Upgrade or to rebuild a portion of an existing transmission line, about 5.2 miles of this line that runs from the Timpanogos substation, which is on the west side of Orem, just west of the freeway along 1600 North in that area. It runs east, if you will, coming from that Timpanogos substation up to kind of the foothills and then runs south. to there all the way down to the Spanish Fork substation. There's a good portion of that line right there, like I said, about 5 miles of that, that needs to be rebuilt with a reinforced and a larger size of conductor so that it can meet the new capacity needs due to some growth on the system. And as we all know, being residents of Utah County and the area and Orem citizens and And as you well know, being the council and mayor and the city administration of the city, 1600 North is a, is a very busy roadway. A portion of that now is going to be going over to UDOT control west of State Street, and the remaining portion is inside the control of Orem City. And so we are working with both UDOT and with Orem City to handle the necessary approvals and permitting so that we can increase the size of that capacity, which does require several of the poles and insulators and what we call conductor, or the wire, to be replaced. So I have invited Spencer to come and to share some information with you as the project manager and to leave plenty of time to answer questions that you might have regarding the scope of work. And the schedule and anything else that you have that might be of concern or questions that you would like us to answer for you today. Spencer, would you be able to share your screen and maybe we can walk through a general scope of what we're looking to do here and what the timing would be?

Mike, I'm not seeing Spencer on the call.

Well, that's not good. Hold on just a minute here.

Did he get the memo?

Yeah, I've been talking with him. If he can't join, I can share my screen and walk you through it. I prefer that he do it because he's the project manager and knows a little bit more in terms of the details of what we're doing. Right now, this project will be built for the most part with a contractor that will be doing the work, and this is out to bid right now for contracting. That contractor will be responsible for managing all the affairs as it relates to this work that goes on, the traffic control plan, logistics of the work that's going on. They'll be doing a lot of the work in terms of going out and talking with the property owners of the property where we'll need to be doing the work. And then, of course, doing the installation itself. And so we wanted to meet with the City Council and with the administration to discuss the project so that we could make sure when we do take this into bid and we're talking with those contractors who are bidding on the work, and that we ensure that they need to meet all of the requirements that you have as a city for them to do this work safely, in a timely manner, and basically to handle any logistical concerns that you might have as well. I think I'll go ahead and just share my screen, and then if Spencer is able to join, we can— Have him participate as well.

I don't—

I still don't see him on. So to do that, let me just see where I— oh, here we go.

Share screen.

So I'm going to share this here. If someone wouldn't mind telling me when you can see We're good, you're on. Okay, excellent. So as I mentioned, we're starting at the Timpanogos substation. I don't know if you'll be able to see my mouse or not, but I'm kind of circling where that is right here west of I-15. And the green line runs a little bit north and then heads east while it crosses over I-15 And then runs north again. I'm sorry, my directions are mixed up. This is not running north to south. It's running east this whole time. East and then north and then east again. And then along 1600 North, so this yellow section right here that you're looking at is the Spanish Fork to Timpanogos 138 line. When I say 138, that means it's a 138,000-kilovolt line. And so it's one of the larger transmission lines that runs along inside Orem City. And on that line, those structures, if you're familiar with that, you probably don't pay a whole lot of attention to it typically if you're like most of us, but there's a transmission line, which is the larger size conductor or wire on the top. And then for a good portion of that, there's an underbuild, a distribution underbuild. That's down below that. And it looks like Spencer's able to join us now, so that's good because he has, I think, a better map to show.

Yeah, I'm, I'm on.

Okay, Spencer, if you would, I'll stop sharing my screen and then if you want to share that Google Map that you and I had gone over, and that way we can show them the specific poles. That are going to be addressed.

Yeah. For some reason, my Google Earth Pro has shut out on me. Let me see if I can get it to reopen.

Oh, shoot.

So I've stopped sharing and you should be able to share now, Spencer.

Okay, just a second. It's giving me— my Google Earth is giving me a fit right at the moment. Give me just a second. Let me see if I can— what I may have to do is See if I can send it to you, Mike, and have you open it if it's not letting me.

Okay.

Let's see.

Go figure, I had this open all day long and now it gives me trouble. Okay, 2 more seconds. Okay, it should be— it should be coming to you now, Michael.

All right.

If you could just open that up, if yours will open. My apologies, I don't know why it suddenly is not opening for me, and I fear shutting down my computer will kick me completely out.

Right. Did you send that in an email or in a message or—

Uh, email.

Okay.

Should be in your inbox.

Michael, with time, that map was working okay for us, and depending on— you may want to—

I agree. Yeah, I'm just— this is opening now, so as long as this opens up, we'll go ahead and look at it. If not, I'll go back to that previous document.

Yeah, and the thing that KMZ will show you is each individual structure that we're modifying, it also identifies which ones we expect to physically change out and which ones we will be leaving and just reframing and pulling through. For the majority of it, we did identify through the city of Orem there should be ample room on those roads to be able to shift the traffic but not actually close anything down. They should only be pushed a little bit into into the center lane. Beyond that, they will be moving almost pole for pole, so they won't actually cone out the entire road; they'll just cone. the few structures that they intend to get done on that work schedule, so there will only be, you know, maybe 100 yards or 150 yards of road that will be affected at any given time.

How long does it take to take a pole out and replace it?

Depending on the type of pole, if our group gets on a roll, they can, they can have up to like 4 poles Topped and a new one's put in in a day. It'll really just depend for them just how smooth that it moves through because they will be dealing with each individual pole site location and each landowner and making sure that they've got their coordination because some of these are right out in park strip and in front yards. So they'll be working individually with every single landowner to make sure that access to their property and, and other things are not impeding their ability to And when does this project start? We are looking to start it on March 1st. Okay, looks like Michael got it up. So this is just looking at it from high level. All of the red pins are poles that will be expected to be changed out, and all the green ones are expected to be staying the same. They'll just be pulling through those. The 2 major crossings that we're expecting will obviously be I-15 and State Street. Those will require specific permitting with UDOT, which the contractor will be engaging with them, and they'll make sure that's all. I-15 will likely be Sunday in the morning at like 2 in the morning to pull that one across, and State Street will be something similar. With the intent that we, we, we do not intend to impede traffic in any way if we can help it. And then, Mike, if you want to pan just real quick up to above the cemetery there. So all of this construction through here is pretty, pretty straightforward. It's all about the same as far as impacts. And again, every single homeowner or business will be contacted individually to coordinate Also across this large business park, from what we can tell, there will be almost no impact to the businesses up there other than notifying and coordinating. Once they come up on the hill here— go ahead, was there a question?

So when do you expect to be complete through Orem?

We are expecting this whole build to be done before the end of May.

Okay, Jamie, just a question for you. I know I remember in our road plans for the summer of resurfacing 800 East from 800 North north. Are we going to be resurfacing that road the same time they're going across putting in new poles?

Mayor, that's a conversation obviously we'll need to have with Chris Shirkey and his team. To make sure that we can coordinate that work.

Plus, I know that we have a crossing of 1600 North further to the west on a sewer line that is going to be put in place there as well. So yeah, I think it'd be beneficial if we understood when all of that's happening so we're not crossing over each other at the same time.

Yeah, and we can, we can work with our contractor to ensure that they work around whatever those schedules are. If, if there are specific dates they need to avoid in specific areas, we can either move that forward in the schedule or we can move it back. We'll absolutely be as flexible as possible based on whatever restrictions and requirements you have.

And Mayor Chris Shirkey is on the call, so you'll have an opportunity to work with Cody Stegel and others in the Public Works Department to coordinate that work.

So, so, Mayor, we'll work with, with Rocky Mountain Power directly, and we'll coordinate information and share that so we can coordinate on the projects. Our engineering division will be managing our construction projects in this area, so we'll make sure we have the contact information to be able to communicate and get that out.

Yeah, I think that'd be important. It'd be very frustrating to have Our city doing work at the same time as Rocky Mountain in the same location?

Yes, it would.

Definitely.

Mayor, if I may have my hand up, if I could.

Yes, go ahead, Tom.

Hey, Michael, and I don't have your colleague's name, I'm sorry.

Spencer.

Spencer, thank you. This is— are we increasing the voltage as we come down here? Are we just updating the equipment? That's one question. And number 2, obviously this is primarily a courtesy because, as you having a right to go there, you're informing us, but you're not asking permission. Is that correct? I'm not trying to be rude. I'm just for the citizens.

No, you're completely right.

Okay.

Yes, we, we, we do have permitting and everything through all of this area, and it's mainly to make sure that everybody— I mean, I think your biggest concern that was expressed was If there are issues during this construction period, that there are effective contacts for not only the City of Orem but also UDOT for customers, landowners, people that call in with questions or issues, that you would have someone to point to to be able to make 24/7 contact. And that is part of the package that I'll be working with a contractor on. And they aren't to move forward with any construction without coordination directly with Orem. And that would be full coordination as far as the timing and where and how you need them to build through there. They'll be coordinating all of that. And they can actually— there are some areas they can start ahead of time. If there are pending issues and stuff further into Orem in the city areas that they need to work around, I do know down by the substation Out to the, out to the main road there, and also up here on the hill. There's likely a lot of area that they can come out and get started on this. The nice thing is this, this whole thing will be taken out of service, not nightly or weekly outages. It's going to be completely out of service until it's all installed, so we can just construct at will on it. The other— to your other question, We are not increasing the voltage. This is a 138 line. It's expected to stay as such. We're just increasing its— the conductor's capability through this area.

And again, just to reiterate, as Spence just mentioned, with this line, our anticipation is that we'll have it de-energized for the duration of this work for safety reasons, and that way we can ensure that public safety is paramount and that if There are other— as we mentioned earlier, there's other utilities that share this line, and they'll need to come in and replace their assets as well on those poles that are new, and this will enable them to do that safely without having any issues with an energized infrastructure.

But you'll have plenty of power for all the residences?

That's— yes, we will, and that's why we want to finish this during the timeframe that we've identified, is because in the summer when the peak loads start to hit, we need to have this line back in service prior to that time.

Correct. And one more item I'll add is regarding the underbuild section. Sometimes the distribution pieces get a little bit sidelined, but to your point about impact to customers, the, the distribution line, as they do their transferring and modifications to be able to adapt to the new lines and everything, there may be a potential there that they may have, you You know, overnight outages for a couple of hours here or there along the line, but most of it they'll likely be able to do either hot or work around other ways to keep customers in power. So we will only be taking an outage to a customer if there's absolutely no other way, because right now I'm not planning on any outages to customers.

And that would be very individualized Where some of those lines drop down off and drop into the home, the residence itself, they may have some particular need at that one individual structure, but it wouldn't be a larger service area that would be affected all at one time.

Right.

And you would give them notification 24 hours in advance or whatever?

Yeah, we'll probably be talking to those customers weeks in advance so that we know at what time we have access to their property and, and can notify them. And we'll keep them updated. If there is any outage notification required, it will be multiple days, not just 24 hours.

Right.

Okay. Then this is Spence again. I had one more item up around these— this hill area. We're fully expecting that the contractor will have to work with the golf course and the water The water company and everything to get access in here. We feel like most of these, there's already sufficient access to just about drive right up to. There was one question from my, my environmental person who's going to be overseeing this with me to assure that we make sure we meet all environmental requirements. He mentioned there, there might be a historic trail up in this area. behind the tanks or up around here somewhere. Is anyone familiar with a historic trail up here that I may need to draw some attention to?

Bonneville Shoreline Trail.

Okay.

Chris, did you have a comment you wanted to make?

Yes, Mayor, thank you. So there is the Bonneville Shoreline Trail. This property here is owned by Central Utah Water Conservancy District. There are also other utility companies, including Metropolitan Water District of Orem and Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District, that have fee title and easements in this area that you probably are aware of.

Right.

And I did want to make sure that you were aware that 1600 Northwest of State Street is currently owned and maintained by UDOT, not by the City of Orem.

Right. Yes, we are working with both of them and Central— I've already talked with Central Utah Water Conservancy about it. I haven't talked with the other 2 water districts, but we'll be in contact with them shortly.

Thank you, Chris.

Okay, anything else from you, Michael or Spencer?

Not from us. I apologize for going over a little bit and for the technical difficulties. Mayor and Council, if, if there's any other questions, please don't hesitate to reach out to me directly, and both Spencer and I can make ourselves available whenever you need.

So I think communication is going to be the key. Yeah, 1600 North is very busy. Then we have different utility programs going on and lots of customers. So anyway, but appreciate the information and notifications. So Hopefully it will go well.

Agreed.

Thank you very much.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

All right, now we'll move on to a discussion of proposed utility rates. Chris Shirkey, Laura Lewis, and Fred Philpott are on the line as presenters. Go ahead, Chris.

Okay, thank you, Mayor and City Council. With us today we have Laura Lewis from Lewis Young Robinson Birmingham, as well as Fred Philpott with the same firm. As you're aware, we've been working on our master plans and getting close to wrapping them up with Bowen Collins and Associates. With the master plans also come a need to finance or to develop a financial plan to support the development and the implementation of that master plan. And that's where Laura and Fred come in. We've been asked to determine— tonight we'll be having a bond parameters resolution. We've been asked to also evaluate how the bond will have a positive effect on our rates for sewer, water, and storm. And I'd just like to say that it's been a great pleasure working with Laura and Fred on this process. They've done a great detailed analysis for us and provided some great feedback and insights. as to the direction we should go. So it's been a very collaborative process working with them on a weekly basis, with city management as well. So with that introduction, I'll turn the time over to Laura and to Fred. I believe Fred will be the primary presenter on this from this point on. So Fred, I'll turn the time over to you.

Alrighty, Laura, did you have anything you wanted to Start, or am I good to just jump in?

Uh, just jump in. My kids have, um, taken over my Zoom account, I think, for church on Sunday, and so the Northern Lights behind me is making me nauseous. So I, I'll try to figure that out and go off screen, but I'll jump in as need be.

Well, we did change your name from Derp Derp to Laura Lewis, so you at least saw that.

Well, I appreciate that.

Very welcome.

Alrighty, well, I've shared my screen here.

And let's—

I've got a short presentation that will go through, as Chris mentioned, we've been tasked with updating the—

We're not seeing your screen, Fred.

Oh, you're not?

No.

Okay.

We're seeing it. I'm seeing it.

Yeah, I can see it.

I can see it.

Let me try it again.

Let me—

let's see here.

Alrighty, can you see?

Yes.

Okay, it may have to do when I, when I put it into presentation mode. Let me know if this, if this kicks it off your screen, Mayor.

Okay.

You still seeing that?

Yes.

Okay.

Yeah, as Chris mentioned, we've been tasked with updating the rate model and rate analysis that was initially developed in 2016, where we proposed rates based on a pay-as-you-go approach. As part of this analysis, we updated historic revenues and expenses based on actuals for years that were now available and updated our projections with regards to revenues and expenditures, as well as the capital needs that are programmed in the analysis. In addition, we also introduced a debt scenario. In our previous analysis, the rates were established based on a pure pay-as-you-go with no new debt funding introduced into the model. As a result of lower interest rates, and, you know, as Laura has talked about in other discussions, that available capital has resulted in the probability of a debt scenario, which I've programmed into the rates to see what would happen to projected rates. And again, we— with all rate studies that we look at, our objective is to ensure that we're maintaining your cash balances after paying operations and maintenance and debt and capital. While also maintaining debt coverage ratios. So that's the revenue available after you've paid your operating expense, the revenue you have available for debt service payments, and ensuring that that's sufficient within each of the enterprise funds that we evaluated. And as Chris alluded to, the idea behind this debt scenario is to see what sort of benefit we can provide from a rate standpoint. This next slide kind of discusses this at a high level. This is not actual data. We'll go into that in a little bit, but it's conceptually the benefit of a pay-as-you-go versus a bonding scenario. So when entities look at capital needs, a lot of times there can be these peaks in capital needs. So you're experiencing a large capital infrastructure or investment that's needed. That from a pay-as-you-go basis can impact your rates. So this gray line, purely on a pay-as-you-go, if you set rates to handle your actual expenses, would bounce around and you would have potentially high rates that would be needed to cover all of this capital expense. Recognizing that's, that's not feasible, what most entities do on a pay-as-you-go basis will smooth out those rates. and generate some revenue up front, build up your cash reserves to help pay for that large capital infrastructure that's coming down the road. That's kind of that pay-as-you-go approach. What, what typically happens again is you have to set rates to build up enough cash to pay for that capital infrastructure. The alternative approach, looking at a bonding scenario, what that does is it It helps smooth out that capital investment and expenditure over time. So those orange columns there, we amortize that cost over a longer period of time. And what that helps us do is pull those rates down over the long term so that we can match more of a smooth capital, capital project list. And so that's kind of the high-level benefit of this bonding approach is it smooths that out. with the idea of bringing rates down below that pay-as-you-go approach because we're basically lopping off that peak in this capital investment and amortizing it over a much longer period of time.

When we look at that— And Fred, the other benefit, you know, that isn't probably captured in that actual picture, but it also saves money because, you know, as I've shown and discussed with the council before, it really helps you right now because construction inflation is so high and interest rates are so low.

Yes. Yeah. So that, that's not captured here. You're right, Laura. This is just a theoretical— you keep rates even, but inflation will impact this and lower interest rates now help, help save on construction inflation over time. Here is, here is actual data utilizing your rates. This is a base rate comparison, kind of an expression of that same concept. Here we're looking at the 2016 adopted rates that were presented in the 2016 analysis. Those are the lighter lines there. You can see water, sewer, and then storm here at the bottom. Again, what the idea here is, you can see that as we shift between these scenarios, going from a pay-as-you-go, which are these top lines, to a bonded rate or a scenario using debt service, it pulls those rates down because we're amortizing that cost over time. And when we compare those scenarios relative to what was presented in 2016 to what we're proposing today, you can see this is a representation of that savings by utilizing that tool and capturing low interest rates and mitigating that inflationary impact. on each utility. So again, this is a comparison just looking at base rates for these scenarios. The next slide shows what we're proposing for each of the enterprise funds with regards to rate adjustments or recommendations. What we've considered in this analysis is basically keeping our base rates for water at our 2021 rates, so no increase, no decrease there, keeping them constant. And then an inflationary increase thereafter. So it would just be to manage inflation over time, but we're not proposing any change to the base rates for each of the meter sizes. What we are suggesting is a decrease in the usage rates for each of the tiers, for Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3, and Tier 4, with a 15% reduction in the rate Tier 1, 2, and 3, and a 25% reduction in the rate for Tier 4. What we're trying to balance is some of the objectives that we had stipulated in our 2016 analysis to promote conservation, but we're trying to balance out this, this higher tier and shift that more to about a 1.75 times our Tier 1 rate. So right now, Your Tier 4 rate is 2 times your Tier 1 rate, and this is helping bring it down to more like 1.75 times. So there's a little bit higher reduction there in that Tier 4, which would benefit users during the peak periods, summer months, and when you're utilizing a little bit more water. So it provides a little more relief during those peak periods. Again, we're still proposing inflationary increases just to keep up with inflation thereafter, but initially we're experiencing that reduction or suggesting a reduction in the tiered or usage rates for, for water. When we look at sewer and storm, what we're proposing for sewer is no change to keep it, to keep it constant relative to the 2021 rates, again with some inflationary increases thereafter, but Again, no, no increase in the proposed rates from 2021. And then for storm, this is an area where there is some, some substantial needs potentially and unknowns with regards to the future. And so we haven't made any change to that rate. We're still recommending that those rates would continue to grow at the, at the recommended increases that were presented in 2016 and that the cities maintain. So While sewer, again, is not— we're not suggesting an increase or a decrease. When you again look back at that relative to those scenarios over time, you still experience that savings because we're not growing that rate at the same level that the pay-as-you-go approach was contemplating. Again, that bonding is allowing us to keep that rate lower than what was projected. Because we're utilizing debt to help amortize that capital cost over time. So that's what's happening with sewer.

Yeah.

Brad, a question, like going back to the water. On the chart, you show it kind of evening out with the bond, but on the description there, you're showing a 75% increase in the rate within 5 years. That seems pretty substantial and pretty high. I'm not sure that I understand that. I understand you're saying about inflation, but going from, you know, you go down 15%, then you're at even, and then you're up 25%, then you're up 50%, then you're up 75%.

Those are, those are 1.75.

It's less than—

Oh yes, yeah, not 175%. Sorry, it's, it's 1.75.

That's fine. I just thought you were 1.75.

Okay, sorry.

Yeah, so we're— those percentages, yeah, are hovering around 0.5% for our tiered— or sorry, our base rates, and then they grow. You know, up to that 1.75% increase. And when you look at long— sorry. Okay. Um, what we did want to stress, you know, with, with these scenarios, when, when you're looking at a shift in a— from a pay-as-you-go approach to a bond or debt service approach. It does require more or more frequent reviews of assumptions and to ensure that we're maintaining our debt coverage and that these inflationary increases truly keep up with inflation and cost changes over time. So what we would recommend, that while we're, we're making some modifications and showing that cost savings as a result of the bond scenario, And then structuring, structuring in these inflationary increases, the city staff through this initiative, that those would be reviewed again to make sure that we're maintaining our debt coverage and cash reserves under this revised scenario. So, as with all rates, they are subject, subject to change and, and based on changes in demand and, and economic conditions and market forces that are really outside the control of of the city. So we just need to stay on top of that and review those changes over time. But from a modeling standpoint and based on the data that we have, these inflationary increases seem to be able to keep pace with, with projections with regards to expenditures. Again, the only difference being storm, we're suggesting to maintain that rate as previously suggested under the pay-as-you-go. because of some of those unknowns and larger capital needs that may be coming down the road. When we look at a comparison, when we implement these potential schedules and trying to make a comparison of your total bill, obviously, it's the kind of the combined bill that a customer will pay that's important to evaluate. And so, what we looked at is comparing those different scenarios, your— your 2016 schedule, what was adopted back in 2016, versus your current kind of pay-as-you-go schedule, which considers some of the pauses that you had put in place with regards to the 2016 schedule, and then comparing that to our recommended bonded rate, or this, this revised rate under a bonding scenario. When we compare that, looking at a the different water utilization variables here. Again, I've provided a consumer that uses from 10,000 gallons up to 80,000 gallons of water, what their total bill might be. This includes all the utilities— sorry, the stormwater, sewer, as well as the franchise tax assessment, the 6% franchise tax. So based on your current pay-as-you-go rate again, which contemplates a pause, the pause that you had in rates. When you look at an average user of about 30,000 units, the total percentage change based on the bonded rates would be about a 13.5% reduction. When we compare that to your 2016 projected rate, again, this was what was recommended as part of the 2016 schedule. it obviously goes up. It's about a half— 18.5% decrease. So you can see, you know, that's a meaningful change with regards to overall bill reduction based on the recommendations that we're proposing here. Again, about a 13.5% reduction based on the pay-as-you-go rate relative to your current rate schedule. As you go into this higher utilization, that percentage actually goes up. Again, that's based on that higher tier, that Tier 4. As you get into that tier, then you experience a little bit more savings because we're proposing that 25% reduction in the Tier 4 rate. And so that, that percentage goes up as you use a little bit more water in those peak periods. So all the way up to, you know, if you're using 80,000 units, about a 20% reduction in the overall bill. Here's a comparison again. This data has been provided in the past, but it's a way to illustrate where you fall as a city relative to total bill for water, sewer, storm, garbage, your property tax, and a monthly total. When you look at that, you know, there's several communities that, that are much higher. An overall bill, just showing that, you know, relative to your current rates and what we're proposing, that, that it is still conservative and in essence a good deal for the city relative to other communities across the state for their total monthly bill. Again, property tax is shown here as well as garbage. We just looked at water, sewer, and storm relative to rate adjustments.

So Fred, one thing you may want to consider when you do this again is, as an example, Provo has a fiber fee, a monthly fee that goes to the residents, $8 a month. And Pleasant Grove has a fee, I want to say $15 a month for road fees.

Yes.

So you might want to put another category in there because other cities are adding a lot of different fees on.

Correct. That's a great point, Mayor, because there are several communities that have transportation fees, park utility fees. They have a quasi-park utility fee and other fees that are assessed that, that fall outside of these 5 columns here. So great point. That, that is the challenge with all fee comparisons is in most cases it's not an apples-to-apples comparison because many communities utilize different tools to generate revenue, and, and not all tools are utilized by all communities. So again, the idea was to compare these 5 variables and show, again, OREM is, is fairly conservative relative to some of these other comps. Again, I'm going to jump back. That's the conclusion of our Presentation. Again, it's a brief review of what we're recommending. Again, if I jump back to those recommendations, what we're proposing is a reduction, a 15% reduction to Tier 1 through 3 for the water and a 25% reduction for Tier 4, with inflationary increases thereafter and no increases to the base rates for fiscal year 2022. And no increases for base or production rates for sewer, with inflationary increases thereafter and maintaining the recommended storm enterprise fund rates.

This is Bill.

Can I, can I add in that those community comparisons are pre-adjusted rates?

Yes.

So that's before the 15/15/15/25 reduction.

And so if we see a reduction from that, then you can take that reduction off of that bill as well.

And that 30,000 gallons is, is probably a good number as far as average goes for that.

Yeah.

So yeah, it's just going to get even more conservative relative to those comps based on that reduction.

So, Mayor, I've got a question.

Yes.

So, Fred, can you go back to the— can you go back a few slides? Yeah, that one right there. So my question is, I don't think we addressed the senior citizens and the— those that can't afford, or they're under the poverty level. I don't think that was addressed in this presentation. I didn't see it. But my question is, On Tier 1, 2, and 3 and 4. Tier 4 is— we're supposed to be pushing conservation, and we're giving them the biggest discount on Tier 4, which doesn't seem right to me. It should be in the Tier 1 and 2s, but I don't know, that's just my opinion.

Um, Mr. Spencer, this is, uh, Laura Lewis, and we, we did have a discussion, um, relative to the, you know, trying to find a meaningful way to provide a rate reduction for those that are in or near poverty or struggling financially. And I don't know if Brandon's on the phone, but, but there were some good ideas floated about in terms of giving, you know, basically a rebate. The, you know, the— I mean, we candidly talked about everything from, you know, making it age-based was a little bit crazy in my mind. I was the one that, you know, raised the issue that just because you are older doesn't necessarily mean that you're, you know, on a truly fixed income. To, you know, exploring what some other cities that we work with, how they incorporate that. Many of them use a circuit breaker rate or the circuit breaker program, excuse me. me, that is administered by the county and use that as a means for those citizens to come in and basically evidence that they, you know, are in need of the assistance. And, you know, they bring in that paperwork and then, you know, whatever the reduction is or rebate or however you structure that, then they would qualify for that. It does require them to do something every year. And yet the challenge with only doing that is that it, it doesn't help your renters. And a lot of times, you know, those that are struggling financially aren't homeowners. And I wish I could remember, but I remember thinking it was a great idea that Brandon recommended when we were discussing this, as you know, with your staff, of how he thought, okay, you know, sort of the circuit breaker being one One means, but then some— he had some other great idea. And I don't know, is Brandon on the phone? Probably is not.

Yes. Can you hear me?

Yes.

Yes, I am on the phone.

Okay, great. So can you remind me what brilliance you said that day that I'm obviously not brilliant enough to remember?

Well, it's, you know, two-pronged. One, obviously we can have community action where they— we already have a program through them, so they can— we could potentially use the circuit breaker as a, if you will, the If they qualify for that, then obviously, then through community action, all they have to do is provide the information for that component. And then we potentially have a two-pronged— if they qualify under, you know, another method similar to what we do with utilities, then if they're a renter, then they potentially could qualify through, you know, some sort of calculation or through that side of it. And And so, but Community Action is the one who actually would be our arm in, you know, identifying those individuals.

Thanks, Brandon. I appreciate that.

So in essence, Community Action would serve as the third-party administrator for validating and verifying need for a rate reduction.

I mean, this year we had the— it's a $200 thing per household, I think, is what it is. Is that going to change?

Yes, that would be the money that has been set aside is different than the circuit breaker program. Okay, so they would have to come in and approve qualification for the adjusted rates, and then at that point they would have those adjusted rates. and would be required annually to essentially recertify those rates.

Yeah, they would be 2 separate, you know, the one we have existing is utility for payment of whatever that they're having problems with, but we would reevaluate how that program exactly works for qualification, but that would be the same, you know, both parties would go through Community Action.

And I think that my main concern is The actual standard rate, you know, on the water, sewer, and storm, that, you know, if it's $65, what used to be $45, that's where the concern is. But if somebody can address the Tier 1, 2, 3, and 4 on the $15, $15, $15, $25, to me that doesn't make sense that you're giving more money back on the people that use more water than those that are in Tier 1, 2, and 3.

So.

I think you also— and Neil and Chris can speak to this— but a supermajority, and by supermajority I mean 90+% of your customers, are never seeing or hitting that Tier 4. They're really congregated up in Tier 1 and 2, and generally even during the winter months, many of them just fall into the Tier 1 category. Really, we're talking about giving the greatest benefit to all of our ratepayers, considering that over 90% of them fall into those lower tiers and not the higher tiers.

So we wouldn't want to say, okay, Tier 1 and 2, or 2 and 3 are at 20 and 20, and the other one's at 15 on Tier 4? Or no, it just looks good on paper?

So, well, the other, the other thing we have to think about is because of that relationship that Jamie talked about, Where we have 90% of our customers in Tier 1 and 2, that type of reduction has a huge impact because our denominator is so much larger. Whereas this reduction of 25%, while looks like a higher percentage on a revenue basis, is not as impactful. And so the idea was, here, let's provide a general, general reduction for most of our users at that 15%. Well, Recognizing that our Tier 4 may have been a little too punitive from a conservation standpoint, and so it was getting it back into a more equalized 1.75 and representing that distribution between the tiers. So it's still punitive, it's still— the Tier 4 is still 1.75 times the rate of our Tier 4. And still keeping in line with conservation and It's trying to provide a little bit more balance, recognizing that we're not giving a lot of revenue away under that Tier 4 reduction.

Or would we get rid of Tier 4 and then adjust it in Tier 1, 2, and 3? Or are we just keeping it with the 4 tiers?

Yeah, we haven't contemplated eliminating a tier. We've kept that higher tier to still allow for that policy of for those who use more, pay more. So that keeping those tiers there help us do that.

But if I can interject here, I mean, the Tier 4 is intended for essentially outliers that use, you know, a lot, but it really what we're doing is, is we're lowering the ceiling by bringing down that, that tier, the 25%. So the amount that someone can essentially get out of control in their costs.

Tom has a comment he wishes to make.

Tom?

Thank you, Mayor, for recognizing me. Yeah, I think, I think the initial thing is we got a little bit too punitive initially in maybe tiers 3 and 4, and I think this helps adjust it. I think you showed earlier today kind of, and I think the mayor had pointed out that we didn't include all the other expenses, but could you put back in how we rate compared to other cities. I mean, we're already at the bottom or near the bottom. I think this is being responsible to all water users from Tier 1 to 4. Many of the people who hit Tier 4 have bigger lots, and we ask them to keep them beautiful, and they may have a small meter which hits them into 3 and 4 pretty early. So I thought this was a fairly equitable way to go and just want to thank you for your efforts.

Councilmember Sumner has a comment. Brent, do you want to go ahead?

Yes, I'm just thinking here, several months ago, or maybe a year or two ago, we talked about this, and, and Orem participates in funding the community action. Is that correct, Jamie?

Something like—

I can't remember how much.

We actually take, we actually take monies generated as essentially a participation amount from our utility insurance program, and we send it down to Community Action. Now, but that program would be different than the circuit breaker program. So that program, to Councilmember Spencer's response helps individuals who have a temporary need up to $200 in a calendar year. Those that would qualify under a circuit breaker type arrangement, their income is low year over year, and so they could benefit from reduced rates year over year and not necessarily a one-time $200 benefit.

So some of that money from OREM is earmarked for a couple of those brackets, is that right?

No, it— if an individual on a temporary basis, for example, has a hard time meeting their bills, for example, an individual's unemployed for a period of time or something like that, They could reach out to Community Action and benefit from that $200 once, you know, one-time $200 benefit towards their utilities. What we're talking about is a circuit breaker program where they could qualify for reduced fees based on their annual income. and their ability to pay.

Okay, understand.

Thank you.

Okay, Fred, anything else?

Uh, no, uh, no further presentation materials on our end.

Any other questions or comments?

Mayor?

Yes, I'm sorry, please, Councilmember Spencer.

No, I was just going to say maybe I could get with Chris Shirkey and we can go over the certain situation I'm talking with and see exactly how that would impact that person or that house and then just go from there.

So yeah, please reach out and we can, we can meet if you'd like.

Yeah, that'd be great. Thanks, Chris.

And we certainly have the ability, you know, on a bill-by-bill basis. We certainly don't want to do that for all your citizens, but we could certainly look at their, you know, what their historic bill had been and what it would look like under this new model. You know, Fred's showing you the summary of a multiple-page, very complicated spreadsheet, Excel spreadsheet analysis, and, you know, that does have the ability to make some, you know, changes and see sort of the what-ifs on the global scale. But if that helps, David, we can certainly help with that.

No, that'd be great. I just— we had our retreat just Saturday, and the mayor presented, you know, the affordable— those that are under, way under poverty level in Orem, there's 6%, and I'm concerned about that 6%. So I think we're in the right direction. I think I'll just go with Chris and we'll go from there.

Great. All right.

Thank you, Mayor.

Mayor, members of the City Council, I would just reiterate that what Fred and Chris and others have prepared is really contingent upon transitioning from a pay-as-you-go finance model to a bonding model. So it doesn't work if we continue to not— if we continue to— if we reduce rates and don't finance future construction of infrastructure. All of this works together. So if we were to move forward with these changes, as noted by Fred, then it's also incumbent on us to move forward with the construction of infrastructure, not on a pay-as-you-go basis, but finance that infrastructure. So just wanted to, to have you realize the causation, the relationship between these rates and the need for Okay, well, thank you, Laura.

Thank you, Fred.

Tom has raised his hand here.

Mayor, another comment to tag along with Jamie's. Most people cannot finance a home over 5 years, and you're foolish to finance a car over 30 years. So this more properly matches the lifestyle the life expectancy of our underlying asset with the debt we're looking at proposing. So I support the idea. Jamie, you might clarify that if you think I got that wrong.

That was well stated, Tom.

All right, well, thank you. Let's go ahead and move on then to our next presentation. This is a discussion of the future of Hillcrest Park, 45 minutes, and Jamie is our presenter.

Mayor, Mayor, thank you. I actually want to give the time to Bren Bybee, who has been spearheading this effort with specifically Landmark and Method Studio. Method Studio was retained to assist in the evaluation of the existing school structure, and Landmark was retained and has worked with us historically in the development of our Parks Master Plan, as well as was retained for this, the development of park concepts associated with our future Hillcrest Park. So with that said, Brent, I'll turn the time over to you.

Thank you, Jamie. Yeah, Mayor and Council, maybe just to introduce a little bit of context or background into this effort. I've really appreciated being able to work with Landmark and Method, specifically Lisa Benson, Hugh Holt with Landmark, Joe Smith and Scott Smith with Method. They have a very thoughtful and patient and professional approach to look at a project and a need and a lot of varying desires that I'm sure all of us have for, for this Hillcrest property. And I think they've done a great job, and they'll show you that they've done a great job of trying to provide, with these concept designs, a framework for us that we can fit within, that meets with space constraints, that gives us, you know, different options to consider, that provides, you know, budget estimates that we can try to budget within, that, like Jamie says, takes into account our Parks Master Plan recommendations, that— tries to incorporate some consistency in our park features all around the city, and that also takes into account the demand we're seeing from our outdoor recreation programs and hearing from our staff. And then, of course, that has incorporated some of your initial feedback as Council that you've been hearing from citizens. So, with that, I guess, context, Lisa, if I can turn the time over to you to to walk through the different design concepts, that would be wonderful.

Okay, can everyone see my screen? Okay, can you guys see that screen?

Yes.

Okay, great. Well, thank you for the opportunity. This has been a fun project working with staff to explore concepts for this site. And I just want to start out by saying I think this was a great purchase on the city's part. Anytime that you can acquire parkland in the middle of a developed portion of your city, that's, that's a good move. It's a pretty rare opportunity that comes up. When we're working on parks master plans, we generally recommend that you acquire your parkland first, even if it takes a while, you know, before you have the funds to develop it. So So kudos on that move. So we started out looking at 3 different options, a range of keeping the school in its entirety to kind of a partial retention of the school, and then what the options might be if we removed the school entirely from the site. So option 1, and I know that, that you saw these concepts at your retreat, and so you're somewhat familiar with them, but we'll, we'll go ahead and walk through them. So the first concept, looking at retaining the school in its entirety, this would be either the city keeps the building and makes all the seismic upgrades and those sorts of improvements that are required, or you could sell it to a business incubator. Either way, kind of the impact on the site itself is similar. And you can see that there's a substantial amount of parking that is required on site, and Method will actually get into this on their next— on the next slide, into specific parking requirements. But we haven't actually even been able to fit all of the parking on site that you would need according to city codes. Right now, this concept has 170 stalls total on the site. So we have some parking in the back, some on the side, and then you can see the south edge of the site is pretty much nothing but parking. So that's kind of one of the first major impacts that you notice. The entrance to the building in this concept is kind of a small demonstration garden area. There could be some outdoor, outdoor meeting or classroom spaces, or kind of little outdoor rooms, basically an outdoor classroom here on the southwest corner, and then a courtyard on the backside that could be planters and flexible. seating. But you can see that takes up a substantial amount of the site, and we did a quick calculation, and it's approximately 50% of the area of the site with this building and the parking that it would require, and then some of the spaces that are immediately adjacent to the building.

So, Lisa, I have a question for you. If, in fact, we kept the building, we could either bring it up to code, Which would cost us $5 to $6 million to do, or the idea is we sell it to a third individual, third party, and then they would be responsible for bringing it up to code. Is that correct?

Correct. Okay. And so the caveat is that if you sold it to a third party, there would have to be some sort of an agreement for sharing parking, because obviously trying to meet all these parking needs for the park and for the building could be intense depending on the uses that are intended for that building. So, looking at the park amenities, this concept illustrates 12 pickleball courts, and that was a use that came out in the park survey in some of our public meetings when we were doing the Parks Master Plan a few years ago. So, looking at providing 12 pickleball courts on this site, there are a couple of covered paddle tennis, some 9-square courts, the looped pathway with pavilions and exercise stations along the way. That was something else that came out in the, in the survey and in the master plan process. That was the desire of the public. We do retain the locations of the existing pavilion and restrooms, whether you upgrade those or replace those. Right now, the updated costs that we have in this presentation reflect replacing them entirely, but you could obviously reduce those costs if you kind of scale back and just do a little bit of refurbishing, or if you just keep them as is. And this envisions a new playground replacing what's there with a tot lot playground and a playground for older children, but connected into one play area. And then in between, it's kind of this nature play area and the hammock park that parallels the playground and connects up to that perimeter pathway. And just an entry plaza here, which could be— I mean, it could be a piece of art, it could be a fire pit. You know, in the cost, we're kind of estimating it as a fire pit with some benches and planting surrounding that, but that could obviously—

change.

And something to keep in mind with any of these concepts is that these are just kind of high-level master planning explorations of space. So, when you get into more detailed actual design and construction documentation, a lot can be fine-tuned at that stage, and costs will definitely be fine-tuned. The cost estimates that we have provided are very high level, and we tend to estimate towards the higher end of those ranges for those items, just because there are so many unknowns at this this point in the process.

So, Elise, another question. You show a lot of trees on the property. I don't know how many trees are on the property now. There are quite a few. Would you be intermingling new with old? Would you be taking out the old? Yeah, and maybe this is too much into the weeds, but just curious the thoughts there.

Yeah, we didn't want to let the existing trees dominate the design and the exploration. I mean, when we— when, you know, the next phases happen, when we actually look at detailed design and developing construction documents, if you get to that stage, then you could do an overlay and see, you know, what could possibly be retained. And you can always try to bring a tree spade in and transplant, but you typically only have a 50% success rate on that. So, well, you do have some really beautiful trees on site. So obviously, you know, there is going to be some impact there, but the route you go just depends on, you know, kind of possibilities and the extent of what maybe overlaps in the future.

Okay.

So I'll let Scott and Joe talk to their slide here.

Thanks, Lisa. And hi, everyone. We're excited to participate and present with you today. It's been a good group as we've evaluated the potential for this site. You know, as Lisa indicated, we've looked at the building and how it remains in a number of different ways and somewhat narrowed it down to 3 different options, this being the first one with the, with the entire building remaining.

Thank you.

As indicated, Mayor, that if, if the building were to remain as is, there is a certain amount of work that would need to be done to bring it up to code and life safety requirements, in addition to any, you know, upgrades to finishes and mechanical systems and the like. A primary component of that would be there are a good portion of the old So that would be one of the primary things that we would need to tackle if the building were to remain, and if it were to remain in ownership of the city. Again, if it was sold to a private entity, then that responsibility would, would be on them. So that is one thing to consider. So what we've done is on each of these is just put some data points along the side there you can see of some rough order of magnitude evaluation as we've walked the building. We had a structural engineer walk it with us as well, pop our heads up above the ceiling tile to look at the— how the roof structure is tied down to the walls, if it's tied down, and trying to evaluate as best we could what kind of work would need to take place. There is about 53,000 square feet for the full building right now. 37,500 square feet of that would require a seismic upgrade. And the seismic upgrade has multi— multifaceted components, one being just tying the roof to the wall becomes one of the major portions. So if you did only that, the rough order of magnitude number To do that was $600,000 to $700,000. If you were to do the full seismic upgrade, so roof, walls, etc., it was in the order of magnitude of $2 million. Now, so that's a pretty significant number, but there's quite a bit of square footage that needs this work done. In addition to that, decisions would have to be made on the architectural upgrades. So what we've done is provided a range here for finishes and lighting, mechanical systems, you know, of anywhere from $25 to $50 a square foot, depending on how far those upgrades were taken. And, you know, that's in the order of $1.3 to $2.6 million. In addition to looking at this by the numbers from a cost standpoint, we also evaluated the parking, parking requirements based upon the zoning zoning ordinance. And Scott, do you want to walk through just the parking there, the evaluation and study you've done there? We looked at the zoning first. You know, this is a residential zone, but anything that's kind of a commercial project in a residential zone, in the code it's required to have 1 stall for every 250 square feet. And we calculated that. We think that possibly we can get variance to go to reduce that to 3 stalls per 1,000 square feet. Either way, we're looking at about 212 stalls with the 1 for every 250, or about 159 at 3 per 1,000. And this doesn't include the park itself. And those amenities, the parking needed for the amenities on the park. And so this is just for the building. Yeah, and if I, if I could add in, and the data is there on the screen though, currently the site has 88 existing stalls. So the parking concept that Lisa showed was expanding that, the current parking, to get up to 172. So that 172 does cover The needs of the building, but it would be a significant shared use sort of agreement with whatever the needs of the park are to make that work. So could it work? It's possible, but there might be some parking congestion in this scenario that would have to be considered. We also put just a brief estimate there on the cost of the added parking, and then so what the range would be for the total cost for the building only. only $3.2 to $6.3 million. And so, Mayor, you were right in line on target there. I think you mentioned $5 million potentially to upgrade this building, and that's definitely a possible possibility for how much it would cost.

Joe, just a question for you on the parking. It would seem a little bit anyway that the heaviest use for the parking for the building would be during the day, and the heaviest use for the park might be the early evening and the weekends.

That's right.

They could balance out somewhat there.

Yeah, for sure. And I think that's absolutely true about facilities like this and parks. And so there's definitely a shared use component that could help offset some of that parking demand. It would just, you know, we would have to work through that, or you would as a city, to determine what, what would be allowed there, how much shared use, and that offset of usage. Because in reality, it depends on the use of the building, who you sold it to, and because some facilities and business uses don't end up using as much as as what the ordinance would require, and then other businesses use more. So it, it's just very contingent upon, you know, if it's an entrepreneurial center and what their demand for parking would be as compared to if it was a call center, for example, which I don't, I don't think that that would necessarily be the right use for this building, but that shared use component, I think, is an important one to consider for this, for sure.

If I may, I think, you know, you're kind of speaking to the dilemma, though, here, Mayor, that we were trying to grapple with, because, you know, we're trying to respond to the demand we're seeing with pickleball, and that we're seeing a lot of use, you know, throughout the day. And if this essentially has a regional draw, There, even with adding kind of the bike and pedestrian access to University Parkway, we'd still have a fair amount of vehicular traffic to the site to take advantage of a kind of tournament-ready pickleball complex. So—

Yeah, great comments there, Brent. For sure. Any additional questions on this, on this scheme? Lisa can jump to the next one unless anyone else has any other thoughts on this one.

Okay, before we go on the next one, I just want to jump back and point out too that this site is Fairly tight, you know, there's a lot of uses kind of in here, and there's not a lot of kind of open space. There is some, but, but just to compare to some of these, these other concepts. Looking at Concept 2, where we keep part of the school, this would be the gym area and the media center, I believe. So we are able to bump up The pickleballs— this option pickleball course has 14 pickleball courts in this option with a central pavilion for these users. We have kind of a linear plaza here that connects down to the parking lot with, again, kind of covered paddle tennis and some flexible game tables and flexible seating. in a crushed stone courtyard area. We have the hammock park here adjacent to the nature playground. Kind of, you've seen some of those wood-based play equipment and kind of the ninja-type athletic courses, kind of some of those fun uses that could be tied well with some of these, with the hammock park and some of those those less programmed play areas. Again, we have the existing pavilion and restrooms located with some improvements to those or replacement playgrounds adjacent to that. Again, the looped perimeter pathway, and this one extends it even around back behind the detention basin. And I should mention that all of these concepts do have a pump house or well— well house on site with adjacent detention. just to help meet some of the utility needs in the area. And the west side of the site is definitely the low part of the site, so that use works well. And we wanted to keep it tucked towards the backside of the site if possible, just so that that's not the first thing you see when you pull up to the site. And then we have some 9-square here that are connected near the backside of the building, again, a little courtyard and planter area. And then this concept does include an open lawn area in front of the part of the school that's retained. And in our last meeting with staff, Steven brought up the idea of having a space where you could have markets, like farmers markets or other community events. And so, by eliminating part of the school building, you really open up the site, and you have this flexible use area, which can be key and nice to have in an existing neighborhood, just to have some some open play and be able to have some events in this area.

So, a question, you have a detention pond there. Is that something that we had in the first concept? And then the second one. Okay.

Let me— yeah, let me— so yeah, we do have, and I didn't mention that, this does have the The pump and well house, and then detention as well. In this design, it's kind of split up with a little covered bridge, covered walkway over that.

Okay, then in your second concept, you say that you've got the gym and the media center. I'm not sure what the media center is, but it was my understanding that the cafeteria area was newer and could be kept, so Maybe you could explain that.

Lisa, you want me to take that one?

Yeah.

So, so, Mayor, great question. So the cafeteria area is actually behind the gym. So that is newer, and that is part of the gym addition that was done. That's the most recent construction. So everything shown in light blue and sort of that light green are what was the latest parts of the project in 2004. So yeah, that cafeteria, the commercial kitchen, is part of that, part of this scheme, and would remain functional. The media center is that darker blue teal color right there. It's just a nice multi-use room, so, and it minimized the amount of older structure that we would have to have impact to. So that could go as well if needed, but just thinking that there was some, some potential good community use out of that, or to remain and still had great impact to opening up the site and reducing cost.

The original part of the building is 67 years old.

Yeah, so the original building was built in '53 down there on the the bottom left corner, we have the, the dates of the additions and what their square footage were. Yeah, so 1953.

Mayor, can I make a comment?

Sure.

So I toured this today, the whole school, with Ryan, and while the school overall, you know, has some issues, this 2004 area was in wonderful shape.

Mm-hmm.

It was a wonderful cafeteria. You could do junior jazz. It had a stage. I mean, it was a wonderful, wonderful facility. I didn't see any run— things that looked run down. And Ryan can speak to this because he walked through with the structural engineer, but I believe there was really no issues with at least the gymnasium and the cafeteria. Now, the media center, I think if you wanted to add more pickleball, maybe you could get rid of that, but this area was Because this was a lovely gym. You could use it for many things. I was thinking, you know, art classes, theater, junior jazz. With the kitchen was amazing. It was in great condition. The equipment was clean, stellar. You could really use that. So this, this to me is a great asset. I really hate to destroy something that has a lot of value. So I'm just wondering, if you did take the media center off, could Could you add more, another, I don't know, something interesting there, a water feature, another court for pickleball, or you could also do pickleball inside the cafeteria. So it was really, I was very impressed.

If I could interject a little bit into some of the thinking behind this. So if you notice on kind of that north side of the media center, there was a 2004 addition. addition there that was, I think, intended to reinforce that media center a little bit. And then also, yeah, if we retained that 2004 portion, not only does it have play value with indoor pickleball or junior jazz or indoor volleyball, but it would also provide an additional, essentially, restroom and/or pavilion-type use.

Yeah, and if I could just add while we're on here, and to, to your comments there. So yeah, that dark teal is surrounded on the north side, Bren, by parts of the addition that were done in 2004, and that is seismically upgraded for that part. But there is, there is a component to the media center that would have to have some additional seismic It's only 2,800 square feet. And so, the estimate on that would be about $42,000 just to tie down the roof to that area. And then, for if you were to do a full seismic upgrade, roof, wall, et cetera, it'd be, you know, in the ballpark of $140,000 to keep that media center there. There would be demo costs on this option, because you're removing the rest of the building. And we estimated that in the range of $104,000 to $139,000. And then likewise, by tearing down the rest of the building, that exposes some of— some parts of the remaining building that were not designed to be exterior walls. So there would be some exterior envelope redesign treatment along the elevations that would need to happen. And we estimated that to be in the $140,000 to $163,000 range. Dollars. And then, then likewise, depending on what you wanted to do to finishes, if you were to upgrade the finishes, we just gave a range there to upgrade finishes throughout the building. Now, some finishes may not need to be upgraded in that gym area, so that number could come down very much so. And, you know, all told, that's, that's a much smaller cost to This option just saves a lot of money as compared to having to upgrade the full building. And then the parking demand is also significantly less. So, per the current zone, it would, it would require 70 stalls. If we were able to, you know, get a variance or conditional use, then you could reduce that to 3 per 1,000 potentially, and that would be only 52 stalls required for for the building. And Lisa, I can't remember how many stalls you have on this concept. It was in the over 100, if I remember right.

Yeah, it's 113. So whether we actually need that many on this concept, you know, we can look at that.

Joe, I have another question. What is the value of this building that was, that was built in 2004?

If you were to replicate that this year to build an indoor facility, I know we just did our fitness center. Is this worth—

is this a half a million dollars gymnasium? Kind of give me an idea of the ballpark of what this would cost in current—

Let me do a little math, quick math. Yeah, I'd say—

what's the square footage, Joe?

It's just for the gym and kitchen. It's 14,500 square feet. Square feet. So I think you'd probably be— yeah, you'd be in the $3.5 million to $5 million range to replace this.

Okay, so that— so that's like I said, that's a great asset with that. I was really impressed with it today. So thank you. I just kind of have an idea what the value of that was.

Right. Councilmember Lamson's got a question. Jeff, you want to go ahead? Jeff, are you there?

Yeah, I just muted. More of a question out of curiosity, Lisa. I'm familiar with the 9-square courts, but the only ones that I've seen are the ones that you take and put up yourself made out of PVC pipe, and I know that's a popular, popular activity. Is this something that you're seeing popping up in other public parks, and if so, what What is that material made out of?

We haven't seen permanent versions yet, but, you know, I think it's something that could be custom, you know, built and engineered. I don't think it's that, you know, would be that out of line, out of reach. And I think they'll be coming soon from the sounds of it.

Yeah, it's, it's, you see them popping up all over during the summertime. It's a lot of fun.

Thank you.

Oh, I was going to mention, I've been through the cafeteria and the gym, and as Debbie said, they're— it's high quality, great block, beautiful lighting, nice court, great facility. We do have an individual in the city by the name of Dusty Dastrup that owns Dastrup Insurance, but he also runs a youth basketball league, and he's been looking for a place that he could schedule, pay for the time to take his league to. So just an interesting use for the future if we kept this for city basketball.

And I think there's something to be said as well for just having some flexible-use meeting rooms, because this option does also retain a classroom and a conference room and You know, that media center. So just having another space for, as an alternative for community events or other classes or other needs like that, I think there's something to be said for that. So the 3rd concept obviously looks at removing the entire school. So it opens up the entire 9.3 acres to recreation. This option looks at 16 pickleball courts in the center, so it's obviously kind of a mega tournament facility here with restrooms and a pavilion. Some of those same uses with table tennis, and around the perimeter— I know at this scale it doesn't really show, but maybe I can zoom in here a little bit— around the perimeter here, so you have kind of a dual Pathway with plantings and trees in the center, and then you have some small game tables that are placed throughout around that perimeter just to kind of activate that whole area. Entry features at both parking lots here. This site does have a total of, let's see, 85 total parking stalls on site. So you can see there's a little bit of room left over for some green space and some breathing room. And I know there has been some interest in other facilities, like maybe a splash pad or those types of facilities, and especially in these second 2 options, there's definitely room left over where you can either swap locations or just, you know, put that kind of a use in some of these other spaces that are, that are still open. Obviously, this isn't the final design. This is just showing some possibilities, and so there's always a possibility to integrate something down the road as well. You know, you can leave an area open and then later on, if you decide to add a facility like that, you could do that. So, the hammock park in this concept is out front, and I know in our meetings with staff, there was some concern about tucking hammock parks towards the back, maybe that you might get some undesired uses, back there, but this, this design puts it out in the front. And then again, you have the well, well house, and the detention basin back here, the perimeter pathway, same kind of restroom and pavilion configuration with the playgrounds, and the nature plays in the northeast corner here in this option. And then this design does include the covered flexible-use sports court, and I have a— I believe I have an image in a couple of slides I can show you what that looks like. Actually, this next one. So it could be something like this where, you know, maybe it's painted or striped for a specific sport, or you could keep it more flexible so that it could be used for a lot of different purposes. But again, these are just some images showing the different types of features that are shown throughout the design. In talking with staff about a hammock park, we thought maybe, especially with COVID too, that it would be better that you just put the poles there and let people bring their own hammocks rather than the city having to provide hammocks and clean and maintain and that sort of thing. So you just put that option there for people to use. And this is a photo of what one of those outdoor rooms might look like, you know, if you kept the full building and it was used for in an incubator, business incubator space, maybe some of those offices, you know, they could meet outside for meetings or just different types of flexible gathering areas.

So, Lisa, we've had a fair amount of interest in the city to string up a rope or a line, as it were, between 2 trees and to try to walk that line. And I've noticed that they have done that multiple times over there in the City Center Park. I don't know, you know, you've got the hammock area there. Could you have poles to attach lines with that people could do that? Because I've watched 3 or 4 groups at the same time do that in our City Center Park.

Yeah, yeah, slacklining is definitely a popular activity, and I've seen people slacklining over reservoirs and, you know, all kinds of places. So it's something they could definitely, you know, use, you know, attach to any of those poles in the hammock park. And, you know, this is a pretty flat site, so you don't have issues with maybe people traveling downhill and injuring themselves not knowing a slackline is there. Part of it too is just, again, providing that temporary use so people put it up, use it while they're there, but they need to take it down. So yeah, those, those types of uses can definitely happen.

So it seems like on a splash pad, that could be an interesting idea. It could cause problems for other splash pad at Sarah Park. It could cause crowding because it looks like you're pretty filled out here. So I don't know what the thoughts are on that, but—

Yes, it's typically a really popular use. It comes with a lot of maintenance demands, so that's, that's a big part of it, considering whether you want to pay for the additional maintenance and staffing that's required for those. And also, as part of the Parks Master Plan, we did establish a level of service for different types of amenities, and you are, you are pretty close to national standards with your water features between your pools and your splash beds. And but you can always— that said, you can always adjust in the future. If the city decides it's a priority and you want to add a splash pad at this location, like I said, the design is flexible, or you could make sure that when you are doing the final construction documents that you leave a place for that and consider as well where your utilities and those sorts of items would need to come in for that final design.

One other point—

go ahead, Mayor, I'm sorry.

I was just going to say one Other question. So the pavilion there is a nice pavilion. I've had events there. I like the pavilion. The roof's in good condition.

Good condition.

The benches are in good condition. I don't know that I would recommend replacing the pavilion at that location. The restrooms seem to be nice outside. I haven't spent a lot of time inside, but I think it'd be worthwhile to do a study on those 2 to see if in fact we couldn't use them because they appear to be in decent condition. Tom, did you have a question?

Yeah, I was gonna—

to her point earlier, the Palisades Park was in for a number of years before we got some CARE money and added a splash pad. So I think we have a history of kind of reevaluating the parks as we grow and as we get additional funding. I think this boils down to my question on Saturday of how much money do we have and how many places has it been earmarked for. And Jamie, I think you're getting that out in the coming weeks or so.

And Mayor and Council, I think it's also just important to note that anytime we increase amenities in a facility, we also would need to increase parking. So, for example, if we are going to look to add an amenity, regardless of what the amenity is, that draws a good number of people above and beyond pickleball, we would have to add commensurate parking. So, you know, if we add a, let's say, a water-type feature, we would probably need to add 30 or 40 parking stalls as well.

So, Lisa, a question about the Splash pad. I talked to Stratton Brott today and asked them about splash pads, and we were hearing the number of $1 million when we talked about this as a City Council the other day. But, but as I learned about that, that, that's probably more in line with what the city did up on the park up north. A lot of splash pads are half a million and less. Isn't that right, Lisa, with umbrellas and a lot of fountains and, and, you know, benches for— I mean, that's what I was hearing as I was talking to one of the companies that does that, that it's not necessarily $1 million. It might be less than $500,000.

Yeah, and I'll actually let Hugh speak to this. He's been involved in the design of several splash pads.

Yeah, this is Hugh.

It all depends on the type of water play that you have. The size and how the water is treated. If you just have a little bit of water that is passed through that ends up in your storm drain, that is very inexpensive for the initial splash pad, but then it costs you water. It depends on how much you use. And, you know, but if you use the ultraviolet and all the filtering and circulate the water, then that gets very expensive. And you have to have restrooms within so many feet of the splash pad. And so it just depends on the design whether you want to— you can do it inexpensively, but you also can do it really nice and it's about a million bucks.

Okay, but there's a lot, there's a lot of cities that have done them for half a million, is that correct?

Yes, there are some that do a half a million. We just did a small one in South Ogden, designed one that's relatively inexpensive, but they don't anticipate a lot of use. It's not going to be a draw for the greater community. It's just going to be for the neighborhood, basically. And it's— there's just going to be a pass-through water system, and the water is just going to run down a little runnel and then have some gates where people can kind of dam it up, but it's gonna just be not using very much water.

And I think, Chris, if you could just correct me, but I think our system is not one that we chlorinate, is it?

Our well system, we do chlorinate most of our wells we use.

I mean, I mean the splash pads. The existing splash point is— I believe this, Carl, it is a full chlorinated system. Oh, it is?

Okay.

Yes, it is.

All right, any other comments from Joe or Lisa or Hugh? Okay, we appreciate very much the presentation and the good work you put in. We will have a further discussion on the costs. Later, but we're out of time today for this, so we'll move on to our next discussion.

So, so, Mayor, if I can just take a minute. Obviously, our, our intent as staff was to bring forward to you some potential concepts. Obviously, we have individuals that are interested in the property itself And the school, for example. This conversation has generated a lot of feedback from the residents in and around this park and beyond. I would expect going forward that, one, we probably need to— you probably need to make a decision as to the future of the building itself, whether it be keeping the entire building or a portion thereof, or or demolishing the building entirely. In addition to that, we've shared with you what we believe meets with demands and, I guess you could say, issues that need to be addressed within our Parks Master Plan. But I would anticipate that we would also engage in some sort of public process as as well, to essentially provide the public with an opportunity to see what we would propose in the future and allow them to provide input. But right now, the focus is on the future of the school, identifying deficiencies in our plan and including them in this proposed park, and then Allowing residents an opportunity through some sort of public process to provide feedback to what has been prepared to this point.

All right.

If there are action items, those are kind of the 3 action items that I, I would encourage and recommend the council tackle in the short term.

Okay, thank you, Jamie. Let's go ahead and move on now to the discussion on Geneva Road districts. Jason Bench and Grant Allen are our presenters.

Thank you, Mayor. Tonight we were just going to show you a kickoff of the Geneva Road area. We had a neighborhood meeting last Thursday that several of you were able to attend. Grant's on the line, he's going to just run through a quick presentation of how we're going to move forward with the implementation of our Geneva Road area-wide master plan, and we'll go to that point. So Grant, if you want to share your screen and go ahead.

Okay, I think— can everybody see the slides? Thank you, Jason and Mayor. Grateful to those who could attend last week from the kickoff meeting. This is, as Jason mentioned, the Imagine Orem Geneva area-wide plan that was adopted in 2019. And it is from the first EPA grant that we received. the city received to explore the future of Geneva with respect to specifically brownfield development— sorry, cleanup. And I pulled this quote from the area-wide plan. I thought this is really good. On the right shows kind of the study area specific to the area-wide plan. So the redevelopment of these, you know, strategic sites can really kind of improve this corridor. We're also, I think, closely going to closely work with Vineyard as we move forward through this process, as a major portion of alternative brownfield developments can be occurring on there across the street. But, you know, in harmony with Part of the other reason I pulled this quote is, as we move forward, really have a grounding in pushing forward recommendations that are consistent with existing master plans, you know, Orem General Plan, Neighborhood Plans, Economic Development Plan, and Transportation Master Plan. So from now, you know, this is a quick summary. But this was some outcomes of that process. There was 3— we called them districts— that were kind of identified as part of that area-wide plan. This graphic on the left shows that. It also shows along the Geneva Road corridor those potential brownfield sites. And then on the right, we're kind of naming these tentatively the Geneva Gateway District, the Geneva Crossing District, and the Geneva Center District. And then in conjunction with some of the process last year, we're going to recommend some design standards. So not a full district in the sense of a boundary, but some design standards near the southwest area. So this is also a summary of kind of potential site uses as the brownfield redevelopment will take place over several years. And this is some of the identified uses that could be considered for these district areas. So first is the Gateway District, Geneva Road, 1600 North. You see that boundary. And the Rocky Mountain Power was one of the catalyst sites, is a major site where it could be really targeted for potential redevelopment. As in conjunction with the area-wide plan, there was large undertaking for public process to get feedback from property owners, business owners. And one of the requirements of the area-wide plan was, because of the EPA grant, was that we were required to include a section of residential in the survey and the feedback and the public process. And so that was included in this as well, and in the surveys that we did at the time during the plan. So this was a show— I just want to pull these and show some of the feedback that was received at the time as far as, you know, the future imagined uses of these districts in this corridor. Also part of that process of the plan, there were several alternatives considered. These were some, you know, the current zoning showing the PD zone and M-2, and then potential land use scenarios: industrial commercial or mixed use with residential, and then kind of a hybrid more specific configuration that was— that is kind of estimated for the Geneva Gateway. Geneva Crossing, those who attended last week, this is the first district that we're kind of phasing going into Phase 1 of this process. So I kind of gave this update last week with— we had sent out a notice for the kickoff meeting to all the surrounding property owners and business owners in Geneva. But this kind of summarizes the possible district boundary. The brownfield sites, again, showing some similar— was remarkable for, I guess, noteworthy from the feedback was several— some of the feedback was similar for each each district. And again, the different alternatives for the Geneva Crossing District, and then the kind of anticipated outcome that was selected from the area-wide plan. And then finally, the 3rd district would be the Geneva Center District, Geneva Road and Center Street, showing that boundary and the brownfield sites, some of the feedback that was received, the alternatives that were considered, and then, you know, the kind of final proposed development configuration. Zoning configuration. I apologize.

So Grant, I think if you could go back one picture there, I think that's important to recognize. If you look to the top left, Vineyard future commercial. So the railroad lines are going to be taken out and Vineyard is planning for commercial along the Geneva corridor opposite Orms area. Correct.

And, and that, going back to, that's another reason why Geneva Crossing we've selected as the first district to really kind of go through this process. Additionally, because there's very soon anticipated improvements along 800 North. And so with UDOT and also some improvements at the intersection there. So we're going to be connecting with Vineyard and discussing this and the other districts more specifically, but all 3 of them are really— because we border Vineyard. See, oh yeah, so the final design standards, we're not kind of sure. This wasn't included in the area-wide plan, but Because it's connected to this corridor and some of the discussions we had last year, we thought it would be wise to at least go through a similar public process to identify some standards for this area as we anticipate some commercial growth down there as well. Tentative schedule. Obviously, this is with COVID and timing for meetings and virtual meetings. This is just a tentative schedule right now. I think it's really aggressive to anticipate all districts by what we've kind of estimated as far as October, but just with timing of getting the public involved, having some really great workshops with business owners and property owners and interested, you know, in terms of getting that feedback. And so we just wanted to put this forward, show the kind of the full kind of timeline that we're anticipating. And that is also taking into consideration time, meeting times with the Planning Commission, as well as with you at the City Council. And as I mentioned before, Phase 1 is this Geneva Crossing District. We had the kickoff meeting last week. We're anticipating the first workshop to kind of show— get some feedback for some of the concepts mentioned in the area-wide plan, either on February 11th or February 18th, just depending on some kind of survey timing. We are going to be putting together some surveys and sending those out next week. We're also anticipating putting those on to a new community engagement kind of portal on the website so that people can go there to see them as well. So any questions that either myself or Jason could answer.

Okay, is that it then at this point?

I don't see any questions, so—

Okay, I, I did want to thank you for the kickoff meeting that we had. I thought that was beneficial and learned a lot. Look forward to moving forward with it.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you, Grant. Jason, we'll move on now to our discussion of State Street districts for 20 minutes. Jason Bench is our presenter.

Thank you, Mayor. This discussion goes back to our discussion we had in December about the potential rezone of the North Village District, where they have some discussion on proximity to residential. What we're wanting to do is discuss with you some possible alternatives. Let me share my screen really quick. You guys see the maps?

Yes.

Yes.

Okay, thank you. So as we discussed in December, these are the 2 maps, and, and Mayor, you can correct me if I'm wrong, but these are the 2 districts that the council wanted to focus on. The North Village, of course, was the one that was in question at the time, and then the Arts District, I think you had brought up to include that as well. So what we're looking at is— I'm just reminding you of these maps— the North Village does have a lot of residential properties that surround it. In the ordinance itself, it was built in that the height would have to be equal to the height next to a residential zone, so that's already in place. We're not proposing to change that, but we are proposing to add some additional setbacks that we'll discuss here momentarily. The next screen does show a height limitation area, so the map on the left is the North Village District. What we're proposing is a 50-foot buffer area, similar to what we've used at University Place next to Costco. This has a similar 50-foot, 35-foot maximum height limitation. So we're proposing to implement this in the North Village District around where you can see all the residentials that either abut directly to back-to-back residential uses. So if you look, if I can pull up my pointer, you can see along here there's direct contact property to property. There's no streets or anything in that location, or similar to the, you know, by the Vasa Fitness. Those areas would be a 50-foot setback from property line to the 50-foot where you can then have the ultimate height, but within that 50-foot area would be limited to 35 feet. Similar on 4th West, where we have residential across the street to the east, we would then, instead of going from the, the residential side to the east, it would actually be measured from the back of curb on the actual village district side. And so the 50-foot would be back of curb and then going west, and within that area would be a limitation of 35 feet. Similarly, on the Arts District, I guess I have some questions that I want a little bit of discussion on. If you go back to this map here, you can see along Orem Boulevard on the west, there are a lot of multifamily. There's twin homes, there's condos, there's a lot of different multifamily uses. So I'm not sure that it's applicable to have that same restriction on the Orem Boulevard side. If you look on 4th east. There's also— you got the new Centennial School, you got the city's park. There is some section right in this area here, and then of course down this area. As you get down south of 800 South, you got the existing shopping center there, you got an existing LDS church. And then as you get down closer to where the— this proposed Meadowgold property would be developed, you've got 2 single-family homes to the east that currently have are rentals. They do have a rental license, so they are currently rentals. There is one home to the south that is single-family. The 2 homes that are east or west of that are commercial, zoned commercially. One is the Utah Valley Islamic Center Church, and then the other one is a home, but it is zoned commercial. So I'm not sure that these buffers are necessarily applicable in the Arts District, but we can definitely have that discussion. We would recommend that we do that in the Northgate Village, or North Village, excuse me. The proposal is, like I say, that this is kind of a diagram that shows the 50-foot setback area or limitation area from the back of curb. Within that area would be a limit of 35 feet, which is a typical height in a residential zone. So it'd be very similar to heights across the street if it's a residential or on the back property. And so we felt that was appropriate. And then that same standard, the equal to the height. So if they have a taller building, it's still going to have to be equal to the height from that residential property. So if it's taller than, you know, gets into the 60-foot range, you're still going to have to meet that setback regardless of which standard is in play at the time. So these are— this is the proposed ordinance that we would consider. One is that the residential It's not part of the Northgate Village would be within that 50-foot buffer area, and it would be measured from the back of curb and not the opposite side of the street. So that, that's kind of the standard, and that would be applicable to both. I guess the discussion I want to have maybe with the council is whether or not you feel it's appropriate in the Arts District, if there are certain areas that we want to specifically make sure that we don't you know, intrude with the neighbors, we can definitely do that. But there are some areas that I don't know that would be applicable or appropriate based on what's currently there and the fact that it's, you know, Orem Boulevard is a definite wide street. So be glad to address any questions before we go forward with some other discussion.

So Jason, I agree with you. I, you know, on Orem Boulevard, State Street, you know, I don't think you need to worry about it. But I do believe that there on 400 East where you're bordering homes across the street in certain sections, and possibly a little bit down, you know, on 900 South, but as you said, those areas and then up on 4 South that would border homes across, I would like to have that setback. The, the district up on 1600 North, I like what you've done there.

So, so, Mayor, I've got a question.

Yes.

So, so, Jason, on the 400 West, 1600 North, you've got the 50-foot thing included in the, in the residential homes. Why wouldn't that be pushed back to their property line? I mean, I don't know if this is going to help the situation we have there in the corner, which— it's the edge zone that I have a problem with. And it's, it's a huge edge zone in this State Street Master Plan, which I don't like. So the question is, how do we fix the issue on the corner of 1600 North and 400 West?

Well, what this, what this does is require them to have a 50-foot area where they can only be a maximum of 35 feet high. So that does affect this corner. This is the corner we're talking about, right? And that, that is a 50-foot setback where in that they can only have 35 feet, whereas in a C-2 zone, which it was prior, they could go 60 feet up to the corner.

So, so, I mean, the question is, though, we're including these commercial— these residential homes.

You're talking about these homes here, correct? That's part of the district.

I know. So, you know, maybe we curve that out and not, not have that in the edge and keep that as the C-2 the way it was before and not this edge. So we can't have high-density apartments on that corner.

Okay, you mean talking this area here?

But if you, if you revert it back to C-2, you actually double the height permissible in that zone.

60 feet would be allowed up on this corner. I guess, Dave, to your question, this area is limited right now to 35 feet. So all these homes that you see here, that is not in the edge zone. That is actually a Residential B zone, which limits it to 35 maximum. The only point that's going to come close is this corner right here, which we're proposing to put an additional limit of 50 feet, where they can only go 35 feet. So you're only going to get height as you get back into this way, which is going to be close. closer to State Street, which is where you're going to get the majority of your redevelopment.

But wouldn't the, the, the little red line go around their property line?

Well, not here, because this is part of the district zone, and you're basically— any of this zone right here. So this is the back of those zones. Anywhere from here to here, maximum height is 35 feet. So you're going to be back into this zone before you're ever going to get anything higher, and that's going to be clear across to get any of these residential zones. So you're talking 150 feet before you ever get back here to any, any height that's going to be in these districts.

So with the project that was, you know, we had the neighborhood meeting, what does that do for them on this? What is it? What does it— does it alleviate that?

What it does, what it does is require them to either push it back to the west, or they can have a portion of that project 35 feet maximum within that 30— within that 50 feet. So there may still be some project along there, but it's going to be limited to 35 feet maximum until they get back into this area where they then could, you know, work it up to whatever height they want, which is still probably less than what a C-2 zone would allow. They're like 48, maybe 50.

But the concern still is, Jason, is the amount of traffic that an apartment complex, high-density housing, is going to Cause on 1600 North and 400 West. So that, that's my concern. So, and it's a safety concern, and I think the neighbors too have that same concern. So is there something we can do so that cannot be a high-density apartment?

Well, without rezoning it back to a C-2, you know, this district does allow for mixed-use. It does require commercial on the bottom, or at least 20%. In this area, or 10%, excuse me, in this area, and then they could have a mix of residential above. But there are some restrictions as far as step backs, different things like that that would still be applicable. They still have to be able to park it. They still have to be able to have access. There is some, you know, issue with the right-in, right-out access right here, and there's—

We're going to close that, probably, right?

That's probably going to be closed, and so they will be having to work out to have a reciprocal access out to State Street. So the majority, the main access, or at least an equal share of the traffic, is going to go out to State Street, where, you know, some of it's going to come here, obviously, but they're going to have to either go right, right in and right out. So a lot of traffic is not going to go eastbound, it's having to go probably westbound.

Jason, if I could add on. Previously, we had a proposal about 4 or 5 years ago to put a service station or a convenience store on that same corner. That would actually generate more traffic than a multifamily development.

So, so, I mean, Jason, so this is the best option that you guys came up with to help alleviate the, the issue of the— what was proposed earlier?

Well, it's an option that we've used in other parts of the city, so to be consistent, I guess we've come forward with a 50-foot, which is what we've done, like I said, the mall next to Costco. When you have residential to the west, there is a 50-foot setback and it's a limitation of 35 feet. It's similar to the C-3 zone, which is up by the Pinehurst Plaza, you know, the office buildings that are built there. Depending on whether it's a 2-story or 3-story, there was a different setback. So we've been consistent with using this type of setback. I mean, obviously we can go more than 50 feet if you, if you want to on this corner. I would— 50 feet, I think, is, is probably, in my opinion, adequate because you're still going to get some development. I mean, it's a commercial zone, it was prior to this. So whether you do, you know, mixed use or whether you have a standalone commercial, you're still going to have some height element on that corner, and the traffic is going to have to be addressed when they come through for site plan. But the direct—

If we did 75 feet, or is that not You know, applicable or wouldn't work.

If I could chime in, Jason, I would suggest by the time you add in the width of the road, which is probably greater than 50 feet plus 50 feet, you actually have a 100-foot setback from a residential home, whereas like a Pinehurst development or by Costco, you'll never reach 100 feet because—

You're talking about across the street, then you're talking about the houses across the street, right?

Correct.

Not talking about the houses that are— that butt up against it that are in that zone.

We're not, because they're, they're a part of the zone itself. So when we rezoned the property, held the neighborhood meetings, we had these property owners— we didn't have any issues with being a part of that. So they can actually redevelop into, you know, some townhouse-type developments, which would be then an additional buffer to the residences across to the east of 400 West.

So would we want to take that, just the homes out of this zone?

That's possible. If you wanted to revert them back to R-8, we could do that.

I mean, would that be something that we can look at? Because I think that might solve the whole issue. And then you could have the 50, 50 You know, 50-foot setback.

I don't know that it's— that the issues are with the homes that are within the district. I think the issues that we've had, at least the people that were coming in and having some issues with the proposed rezone, were in the east portion of the resident, you know, across—

I mean, I've had people call me and, you know, somebody's bought a house and they've got the commercial stuff going through the back of the house into the— so I don't know, I just need to be careful.

Let me reiterate, Dave, just to make, make it clear. The commercial or mixed-use portion of it cannot be in the Residential B zone. So the only thing that can go in this area that's next to 4th West— so these zones right here, these homes— the only thing that can go there is residential. There is no commercial, there is no other type of use. So it's strictly a residential zone. That is not a mixed— or that's not the edge part. So any of these homes, if they are ever redeveloped, it would strictly be residential, not high density. It would strictly be 35 feet maximum, no stacked units. They would just be— they have a potential to be townhouses, but there is no other type of development that could go there. So we've already built in that limitation. So as far as having an, you know, 80-foot-tall building right here, that's not possible under the current standard.

So I mean, Would we be able to have a neighborhood meeting and explain that to them and see what they thought?

We could, yeah.

I mean, I think, you know, I mean, we're proposing it, but I know quite a few are probably listening online, but I just, you know, I think this caught us off guard with the edge, and then all of a sudden it's going to be a commercial on the bottom and apartments on the top. I think that's what sort of got the ball rolling and the snowball effect.

So I guess, I guess—

Councilmember Lamson has a question, if we could allow him to speak.

Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Jason and Ryan. So another concern, as I recall from that meeting with a lot of the neighbors, was the traffic on 400 West coming out of that property on the corner of 1600 North. And 400 West. And what you just described, it sounded like they would just be coming out onto 1600 North and onto State Street. So are you saying that they wouldn't have an exit onto 400 West from that property?

They would not. It is too close to the intersection.

Okay, that was a huge concern for me because there just isn't enough I just couldn't imagine there being enough room there for that added traffic on top of what's already there, just on any normal day. So that's a good call. Thank you.

Yeah, access would be strictly on 16th North or Station.

Councilmember Sumner has a question.

Yeah, Jason, is there any plans in the future to widen I'm not aware of any. It doesn't mean that it won't come in the future. I know eventually the master plan does have a road connecting, you know, further north, but there is a road that's going to connect from 4th West over to State Street to help have, you know, additional circulation. That's in the long-term master plan, but there are no plans at this point to install that or to widen, to my knowledge, to widen 4th West. Okay, thank you.

Councilmember Pedersen has a question.

Yes, I think, Jason, part of the concern that I hear from citizens is what David Spencer is talking about, is this creep. You know, now we're talking about 4th West, or we're talking about 4th East, we're talking about Orem Boulevard. And, and that's what makes people nervous. It's not just State Street, it's— there's a lot of creep. And we talk about the old Vasa property on 8th North. That's not State Street. And I think that's what people are concerned about, is, is this the edge and the creep of high density? So I don't, I don't know if anyone in the city is happy with that.

Well, this zone was strictly just replacing commercial zones. So this did not creep into any residential that was not already zoned commercial. So from 4th West, other than the homes on that corner, this corner here that you see here was already previously zoned commercial, and the commercial zone ran all the way up and all the way. So the district itself mirrors what was already commercial, except for this trailer park area here. So the majority of all the districts were already commercial. We did not incorporate anything that was not typically commercial. If it did incorporate, like this area here, It was strictly then zoned to residential only. It was not allowed for high-density housing. So we did take into consideration when we rezoned this portion, let's say, to the North Village District Edge, all the edge that we see here was C-2 previously. So anybody could come and redevelop with a 60-foot-tall office building or whatever. This just allows them to have a mixed use, but we're not planning, or are we ever intending, to go east and creep into the neighborhoods or west and creep into the neighborhoods. That's the whole purpose of us developing these districts, was to have a location where we could have mixed use. And then we, at the same time, we eliminated— I think this is before your time, Mr. Peterson— but we eliminated the option to do high-density housing as a PD zone in a residential zone. So it was purposely designed so to eliminate that creep and focus it in these districts. And that was the whole intent of these districts was understanding that we do have to have some development and we're going to focus it on the main corridors, the main district, or the main, you know, core of these 5 districts and not be out into the neighborhoods. So that was the intent. That's our purpose of doing these. It is definitely not to now creep into the neighborhoods. We are, we are hopefully to maintain what we have and then move forward that way.

Okay.

Mayor, I've got a question.

Mayor, pardon me.

Go ahead. So Jason, on the— so on the 50-foot property line or back of curb, so the height of the building cannot be more than 35 feet, and then when can it go up?

So once it gets down to that 50-foot, then it can go up to additional height, but it still has to maintain the height equal to the distance from the residential. So that section— so let me go back to the setback. The setback. So I mean, the street can be counted, but it's still— so let's just, for example, they want a 75-foot building. It has to be at least 75 feet, including the street across, before they can ever get to that height. Excluding— I mean, still both of these would apply. So the 50-foot, 35-foot requirement would apply, and then the setback from wherever that other additional height is, let's say it's up here, would have to be equal to the height of that setback as well. So both of them would be applicable to whatever height goes beyond that 50 feet, if that makes sense.

So yeah, so on the picture you've got there, so where would that— can you sort of point out where that would lie after the— I mean, you got 35-foot maximum height.

So yeah, so the setback would go from backup curb on the side of the district side 50 feet back, and then once they hit that 50-foot mark, then they could go taller than 35 feet. But whatever that height is would have to be equal to whatever that setback requirement is there as well.

So can you show the picture of the map again? So if we look at that, so from the 50-foot setback, so where would the— then that's 50 feet, but then he could go higher if—

He could go higher in this area. So whatever the height is at this point, let's say it's right here where they wanted to go, whatever the height would be, it has to be equal to that setback right there. So it'd have to— whatever the height is has to meet that setback in addition to that setback. So there's 2 different setbacks they have to meet.

Okay, and you feel that's, that's the best solution we have?

Well, I'm not saying it's best, but I think it's a practical solution. I think it's consistent with what other solutions we've done in the past, in not only the mall, but Pinehurst, and it seems to be a reasonable way to be able to have a limitation on height. And in that setback, so you still can have development, but the developers are limited to that height within that area of concern with, you know, in proximity to a residential. You need to remember that there's still a 50-foot-wide street and a 50-foot-wide setback, so you're— by the time you get to this corner home, you're at least 100 feet before you're going to ever get above 35 feet. Whereas if it's a C-2 zone, you'd have had a 20-foot setback and you could have gone to 60 feet without having any setback. So this, this I think really plays into the fact that we're trying to keep it away from neighborhoods and making it at least a 50-foot, 35-foot max. And then once you get behind there, you're still going to be meeting that requirement. So the building itself is probably going to be back into here, which would be well away from the residential units across 4th West.

So Jason, I don't know if you could blow that map up a little bit, but they're saying they're having a hard time seeing the map online, I guess. Okay, so maybe you can explain just again with the blown up, because you have the street.

So you got the street here. Which is approximately 50 feet. And then we're taking the measurement from the back of the curb. So that's an additional 50 feet. And within this 50-foot area, you can have a 35-foot-tall building. But the only— you can go higher than that after you get back that 50 feet. And so it'd be this area here that you could get taller than that. But whatever that height is would have to be equal to the distance from this point to where that building reaches that maximum height.

Gotcha.

So you're gonna, you know, it's gonna be a significant distance from any of these residents across here. And then these, just as a reminder, any of these that are redeveloped are strictly once or non-stacked units, so they can be townhouse style. But they can— they have to be the same unit. They can't have an apartment on top of another apartment. So they're max 35 feet. So there's a buffer right here built in to these. And then anything that's high density would have to be back in this commercial area, which the majority, if not all, of the access would be on State Street. So there's not going to be any access here. We're not going to allow any access on 4th West. It's all going to be accessible either to State Street, or right now I think there's one access on 16th North, and that's probably all that would be allowed on that area, other than less than a ride-in, ride-out. There would not be any access Going eastbound.

Right, because if we're going to close the median, then you can't get across there anyway.

So, correct.

Right. And then we had— they wanted us to change that residential home to commercial, to that zone, so they could— he could have the access there, right?

Yeah, because we talked to them and there's no ability for them to get an access right here. The only option was to come in and potentially ask the council to reason on that and maybe get an access up here to allow more stacking. It's obvious that the council is not going to do that, right? So you've got no access here, potential access here, which this street right here from this light going westbound has been widened, right? So you've got accessible here. This is going to be widened in the future. So as far as the ability to have access and to be able to have a wide enough street going westbound is You know, meets the standard. There's 2 lanes, there's all kinds of ability to do that. It's the eastbound I think they're having issues with, and we're not really proposing any access that would force traffic to go eastbound. Hopefully that makes sense.

No, thanks, Jason.

I do have a discussion. I'm sorry, what, Jason?

I have another discussion if I, if I have time. If not, we can postpone that part of it.

Well, we're kind of running out of time. I think we probably should postpone it. I would like to say that I'm comfortable with what you've proposed here for the North District and with the Arts District, except I would eliminate the western side of that.

Okay.

But I think we'll have to come back if we're going to have further discussion.

So I will— we'll move forward with this if the council is comfortable. We'll take this section to the Planning Commission, then come to the council probably the end of February for an actual discussion on adopting the ordinance.

And I don't know, Jason, if we could do some kind of neighborhood thing just for an information type thing in that meantime. I don't know.

If we could hold a discussion, if you're comfortable with us holding a discussion before the 23rd of February, we could definitely do that. Yes. But we're going to go— probably go to the Planning Commission for at least a preliminary, or at least a discussion and a recommendation. We're not going to be able to have that meeting before Planning Commission, but we could definitely do it before City Council.

That would be great if we could do that. I think that would benefit everyone.

So, okay, we will.

Mayor, sorry, Dave, really quick. We're just working on our streaming system. You said you were— people were commenting they can't see it. I'm not seeing those comments. Where are you seeing those?

Oh, okay, sorry, just wanted to make sure.

They said it was going in and out, the streaming, they, the, the language, you know, they couldn't hear, it would go in and out.

So.

Okay, thank you, Jason, appreciate it. Let's move on to a discussion about amendments to Article 2-22, Employee Appeals Board, and our presenter is Heather Shriver, Deputy City Attorney. Thank you, Mayor.

I will be very quick.

We're asking that the City Council consider amending Article 2-22 of the Utah Code. I'll just throw these amendments up here quickly. The Employee Appeals Board hears certain appeals from our employees. Let's say if they're discharged, suspended without pay for more than 2 days, Or involuntarily transferred to a different position for, for less pay. And if they disagree with that disciplinary decision, they can appeal to this Employee Appeals Board. We have to establish the board by ordinance under Utah law. We recently changed the composition of kind of the companion board that actually serves on the Employee Appeals Board. That companion board is called the Employee Advisory Council, and it's essentially composed of representatives from all of the departments and then some supervisors. Recently, we increased the size of the council from 9 to 11, and since the Employee Appeals Board is composed of members of that council, we need to just go ahead and make, make that change here in the ordinance. Increasing the number of members from 10 to 12. And then we're just increasing the quorum from 7 to 6. So it's really just, you know, a change to deal with the fact that we are now allowing all departments within the city to have their own representatives on the Employee Advisory Council. So I'll be asking the City Council to consider that. by ordinance at our next scheduled meeting.

Sounds like a good move. Any comments or questions from the council?

Seems reasonable.

Okay, okay, thanks, Debbie. All right, well then, thank you, Heather, appreciate it. We'll now move on to our agenda review. This evening we're going to have our prayer to be given by Jeff Lamson and our Pledge of Allegiance by Neil Winterton. We'll have our personal appearances. Our consent items consist of the following. 8.1 is the approval of meeting minutes of the City Council meeting January 12th, 2021. The second one is 8.2, appointments to boards and commissions. Jordan Johnson to the Heritage Commission and Russ Verhof to the Transportation Advisory Commission and Marlon Coe to the Transportation Advisory Commission. Anyone know these people or any comments?

Mayor, this is Ryan Clark.

Sam Kelly has interviewed the Transportation Advisory Commission members as well as Brady Hale, our transportation engineer, and both of them are very excited to have them on board and working with their committee. So no concerns from Sounded like Russ was excited to join in and get going. Any questions or any comments on Jordan Johnson Heritage Commission? Okay. I read over his bio as well. I feel good about it. Is everyone on the council okay with these appointees?

Yes.

Okay. 8.3 is an ordinance enacting Article 2-35, establishing a Public Safety Advisory Commission. Heather is our presenter again. Heather, would you like to make mention of this, or did you leave? Are you on mute, Heather? Did we lose you?

Okay. This is Jamie. This is simply you ratifying the framework of a Public Safety Advisory Committee that was outlined in your last City Council meeting, consisting of 2 members appointed by the fire chief, 2 members appointed by the police chief, 3 members appointed by the City Council, with a non-voting council liaison who does not serve as a member of the commission but is invited to participate in the meetings.

Okay. All right, those are our consent items. We'll go on to our scheduled items. First one is 9.1, a public hearing. Ordinance amending Article 22-14-15B, C, D, 1231A, 1241B, 1258B-3, and 12739B of the Orange City Code by changing Development Services and Administrative Services to Finance. Jason is the presenter. Would you like to go over that, Jason?

So that's basically— there's no substantive changes. It's simply changing the designee to Finance because that portion of the administrative, you know, business licensing and thing has moved from Development Services to Finance. So that's just a simple change.

Okay.

9.2 is a resolution. This is a site approval of Springwater Point at Sleepy Ridge, located generally at 1900 West Golden Pond Way in the PD-15 zone. Jason, you are the presenter on that.

This was approved about a year and a half ago with the council. The PD-15 zone does require City Council approval for any site plan in the golf course area. They're coming back for a revision and actually changing the access— accessing through the Golden Pond HOA street to an actual Sleepy Ridge street, which we'll get into. Everybody seems to be in favor of that, including the golf course and other areas as they redefine Highway 11. So we'll show you some slides, but it should be a fairly straightforward process.

Okay, question I have for you there. Seems like that's an area that's close to our Sewer treatment plant. I know that we had problems before, but we seem to have them corrected. And hopefully these people are aware of that.

I would think so. Yeah, the developer definitely is. I'm assuming the buyer would be aware once they go see the home that is next to a sewer treatment plant.

I just remember in Arizona when I was doing construction and we built apartments, and the apartments are right across from the dairy. And after people moved in, they all said, well, the dairy's got to go. Dairy had been there for 20 years anyway.

Yeah.

Okay, the next one is 9.3, a resolution authorizing the issuance of and sale of not more than $45 million aggregate principal amount of water sewer and and storm revenue and refunding bonds. Our presenter is Laura Lewis. Laura, are you still there?

Mayor, she will be on the call, or a representative of Lewis and Young will be on the call when we begin the meeting. But this is essentially necessary for us to begin the formal process in the issuance of bonds for our our utility infrastructure, kind of building upon the conversation we had in our work session.

Okay. And then, Jamie, we don't have anything else on there. Do you have anything you want to bring up?

Mayor, I just want to give some time to Heather Shriever, if Heather is on the line, to give an update as to several of the legislative bills that we are watching. Obviously, we're into week 2 up at the state legislature. There are a number of bills that are of concern to us, and some of them were making progress, others were not. So can I turn the time over to Heather to just give you an update as to some of the bills that are most concerning to us?

Sure.

Would you like to do that now, Jamie?

Yes, Heather, go ahead.

Okay.

Probably the, the most contentious bill that we have right now is Representative Ward's single-family housing bill. You've heard it referred to as the ADU bill. We're still currently opposing that bill. A second substitute just came out today. And it actually mandates that all cities will allow internal ADUs in any zone where they also allow single-family housing. single-family residential units. So that is an expansion of his original bill, which only mandated ADUs in zones where the cities had already permitted them. So that is a piece that we hear is non-negotiable, and, and he will not step back from that mandate. We have been able to secure some language that would allow us to require one additional parking spot if an ADU is placed in an existing home, and an understanding that an existing home cannot be enlarged. The footprint cannot be changed for the ADU— for an ADU to be built within an existing home. It also— and we touched on this a few weeks ago, but it also modify some of the building requirements within the ADU zone. The inspectors, building inspectors have some concerns about that, but essentially it takes away a lot of the requirements that are in place, such as, you know, drywall, heating requirements, access requirements. It kind of steps those back, so it makes it less expensive for an existing homeowner to put in an ADU. The word on the street is if, if this bill is opposed, there is a more onerous bill waiting in the wings. We are working very diligently with Representative Ward to, to make this the best kind of bill we can, because what we're hearing is ADUs are going to happen this year.

So Heather, does an ADU include a, the ability to build a tiny home in the backyard?

It does not. It has to be within the existing structure of the house.

Okay. All right, what other bills are you looking at?

We have SB 61, which is being run by Senator Sandahl. This is a billboard bill that I wanted to bring to your attention. And essentially, the problem with this bill is that it would allow a billboard company to transform its paper billboard to an electronic billboard as a matter of right. So, you know, I, I know we have a lot of paper billboards along I-15, but in the city of Orem, we probably have a lot of paper billboards that abut residential areas, and changing those from a paper billboard to an electronic billboard may not make our residents very happy.

That'd be a very grievous bill to pass. We went through that before.

Yeah, it is, and it's in its preliminary stages, but it has already been numbered and will be going to committee. So usually the billboard bills come out a little later in the session. This one came out early. So, you know, there will be a lot of opposition and it will be It'll be a battle, as billboard bills usually are.

So they put one in every year into the legislature by the billboard group, and so we're always fighting that.

Yeah, absolutely. And right now there, there's a question as to whether or not this is a consensus-type request from all of the billboard companies, or if this is from one specific billboard company. And what I'm hearing right now is it might be from just one specific billboard company. So we will keep a really close eye on that bill. The next bill that I'd like to bring to your attention that is concerning is HB 98 being run by Representative Ray. It's called the Local Government Building Regulation Bill. We will be opposing it. It essentially allows developers and builders to opt out of and then use their own inspectors for site plan review and construction inspections throughout the construction phases of a project. It also prohibits— it prohibits cities from requiring certain external building elements citywide. Just so you know, this bill is being opposed by a lot of groups, not just the cities Frankly, we've heard rumors that private inspectors aren't in favor of this bill either because they don't have the bandwidth to start doing all of this work. But the push here is that builders are asserting that we're slow in responding to site plan reviews and inspections, and that, that increases the cost, as, as do the building design requirements. increases the cost, making housing more costly. I don't really think from our perspective that's accurate. We did do a study all last year and reported to the legislature on how efficient and quickly we were responding to site review issues and performing our inspections. And the City of Orem did a fantastic job. So my understanding is this is being run because there are a couple of problem cities out there across the state, just a few of them, who aren't getting their work done as quickly as they need to get it done. So we're now facing this, this bill, but again, we'll be opposing it. So those, those are, those are the bills that I wanted to highlight. If you ever do have a bill that you'd like me to track, I do try to stay on top of that. Please just send me an email, let me know. Give me a call, and I'm more than happy to update you on the status or discuss those bills with you.

Okay. All right, well, thank you, Heather. Anything else from you, Jamie?

No, that's all I had. Thank you.

Okay. All right, well, let's go ahead and close our work session, and we will start our general session at 6 PM. So thank you.

So, Mayor, who shoveled the snow at your house today?

I hate to tell you, my, my daughter-in-law, Will's wife, went out and did it.

Nice. I finally broke out the snowblower.

What?

I broke out the snowblower today, so—

Oh, good for you. So I'm in charge of doing it for the state center, and I told them last week when it was 45 degrees and clear that I needed the snowblower ready to go. Well, the snowblower had a bad on-off gas valve. The shed had a lock with— and they gave us the wrong key. So I've spent a whole week trying to get this set up that, that we can do the job they asked us to do. We finally did, but nobody could get the snow blower running. Nobody could get in the shed. And not in that order.

Mayor, I noticed that Greg Stevens is on, so that's a good sign.

Oh yeah, that's great.

Hello, Greg.

Welcome, Greg.

Hey, Greg.

Thank you, it's good to be back.

Appreciate everybody's support while I was gone.

You look good. Thanks.

All right, so it's 6 o'clock, time to start our City Council meeting. I'd like to read a notice of an all-electronic meeting. Pursuant to Mayor Richard F. Brunt's proclamation dated January 5th, 2021, the Orem City Council meeting on January 26th, 21 will be an all-electronic meeting. There will be no anchor location for the meeting. The city cannot ensure the recommended minimum of 6 feet of social distancing for meeting participants at the usual anchor location in the Orem City Council Chambers. Therefore, holding the meeting at the City Council Chambers would present a substantial risk to the health and safety of those who may be present at the meeting and may contribute to the spread of COVID-19. There will be no public access to the Orem City Council chambers. Those desiring to view or participate in the meeting must do so electronically. To view the meeting, please go to orem.org/meetings. To make a comment, please submit your comment through orem.org/comments. Written comments will be accepted before before and during the meeting. All written comments received will be entered into the record and forwarded to each City Council member for review. Written comments will also be read aloud during the live meeting when required by law or when time permits. As technology permits, the City Council may also accept oral comments. Once an item has been voted on, that item will be closed to additional additional comments. Thank you for your cooperation during these challenging times. I'm sorry, what? We would now like to go ahead and call this meeting to order. We'd like to ask Jeff Lampson to give us the opening prayer and Neil Winterton to lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance. Jeff, we'll turn the time over to you.

Our beloved Father in heaven, we humbly bow our heads before thee with gratitude for this day. We're grateful to thee, Father, for the blessings and joys of life. We're grateful, Father, to be able to live in this wonderful city where we are surrounded with so many wonderful people. We're grateful, Father, for the blessings that we're seeing come forth as relief to this pandemic, and pray for thy continued inspiration and blessings to be poured out upon those who are still suffering and are having those challenges. And we pray for thy continued relief to be poured out upon thy people. We're grateful, Father, for the snow which thou has blessed us with, and pray that that would continue to send more snow to sustain us during our summer months. We're grateful, Heavenly Father, again to be able to live in this wonderful city. We're grateful for the city staff and for the great work that they do, and we pray that thou would bless them for this. We pray, Father, as we meet together this evening, that thou would bless us with humility and wisdom, and pray for thy guidance and direction in all that we do, that we might strive to walk uprightly before thee. And we pray for these things in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ. Amen.

Amen.

I invite all those to stand where they are, find a flag or whatever they have that is possible within their view, and I invite all to recite 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.

Thank you, Jeff, and thank you, Neil. We'll now go to personal appearances. Steve, do you have any personal appearances that have written in or called in?

Yep, Mayor, we do have quite a few. Okay, so give me just a second, we're just bringing it over. And Mayor, how we'll do it is as if, as if they were here, we'll just time each one for 3 minutes. And we'll— but if their writing goes beyond the 3 minutes, we'll have forwarded all of that to you so you have the full details, and they'll be put in the minutes so anybody could see those.

Okay, I'd like to read a paragraph first before we start. Time has been set aside for the public to express their ideas, concerns, comments on items not scheduled as public hearings on the agenda. Those wishing to speak are encouraged to show respect for those who serve the city. Comments should focus on issues concerning the city. Those wishing to speak should have signed in before the beginning of the meeting. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes or less. All right, Steve, we'll go ahead then.

Okay, Mayor. First, first one. This is from a gentleman named Eric Schallman. I would like some information about the 10 million gallon water tank at Orem Community Park. How long will the construction in the park last if it commences July 1, 2021? How much of the park will be under construction? Will the road 600 West between the park and the baseball field still be in use? Is it a requirement to take one of the houses south for a pump station and water line? What are all the options here? What will the extent of the construction of a 24-inch water line down 4th or 8th South? How will 700 West be affected both north and south of 400 West?

West.

When will water line construction start and how long will it take? That is— those are those comments, and we of course will forward this on to our staff as well. Next one, Rebecca Clark.

Just reset the timer.

I've been an Orem resident in the Hillcrest neighborhood for 24 years. When we chose to move to Carterville Road all those years ago, we did so because we love the schools, the neighborhood, and the family feeling of Orem. We've seen a lot of construction, building, and urban expansion take place in Orem since then. Much of it was— is beautiful and necessary to keep Orem's family-friendly heritage alive and well in our vibrant and growing city. Please set apart the entire 9.3 acres of Hillcrest Elementary School to be used as a green space dedicated to individuals and families. There is not a dedicated public green space in Southeast Orem where individuals can safely enjoy being outside and where families and friends can congregate. An amazing meeting place A place dedicated to activity, health, and beauty can make a huge difference. All 9.3 acres are needed to accomplish this. As you're well aware, Palisades Park in North Orem is more than double that acreage. The neighborhood immediately adjacent to Hillcrest would benefit from this, from this space. Researchers found that great community parks make great communities safer. Someone taking the University Avenue exit to head into Provo-Orem literally sees only concrete and businesses until they get to Provo. With the perfect With a park perfectly poised at the top of the hill on the border of Orem as welcome or come back soon invitation to our city, the possibilities are endless. I'd prefer a totally open green space without many structures since Orem has an abundance of structures already. Perhaps there could be pickleball courts, a walking path, a water feature, a splash pad. The political statement it would make would be immense and clear: the Orem City Council and mayor who represent our values care about green spaces, community, and health. Orem cares about individuals. It cares about families enough to invest in them instead of businesses, buildings, or high-density apartment projects. Please represent me and my family in this matter. Please give Southeast Orem a 9.3 dedicated green acre dedicated green space rather than a tiny addendum park attached to a school or other buildings. Let's have something special, something draws people to it, and that builds Orem heritage as a citizen-friendly city. In an earlier email exchange with Mayor Brunson, he correctly pointed out to me that I don't know about the finances surrounding the issue. That's completely true. To be clear, I'm not hoping for the most expensive option to win out, but I, I do want the most verdant and vibrant one to win out. I wonder if my letter tonight might make— might feel a little like a family trip planning feels at our house. The kids vote for Europe while the parents who do not understand— who do understand the finances vote for St. George. However, I'm old enough to know that one Europe trip is far more meaningful, memorable, and life-changing than even 5 jaunts to St. George could ever be. We made a Europe trip happen through sheer sacrifice, work, imagination, a simple willingness to thoughtfully figure it out, and it was life-changing. I am not asking for a 9.3 dedicated green space because I think it will be cheap or easy or simple. I realize it will be none of these things. However, the effects of our willingness to aim high, maybe higher than Orem has ever been in this arena, will last for longer than a lifetime. Next one, Joe Morton. My wife and I and our family are residents of Orem. We are aware that decisions are being made for Hillcrest Park location. My thoughts that I would like to share are that we should keep it as a location for Orem city residents to enjoy, not just for 1, 2, or 10 years to come, but for generations to enjoy. Orem will no doubt grow in time, and with that growth will come less and less green space unless we vote to protect it. Our residents need to know there are places to enjoy as a community. I've been blessed to travel extensively throughout the world, and no matter where I am, I can count on finding a park or two to enjoy. I want Orem to have these locations once again for generations to come. I vote to keep it as a green space. Next one is Mary McCann. Thank you for all the time and energy you put into making Orem such a fantastic place to live. We've lived here for 11 years. We love Orem and all it has to offer, but it is taking on a different feel. We live in the south end of Orem near the mall and Vasa Gym. It has been hard to watch the transformation that has taken place over the last few years. New high-density housing and all the construction at the mall is beginning to turn this part of Orem into a commercial development and is losing so much of the appeal that Orem has held for so long. Unfortunately, all the promises made by Woodbury and others about the mall become just a beautiful green space with tennis courts and park area have not been kept. It has become a place where they are once again cramming in as many buildings as possible. South Orem is a critical part of Orem. It is really the first feel you get for Orem as you drive up University from Provo. It is full of accomplished professors, doctors, lawyers, accountants, educators, businessmen, politicians, and financiers who raised their strong families here and don't want to— and don't want to have to leave. They want to continue to make this a desirable place to live. Sadly, the neighborhoods nearest the Hillcrest property are falling into disrepair. Much of this is due to the lack of reinvestment in that community. In short, I know people who live there, and they don't want to feel like any— they just don't feel like anyone cares for their struggles and issues. Part of it are beautiful, and homes are historic. It should come— it should be a charming part of the city. For all the reasons, I plead with you to use all 9.5 acres of the Hillcrest property as a beautiful city park. Please, we don't need any more apartments at this end of Orem. We don't need any more commercial buildings. We need green space. We need an area which we can be proud of.

Thank you.

We need an area that will draw the residents of Orem together, of South Orem together. We need a park that will help revitalize these neighborhoods surrounding it. We need grass, trees, water, walking paths, pickleball, tennis courts, or anything else that is family-oriented and makes a beautiful space. 9.5 acres just isn't a very big park. One of the most beautiful parks in this area is Provo's Riverview Park. We spent a lot of time there, and I see so many friends and neighbors from the Orem there. I don't know exactly how big it is, but it is much too— but it must be close to twice the size of Hillcrest. 9.5 acres just isn't asking for too much. It's not extravagant. For a park to be a draw, it needs to be big enough to include a little something for everyone. Provo is known for its beautiful big parks. Let's give Orem a little something of which we could be proud of. I have neighbors who grew up in this area when Orem was nothing more than orchards. They have made Orem what it is. Please consider their investment in this community and that they and their children and children's children are exactly the kinds of people we need to remain in Orem. Let's make a place where we all want to stay. Next, Steve Schallenberger. First, thank you for your dedicated service and leadership that you provide for our community. Your efforts are much appreciated in what at times is a bit of a thankless job. Today I'm writing to express support for turning the entire area where Hillcrest Elementary is located into a best-of-class type park for our city. While we ought to pay attention to have a strong commercial base and balance in our city, this is an area of town that is already heavily saturated with the commercial presence, and exactly why a best-of-class type park would be a jewel in this area and in our city, especially this park could be a place of meditation, reflection with walkways, recreation like pickleball, horseshoe, and other popular recreational activities. Playgrounds, trees, foliage, water fountains, splash pads, and open fields. There are many places in the world where parks that wise leaders have had the wisdom and vision to set aside as a place of refuge can provide soul and meaning to a city. This is the type of park that would complement the vast commercial interests in our city. Just about 50% of Orem's population is within roughly a 5-minute drive of this park area. This decision is a great crossroads of opportunity. Where we can decide now to create a full-size park in this area that is now available to blossom into the kind of park that can make a difference in a community. If a decision comes to build a half park area, it may bring a short-term financial benefit at the cost of a significant lost opportunity. I realize I'm but one voice, but I encourage you to take an imaginative and close look at this issue because it seems like this is a rare opportunity to create a special place in our city, not unlike the Golden Gate Park in San Francisco, Central Park in New York, or Retiro Park in Madrid, Spain, Hyde Park in London, or even Hemingway Park in Havana, Cuba, perhaps only on a smaller scale but in similar ways. Thank you for your creative and innovative vision of what can be in our city and this impact would have for our generations to come, and serving not only citizens of our community but visitors from around the United States who come for decades to come with gratitude. for your amazing serving. I am out of air. I'm going to switch to Pete Wolfley for just a second.

All right, this is from Terry Crosette.

I am a lifelong resident of Orem City. I would like to request that the Hillcrest property become a park for the residents of the city, especially those that live in the area where the school is located. It is vital to keep that area alive with the green space of a park to enjoy with our friends and families. If the building is kept, I would like it to be just an area, an area for indoor sports courts and an inside area for families together. No need for office spaces or any such use. Thank you. Next comment is from Sunday Misservey. I want to briefly write to thank you for purchasing the Hillcrest Elementary property and for planning to make it into a substantial park for the city. Putting in a new park in this area of the city shows your commitment to families' recreation and unity community and will be a great blessing to all of Orem. As the, as the Orem, Sharon, and Hillcrest districts representative of the Orem Neighborhood Commission, I have spent several hours considering different potential options for a park that I believe could benefit citizens in this part of the city and draw others to the area, to the area and its nearby businesses and commerce. The following is a list of potential ideas that I have discussed with several individuals in Orem, Sharon, and Hillcrest districts. Pickleball courts. Obviously, there's a huge and continued demand for more courts in Orem. Several in our area, including my family, traveled to other parks in the city only to wait to be able to use them. Splash pad: a substantial splash pad could be a draw for many, including my little girls and all their friends. Some have referenced the splash pad and play equipment at Vineyard Grove Park. Playgrounds: we do not have any large playgrounds in this part of the city. Perhaps the existing playgrounds at the school could be reused and supplemented with additional equipment. I know many of the children are hoping it will include a zipline, climbing obstacles similar to those involved at the loved at the Altogether Playground. Field courts, playing fields for sport practices and pickup games. Perhaps the newer part of the school building, the gym area, could be preserved and used as part of the park. Restroom facilities, new restroom facilities that are inviting and have stalls wide enough for those taking advantage of the splash pad to change clothing in. Paths around the park, a walking path for running, walking, biking, scootering, and that could be a beautiful place for locals, including residents of the Orem Rehabilitation facility to take a leisurely stroll with family and friends. While we recognize that perhaps not all of these areas or ideas will be feasible in an initial phase of development, we believe that a park with several of these amenities will provide an increased quality of life to those who live, work, and visit the area. If I can be of further assistance in any way, please don't hesitate to reach out. We are also excited for Hillcrest Park to provide a place of recreation and gathering for all. Next comment is from Jonathan Jonathan Sherrell. I've lived across the street from Hillcrest for 19 years. The park has been a great resource for our neighborhood, and the things that I and my family have valued most are the 3 playgrounds and the copious open grass. Of course, the bathrooms and pavilion are valuable too. Improving the existing basketball courts would be wonderful, and other facilities might be nice, but please preserve or expand the open grass fields. They're used for soccer, volleyball, baseball, flag football, tag, night games, frisbee, dog exercise, running, picnicking, and numerous other activities. I believe they are all of great value than any facility with a narrow scope of use. All right, this next one is no name. How will eastbound on 16th and southbound on State get access to the site? Will you flip a U-turn on 4th, try turn left from State? Next one is from Ashley Bishop. I just live off 1600 and 4th. I am firmly against any apartment complex or large multifamily structure being constructed on The Northridge neighborhood has maintained a feeling of neighborly kindness and community. I feel adding this complex to our neighborhood would greatly change that. The increase in traffic will make it unsafe for our children who enjoy riding bikes and walking to the horse fence. It will also make children who walk to school have more dangers as the demographic will rapidly change. Many who moved to this neighborhood, myself included, chose this area because it was well distant from large complexes such as the one proposed to be constructed. A small business on the commercially zoned lot cannot be compared similar to what is proposed. The population of our neighborhood will dramatically increase, as will the, the traffic, the potential for crime. Housing values will go down, as many do not desire living in the close proximity to the multifamily complex. As a mother of 7 children, I am against the construction of this project, as I feel it endangers the safety of our children and the feeling of our neighborhood that we all enjoy. Next, from Terry Smith. We are very concerned about traffic flow, access, and neighborhood encroachment. During the last virtual meeting, no one in the neighborhood favored it because for the same reasons. Council members on the virtual meeting said they supported the neighborhood. We hope that you continue to support the current neighborhood and do not give in to the developer. And that is the end of our—

Hey man, nobody else has called in.

We're checking right now our Slack just to see. Those are all the ones that were kind of sent in pre-

meeting.

So give us just one second while we get back to that page.

Okay, that's it, Mayor.

Okay, we'll go ahead and close the personal appearances portion of our meeting and move on to consent items. If ever— if anyone wants to move a consent item to a scheduled item, please let us know. First consent item is 8.1, approval of city meeting minutes of City Council meeting January 12, 2021. 8.2 is appointments to boards and commissions. To the Heritage Commission, appointment of Jordan Johnson. To the Transportation Advisory Commission, appointments of Russ Verhof and Marlon Ko. 8.3, enacting Article 2-35, establishing a Public Safety Advisory Commission. I move that we go ahead and accept all 3 consent items. Is there a second?

Second.

Okay, let's go ahead and vote on it. Start off with Dave Spencer.

Aye.

Tom McDonald.

Aye.

Terry Peterson.

Aye.

Debbie Luray.

Aye.

Jeff Lampson.

Aye.

Brent Sumner.

Aye.

And I, Mayor Brunstad, vote aye as well. The consent item schedule Passes. We'll now move on to our scheduled items. The first one is a public hearing. This is an ordinance amending Article 22-14-15B, 22-14-15C, 22-14-15D, 12-1-2, 12-3-1A, 12-4-1B, 12-5-8B, and 12-7-39B of the Orange City Code by changing Development Services and Administrative Services to Finance. Our presenter is Jason Bench, and we'll turn the time over to him.

Thank you, Mayor. I guess everybody can see my screen okay?

Yes.

So I'll run through these very quickly. This is a cleanup item. Basically, Development Services used to be over business licensing. It was moved to Administrative Services, and now Administrative Services has been changed to the Finance Department. And so these are simply changing where it was referencing Development Services or Administrative Services to Finance because they are the ones that are over the business licensing. Now, so any reference that we have in other sections of the ordinance are just simply updating to make those changes. So Planning Commission made a recommendation for approval, and we're here tonight just to have the council approve those as well. Any questions I can address?

Any comments or questions from the council? Okay, this is a public hearing, so we will open it up to the public. For any public comment, and then we will have 90 seconds for anyone who wishes to make a comment and bring it forward starting now.

Tom said if we could just announce that Okay, our 90 seconds are up.

Steve, have you received any comments from the public?

No heavy debate in the public on this one, Mayor.

Okay. So we will go ahead and close the public comment portion of our public hearing and bring it back to the council. Any questions or comments by the council? All right, then I would like to make a motion by ordinance that the city amend Article 22-14-15B, 22-14-15C, 22-14-15D, 12-1-2, 12-3-1A, 12-4-1B, 12-5-8B3, and 12-7-39B of the Orange City Code. Is there a second?

Second.

Okay. Let's go ahead and take a vote. We'd like to start out with Brent Sumner.

Aye.

Jeff Lampson.

Aye.

Debbie Larray.

Aye.

Terry Peterson.

Aye.

Tom McDonald.

Aye.

Dave Spencer.

Aye.

And I, Mayor Brunstad, vote aye as well. The ordinance passes. We'll go to our Next schedule item, which is 9.2. This is a resolution for a site plan approval of Springwater Point at Sleepy Ridge, located generally at 1900 West Golden Pond Way in the PD-15 zone. Our presenter is Jason Bench.

Thank you.

This was a site plan that came before you back in May of 2019. You can see the location of Springwater Drive and Sleepy Ridge Drive. You can see, obviously, the sewer treatment plant in this specific area. The area outlined in yellow was the area that was approved previously. They are adding some additional units. This was the site plan that was approved. It had 8 units that access directly out to Golden Pond Way, which is part of the development to the— You can see here, this is the Golden Pond Way here. These people or individuals had some issues with the direct access, but that was worked out. Council did approve it and they were working towards getting that HOA updated and added to that. During the construction process, the developer, the new developer, came in and bought the property and is requesting to add some additional units. See 9, 10, and 11. In discussions with the homeowners association. And the city and the golf course. It's been a collaborative effort to work out a solution that would not have direct access to the north at this location, but actually come back through this way. And we go to page 2, it would actually come out across city property here. This would be a public street out to this access right here. The golf course is wanting to add an additional tee box. to hole number 11. And so this would actually help them. And they— the golf course is actually going to re-landscape this and redesign that with their, with their new tee box. The city will allow this to go across, and then basically the other homeowner association will then not have any access into their development, which most of the residents there were appreciative of not having that additional traffic. accessing their neighborhood. So this will have a separate access now out to Sleepy Ridge Drive, as you can see here, with the additional units. Just to point out that there will be an emergency turnaround here. The golf cart will be rerouted and it comes down here to access the hole. They will be putting in a separated sidewalk in this location as well. And like I say, this will be landscaped by the golf course, and the developer will be responsible for his landscaping on his project with the additional 3 units. Density is not an issue. There's 5.88 units per acre. The PDE-15 does allow up to 8 units per acre. It has gone through site plan approval. It has gone to the Planning Commission, and they are making a— excuse me— a positive recommendation to the City Council for approval. The elevations of the 3 additional units will be similar to what— there you see stucco and some rock. So it's fairly consistent with the housing styles that are currently in the golf course area. Excuse me, you can see the aerial photo here with Clegg's Pond in the background. This is the area that will be— it's partly under construction in this location. This is where they're adding the 3 additional units. And then if you've been out to the site recently, the city is putting in a new storm drain that runs through that area through here. So this is the access that they will be accessing now. It will come across and access into their development and avoid this access here and limit the potential conflict with the existing development. Planning Commission, like I said, did make a recommendation. Glad to address any questions that you may have.

So, Jason, this doesn't interfere with any piping or any water diversion or anything coming from the storm or the sewer plant?

It does not. The city The city is upgrading their line that comes— came across somewhere in this vicinity. They are relocating it across further south. That is an upgrade that the city was already going to make. And so that's just kind of update that quicker. But yeah, it's all in collaborative efforts with the city golf course and this developer to make all that work out.

Okay. Any comments or questions from the council?

I would like to comment, Mayor.

This is Debbie.

Go ahead.

I live right down the street from here, and I think this looks like a better plan to get them out on Sleepy Ridge than taking them through the neighborhood. So I haven't heard anyone from any of my neighbors call me or reach out to be opposed. So I think it is an improvement. So it looks great.

Any other comments or questions from the council?

If I can just say another one other thing, we did meet the HOA president from Golden Pond out on site with the developer and members of the city, and he's in favor of obviously this because it does avoid any conflict now with their development.

So, okay. Any other questions or comments from the council?

Council.

All right, then I'd like to make a motion that the City Council by resolution approve the site plan of Springwater Point at Sleepy Ridge, located generally at 1900 West Golden Pond Way in the PD-15 zone. Is there a second?

Second.

Okay, let's go ahead and vote. Dave Spencer?

Aye.

Tom McDonald?

Aye.

Terry Peters?

Aye.

Debbie Laree?

Aye.

Beth Lampson?

Aye.

Brent Sumner?

Aye.

Mayor Brunstad? I vote aye as well. The resolution passes. Let's move on to our next scheduled item, 9.3, which is also a resolution authorizing the issuance of and sale of not more than 45 million dollars aggregate principal amount of water, sewer, and storm revenue and refunding bonds. That's a big word to say, $45 million. Our presenter is Laura Lewis, so we'll turn the time over to Laura.

All right, thank you everyone. Uh, it's great to be here. I also would like to acknowledge Brad Patterson with Gilmore Bell is on with us I know I saw his name. I know he's on. And he and his colleagues prepared the Kramer's resolution and the related documents and will work with us to get legal documents and offering documents ready to go into the market. So as we've discussed in your work session, the various projects we're funding with this are Majority is water, about 33.4 million. Water reclamation, about 17.2. And storm drain, approximately 2 million. City is bringing a significant amount of cash to the transaction, which, you know, as you've been able to have that cash because you've been very good about that sort of squirreling away, knowing that large capital projects were coming on board. And I really appreciated the way that Councilmember McDonald chose to look at this and said that this is like making the choice to fund your home over 30 years. You don't fund the car over 30 years, but you do fund a home for 30 years. The bonds aren't quite that long, but the idea is these are long-term capital improvements. They'll be in place Twice as long as these bonds are out there. And changing from a pay-as-you-go strategy where you have to save up a lot of money in a very short timeframe in that 5-year window, this allows you to stretch that cost over a longer period. It has a benefit for your ratepayers because It appears likely that we're going to be able to reduce your water rates and my understanding is your sewer rates as well. So with that, tonight the parameters resolution sets the maximum parameters under which the bond can be issued. I always allow for a fair amount of flexibility because of the concept that is quite unique to the bond world. of original issue premium. We might get a whole bunch of premium and your par amount will be smaller. We might not get as much premium, the par amount will be bigger. So the parameters resolution sets the par at $45 million. The maximum term is 30 years. The maximum coupon rate is 5.5%, and the maximum discount is 3%. At the current time, we're estimating the par amount of the bonds is going to be significantly lower because we think there's going to be a lot of original issue premium, so the par amount is probably going to be in the neighborhood of $30 million. The final maturity will be about 25.5 years. The last scale that we got from your underwriter had a maximum coupon rate of 4%, and all that kind of leads us to currently estimated annual debt service of $1.86 million. I did have an occasion today to talk, you know, we're in the market with a number of different clients and use a number of different underwriters. And I was on the phone today with another underwriter. We're sort of discussing what does the market look like going forward? And, you know, do we need to like get the whip out so that we can hurry and get this issue before rates go up? And this particular underwriter's sense was that, you know, things were going to stay know, the Fed's probably going to try to keep rates, you know, sort of where they are, at least for the next couple of Fed meetings, which takes us into April. So we will have these bonds likely done, you know, before we have to risk a meaningful increase. And as you know, the interest rates are well below what your construction cost inflation is. And the parameters resolution also sets forth designated officers that can take the final action when the bonds are priced, so long as we're staying in, in these parameters. And that is the mayor or mayor pro tem, the city manager, and the chief financial officer. And with that, I will see if Brad has anything to add, and then we will take questions.

Mr. Mayor, members of the council, this is Brad Patterson, Gilmore Bell. We're bond counsel to the city. Laura's done a very good job of summarizing the parameters resolution. The only thing that I would add to what Laura has said is that in previous transactions, we had the water revenues and your storm sewer revenues pledged to the bonds. And there was a separate bond issue that was outstanding that was secured solely by the sewer system revenues. Now, what we're doing in this particular transaction is we're going to be retiring or exchanging those bonds, the sewer revenue bonds, since they're held with the state, and we're going to issue a new series of bonds that they'll receive in exchange for their old bonds. And then we're going to take the sewer revenues that were otherwise pledged to sewer bonds and incorporate them into this particular transaction, into, into this indenture. So going forward, we'll have a combined pledge of all the different utility system revenues.

Thanks, Brad. I really appreciate that. And as an aside, Brad, I actually did try to reach out to Michael Grange again today and have not heard back from him. So I'm going to have to have someone else in my office call him. I don't know. Anyway, thank you.

Hey, Laura, this is Brandon.

Yes.

Hey, so, and my understanding is that the interest rate on those stays the same. Is that correct?

On the state loan? Yes.

Okay. Which is zero?

Yes, that is correct. We would not want to touch that.

I have a question for Laura. May or may I? I know we have a nice savings account that we are going to put money in. Will that help us get a more favorable rating? I am assuming the fact that we have a large percentage, will that just mean better interest, better terms? Because I think we have been very prudent and wise with saving. Kind of give me an idea how that will translate to help us getting better rates.

That is a great question, Councilmember Larray. I have to apologize. I apologize. In the past, I have always called you Debbie because I was not sure how to pronounce your last name until I heard someone say it earlier this evening.

No problem.

At least I don't have to massacre that anymore. Yeah, the fact that the city has been very prudent about saving up money to help offset these projects, I mean, you can think of it just as, again, a similar comparison in the consumer debt world. is if you go to buy a home and you've got 30% down, the, you know, credit companies are gonna—

Yay!

Yay, right? And you're gonna get a better interest rate because you have more equity. It's very similar here. They like to see that you're putting, you know, meaningful cash into the project, and as importantly, it's important that you save you know, you have enough funds set aside in case of an emergency. And the rating agency criteria in that regard indicate that you need to have at least— again, in their mind, for sort of the platinum standard kind of thing, they advise that you have at least 6 months cash on hand. And then they also have that plus a certain dollar amount, and the dollar amount some cities can't hit just because of the size of the city, but it's very important that you do that. And I've seen cities that don't meet, you know, those benchmarks. They don't come to the table with a lot of money. They don't have enough days cash on hand when they finally hit this panic moment of, oh, we've got to do a new water treatment plant, or whatever the big project is for them. And they've had to, one, raise rates. You are going to have the benefit of being able to lower rates a little bit. They've had to raise rates significantly. And they, you know, have not had the best of ratings until they raised rates, showed that, you know, they were saving up more cash on hand. And you have already checked all those boxes. So I think the city is as well prepared to get a great rating as you could possibly be.

Thank you.

Any other comments or questions from the council? So, Laura, one thing I wanted to mention, and I wanted to thank the residents and the citizens of Orem. 5 years ago, we as a council decided to put in place a pay-as-you-go program for our water, sewer, stormwater costs. And in that process, we've saved over $30 million and put that into reserves. And during that time, the interest rate has gone down by over 40%. So that's actually the best of all worlds where we've been able to save money, not take out a bond during that time, but now to go ahead and access a bond at the very best of times, the best interest rate that I've seen in years.

Yes.

With a 40% decrease from back then. So putting together the money that we saved, putting together a new bond at the lowest interest rate and realizing that we are seeing price inflation on construction, I believe that we are hitting a nexus that is very valuable to the city's financial condition and for our utilities. So with that—

Without question.

Thank you. So with that said, I would like to Pass a resolution by the Orem City Council authorizing the issuance of and sale of not more than $45 million aggregate principal amount of water, sewer, and storm revenue and refunding bonds. Is there a second?

Second.

Okay, I'd like to start with Debbie Luray.

Aye.

Terry Peterson?

Aye.

Tom McDonald?

Aye.

Dave Spencer?

Aye.

Brent Sumner?

Aye.

Jeff Lampson?

Aye.

And I, Mayor Brunstad, also vote aye. So the resolution passes. Thank you, Laura.

Thank you all.

Appreciate it. We have no other scheduled items. Jamie, do you have anything you'd like to bring up?

I do not. Thank you, Mayor.

Okay, then I would accept a motion to adjourn.

So moved.

Is there a second?

Second.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Okay, we're officially adjourned. Thank you.