City Council · 2021-04-13

Brent's proclamation dated March 29, 2021, the Orem City Council meeting on April 13, 2021 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/councilmeeting. Thank you, Mayor.

Meetings.

To make a comment, please submit your comment through orm.org/comments. Written comments will be accepted before and during the meeting— at the City Council meeting, but not the work session. We'll now go ahead and start our work session. We'd like to begin with an update on the Park Master Plan and the Hillcrest Park public input. And we have Bren Bybee, who is our person in charge, with Lisa Benson of Landmark Designs and Kyrene Gibb of Y2 Analytics. So Bren, we'll turn it over to you.

Thank you, Mayor. Yeah, so in terms of an agenda here, we'll start off with Kyrene Gibb with Y2 Analytics. She's going to share the results of the Parks Master Plan survey update, which is essentially just a refresh of, of the Parks Master Plan survey we did a few years back. And she'll focus on what are kind of the major changes in the results of that survey feedback. And then we'll turn the time over to Lisa Benson, Landmark, to go over a summary of all the comments we received on the Hillcrest Park concept designs that we've shared and had a couple of public meetings on to this point. The overall purpose here is to, you know, make you aware of all of the public impact— public input, sorry— and then ultimately hear from you on how you feel like that weighs into the decision points we need to make for continuing to refine the concept design for Hillcrest Park. And we'll kind of go over that, and we have some ideas on on how we think we can incorporate much of this feedback and, and, you know, continue to be a leader in how we improve and develop our parks here in the city. So with that intro, I'll go ahead and turn the time over to you, Kyrene, to go over the survey results.

That sounds great. Thanks so much, Brent. I will go ahead and share my screen and we can just dive right into these survey results. As Bren mentioned, this is a refresh of the survey we conducted in 2017, so a lot of the questions and data points will be pretty familiar, and we'll have comparison data points from just about 4 years ago now. So, a quick look at survey methodology here. This was an opportunity for us to reach back to a— reach back out to a broad frame of Orem city residents. So we reached out to a sample of residents from the city utilities database. We sent out about 11,000 emails expecting about a 10% response rate, and we actually doubled that. So we ended up with about a 22% response rate from Orem city residents, which means that we now have a resident panel with 2,500 respondents who are willing to engage with us on public opinion issues, which Which is great news. And having such a high response rate means that our comparisons to 2017 are statistically valid here. We have a good baseline and a margin of error around each of our estimates of fewer than 3 percentage points, so about 2.3 percentage points in either direction. Some key findings at a high level here. Starting off, a majority of residents say that they would prefer that CARES tax funds be spent to upgrade existing parks. Given the trade-off between care— the recreation portion of CARE tax funds going to existing parks or new parks in the city. So upgrades to existing parks is of higher interest to residents, and that's consistent with the baseline that we gathered about the use of CARE funds back in, I believe that was 2014. So that's a consistent trend that we see among Orem city residents. We also find that Orem parks usage has recently grown among residents. Maybe this isn't a surprise to anyone here. We know over the past year residents have really looked to parks and recreation as, as an outlet through the pandemic and a space where they can socially distance and still, you know, have a little bit of variety from their home office, perhaps. So nearly 2/3 of Orem city residents who responded to the survey said that they visit Orem parks at least once a month. And we find that those levels of satisfaction with parks and recreation are also quite high. When we asked residents what features of parks are most important to them, walkability stands out as, as a high priority, and having parks within a close distance to home is something that's very important to residents. So residents indicate that the City Center Park, the Bonneville Park, and the Sarah Park are popular destinations, and for most respondents, having a park within walking distance or having a park close by, that proximity to home is really a driving factor that leads residents to visit their most frequented parks. Respondents also suggested that they participate in a variety of formal and informal recreation facilities or activities. We found that Pass and ownership rate for the Orem Fitness Center has increased from 2017 to compared to projected passes or currently purchased passes for the new Orem Family Fitness Center. And most residents said that they do a lot of recreational activities at other facilities and using trails. So for those residents who don't participate in the city recreation center, there are a lot of outdoor recreation activities that are high on their docket. And then city trail usage has increased from our 2017 benchmark as well. So we see now that about half of residents say they use trails a few times a month or more often. So again, I think there's some pandemic trends here that we're, we're measuring at this particular touchpoint. It will be interesting to see how that continues forward, but overall priorities haven't changed much here. So we'll look at some of those things a little bit more closely. Before I get into much more detail with some of these survey results, this is just a quick look at the distribution of respondents throughout the city. You can see each of those dots on the map corresponds to a respondent somewhere in the city. So we had a lot of respondents and pretty well distributed throughout Orem. At a high level, again, sort of a health of the city metric. Before we get into some of the parks and recreation specific things, we've been tracking this question for a while, but on that 0 to 100 scale, residents indicate an average quality of life rating of about 81 this year. Our first touchpoint measuring this particular benchmark, we had an average of 77. That was in 2015. And in 2017, when we asked the same set of parks and recreation questions, that average quality of life rating was at about an 80. So again, this is a really high average quality of life rating. Most residents are really satisfied overall, and we see that that's continued to trend upward, which is a good indicator of the direction the city is headed. We asked residents how they would prefer to see the portion of the care tax dedicated to recreation be spent, whether that's in upgrading and maintaining existing parks, fields, and facilities, Or building new parks, fields, and facilities. And at a rate of 4 to 1, residents indicated that they would prefer to see those funds spent upgrading and maintaining existing parks, fields, and facilities. We looked at this across age groups as well, just to see if there were any differences that we might find in some of our demographic subgroups of respondents. The group that's most interested in seeing new parks and facilities Are residents ages 35 to 44. 28% of them indicated that they would prefer to see those funds spent building new, building new parks, fields, and facilities. This is pretty consistent with what we found in 2017 as well. The residents who are most likely to have recreation-aged or recreation program-aged children at home are also most likely to say that they would be interested in new parks, fields, and facilities. Looking at current evaluations of city parks, most residents say that they visit city parks at least once a month, if not more often. And we have 2/3 of residents in that once a month or more category, with nearly half in that a few times a month or more category as well. So really frequent parks participation, up about 9 percentage points from our 2017 baseline. And again, there may be some pandemic trends to that, but certainly outdoor recreation in city parks is popular. Looking at this broken out by age groups as well, we find that the groups who are visiting Orem City Parks most frequently are again those residents who are likely to have children at home or in that age range. So our residents in the 25 to 34 and 35 to 44 age groups are our most frequent parks visitors. We asked residents also to what extent they agreed or disagreed with each of these statements. Orem provides an adequate amount of parks, recreation programs, and trails. Residents are pretty highly satisfied with the amount of parks and recreation programs that the city provides, but the trail access leaves a little bit of something to be desired here. So fewer than half of residents say that they agree the city provides an adequate amount of trail recreation. So that would be the most clearly indicated area for growth or improvement from the public opinion perspective. But overall, again, 2/3 of residents saying that they agree that the city provides an adequate amount of recreation programs, and just shy of 3/4 of residents really satisfied with the parks provision. We asked residents what city park, field, or facility they visit most often. City Center Park, Bonneville Park, Community Park, Sarah Park, and Nelson's Grove were the top 5 most frequently selected as the facilities that residents are most using. And then we have a long tail of other parks in the city, so there are a lot cut out in the middle here. I will say that residents really distributed their responses here, but the bottom 5 are the least utilized parks currently, were Canyon View Park, Orem Senior Park, Cherraple Park, State— the State Park, and the Timpanogos Detention Fields, based on our respondents' distributions here. So the Hillcrest Park, interestingly, also had about 1% of respondents saying that that's the park their household most frequently uses or visits. When we asked residents what the most important factor or primary reason It most often was, 57%, or more than half, say that having that park close to home was really that driving factor. And that's up just slightly from 2017. That's a 3 percentage point increase this year. The trees and atmosphere are sort of a clear secondary consideration, but the next most important on this list of priorities. When we asked those residents, and it's a small handful here, especially in comparison to our our overall sample size, but when we asked that small subgroup of residents who don't currently use or visit Orem city parks, why not, the primary reason was just lack of interest or time. When we asked residents what potential improvements could be made to their most utilized park and gave them the opportunity to select up to 3, increase in restrooms or improved restrooms, measured walking or jogging paths, and then maintenance and cleanliness were the top 3 selections there. That would be— that's a statistical tie with the sports fields and courts, though, and the selection of no improvements needed, actually. So really high satisfaction overall with Orem city parks and facilities. The areas where residents would most like to see improvements are in some of those just practical amenities: the restrooms, some of the fitness areas such as walking and jogging paths, then the maintenance. Sports fields and courts also. has gained the most in popularity since 2017, with an additional 7 percentage points in appetite for sports fields and courts. The portion of residents who indicated there are no improvements needed to their most frequently visited park has actually gone down from 2017. I think this is likely very highly correlated with just increased use and exposure. The more residents are in parks and getting out and recreating, the more likely they are to see some things that could be improved or areas where improvements might be desirable. Restrooms being that high on the list, I think, is a pretty good indicator that there's just a desire for some of those more practical amenities. When we asked residents what parks, fields, or recreational facilities outside the city, if any, they use, the things that jumped out most often: Provo Canyon Parks, parks in Provo, having that neighboring city with other parks and recreational facilities available means that they come up a lot. So we have a lot of things up Provo Canyon, and then we have a lot of trails up Provo Canyon as well. So again, Vivian Park, Bridal Veil Falls jumps out a little bit. We see also some River Trail popping up. There are some things in Vineyards. So really the things that are, again, sort of the next closest in proximity are the things that residents are looking to if they're going outside the city for their recreation. When we asked residents specifically if there were any parks, fields, or facilities in other cities that they think the city should emulate and why, some of the things that jumped out were Provo's pool and kid play area. It beats Orem's even after the renovations. It's not even close, was what one resident said. One of the things that comes up here is a dog park. The Draper Dog Park has good seating, and it's also a more natural-looking dog park like Orem's. The new Vineyard Park with a splash pad and basketball courts. This is mentioned a few times. That Vineyard splash pad is, is really popular. These brand new facilities, I think, have drawn a lot of attention. The new pickleball facility in Spanish Fork also comes up a handful of times. And Spanish Fork having a park that is helpful for people with disabilities comes up as well. Many people would use them if there were more available, so more parks like Orem's All Abilities Park, for example. And then there are some residents who are really happy with Orange Parks as well. They are really well cared for and easily accessible. So a pretty wide range of parks and facilities here. But again, I think the broadest trend is just that those new facilities, the flashy parks, even though residents indicate that they would rather see upgrades to current parks and existing spaces, a lot of those new amenities are drawing a lot of attention. We asked residents generally how important it is to them to have parks within walking distance of their home, and 72% say that it is extremely or very important, which is up 14 percentage points since 2017. So that accessibility of parks is really critical. We asked some questions specifically about the fitness center as well. First, if Orem and recreation programs— so if Orem were to provide upgraded or expanded recreational opportunities and residents had to choose just one, the most selected option here is improvements to trails and trail amenities, followed by building additional outdoor sports courts, and then additional indoor sports and fields— sports fields and courts, and increased park accessibility, with 10% each of respondents indicating that those would be preferable options. But that improved trails and trails amenities, this is a really consistent theme throughout the survey. And then building additional outdoor sports courts is something that we're hearing a lot. We get a lot of comments throughout the survey from the pickleball and similar constituencies who are really interested in increased court space. To add a little bit of color to that, we asked residents what activities the adults and the children in the household are participating in most frequently. Walking was the most frequently selected for adults and the second most frequently selected activity for children in Orem. 58% of adult residents in Orem say that walking is their most common recreational activity. And then bike riding, swimming, weightlifting, running, yoga, and shooting, followed by pickleball, basketball, skiing, golf, and aerobics. These activities that are highlighted in the shaded yellow bars indicate areas where we see the most disparity between adult participation and child participation. So weightlifting, more— about 2 times as many adults are saying that they participate in weightlifting. Significantly more adults are participating in yoga, shooting, golf, and aerobics compared to the children in their households. And then the not shaded bars here that are marked pickleball and skiing are the 2 activities where we see the most parity outside the top of the list there. So 15% of adults and 13% of children in throughout Orem households are participating in pickleball, and 13% of adults and 14% of children ski for recreation. So some of these activities providing opportunities across all age groups, I think, are important to keep in mind. The organized sports on this list tend to be more popular for children in Orem households. You can see soccer really jumping out on the list there, basketball as well, running, and swimming. We asked residents specifically if they do or did have a pass to the former Orem Fitness Center. So this is compared to 2017. The question framing shifted a little bit because we're talking about the fitness center pre-renovations. But currently, We asked if residents had a pass to the former Orem Fitness Center prior to the facilities being renovated or access to the temporary facilities while the Orem Family Fitness Center was being completed. We found that 42% of residents this year say that they have a current Orem or had a current Orem Family Fitness Center pass prior to those renovations. Just 1 in 5 residents said they had a pass in 2017. So I think even just the idea that the facilities were being updated, some of those amenities were being added in response to the feedback We heard in the 2017 survey really did increase use among this particular resident pool compared to 2017. We asked residents this year how often they used or visited the former Orem Fitness Center, and we saw a little bit of variation here as well. So 38 or 36% of respondents say that they visited a few times a week, and 8% said they visited daily. Both of those numbers are up. pretty significantly compared to the 2017 benchmark. Our 2017 baseline, most residents were visiting once a month to a few times a year, so a really drastic shift towards more utilization as the facilities were updated here and as new amenities were being provided. We asked residents who did not have an Orem Fitness Center pass why they did not use the facilities, and The most common category here, interestingly enough, was the other category. So other reasons that residents specified included that the facilities were too busy or too crowded. They only recently moved to Orem, so a lot of new residents just hadn't visited yet. And then a good portion of residents who indicated that they would prefer to exercise outside utilizing outdoor recreation channels instead. But we did have about 1 in 5 residents say that they felt the admission fees and passes are too expensive. And then 18% of residents who said they weren't interested or had no We also asked those residents what gym or fitness facility other than the Orem Fitness Center, if any, they use most often. The Provo Recreation Center comes up here. Planet Fitness also pops up, Vasa, and then other private gym facilities, some educational fitness facilities as well. We asked residents which fitness and recreation activities they plan on participating in once the new Orem Family Fitness Center is open for use. This survey was in the field just prior to those facilities opening, so the things that were most eagerly anticipated were swimming, the indoor track, cardio exercise rooms, and weight training. And then we also asked residents specifically if they had purchased or planned to purchase a pass to the new Orem Family Fitness Center. For the grand reopening of the facilities in March. 61% said no, 10% said they had already purchased, and 29% said they planned to purchase a pass. Looking specifically at city trail use, we asked residents how often they're using trails in Orem. 47% said a few times a month or more. This is up about 17 percentage points since 2017. Again, that outdoor recreation popularity has just really increased, and this is something we see throughout the survey. We asked which trails or bike paths residents use most often, and the Provo Canyon Trail and Murdoch Trail were the most frequently selected. And then we asked what motivates people to use trails in the city. Walking or jogging, and then biking for recreation, were the most common options selected by far. Commuter biking, skating or skateboarding, and other options were very rarely selected activities. We asked those residents who indicated they don't use trails in the city, why not? A lack of information was selected pretty frequently, a preference for trails outside the city, and then just a handful of residents suggesting there's a lack of accessibility or lack of enough trailheads or restrooms. And then not pet friendly was also mentioned. Some of those other reasons that came up for residents not to use trails or deciding not to use trails: an inability just based on age or health conditions, not knowing where trails are, or just a lack of interest generally. We also asked residents whether Orem has enough or needs more or has too many of various trail types. Asphalt trails were the one category where residents said Orem needs about 7 percentage points more. That's down a little bit in terms of priority from 2017. We're down about 7 percentage points from where residents were before. Concrete trails, residents feel the city has enough by and large. 44% of residents say that the city has enough concrete or paved trails. But when it comes to natural surface hiking, biking, or equestrian trails, We really see the biggest gap here. So 26% of residents say that the city has enough of these trails, 43% of residents say that the city could use more of these natural surface trails. And I will note, though, that all of these numbers have shifted down since 2017. So it's interesting that residents' ideas about whether the city has enough trails or whether the city needs more trails are We asked residents if Orem were to increase the number of trails for recreation in the city, where they would like to see new trails added, and gave them a few categories here to classify responses. So one option was to extend the North Union Canal Trail system. 42% of residents indicated that they would be most interested in that potential expansion. Another option was to extend the Bonneville Shoreline Trail system, and 39%, or just over a third of respondents, said they would be most interested in that potential expansion. interested in that. And then 19% of respondents selected some other type of trail improvement or expansion, including requests for more bike paths, trails connecting existing trails to neighborhoods, and the expansion— expansion, excuse me, of the Lakeshore and Murdoch Canal Trails. We asked residents specifically what potential improvements should be made to the trails in Orem. And the most popular selection here was just making trails more complete or connected. So creating some of those trail network improvements and connecting neighborhoods to trails are things that are high priority. And about just fewer than 1 in 5 residents said they would be interested in seeing additional restrooms. And then more lighting was the sort of rounding out the top 4 selections here. After that, we have a little bit of a long tail And we also asked residents this budget allocation question, where if residents had $100 to spend on additional parks recreation programs, facilities, or trails in the city, how would they divide that $100? And among these various activities or avenues that could be funded, walking and biking trails is at the top of the list here. Walking and biking trails is at the top of the list here. With nearly 2/3 of respondents allocating some portion of their hypothetical budget to walking and biking trails, and with $23 on average for their— that average allocation. The next most popular category is just upgrades to existing parks and playgrounds. That received about $20 on average allocation, with more than half of residents allocating some portion of their budget to that category as well. Then our second tier here, we have about a third of residents allocating budget to each of these options: large natural open spaces, neighborhood and community parks, and sports courts for tennis, basketball, etc. Each of those receiving somewhere in the $9 to $11 average range. And then recreational programs, trailhead parks, and then fields, athletic fields for games and practice, sort of at the bottom of the list of priorities. both more niche interests for somewhere around 1 in 5 to 1 in 4 residents, and with an average allocation of less than $10 each.

Could I maybe make a mention of one thing on this?

Absolutely.

It seems like trails are rising to the top on— in a lot of different categories. Certainly, lack of information on trails, we could fix that. as well as the lack of information on the parks as to what is there and what's available. I think we could do a better job getting more information out. But on the trail side, you know, they talk about that they would like to have, first of all, some measured walking areas on the trails, like Northridge has a walking area that's measured and the rec center has that as well. But what I thought's interesting is the legislature Just passed in this last session a bill allotting money for various items, and one of the items is $110 million for recreation and for trails. Trails are mentioned specifically, and I believe that it's an 80/20 match where the state puts in 80 and the city puts in 20. I could be wrong, it could be 75 and 25. But what I'm saying is there is a lot of money that the legislature has appropriated that we in Orem can tap into for new trails, and I think this would be a great segue into that to explore— and Bren and Jamie— but explore how many of those funds are available to us and what we could do with them. And I remember years ago I thought that we were looking at Doing a trail that would connect into Lyndon, and then Lyndon connects into the trail along the shoreline on Utah Lake. And it seemed like we were trying or looking at doing that, but I don't think anything's ever been done. But I would like to look at that again to see if we can connect some of our trails in over to get to the lake. And go along the lake. A lot of people use that lake trail.

So, Mayor, this is Jamie. We do have a trails master plan. The trails that you're talking about are included as part of that master plan, and we continue to work with the Mountainland Association of Governments because there is obviously multiple jurisdictions that build and support these trails. We generally try and work with our partners at MAG to garner this funding. There is a piece of that trail system in Vineyard that will be extended as a result of the legislative appropriations that the legislature gave out earlier this last session. While we received money for 1600 North and Geneva Road. Vineyard, for example, received money for extension of the trail system and the Wekara Way trail that runs along the lake.

But you're saying that money is in there through MAG and through the legislature for Orem to connect to that trail?

Well, not, not specifically for Orem. We have to go through the, the request process through MAG.

Okay.

And those requests and those projects are scored by a technical committee and ranked consistent with other road projects. Unfortunately, right now, our trail projects just haven't risen to the top of the list.

Sure. Well, we'll start working on that. I'd love to— I've seen that trail sitting there for years, the idea, and I'd love to get that connected. Because for our residents to be able to connect in and go over to the lake would be awesome.

So it certainly seems like there's appetite for that. Yes.

Please go, go ahead, Kyrena. I have made note of that, Mayor, and, and we have actually been applying for different kinds of grants while this new one starts to come into play.

Okay. Fantastic. Our last substantive question here, we asked residents to suggest up to 5 potential recreational activities, programs, or facilities not currently offered by the city that they feel are most needed in the Orem community. So this word cloud again just indicates how frequently different words were mentioned. The size of the word corresponds to the frequency with which it was brought up. We pulled out some verbatim comments as well, just to hopefully help illustrate. But some of the things that pop up here: more bike lanes and multi-use sidewalks, more dog parks or dog-friendly sections of parks, more indoor sports facilities during wintertime, big open quiet natural spaces, and more pickleball courts were all some of the suggestions that we received from residents here.

One other thing I wanted to mention in our Discussion on Hillcrest, comments were brought up of people being dissatisfied with our dog park up the canyon as far as shade goes, as far as surface goes. It'd be interesting maybe to take a survey of those who actually use the dog park and find out their satisfaction and if some changes are needed.

So Yeah, absolutely. That concludes my portion of this presentation, Brent, so I will go ahead and stop sharing my screen. I'm happy to answer any questions that folks might have, but I want to make sure that Mark and Lisa have some time as well.

So, thanks, Kyrene. So again, that was the citywide Parks Master Plan survey refresh. Certainly there are things that can apply to Hillcrest, but also, you know, there's some of those things that we'll want to maybe direct in or focus on in other areas of the city. So now we'll turn the time over to you, Lisa, to go over the comments and feedback that were submitted on the Hillcrest Park site.

All right, thank you. And thank you, Kyra, for that great summary. So just a reminder, we set up a project website with the 2 concepts for Hillcrest Park, and we had a survey form on there that residents could submit and provide open-ended feedback on, on the 2 concepts and the directions they wanted to see us go. So we received over 300 comments total. We did have a few that were exact duplicates, so when we eliminated those, we were down to 329 comments. And I just want to emphasize that this is not a statistically valid survey like Irene's. This is not representative. This is just to help us get a general feel of some of the overall concerns and ideas from the community. So we can take a look at what they had to say. Looking at the 2 different concepts, just under 36% preferred the first concept, which was keeping part of the school. 19.8% preferred the second concept, where the school is eliminated entirely. Just over 30% liked elements of both. 11.9% didn't like— they didn't like either concept. And then just over 3% didn't provide a response on that particular question. So looking at Concept A, the partial school retention, we looked at kind of the positive and negatives, the pros and cons that people had to say about both of those concepts. Looking at Concept A, they felt that having an indoor facility could help offset some of the costs of operating the park, that maybe you could make a little bit of revenue on that. They really liked that you could have year-round uses and that it would be good for community events, weddings, senior activities, lots of different indoor activities. So basically a community center. And they felt it was the best use of resources to maintain a building that you already have rather than tear down an existing building that actually has a portion of it in really good shape, and then to build new elsewhere, which would be more expensive. They like keeping the option of keeping events separate from normal play, so you could have some events happening at the indoor facility, but also have people using the park. They like that it preserves the heritage of Hillcrest Elementary, and they mentioned that it opens up connections to the north, and both concepts actually do that. And, and both offer a variety of activities. They felt that this was a good supplement to what's happening at the Orem Rec Center. They really liked the open lawn area that was in the front of the school in this, in this concept, and then that it also provides indoor storage. Some of the drawbacks to this concept, they felt, were that it would need some staffing and management. And also that the building takes up land that could be better used for open lawn or other amenities. that having a building requires too much parking, and that it needs new restrooms. They also felt that the fitness center would be a better use, a better location for these types of uses, and that maybe the existing gym isn't made for indoor courts. They said that some people focused on the cost difference between the 2 options, which is actually pretty small, but, but some did kind of hone in on that. They also were a little bit concerned about liability issues, and, you know, wondering whether alcohol would be allowed, who'd enforce it, potential vandalism and security issues, and also the idea that leaving part of the school would obscure part of the park and maybe inhibit visibility. Also that, that this option was maybe a little too crowded with amenities and didn't have a major attraction. They also felt like it duplicates some private businesses that are already providing indoor pickleball, and then they said that it had fewer, fewer trees than Concept B. So, looking at Concept B, where the school is eliminated entirely, they really liked the amount of open green space and that they felt it was a better use of parkland for outdoor recreation. They liked the slightly lower cost and the additional pickleball courts and trees. They like that it requires less parking. They liked the additional— that flexible covered sports court, including the use of, you know, outdoor— an outdoor basketball court. They liked the Hammock Park location better in this option. It was kind of closer to the front, if you remember, closer to the street. And they liked that parking gets a little closer to the pickleball courts in that option, that it has lower operating costs because you don't have the building to worry about. And they liked that this design had 2 separate restrooms. Some of the drawbacks to that concept are that it's a waste of resources to tear down the school, too much of a focus on pickleball courts and not enough other sports courts. They felt the playgrounds should be closer to the pickleball courts, that parking may not be adequate, and that it doesn't have a large open lawn area. They also aren't happy with the lack of indoor amenities for use during winter. There was a concern that the covered sports court may attract homeless and vandalism, and they felt that Option A had a better walking path and that the entry structures on that option took up too much usable space. Some general concerns, and I'll just highlight the ones in blue which were kind of more common. Just attracting homelessness overall— this is either— this applies to either concept— attracting homeless, and also, you know, with the location by UVX and the mall, concerns about vandalism. People wanted to see new restrooms. They don't want to see the existing restrooms refurbished. There was some concern about children being able to wander out onto University Parkway with those access points at the north side. And then some amenities that people are divided on, the pickleball courts. Some were really happy with how many pickleball courts were in there, but people were obviously— there were definitely some comments that people didn't want to see such a large number of courts. The hammock park is also a divisive issue, as are the exercise stations. You know, both comments for and against, and I think, you know, we saw that in our public meetings as well. General ideas and comments: people want to see more accessible amenities and options in either design, and I think that kind of came out in the survey. Kyrene mentioned that on a question or two as well, just making sure to have facilities for people of all abilities as you implement new facilities in the future. Maybe not having pickleball as the central feature of the park, and as I mentioned, some wanted to see fewer pickleball courts. Making sure to have activities of all ages or for all ages, particularly kids, and then having some open play fields. And the other items are kind of mentioned just once or twice, so I won't go through all of those. I think Brian is going to share all of this information with you so that you can dive into this in as much detail as you want. Some specific features that were requested, definitely a splash pad, and we heard that a lot in the public meetings as well. Tennis and multi-sport courts, multi-purpose fields, a skate park for all ages, particularly younger children, and basketball courts. And again, a lot of these other items were mentioned just one-offs. And I went through the input from the online meetings. Again, we had about 40 to 50 people attend each of those, and just pulled out some more of the unique feedback that came from those. A lot of the feedback in those was fewer pickleball courts, again, adding that splash pad, more open lawn areas, and options for other sports. Several like the duck pond, orchard, and creek from the mayor's concept, And people wanted to see that city programs have priority at the park. You know, if you maintain the building, they want to see city programs having a priority over outside groups. Maybe the idea of a kind of really cool playground features like a rope climb structure, grass areas for activities like spikeball, keeping mature trees where possible. And then they also mentioned that we did have that one participant that reminded us about the Centennial Garden, which was planted by Hillcrest students years ago. So trying to tie into that heritage that's already been, you know, tied to the site. And then keeping in mind active seniors and even maybe partnering with a retirement center next door, making sure to keep those in mind as the design moves forward. And also the desire for a neighborhood park and not necessarily a park for the whole community. Some, some of the meeting attendants Emphasized that. We did receive a few comments through the website, and just a handful, like 5 comments, but equally intriguing. We had just some support for after-school programs like Boys and Girls Clubs. They mentioned that the city may need to rent out equipment, that not all residents can afford some of the equipment at some of these facilities, like, you know, pickleball and some of those special facilities. The idea of providing a fenced dog park, and then again support for Option A for community events, and another plug for the splash pad and soccer fields. So that's kind of the quick rundown.

There's—

Brent will be sharing everything with you. Like I said, there were over 300 responses to the survey just on those comments, the 2 concepts. There's a lot to comb through. But this gives you the overall feel for that feedback.

Thanks so much, Lisa. So, so yes, of course we'll share these presentations and the raw data. But as mentioned at the beginning, you know, want to open up the opportunity for you to, I guess, provide input or feedback on, on what's been shared, but really with the point of trying to get from you some decision points on a concept design. I think the concept designs that were done to this point have served their purpose of generating feedback and input from the public and from you already. So some of the things that— Well, I think I kind of mentioned semi-jokingly in one of the public meetings that Although we can't make everyone happy, I still think that we're close enough and have enough positive feedback that I think we can make everyone happier. The reason why I say that is because I do think we're seeing a lot of positive feedback in terms of keeping at least the newer part of the Hillcrest Building, the indoor gym, and being able to use that as a multi-use court and and even indoor pickleball, indoor basketball, indoor volleyball. I think there's been a lot of feedback about some type of water splash pad type amenity. I think there's, in the survey and in the feedback, enough positive input about still maintaining pickleball courts, but just lessening it. I think that we have ideas on even how to group them around, for example, the gym facility, and doing less of them, that we can then maximize the remaining open space throughout the site. And then, of course, we've gotten a lot of input on, you know, the trail around the entire park and improving the playgrounds, improving improving the restrooms. And then also, I'll just end by, I guess, emphasizing that I think Jamie gave a wise comment at the end of our public meetings of, you know, we— if we can settle kind of on a concept design here, then we can start to build and plan for how to phase it in a way that ultimately helps us to implement and accomplish sort of the vision or the design concepts that we've been discussing the last few months.

So, Bryn, just a comment. So it looks like we've got a pretty good list of what people want in the park, but maybe not totally a great idea of where and how those would be placed. And I know with Envision Utah, when we get to this point, we've often had people come in and had round tables, and we've done this with transportation issues as well, and put out a sheet showing like the park and then put out a sheet with items, you know, with tabs, as it were, all the different items people want. and let them play with the design of the park as to what they would like to see. So I don't, I don't know if that's a possibility, but I would love to give people the opportunity to actually design the park and see what they come up with, with all the things that they want.

Additional public input.

Mayor, this This is Jamie. I think one of the— maybe one of the key takeaways from this effort that we have kind of undergone with Landmark is we can't do and be everything for everyone.

Right.

Because there are so many wishes and desires, we're going to have to kind of thoughtfully consider What we obviously put in the park, the maintenance considerations, the accessibility considerations for both the neighborhood and the city at large, other like facilities and other parts of the community. Because obviously when we do a process like this, there are always, like Brent said, going to be some who are excited and others who are disappointed. And we only have 9.5 acres, and what Lisa and her team have identified is about 100 acres worth of amenities. So we're going to have to go through kind of a narrowing or a winnowing process, and obviously that's going to involve some more public comment. But I think what I would suggest as well too, as we start kind of based on what has been provided in the leases and landmarks efforts, coupled with what Y2 has done, start maybe putting together some additional ideas and some additional concepts for you to see, so that we can begin to narrow down expectations and identify a program that we can actually get going on sooner rather than later.

And I'm fine with that. I just would love to get more citizen input, like I say, in a roundtable-type discussion where they all sit at roundtables and let them design it, have you bring in the new designs that you've got, and kind of put it all together.

I guess what I'm, what I'm saying is To this point, we have 400 voices— or excuse me, how many, Lisa, in your survey? 329 from Lisa and 329 voices from Lisa and 2,000 voices from the Y2 study. So I, I guess I'm, I'm trying to figure out which voices in my head should I listen to.

Well, I don't know that we're there yet. What I'm saying is some additional public comment, I think, would be helpful, as well as additional refining of the concepts by Landmark.

I mean, where we found a lot of implementable and practical input that's really quite granular or quite specific is when we've designed specific playgrounds. So whether that's the Altogether Playground or any of the other awesome upgrades we've done to a bunch of our playgrounds around the city, we've, we've gone through an additional sort of surveying process and give, you know, distinct options on how to do those. And so I think, I think there's still an opportunity to do that with Hillcrest if we can, again, like Jamie says, kind of narrow down at least the options so that then Then we're just getting input on, on at least a framework that we can begin to plan on and budget for and, and actually implement.

Brent, I have some thoughts. Just talking with the citizens that live down there, I think, I still think we need pickleball courts. Is that Tom on his motorcycle?

No, I don't know what it was. I had my hand raised, I took it off mute.

Sorry. So the pickleball courts, you know, maybe instead of 16, maybe it's 10 or 12, and that helps, you know, with the pickleball craze. And then a splash pad for sure. And then maybe a pavilion with sports court and then open space. And I think that would— that sort of, you know, checks all the boxes from the people I spoke with.

So let's go to Debbie. Debbie, you've got a comment?

Yeah, I have similar things with what Dave— I could live with 12 pickleball courts, full splash pad. It's got to be some sort of water feature. I don't know how big or how much space, but something that would definitely have a water feature. Certainly, I've always been pro to keep the gym. I think there's winter things we can do, as well as other things. And then a lot of the trails and walkable space, I think that's important. It sounds like that's an important thing for the community. I know the neighborhood wants us to be specific, but I think the cost of this park has to be designed with a community in mind overall, but I'm certainly sensitive to the neighborhoods. But I think a $15 million park is— it's got to be community because You just can't spend that amount of money. So I like what we've done, and I think I like the idea of those options, and I think we're getting closer. So thank you.

Jeff, do you have a comment?

Yeah, so just going along with what's already been said, I could go along with fewer pickleball courts. I love the idea of a splash pad. And I just want to say thank you to Y2 Analytics and Landmark Designs because I'm really impressed with the number of respondents to those surveys and the age difference. And I think if we overlay, you know, those two, the public meetings, the responses from that, along with the survey, I think we've got a pretty good starting point as far as what, you know, where we start and at least start putting some meat on the bones of what this park could actually look like. And of course, with more public input, maybe to, you know, get finer details. But thank you to Y2 Analytics and Landmark Designs for bringing that information from the public to this meeting today.

You bet. Tom, did you have a comment?

Yeah, yep, now I'm taking myself off mute. I don't disagree with any of the comments, but at some point we all say, based on the citizens I talked to, and that just makes 2001 or 2002, and so we start getting too many cooks in this broth. Jamie, could you give us a little background on how we designed the Palisades Park? which is kind of the last big one, and how involvement— again, I haven't seen an involvement from the Rec Committee yet. And I'd like them to take it to the next level. Maybe you could tell us the strategy we went through previously, Jamie.

Well, I think, I think Palisade Park was fairly unique in that it was designed in cooperation with the Stratton, obviously the Stratton family, and the Peterson family, based on the transaction that took place there. We identified primarily a need to build some additional sports fields based on what we anticipated would be the retirement of the cemetery property. So that was kind of at the forefront of everybody's mind, was replacing those cemetery fields. The Altogether Playground is probably the most recent park that we have kind of envisioned through a public process, and we actually did have a series of activities and events similar to what we've done where we've shown not just adults, but in that case we showed children, and we had actually had them design and work with us in designing the park as well. So we tried to incorporate the input of those that would specifically use the facility. Of course, the Altogether Playground too, given the special needs associated with that park, we actually had individuals who were the parents or were involved directly with special needs children and others to help with design, including restrooms and even some of the fencing discussions that centered around that park. On the other parks that we have put together in recent years, we've actually gone out and used social media in sharing with the public some of our design ideas and have even given those on social media an option to voice kind of what they like, what they don't like. And that has driven the improvements we've seen, for example, at Community Park and Cascade Park. and other park properties throughout the city. So it's been a long time since we've essentially built a park from scratch, probably back 20 years. So my, my obviously history with the city doesn't extend all the way back to the year 2000 when we built parks like the Lakeside Sports Park, Nelson's Grove, Timpanogos Park, And the skate park, but I would imagine it was— there was community input involved in all those as well.

Jamie, if I may, I mean, the first time we did a full Parks Master Plan survey was in 2017, and I think we've shown that we implemented the feedback we got. That's where we got some of the initial information on rebuilding the fitness center and updating upgrading our playgrounds the way we have been.

Brent's got a comment. Brent, do you want to?

Yes, thanks, Mayor. This is really good information, and I too want to thank Y2 for their work on this. It just points out some great results. This area of town, I think, will really Well, they are. They're really excited for this park. And I, like Jamie said, we can do a lot of things, but not everybody's going to be happy. I think it was Debbie that said, I would like to as well keep the part of the school intact for winter activities or indoor play or whatever we decide there. I also have one concern, and I've drove by the the pickleball courts 2 or 3 times this last weekend, and they're always packed. There are just people waiting around to get in. How hard would it be if we build, say, 12 courts and then the craze dies off? Is it something you can convert to something else? I'm always a little nervous about that, that the— kind of like the racquetball Craze, I know it's still popular, but it's not what it was in the '70s.

So fortunately, and Lisa and Mark Vlasic, they can, or even Reid, they can speak to this, but fortunately with pickleball, there's no retaining walls. And that was really kind of a limiting factor for us in terms of the racquetball court we had at the fitness center before. So, in terms of transition to other sports court uses, the infrastructure would be there, you know, the footings, the right kind of tension of concrete, that sort of thing. And then, like I said, if we can kind of group this together close to the indoor gym, make the indoor gym kind of multi-sport, as well, just like we've done at the fitness center that's been just wildly popular, then, then yeah, I think we can accomplish— be responsive to both existing and future demand that you're talking about, Brent.

Okay, thank you. Terry, you've got a comment?

Yes, it's been exciting to hear all these comments since this is my neighborhood. But it's just not my— I mean, the whole city is our neighborhood. And I support basically what I've heard from, I think, nearly everybody on the City Council that we're hearing, okay, maybe a few less pickleball courts, but it's a huge popular sport. The Y2 showed that both for young people and old people alike. And also, I think the splash pad that I'm hearing, I think that'd also be a wonderful thing. I think we've heard a lot of input from a lot of people throughout the community. I would hope that we don't get criticized that if you want to have something go slow, give it to the government. I'd love to see us— let's get on with it. Landmark, you know, draw— take what they've heard from us as a city council and from these 2 surveys, draw up the pickleball courts, draw up the splash pad. Let's get on with it. You know, I'm really excited. I'm just so thrilled. for the city to have more pickleball courts, to have a splash pad, have a walking path. I think it's a great idea. Bren, one comment I have. A friend of mine I went to high school with donated one of the benches at Discovery Park. They live in Chicago, by the way, kind of interesting. So he texted me a few months ago saying, my wife and I would like to donate to the new Hillcrest Park. So I hope we will open that up like we have in other Venues want to donate and put their name on something if they want to do it, or maybe they don't want their name, but I hope that's going to be a possibility.

Absolutely, yeah. What— as we get again kind of one concept design that we can, you know, kind of start to develop and find funding sources for, of course donating both in-kind and cash, etc., would be a part of that, you know, whole Terry, I would second your comments that we need to get moving.

Thank you. I don't want the government to be the slowdown.

Thanks, Tom. All right, Bryn, do you have anything else? We're running out of time.

No, I know that I've taken a bunch of time on this. I think I've gotten some great feedback, and, and yeah, we'll, we'll We'll take all this back with our consultants and continue to move things along.

Okay, thank you. Let's go ahead and move on now to a discussion of operations and fleet and IT budget discussion. Brandon Nelson, Reed, and Ernesto are our presenters, and we have 45 minutes. We'll turn the time over to you 3.

Okay, Mayor and City Council, this is Brandon. What we'll be doing is kind of covering various elements related to the budget regarding revenues, kind of an overview. We've already touched on it, obviously, in prior meetings, but kind of overview of where we're at, as well as the expenditures, fees, and charges. And then a discussion about— presentation regarding expansion requests that the Budget Committee has kind of vetted. And then I'll turn the time over to Ernesto to discuss the IT elements that the city has regarding, in regarding the budget. And then I'll turn the time over to Reed to discuss the fleet piece of this tonight. So if I can share my screen here. Find it. Okay, can you see that?

Yes.

Uh-huh.

Great. So to begin with, keep in mind we're focusing on the general fund here, and in this slide we're showing you what changes we've, we've made in relation to revenues. Various elements, as you can see on the left, various revenues have been increased in our budget, and these are comparable to the current fiscal '21 budget. Obviously, they are significantly higher. As you know, we lowered our fiscal '21 budget in relation to the COVID pandemic. We've made some adjustments, which you can see related to the sales tax item in particular. You know, we made an amendment to increase that a little ways to cover employee personnel increases. And so, so I've, I've made an adjustment there to indicate that that $5,245,000 is in relation to that amended sales tax number. And you can see various other revenues as they significantly have been changed in relation to the fiscal '21 budget.

So, Brandon?

Go ahead.

I'm just going to mention, I believe that we loaned UIA $900,000 and change, and that this reimbursement is paying back that loan. Is that correct?

Yeah, and the current year, that $164,000 is the amount we expect to be higher than the current amount we are receiving. And I believe they have one more, one more payment, I believe, is what they're planning.

One more payment.

Is that— what is it, Jamie?

One more payment, yes.

Yeah, that's what I thought. And then on the right-hand side, obviously there are some negatives, and I want to say negatives all in all cases. The very first item, for instance, isn't really a negative, but the way we budget last year, we intended to have to use savings to cover the amount of expenditures we were planning to spend. Well, that's a decrease in revenue. That difference between how much we budgeted in revenue versus how much we budgeted in expenditures was $2,060,000 short. Well, that's not necessary in the budget we are anticipating here for fiscal '22. So while that's a revenue decrease, it's really being supplanted by sales taxes, for instance. So of that, of that $5.2 million increase in sales taxes, $2 million of that is being used to cover the amount we were intending to use from our savings account. So we would no longer have to be using those savings account dollars. The other items on here, however, are decreases. Obviously, if anybody has looked at a savings account, it is not earning anything. Well, the city's money is invested in a large port part savings accounts and is significantly impacted by the low interest rates. Our courts, they still have a huge backlog and are still not able to operate one, you know, as they were. And we don't necessarily anticipate that that's going to change anytime in the near future.

And it's certainly going to continue to have a negative impact for some time to Hey, Terry, why didn't you have all this money in stock this last year, my friend?

Yeah, Bitcoin.

We all wish that.

Now you're getting speculative.

You know, the franchise taxes, primarily this is related to, you know, Phone, as we continue to be more of an online world, phone franchise taxes continue to decline. And then we had a change with our Alpine School District, the amount that they are going to be paying us for our school resource officers, and there's a change in relation to that component as well.

So Brandon, maybe just a note about the Alpine School District. The Alpine School District reduction in revenue is the result of closing the alternative high school here in Orem. Historically, they've had a school resource officer in that facility. With the closure of the school, that school resource officer is no longer needed and necessary, so the, the funding goes away. But in our case, week are going to continue to fund the officer, and the officer will just be returned to regular service within the police department. So this does not represent a decrease, but rather an increase in staffing in the police department, and it will allow us to allocate this officer to more general patrol and, and other duties Great.

Thanks, Jamie, for that clarification. Moving to the expenditure side of the ledger. A large number— obviously the biggest component related to expenditure increases are related to personnel, various anticipated raises, included in there, totaling the $1.2 million. We're currently in the process of an NFP compensation study. Some money has been set aside here, as you can see, to potentially rectify any of those suggestions that NFP comes back with. We don't know that it necessarily is going to be that amount, but obviously we want to Have the funds available to, to cover that. We currently receive money from Vineyard in relation to the future fire station that would be built there and are setting aside funds in relation to that, so that at the time when we need to start hiring personnel to be able to fund that in the, you know, as that comes down the road, then we have the funds available to do that. And you'll notice that that particular line item, there's an increase on the revenue side that matches this increase on the expenditure side, but I thought it was important to mention both elements of it. Last year we cut vehicles pretty heavily from our budget in relation to the COVID response. We're moving that replacement of vehicles target back up to basically where it was, and that is obviously a relatively large increase. Obviously, health insurance continues every year to be a concern and continues to go up each year, and we have a budgeted element for that component. This year is a local municipal election, which has a significantly higher cost as the county covers of a bit— almost all of the national election years. So we have an increase in relation to those election costs. The continuing funding of our career ladder for public safety and those programs, that's an increase in relation to that funding. Our indigent defense contract, as many of you may or may not know, Grant Nagamatsu passed away here back in, I believe it was November-ish timeframe, and so we've had to go out and try to identify new indigent defense, and we've settled on a contract with a firm, and that will cause us to have to increase the amount that we fund for that indigent defense. And then operational expansions, which we'll touch on what those operational expansions are later in the presentation.

Brandon, can, can I just jump in here? Just so, just so the council understands, we identify our personnel increases. You're familiar that each of our public safety employees have a step that is essentially set aside for them. That step Equals 3%. That does not relate to the career ladder piece of that step program, but every step, with the exception of bumps in the career ladder program, is 3%. So we are budgeting for all of our employees a 3% adjustment on the public safety merit or the Public Safety STEP program or the General Employee Merit program. Any additional adjustments that are made in the public safety program, for example, a police officer moving from Police Officer 1 to Police Officer 2 or Police Officer 2 to Senior Police Officer, is budgeted in the public safety career ladder funding piece of what you see on the screen. And in addition to that, the compensation study pay increases, we anticipate that our compensation study is going to come back and suggest and recommend adjustments in the compensation for particular positions within the organization. We are not budgeting this year or recommending to budget a across-the-board kind of cost-of-living program for our employees, but rather that set-aside of $330,000 is expected to address employee pay that is out— or position pay that is out of market. So in some cases, an employee may receive a half a percent adjustment to bring his or her pay up to market. In other situations, another employee may receive 3 or 4%. It all depends on what the survey data suggests each of our positions are in relation to market. So if you want kind of a quick and dirty, all of our employees have— all of our full-time and part-time benefited employees, they have within this budget Their step budgeted for on the public safety side of things, or a 3% merit that has been budgeted for on the general employee side of our organization.

Thank you, Jamie. Any questions on that, those particular slides before I move on? Okay, great. So now we're going to touch on, you know, as we've mentioned, we've touched on them before, but we'll touch on some of the fees and charges. We'll go through this relatively quick, I hope, as we, like I mentioned, as we've kind of touched on it before. Talking about water phone, which I know has been a big issue in relation to the recent bonding that has taken place. And so, as we've shown you in the past, our current intent intentions for the current fiscal year of 2022. The usages by tier, which are on the next slide, which I'll show you here in a minute, it's— they've gone down by 15% for tiers 1 through 3, 20% for tier 4, and with a base rate of no change. In both this slide and the next slide, I've also indicated you can You can see on there the cash and bonds. So that's what we currently either have for fiscal '22 or what we anticipate being what we will charge for the next 3 years. Obviously, that's always subject to change as we try to go— as we move forward from year to year and have the needs. You can see on the second line, this is what was anticipated under the pay-as-you-go or cash-only structure funding plan and what it would have been had we continued to follow that particular funding plan.

Brandon, Debbie has a question for you.

All right, Debbie, fire away.

Brandon, have you factored in the, the water tank? Because we haven't 100% decided where to build that, and I don't want to lower rates and then turn around another year, have to raise them based on that. We're Where we actually end that up. Are you kind of hedging that somewhere, or are you looking at the worst-case scenario and building that to that?

So that project is part of the bond, and so those funds are built into that bond structure, which are part of that fee structure that you see.

So you're comfortable that we have enough to cover that based on the choices we have so far?

Yes. Now, what that may mean, depending on what it ends up costing, is it may mean that there may, you know, potentially— and that's why those out years— it may mean there are projects that we have to delay that are in those further out years if the costs of the water tank obviously are significantly— end up being significantly higher than what we currently anticipate. So I'm not going to rule that out entirely, but that is a possibility.

Okay, I just want to make sure we were factoring that in.

Right.

Debbie, from what I can see as well, it looks like we're okay that way. It's factored in the difference between the one tank, the rectangular versus the round, and the different locations. I think we're okay. One thing I was going to mention, I did mention to a resident that we were looking at a 15% decrease in water rates, and he said, Mayor, you're lying to me.

So anyway, well, we're not lying to him. No, as you can see here, uh, so again, talking about the tier usage rates.

Oh, excuse me, Brandon, Dave Spencer's got a comment as well.

Okay, Brandon, so on, on Debbie's comment, uh, You know, we talked about the Farley property, but that, that's not factored in on purchasing that in that bond, correct?

It can be used for that potentially, but I don't— it isn't necessarily specifically identified in that bond to be for that.

So, Brandon, maybe I can speak to that. Okay, we did anticipate that there would be costs associated with Essentially preparing whatever property was selected for construction of the tank. So there are certain pieces of, let's say, the Farley property that are included in the cost of the bond. But we anticipate, regardless of where we were to locate this project, that there are going to be costs associated with development of the project. Regardless of what, what parcel we select. So, for example, if we select the, the Farley property, there is a potential savings that comes from the Farley property because we can build a circular tank. If we were to build in the original site that we discussed, then there would be an upcharge because that tank would need to be rectangular. So some of those things have been factored in, but we would need to consider— essentially what I've shared with you to this point is what we anticipate the cost to be in 3 or 4 locations. Several, or almost all of the locations, with the exception of the Farley option, are in Community Park. And the Farley option is included there. We anticipate that the Farley option is not going to be more expensive than any of the other options that we've brought forward to you within Community Park.

You know, one other thing I wanted to mention, not knowingly, but when we put in place to do cash up front, we ended up putting quite a bit of money into savings and surplus for the different things that we're going to have to do, infrastructure needs. And now we have a bond at one of the lowest rates that we've seen, 40% lower in the last 30 months. And so our timing actually has been perfect to save money and now use a bond at such a low rate. I actually signed for those bonds yesterday, and the person that was handing me the paperwork said, you know, a lot of people are— our cities are working on doing bonds right now. And she said, you're, you're crazy if you're not getting a bond right now because you'll never see this rate of interest as low again.

I'm hopeful that that will be the case, that I will never see that rate again, lower rate again.

It's already starting to go up.

So yeah.

All right, you know, just kind of give you a brief look here. And you'll obviously— this will be available if you need to reference it in the future. But you can see where we anticipate being in relation to the cash and bond hybrid model versus, again, where we anticipated we would have been had we continued down that pay-as-you-go funding option. The water reclamation fees, sewer fees, We anticipate no change in the current budget for fiscal '22 for both volume and the base rates. Again, you can see kind of the two, where we would have been versus where we are anticipating under the hybrid option. Stormwater. Stormwater has continued— they will continue to have their 20-cent increase. However, as you can see, I put a note in here. as we try to figure out all of the, you know, things that need to be done, and especially in relation to the West Union Canal abandonment, you know, that may cause us to have to reevaluate that 20 cents per year. It may go up, may go down, I'm not exactly sure, but it will cause us to have to reevaluate that 20 cents. But for right now, that is where we intend to go moving forward. Then touching on some of the other areas that we have, you know, fees that generally touch more people's lives, if you will. These are the rates based on— they're for impact fees in the various areas that will be changing and going up based on the 2018 impact fee analysis and studies that were done. Obviously, we're currently in the process of updating our master plans, which would then have also an impact fee analysis study done after those master plans are completed. So again, while we continue to march down the path of those studies and following the recommended impact fees related to those, those may change as those studies get completed and are done. Cemetery fees, as we continue to have individuals who pass away, we have to continue to monitor the costs in relation to what it costs us to, to have buried those individuals and our staff to make sure that that gets accomplished. So we have some slight modifications to these fees. They're in the proximity of about 1% across all of these, so nothing too significant. Our solid waste, our garbage fees, as you can see here, the changes that we anticipate, we plan on making to the fiscal '22 budget. Most of these are, you know, in the 2.5 to 3 area, percentage area. And we've made adjustments to each one of those going forward. And those are, you know, generally we look at those in relation to our third-party waste provider and the fees that they are charging to us. And when we make these adjustments. And street lighting fees, touching on that. So with, as you can see, the top section are those who, the areas that have already been, things have already been done. The middle section, the to be phased in beginning with fiscal year 2022, are those neighborhoods which will leave us with only one neighborhood remaining, which is the Canyon View neighborhood, which would False. We would— in the following fiscal year, we would then have all neighborhoods and all businesses under the new street lighting fee structure and the old structure done away with. Moving into operational expansions. So just to give you an idea of the process that we go through, so we open expansions to all the departments. They submit requests in relation to what the things they feel like they need or want. We then take those expansion requests and sit down as a budget subcommittee with those departments and their staff to kind of go through and make sure we have an understanding of what those expansion requests are, and is there anything that we can do. And you can see the little ribbon with the arrow at the bottom. We evaluate, is there anything we can do with those existing— those are these requests that we can do now? That we— do they have— do we see that they have funds in the current budget that potentially we can go ahead and get those taken care of immediately and using existing funds? If we don't feel like that's the case, then we move those on and we— go then have our department meetings with Jamie and the full budget committee with each department and evaluate those remaining expansion requests. And then as, as those get evaluated and we determine, okay, yes, let's include those, or let's use other means such as CIP dollars to fund those, then, you know, we make that evaluation, and that's what you're going to see here are those items that have come through that process. So within the various departments here, the city manager's office, several—

If I could, if I could for just a second.

This is Steve Downs.

This is something— can you go back to the last slide really quick? Mayor, Council, this is something that was kind of new that we've done this year, is that As we've brought on a new employee that's helped with the budget, Trevor Bell, and Brandon, this has actually been really, really helpful. And what I've appreciated about it specifically, as you think of police and fire, were kind of the 2 that we did this most with, is these were needs that were pretty critical. And rather than the typical wait till July to get those, get those needs met, we were able to make those— we were able to meet those needs now. And rather than waiting 3 months because there was available funding already in the budget. So I just wanted to give some props to Trevor and Brandon and the budget team for working through this process to really get departments' needs they have and not have to wait till July. So thank you.

Thanks, Steve. So you can see various elements in relation to the expansion Our human resource system, some elements that need improvement there, primarily related to our online capabilities and being able to store things electronically, trying to improve that system. It relates to the community promotion item related to primarily the opening of the Orem Fitness Center, and, you know, we want to really promote that and do a lot of different things in a lot of different ways to get the people in there. We have various consulting elements in relation to grants and various things that we want to work with in relation to both the state and federal government and being able to pursue those. Some money has been added for those elements. Within our development services group, Obviously, building, etc., has been very strong throughout the county, and especially even in here in Orem. And we, we need— and we have people that are, you know, bordering on their retirement. And so we need to get some plans examiners in, not only to help with that additional workload, but also to be able to get in and learn. The things that OREM does in relation to plans examinations. Here within the Finance Department, we want to develop similar to our public safety folks. We'd like to develop our 311 folks and make sure that they have the broad range of knowledge that they have to come up with, things they have to know. And we'd like to be able to, you know, push them to be able to be proficient efficient and very good in those elements and reward them for being such.

Brandon?

Yeah.

This is Terry. Just a comment on 311. It doesn't work in the southeast part of town.

Okay.

You dial it and I think it goes to Provo, if I remember right.

Terry, this is Jamie. Part of the challenge that we experience with 311, and Provo has a similar problem is depending on location of a cell tower, that the— essentially when you dial and you call and it pings, if it pings a Provo cell tower, then it actually will go to Provo. If it pings an Orem cell tower, then it actually will go to Orem. So we actually, with regularity, actually have to transfer Provo calls to them and they transfer Orem calls to us based on the location of cell phone towers and, and where those, uh, essential— essentially those calls are originating.

Okay.

So, Jamie, I assume if by some miracle they still have a landline, that's not an issue?

No.

Right. So it's primarily a cell phone—

Correct.

Jamie, is this a similar issue that happens with 911 calls if you're right At the wrong tower.

Correct.

Yeah.

So, moving on to FHIR. So they have some various software elements related to their— the things that they do that they're trying to improve and get those elements put in place, you know, for better reporting and better tracking. And then they have a need for some part time office assistant help in relation to responding to requests. You know, they have all kinds of stuff related to, you know, obviously they deal with accidents a lot and different other elements of calls that they take. And generally, the general help that is needed within that organization in responding to citizens' requests and media requests, etc., in a more timely manner.

And Brandon, this was something that was, that was identified in the operations assessment that Citygate just completed and shared with you a couple of weeks ago.

Right, that's a nice tie between those 2 pieces. And then in our legal services group, obviously we mentioned earlier that the need, the backlog in relation to court. You know, we have a need both in that area as well as, you know, we continue to have to have a large number of things related to the civil side looked at, and we're hoping that we can somehow find an attorney to help us catch up in those— in that regard. And so this is helping us in trying to gain a better hold of of that area. The library, obviously, even before COVID hit, we were seeing an increase in, you know, the e-media type things within the library. It exploded, of course, when COVID hit, and we're trying to continue to develop that area of the library. And this would help us in trying to continue to identify and expand and/or improve that area of the collection. Then in the police area, department area, we have evidence lockers, which I think he said were built many eons ago. I think it was when the Public Safety Building was built, if I remember correctly. They've taken a beating over that time, and on top of that, They were very similar to what you might have put in your garage to store your your tools. Well, that's not really what we need in relation to evidence nowadays. Not only are they in general disrepair, but we need improved security and improved capability in that arena. And so this is to try to improve that. On top of that, we are looking at. Trying to take our current Neighborhood Preservation Unit officers and potentially moving them into our regular officer workforce and replacing that unit with civilian code enforcement officers who are not sworn officers, and taking those individuals and using them to provide that kind of that MPU-type environment. Obviously, they will not be out in the community quite as much, but they will be still trying to work with the community in that same role and trying to help citizens with their yards, etc., and different elements. And the hope is that by having a focus on that, especially with how difficult it is to, you know, find police officers nowadays, that those police officers can be better used in the arena of being a police officer rather than using in that code enforcement area.

So, so, Brandon, just to just reiterate, if I may, similar to what we have done with the school resource officer, we are making a change within neighborhood preservation, but we are not removing the police officer full-time equivalents, those, those positions, and shifting them to NPU. We are leaving those police officers as police officers to be reassigned within the department. So it actually represents an increase in staffing that can be allocated to investigations, Patrol, traffic, other police needs other than neighborhood preservation.

Correct. Well said. And some other areas that are not general fund related. I mentioned the consulting services in our general fund. These are these 3 with the enterprise funds here on the left. are all related to that same thing as far as getting grants and getting other elements to help within our enterprise funds as well, getting various fundings. On the facilities fund side on the right, primarily with the new fitness center, as you can see, additional staffing is needed in relation to being able to keep this brand new building that we have and keep it clean and keep it orderly. And that's what These dollars here on the right are primarily related to keeping up that brand new facility. We touched on at the beginning here some elements of expansion requests that were proposed that as we looked through and we said, oh, is there something we can— can we do these things now? Now, given with existing fiscal '21 dollars, and these are some of the elements that we had identified that did not— that we were able to find dollars in fiscal '21 to be able to take care of them now, rather than number one, waiting until July to start that process and get them funded. And as well as not having to use those funds for things that we could get taken care of right now. So with that, I'm gonna, I'm gonna turn the time over to— well, first off, is there any questions about any of that before I move on to turning the time over to Ernesto? Okay, great. I will go ahead and turn the time over to Ernesto to kind of touch on the information technology Thank you, Mayor and City Council, and good afternoon.

Glad you're here, Ernesto.

Thank you. My presentation is going to be relatively brief. I don't have any expansion items to talk about in this session or for this year, but I am going to kind of tell you about what we've been doing in IT and what are some of our focuses have been. There have been 3, 3 main things that we focused on this year in every system that we've built and also our software development efforts. One of those is reliability, which I think is one of your items that you came— initiative that you came out with in one of your retreats. So we've been focusing on that quite heavily. We've also been focusing on security, and we've been focusing on mobile mobility and mobile devices. In the past, When we developed our software, we mainly focused on desktop applications and then kind of added mobility onto that as, as a secondary function of that software. Today we're focusing and architecting our software development efforts on mobility first, and then scaling those applications to the different platforms that we'll be using those, such as mobile devices, cell phones, iPads, and desktop units and laptops. So that's kind of where we've shifted our focus during the last 2 years, actually, and we've accelerated that this year because of COVID and The things we learned from from that. So these are the highlights for this year that we've finished. We finished the network rebuild for or build for the new library hall, which includes all the AV system, the networking system, wireless access, and presentation devices such as television monitors. We've also finished the rebuild network build for the new fitness center. That one included also a fitness center app that we've developed in-house, and as well as some integration with a lot of their admittance systems, hardware that we had to write interfaces for. We finished the installation and migration to the Google Suite. This gives us better security. It also gives us better access to those documents and better flexibility on where we can access those documents and with what devices we can access those. So that has been a very positive rollout. People have really taken a hold of that technology and have been using it quite heavily. and are learning a lot of things with that. So it's been a very successful rollout, and we plan to— we plan to be able to utilize that to its full potential. We wrote new and updated applications for the fitness center, 311 center, the HeyOrem application, some finance applications and HR, and we're also working on some additional things with, with the HR system, which includes mobility. We installed a new main firewall and migrated our IP addresses to the new address range from Utopia. They've switched our address scheme, and so we had to switch all our service providers and all our equipment to utilize that. We finished server virtualization, which gives us a lot better redundancy and reliability with our servers. They are now meshed together, so if a server goes down, another one picks up the load without any interaction from, from the administrator. And so Uh, nor— uh, technically, that allows, uh, the services to stay up and running without, uh, the end user knowing that there's a system that, that failed. And so that's part of our initiative to be more, or to create more reliable systems. Uh, it takes a lot more effort to do that with our architect— as we architect these systems, but that's going to be our focus moving forward. We've shifted our practice from desktop computers to laptops and docking stations. We've given the option to our users to be able to replace their desktop after they— after their useful life and replace it with a laptop and a docking station, and that has Has really been popular right now because of COVID It gives us— it gives users the opportunity to work from home by taking those laptops home and being able to have access to all their applications and services with those laptops, and then being able to bring them into the office and basically having the same setup as a laptop here— I mean, as a desktop here. We have also supported a significant number of employees requiring remote work capabilities during the height of the pandemic. And we've implemented some software and also hardware to be able to support that extra capacity of users wanting to work from home. And I think that gives us a lot of benefits moving forward.

Thank you.

to be able to have that option of working from home in the future. So major projects already funded for next year. This is based on our 5-year plan, and this is kind of what the major items that we have on the docket for next— for this next fiscal year. We're going to replace 91 more desktop computers. which will also— the user will have a choice of either desktop or laptop on those. And by the way, all our desktop and laptop rotations are up to date right now. Anything that's older than 4 years will be replaced next fiscal year. We're also going to replace 16 police car laptops. We're going to switch the library from their UEA fiber network to Utopia, which, uh, as part of that package includes re-architecting the routing capabilities of that system so that we create a mesh routing scenario where there'll be redundant routers in case one goes down. the other one takes over automatically. So that will give us the reliability or increase our reliability in that system. We're also looking at a Water AMI system integration into our network, integration of statewide 911 system, which is a state initiative from the governor of replacing 911 equipment, and we're part of that. So we're We're going to cooperate with that rollout and have our end— or be able to architect our end of the system. There's also a new HRIS system software development, which will focus heavily also on mobile devices and better reporting and dashboarding with that system. Third-party security evaluation for a new generation of applications. That's part of our security focus. As we develop these applications and architect new software, we're bringing in a third-party security company to evaluate our vulnerabilities and to provide an analysis. of where we can increase our security on those systems. And then also a new SCADA system, which we plan to integrate into the main network, and that's starting the latter part of this fiscal year and will extend into the next fiscal year. That's my presentation. Are there any questions?

Well, we appreciate, Ernesto, your presentation and again having you here, and hopefully your health is improving.

Yes, I'm pretty much over now, over that COVID now, and, and I'm back to normal.

So how much time did you spend in the hospital?

I spent 5 days. I was 3 days in ICU and then a couple more days after that.

Well, we're glad you're past it.

So thank you very much, and thanks, thank you for giving me the time to present my, my items.

You bet. We want to thank Brandon as well, and Reed. Have we heard from Reed?

Oh, Reed's up. I was gonna say we're gonna turn the time over to Reed to run through.

Hey, we're running out of time, so I'll try and break all sorts of records for you, Mayor.

Okay.

Well, first of all, before we get started, I'd like to recognize Thayne Carter, who is our fleet manager. He and his crew do a great job maintaining our vehicles and planning for the future. So, Thayne and I worked together closely to review the fleet maintenance program that we have and looked at vehicles that flagged for various criteria, including age or mileage or— maintenance costs if we happen to have a lemon. We've met as staff and with the Budget Committee on a couple occasions over the past few months and reviewed the city's fleet needs and balanced those with what we— with the available budget and have come up with this plan that I'm presenting to you right now. So, to Just to summarize, show you the big picture up front, we are recommending $803,000 investment into fleet replacement out of the general fund, $30,000 out of an internal service fund, and $917,000 out of the enterprise funds, totaling $1.75 million. You should have had in your packet a spreadsheet with this information. Showing the different funds that we would— that we'll be purchasing vehicles out of. The vehicles that are being replaced. Some of the criteria that we looked at to see whether or not it should be replaced. And then the type of vehicle that it will be replaced with. And for the most part, it's just a similar vehicle. It also has the estimated cost of those vehicles. And then it has a— the running total by department and section, and then a total running department by fund.

Reed, a question for you. Do you see— or should I ask, how much do you see of rising costs for our fleet?

Yeah, that's—

Year to year.

Yeah.

Thayne, why don't I ask you to comment on that? Thayne is in constant contact with our vehicle suppliers.

Are you talking about fleet replacement, Mayor, or maintenance?

No, fleet replacement. I'm just curious how much it costs this year for the same vehicle that would have cost last year.

We're still looking around 3% to possibly 5%, but I am hearing from different sources that vehicles are hard to get and makes me worried that there may still be some changes. I heard microchips and different things. So there's some unknown unknowns coming into this next fiscal year.

Hopefully—

I kind of had some of the same fears with this current fiscal year and things worked out really well.

So—

So we have some supply chain issues that could pop up then.

Yes, there is some, but nothing currently that we've experienced in our fleet, but I'm hearing things through the grapevine.

Okay.

Just to give you an idea of what we've invested over the past years, this table and graph shows what we have invested into the fleet since FY16. In the general fund, we've been investing about $1.25 million per year over that timeframe. So over those 7 years, $8.7 million has been invested. That includes the purchase of 3 fire engines, which is by far the most expensive vehicles that we purchase out in this— out of the general fund, and frankly, out in this— in the city as well. When you look at the other enterprise funds, you can see that We have invested a total of $7 million over that 7-year period, so on average about $1 million per year. So the recommendation that we have for this year out of the general fund, we'll start first with the fire department. Our recommendation is to replace one ambulance at a cost of $195,000 and one sport utility vehicle, which is used by the Battalion chiefs to— or this one is a fire inspector vehicle for a total of $237,000.

Question for you. Do each one of our battalion chiefs have their own vehicle?

No, not currently.

Okay. Do we need to get them their own vehicle?

I know fire department has been discussing it. And I don't know where that discussion has gone.

I'd be interested to hear the results of that.

Mayor, this is Jamie. We actually— Chief Sanderson and I have been talking about moving in that direction and scaling up to meeting that, I guess, meeting that goal of each of our battalion chiefs. One of the challenges that we have is we don't want to purchase vehicles all at once and then have to replace them all at once.

Sure.

So part of the conversation we've been having is trying to phase in the purchase of these vehicles so that we don't have to replace them all in one year in the future.

Right. But I think it'd be— I think we need to have each battalion chief have his own vehicle.

Well, I think, I think we need to essentially balance that against the needs of The rest of the city, and I think the phased type approach is, is one way to do that and to accomplish that.

Sure. That sounds good.

Okay, we'll move along here. In Development Services, we have a pickup that, that will be repurposed from stormwater that the general fund will be purchasing from that fund for the— for $14,000, as well as an additional pickup that will be purchased from the water fund. for $12,500, for a total of $26,500. These pickups are used by our inspectors and engineers. Police. This is the most significant investment from the general fund this year. We recommend 5 patrol police utility vehicles at a cost of $247,500. 5 investigations leased vehicles at a cost of $36,000. 1 investigations midsize SUV at a cost of $39,000. A neighborhood preservation pickup truck for $44,000. And 3 support service vehicles, midsize SUVs, at a cost of $120,000, totaling $486,500. In parks, we'll be—

Reed, can you just let the— well, Thayne can speak to this, but we have transitioned to almost exclusively SUVs because the automobile manufacturers are not making police sedans anymore. In fact, all of our vehicles are Ford Explorers because that is the standard police vehicle that is coming off the assembly line from Ford Motor Company.

Yep, that's— I think you've summarized it well, Jamie. In Parks, there's a— we'll be repurposing a riding mower from the Stormwater Fund to the General Fund in Parks at a cost of $9,500 and purchasing an additional riding lawnmower at Parks.

Parks—

for Parks at $27,500, and then a utility vehicle for $16,000, for a total of $53,000 in vehicles for Parks next year. We have one internal service fund that the warehouse that needs to replace the forklift that they have. That will be at a cost of $30,000. Moving to the enterprise funds. First of all, stormwater. We have— we'll be putting some money aside for a buyback program that we have for backhoes. That's at $11,000. We save approximately for 3 years for that, and then we sell our— the The supplier purchases our backhoe back with a little bit more money, and we get a new backhoe to use every 3 years. We'll also begin saving for one of the jet rotter trucks, the big trucks that clean the stormwater lines. Water Reclamation has similar trucks as well, so this will be year 1 of 3 where we'll be saving $215,000. Also, we'll be purchasing a riding mower at the cost of $17,000 and a pickup for $30,000, totaling $273,000 out of the stormwater fund. In Water Reclamation, they participate as well in the backhoe buyback program, so we'll be saving $11,000 for that program. And this will be year 2 of 3 where we'll be saving $118,000 to replace one of their jet rotter trucks. So, a total of $129,000 will be set aside for Water Reclamation vehicle needs. In the Water Fund, they have 3 backhoes. So, we'll need to save $33,000 for the buyback program there. We'll also be replacing a 10-wheel dump truck for— at a cost of $175,000. And then, 2 pickup trucks at $30,000 each, so $60,000, for a total of $268,000 out of the Water Fund. In Streets, they have 2 backhoes, so we'll be saving $22,000 for the buyback program there, as well as a 10-wheel dump truck. This will be the last vehicle that will be purchased with the Volkswagen grant money. We've purchased 2 of 10-wheel dump trucks for streets with that Volkswagen grant and are in the process of purchasing the senior center bus. We hope to have that sometime later this year, as well as the fire engine. Again, as a reminder, we received $1.07 million In that grant program. And 4 of the 5 vehicles are— have been purchased or are in the process of being purchased. This particular vehicle is the last one. As Jamie mentioned, it's best to kind of phase—

get—

phase these in so that we're not buying all of these all at once. However, we are time constrained by the grant as well. So, we bought 2 last year. We'll be buying the last one this year. So, in essence, we will be receiving $112,500 back on this purchase, which will go back into Fund 20. We have to upfront the money. So, we'll be funding the entire purchase of $225,000, investing $247,000 into vehicles from the Streets Fund. So, again, in summary, the General Fund, Our recommendation is, is to spend $803,000, $30,000 out of the warehouse fund, and $917,000 out of all of our enterprise funds for a total of $1.75 million next year. That's what I have, Mayor. I don't know if I exceeded your expectations and timing of getting through that, but if there are questions, I'm— Thayne and I are happy to answer them.

Any questions? All right, well, you did a great job. I appreciate it, Reed, and appreciate it, Ernesto and Brandon, and thank you for your presentations. We'll now move on to a discussion of the University Parkway Market Study overview, and Matt Prosser is our presenter from Economic and Planning Systems, Inc. And I saw, Matt, you just came on. Well, Turn the time over to you.

Yes, hello, Mayor and City Council. Excited to be here with you today. I'm with Economic and Planning Systems. We're the consultant that you all have hired to help perform a market analysis for the University Parkway corridor to guide planning and investment decisions into the future. I have with me Dan Guimond and Sarah Dunmire from our team. They're on the call as well. I'm going to share my screen. We have a brief presentation and then really hoping to hear from you all in terms of your thoughts about future opportunities along University Parkway. All right. Can everybody see my presentation?

Yes. Uh-huh. Great.

Like I said, I'm Matt. I'm a vice president with EPS. I'm the project manager for this. And like I said, Dan and Sarah are supporting me here today. Dan is a principal in the project— principal in charge of this project for us. And Sarah is an associate in our office and is our primary analyst We also have Civitas, which is an urban design firm that's supporting us, and specifically they'll help with some conceptual land use plans and diagrams for some highest and best use studies we're doing on 2 particular sites along the corridor. They are not with us tonight but will be an integral part of our team going forward. So So, an overview of our project to bring you up to speed. We're about halfway through our work, and we have 2 primary tasks. First is a corridor market study. So we're looking at the University Parkway from basically the Provo-Orem city boundary to the west past I-15. Really, you know, a main commercial corridor through the community and a gateway into the community. So looking at what the opportunities are for future developments in the corridor. And then we're also doing 2 deeper dives into 2 specific sites. First is the former Water Conservatory— Conservation District site along the corridor, excuse me. And then we had preliminarily, when we were interviewing and then initially brought on to do the study, looking at potentially the Hillcrest School site. But as you all are aware and been working on, You all have been doing a fair amount of visioning in your own process for that site, and it is looking like it's primarily as a public and community use. So we are likely going to be substituting that site for another one, looking at most likely what potential opportunities for reuse or redevelopment of a commercial site along the corridor could look like based on the market opportunities that we find. Today's presentation, I'm going to walk through some existing conditions, really share some initial market opportunities and observations that we have. And then, like I said, we'd love to hear from you in terms of the future of the Parkway and what kind of questions we might need to investigate in our study. So as you know, the City of Orem has, has been growing fairly steadily over the last 20 years. We have, as a community, passed the 100,000 thousand resident mark, just over 100,000 residents, residents, accounting for about 15% of Utah County's population. The community has a median age of 28 years old. And generally, the demographics match fairly closely with that of Utah County as a whole, really Orem being a bellwether, if you will, for the, for the county as a whole. One interesting thing we found is that there's a higher concentration of younger residents especially college-age residents in Provo. And something we thought we might see a little bit of in Orem, considering the presence of Utah Valley University, but it doesn't necessarily pop off the charts in terms of the data that we've looked at. Another interesting thing we found is the growth of households in the community have been largely driven by the growth of 2-person households, 2-person family households over the last 10 years, really accounting for half of the growth. So some interesting trends Which a lot are driven, we think, based on the data, by the growth of Utah Valley University, you know, a major institution within the community. The university has about, you know, over 40,000 students. There is a large portion of sort of high school, continuing education type students. In terms of the traditional college students, whether that's undergraduate or graduate, there's about 30,000. Currently, and a split about half and half between full-time and part-time students. So even though there's a fair amount of part-time students, growing presence of online learning, we, we still do have a pretty sizable traditional college campus within the community. And as a result, what we're seeing, and as I'm sure you're pretty aware of, is the growth and need for housing for students. Currently, at least the university markets on their websites, 15 different student-oriented housing projects that surround the campus. And we do know that the, the student body of the university is pretty diverse. There's a lot of different folks of different ages and different backgrounds, different family statuses that, that go to school. And so that creates a variety of needs for those residents— I'm sorry, students. In terms of how that impacts housing by type in the community, um, we still have a, a greater presence of owner-occupied, uh, households within Orem, 60% to 40% renters. And what we've seen is an increase in the number of renters or renter households within multifamily units, and at the same time, a decrease in the number of renter households within single-family units. So what it's telling us is this large amount of multifamily development that we're going to talk about in a second that's been occurring in Orem has been taken up by a lot of these, these student-oriented or younger professional households that have been looking for those types of products and taking some of those renters out of more of a traditional ownership product in terms of single-family homes. We do know that the economy in Utah County is growing pretty strongly. Growth has been, you know, in a lot of different industries, the largest growing industries being construction, healthcare, care, retail, and then also professional technical services. An interesting trend that we're seeing is the growth of employment in that sector, as well as information and administrative services. Those are more sort of office-oriented sectors, which presents a growing opportunity perhaps for more offense-oriented uses in the community. We know, at least based on the state's forecast, that Utah County is expected to continue to grow about 6,600 households per year, a little bit more in terms of employment per year over the next 10 years and continuing on past 2030. And so what, what has that been doing in terms of this growth in terms of development trends? So in Orem, what we've seen, as you, as you're probably very aware of, is the growth of multifamily development. Since 2014, a real large increase in the amount of multifamily housing units have been brought into the community annually. So we had 6,700 units over that, that sort of 9 to 10 year period, a lot of that occurring since 2014. And really a lot of that driven by that student-oriented housing demand as evidence of the growth of Utah Valley University. When we look at office development trends, we're seeing that there's a, there's a growing office space within Utah County. A lot of that, however, has been largely captured up in the northern part of the county, especially in Lehi, which has captured a large portion of the new office development. Although the I-15 corridor has really kind of jumped out as, you know, potential opportunity corridor for employment use, especially office uses. And may present an opportunity for Orem at University Parkway. And then lastly, we'll talk about some retail development trends, which is, you know, a main focus of our effort, especially given the importance of retail and its presence along the University Parkway. So the city of Orem having about 7 million square feet of retail space currently, a little bit more than a quarter of the space in the, in Utah County. Interestingly enough, the inventory in the city has declined slightly since 2010. A lot of the newer development of retail space has been occurring more on the edges of the growing communities where new housing development has occurred. And we have seen some new retail development in Orem, but it's largely sort of the replacement or reconfiguration of existing retail centers. And that's, that's a trend we expect to continue going forward as we're seeing major shifts Not only in— or sorry, major shifts in retail development patterns and needs, both sort of pre-pandemic and then also coming out of the pandemic, but also the realization that Orem is in a pretty mature location in terms of its retail market. And so what we're seeing is the evolution of the retail mix within the community to match its residents, the changing demographic makeup of the community, and then also reacting to some of the larger sort of national trends in terms of consolidation of retailer store locations, a greater focus on more entertainment and food-oriented uses within retail centers. And you guys have really seen a lot of those recent trends in what the evolution of the University Mall has become. University Place becoming more mixed-use, more focused on sort of attraction destination for folks to come visit and gather. And that's something we can expect to continue. And so as we, as we look into the future of the corridor, it's sort of a question of what do we want to become. We, despite the, the decline in retail inventory within the community, we did see And we are seeing continued growth of retail sales. So even though we may have less space, we're still generating more sales out of that space, which indicates the strength of the retail market within Orem. Retail sales have grown by 4.3% annually over the last, you know, 7, 8 years. And changes that we're seeing that are sort of out of the ordinary or above average would be the growth of internet sales, obviously the national Wayfair decision. Creating more potential for revenue generation from internet sales for local communities. And then also a growing amount of sales within what we call convenience goods category. So that's grocery sales, that's health and personal care sales, more of those everyday purchases that folks make and sort of showing the shift of what the market orientation of University Park really might have been traditionally in terms of being more of a regional draw. Moving more towards perhaps a little more local community oriented, and something that we'll have to consider in terms of future opportunities along the corridor. So what we do know is that growth that will occur or could occur along the University Parkway is likely going to occur in sites that are already developed in some shape or form. And so realizing that we you know. The focus is really more on what types of uses are viable and strong over the long term, and what uses the community wants to see along the corridor. And how do we utilize market trends and realize what's, you know, and looking at what's in demand from the market to sort of craft the vision for the community as we go forward. So some initial findings that we have based on these existing conditions that we've analyzed. First, sort of strengths. University Parkway is, in our minds, the middle of a large and growing trade area. It's a well-known destination given its— the mall's location and its historic sort of role as a regional retail location. And we have a diverse commuter shed. We have a lot of students. We have a diverse resident base. And so that's— those are all positives in terms of retail demand. Some challenges. The interstate's visibility and opportunities are limited somewhat. We have a mature market area, as I've mentioned. Residential growth in the county is occurring sort of more further away from Orem, although it is occurring in Orem. And as I just showed, there's sort of limited capacity for change in terms of sites for, for new developments. And there are challenges with redevelopment. So trying to sort of factor those in, these strengths and challenges are really things that we're starting to dive into now in our analysis. How do we leverage the strengths that we have? And how do we potentially address some of these challenges? And what we've sort of identified are 3 potential paths for opportunities within the University Parkway. And this is really what we want to discuss with you all in the next few minutes is, where do we want to go as a community? And how can we identify viable, in-demand, and feasible uses that fit that sort of vision. So the opportunities that we see are, you know, continued sort of mixed-use developments leveraging the multifamily demand that we're seeing. So making more of sort of a neighborhood vibrant area. Uh, another opportunity is, can we try to attract more office and employment uses and diversify the land use mix along the corridor that way? Or do we, uh, kind of lean into those retail trends that we're seeing and try to diversify the retail mix more towards sort of entertainment, an experience-oriented retail that takes advantage of the BRT line and the diverse resident base that we have around the area. So I just gave a pretty quick presentation of a lot of data, and I apologize for that. But really what we were hoping to get to is a discussion from you all in terms of what you see the role of the University Parkway in the future being. And so I'm happy to just to answer questions, go back and look at different slides if you want to talk about certain data points. But I really love to hear your thoughts in terms of what market opportunities you'd like to see us further explore in our study and would like to see along the corridor. So with that, I'll turn it back over to you, Mr. Mayor, and we're here— Dan, Sarah, and I are here to answer any questions that you may have.

Sure, I have some comments, but Debbie would like to make a comment first.

Yeah, Matt, thank you for your presentation. 2 comments. I know when I've looked at our sales tax leakage report, the 2 major things have been a hotel and a gas station. Obviously, the hotel is a more desired product along the University Parkway. Secondly, with the pandemic, it showed us that a lot of people are working from home. Are we really thinking there's going to be a lot more desired office, or do we think it's going to be a hybrid of office slash a lot of working from home? The reason I say that, I think some of the trends may be shifting a little bit in the future. I'm just asking for your opinion on perhaps a hotel and then a changed office for the future.

Sure, yeah, I'll weigh in, and then Dan, I'll have Dan jump in as well. In terms of hotel, we definitely think that's a potentially viable use, especially given the university location right there on I-15 and also the proximity to Brigham Young as well. I think there can be some real cool opportunities, and that's something I think we might explore within that water conservation district location in the highest and best use right there.

So, Matt, maybe I could just jump in for a second. There is a new Marriott Courtyard Hotel planned for University Place. It's going to be a 5-story facility, and they're looking at starting that in about 36 months. They were going to start it earlier, but due to COVID and whatnot, they're going to start it in about 36 months. So that will be a nice spot on the east end. Certainly on the west end. What to do with the right development of the Central Utah Water Facility is a big one. You know, they wanted to put in a gas station, which we nixed as a city government. But, you know, they had talked about a hotel there. I don't know. They've tried to lease offices there. That has not gone well. They've got the property for sale. That has not gone well. So, and the transportation ingress and egress out of that facility is really tight and really tough. You get about 2 to 3 cars going into where Krispy Kreme's is, and you get 2 to 3 cars coming out of this facility. So if you get something that has a lot of traffic, it's I don't know how we're going to do it. So that's a really, that's a really tough location, and that's what Wright Development is learning, is that this is a very hard area to develop.

Yeah, those are, those are all noted, Mr. Mayor, and I think that's where Civitas really lend a large hand for our work on that site, is helping understand those physical and design constraints that will come from redevelopment on that site. We also are doing outreach to the property owner to work with them to explore opportunities as we look at the market opportunities for the site. In terms of future demand for office, that's a real interesting question. You know, pre-early pandemic, we, I think, were a little more pessimistic in terms of potentials. Although we have been seeing more and more activity than we expected in various markets that we're working. A few things that we're seeing is sort of the growth of some desire to be in more suburban locations like this that are in kind of emerging mixed-use nodes. And so there may be an opportunity there. And also, I think there is potentially some desire of new space that's designed in terms of you know, reflecting current health issues and an ability to be adaptable to address things like the pandemic and health concerns within new building formats. Dan, I'll let you opine as well on office demand going forward.

So one thing maybe real quick we could mention as well is at the University Place Mall, they are in the process of building a new 4-story office building, 100,000 square foot speculative, on top of the new garage. And they're moving forward with that for office space.

Right.

I think that's— I think we think that's indicative of What we think there might be a market for, you know, over the next 5 to 10 years of some additional offices. Those uses, you know, do tend to like to be in the same location, agglomerate a little bit in terms of creating an activity node. And that's certainly, you know, that's basically at your 100% corner currently for both retail and now ostensibly also for office uses. As—

Can I jump in for just one second?

Sure.

2 of our council members have questions for you. First one is Councilmember Spencer, and then Councilmember Peterson.

Thank you.

So I just have a—

for what it's worth, I, I work up in Salt Lake City, and we're renewing our lease in our building, and we're looking in Salt Lake City, and the lease rates have not come down at all. They're quite robust and, you know, so we're staying, staying put, but I think it's still a very hot commodity. And I don't think— I think most people are going back to the office, at least what I'm seeing in Salt Lake City. So I think that office space definitely would be a premium in Orem.

So.

Okay.

And Terry?

And you know what, I just, I go along with what Dave's saying. I think that there's also a quality of life issue in our city. And with, you know, pushing— I know the numbers you were showing are 40/60, but that's what we know of. So, we might be even closer to 50/50 as far as rentals versus homeowners in the city.

Yeah.

And a lot of people ask, what— how does a citizen benefit from a rental versus an office? And I— so, I'd love to see us spend a lot more energy bringing offices and businesses back to Orem. And I really think what we've seen in Lehi, I think there's becoming a little bit of a burnout in Lehi. It's very frustrating trying to get to some of those buildings, where Orem is pretty easy to get to buildings right off the University Parkway. So—

Yeah.

I'm very supportive, and I think that, I think the citizens are, of seeing an emphasis on office space.

Yeah, that's, that's interesting. Definitely that Lehigh office space, a little more suburban, large campus sort of style developments, and is a little bit different than the opportunity we see on University Parkway, given that there is transit, transit, sorry, transit present, as well as that sort of mixed-use walkable environment, which is attractive, especially more towards sort of the younger workforce. And so, yeah, I think we're, we're sort of echoing and seeing opportunities along with what you all are suggesting.

I think what we're, what we're seeing in general is, is that is over the next 5 to 10 years, a diversification of the corridor from what has been almost entirely, you know, a retail, regional retail node. And as As Matt noted, a lot of that, a lot of those types of stores are not going to, are not projected to grow over the next 10 years. And in fact, we think a number of the, you've seen a few stores close already, and there may be others that are, some others, some stronger than others, but some potential for some additional redevelopment along the corridor. And we think there are opportunities both for office, hotel, and residential projects that can be integrated into the corridor to make it more mixed-use, more diverse, and basically to serve the Orem market going forward a little more Completely.

Yeah, and Mr. Mayor, you did mention sort of those challenges with reconfiguring existing sites for different uses, and that's, that's something that I think that we'll highlight with our work with Civitas to understand how we might be able to address those.

You know, I have been encouraged. We've had various national chains go out of business and have left buildings along the Parkway. But as an example, Babies R Us is being taken over by AutoZone. which I think is a good thing. Leatherby's has taken over Mimi's, and Peterson Medical is being taken over by, I dare say, a spa-type business. And, but I'm seeing that when those buildings become available, there's a lot of interest in them and people are filling them up.

Well, it's certainly still, I mean, it University Parkway, and additionally with the BRT in that corridor, is a major arterial corridor and a great location for a lot of potential uses. And I think we're just looking at what those reuse opportunities are. And in a lot of cases, you know, if the strength of the retail market is there for retenanting some of those existing buildings, that's, that's the most obvious choice, because anything, anything more dramatic in, in terms of redevelopment is much more expensive and much more complicated to be done. And that's usually only done when, you know, the real estate performance dynamics on those, those centers have deteriorated further, which I guess that's an observation that we can— that we're making is maybe I'm agreeing with you that most of those buildings have— are showing a potential for retenanting and use for other types of retail uses. But I think there's also opportunities for things like medical and clinics So other types of uses like that in those buildings as well.

So considering that Central Utah Water is a very specialized place with a lot of challenges, have you got some desired ideas that can solve that problem?

We are—

that's what our next phase of work will be. And so we're going to move into that with Civitas.

That's a complex issue.

Yeah. And next time you see us, we will likely be presenting you opportunities and constraints that we see at that site and potential path forward. So we are aware and working on it.

One thing that's kind of interesting is that we have a new temple for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints being built at the end of the parkway off on Geneva Road.

Hmm.

We don't have any places in Orem that I'm aware of for wedding receptions. Provo has quite a few. Lindon has some, several. But I often wonder, that is such a beautiful spot at Central Utah Water, if you could enclose the fountains and the The pillars and, you know, the beautiful gardens there into a wedding reception center that could be used both winter and summer. You know, and then you, you wonder if there's, you know, a restaurant that could go in there, and the office space doesn't seem to be going well, but it might be that it's old and dated and nobody really wants to go in there. And could be refurbished.

That's an interesting concept for us to look at. I think an event center, potentially, it could be one of the options to look at in terms of the reuse of the existing building.

Yeah, we really need a reception center, and this one is very close to the new temple.

So yes, that's, that's a good opportunity to bring us— bring to our attention. We appreciate it.

And the flip side of that is Lyndon is building a new temple. Now, they have a brand new reception center built about a block away. The family that is giving that land to the Church knew of the temple, and they've built a new reception center. But that temple may want to come into Orem and use ours as well.

So We'll definitely look at that for sure.

Yeah, and so that's a good sort of segue to that one other question we have. You know, an event hall being somewhat of a private use, but also, but really serving the community. So we're also wondering, are there other sort of similar community or public uses that you, you think would, would be a good opportunity or something that you'd like to see along the corridor as well? And that could help expand the opportunities that we're looking for in our markets today.

On any site, for that matter.

Yes, exactly.

I don't have any ideas there. I don't know if the rest of the council has some ideas.

Well, one comment about the Hillcrest Park. I think that'll be a great addition. to people to know that there's a place for pickleball and some time for meditation, to walk around the park and take your kids to splash pad. I think that will be a wonderful addition to the things that you gentlemen are talking about that will add to a quality of life for people along that corridor.

And there is one other property further to the east from The Hillcrest Park, which you actually had located on your map, but that's at 1400 South and the end of the road, which is the edge of the hill there. There's a 3.5-acre property that they're having a— not necessarily an easy time getting that set up because of impact fees, etc., for a use. I call it a flag lot because we have our Orem, or the US flag there, flying above the lot, and it's a very visible lot from the University Parkway down below. And you have, not to do a pun, but you have flagged it as one that could be used.

Yes.

Debbie Luray has a question for you.

Debbie?

With us being such a young population overall and and a lot of university students as well as couples. I think, I don't know what to call it, but like a date night sort of experience, things that relate to entertainment that are not super costly. I think you would have a great demand for that, knowing our population, knowing the students, and then of course date night possibilities. So, you know, you think of things like riding go-karts or axe throwing, and all these are kind of trendy things. I don't know what the new trends are in entertainment, but there's always a market for a reasonably priced date experience and evening experience. And I think, I think some of those things we could look and see what the markets or what the trends are nationally and see if there's something we could bring.

Yeah, Debbie, maybe, maybe I could just bring up one thing. University Place is taking their northern section of the hall, and they've moved all the businesses out of there, and they're redeveloping and redesigning 50,000 square feet for, I believe, what's known as Rush Entertainment, where they're going to have go-karts, bowling alley, you name it, all kinds of date night activities. And it's going to be a pretty big deal anyway.

That's true.

I'm just saying if there's some trends, there's something—

Yeah.

I know for my husband and I, it's either restaurants, theaters, or movies. Maybe an axe throwing once in a while, but we, we like to do something and we go out every week at least once or twice. So I'm just saying maybe, maybe the mall will, but look on some trends, see what, see what makes sense. I think it's the experience. People want an experience. You can't duplicate that online. You have to actually go and do something. So I just have to experiment, experiential, well, I don't even know what the word is, experience things.

Yep.

No, that's great. We will definitely dive into that. And I think there's plenty of opportunity.

And then I think it also draws people from around. If it's a unique thing, it'll draw people from other communities and it has good access. So that's my 2 cents.

We're running out of time. Jeff has a question and then we'll need to move on if we can.

Yeah, just a quick comment. You know, before COVID some of our favorite things to do, and I know some of the students down at BYU, are the comedy clubs. You've got the Dry Bar Comedy Club, you've got the sports, kind of the impromptu sports comedy thing that they have there, and then also the music venue on University Parkway was really quite a thriving opportunity and a lot of great music coming out of there. And we have so much talent and so much possibility there that, that those might be some other possibilities to look at.

We'll do that.

Yep, that's great.

Thanks.

Anyway, are you talking about the Velour, the Velour Music? Is that what you're talking about?

Yes.

Okay, Velour.

Okay.

Uh, Mr. Mayor, I have one slide. It'll take me 2 seconds and we can wrap it up. I appreciate your time. Um, so our next steps are to develop a quarter-wide market analysis draft that we'll share with you all, um, and then move into those highest and best use studies for the, the conservation district site and then another site. Um, and then we'll come back to you. with another check-in exploring some of the opportunities that we're seeing there. And then we're aiming to complete the study by sort of the end of May, early June. So with that, we thank you very much for your time. You guys have provided really great feedback and we appreciate it.

You bet.

Good to have you here. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

We'll now go ahead and move on to our agenda review. First item we have is consent items. Approval of meeting minutes of March 23rd, 2023. Is everybody comfortable with those? Okay, I'm not hearing any nays. The next one is a scheduled item, a public hearing on public comment for CDBG projected use of funds. After that, we have a public hearing resolution on block grant CDBG projected use of funds for CARES Act funding. Afterwards, we have a public hearing ordinance. This is amending Article 22-53A and the zoning map of the City of Orem, changing the zone of approximately 4 acres. From the NVD-RES-B zone to the R-8 zone, located generally at 1637 North to 1753 North along 400 West. Jason, do you want to bring anything up with regards to that?

That's fairly straightforward, trying to rezone it back to R-8 zone. The neighbors are in favor of that.

So those are the homes on 400 West, north of 1600 North, correct? Yep, on the west side. Okay, then we have a public hearing ordinance amending Appendix A of the Orem City Code by enacting Standard Land Use Code 0303, Shave Ice Shack, and amending Article 23-53A and the zoning map of the City of Orem by changing the zone of approximately 0.84 acres from the R-12 zone to the C-1 zone at approximately 1323 East 800 North. I believe that, Jason, you're the presenter. That's the miniature golf place there by Palisades Park.

It is, yes. And the applicant is trying to Rezone the property. What they want to do is put a snow shack in the golf rent— where you rent your clubs to do the miniature golf club. Because it's an R-12 zone, we don't allow that to expand. And since the property to the east is already zoned C-1, which is more of an office use, they are proposing that we create a new SOU code for snow shacks specifically and allow that in the C-1 zone where typically we don't allow retail. Restaurants, things like that. So would be limited to that snow shack. But the future potential of the— if it's ever redeveloped, the C-1 zone is an appropriate zone for that location. And so staff is supportive of rezoning it now, even though the golf course would probably remain for some time. If it ever redevelops, a C-1 zone is probably the most appropriate at this point.

Now, does this affect any other C-1 zones in the city allowing snow shacks? It would allow, and I do have a picture showing other locations.

We only have a few. There's— it's a minor zone, but it is kind of zoned between residential and heavier commercial zones, but would allow for a snow shack to go in those locations as well.

All right, we can see that tonight.

Yes.

Okay, the next one is an ordinance amending Section 2211.13. L-2 of the Orange City Code pertaining to roofing materials on buildings in the PD-22 zone. And Jason, you're the presenter on that.

The applicant, Bruce Dickerson, has got approval for his moderate-income housing project. What he's asking for is to allow for architectural-style asphalt shingles. The ordinance requires them to be tile or some type of, you know, clay tile. The previous project that he'd built there, for whatever reason, we mistakenly allowed him to do asphalt shingles. But the ordinance does prohibit that, and so he's trying to amend it to allow for that for 4 stories or greater and 4:12 pitch or less. And so his argument, I think we agree that the higher you get, the less likely you're going to see the differentiation between architectural style shingles and clay. And so we're supportive of this as well.

And that location is just north of WinCo, up on 8th North?

It's the former LDS Church property. They sold to them, and that's— they've got approval through the Planning Commission for the buildings there, and they're waiting to get this approved.

All right, I appreciate that. Tom, did you want to give us a report on your committee assignments?

I can do it in a nanosecond, Mayor.

Okay.

The Orem Community Outreach— the Orem Hospital Outreach is doing— is starting again. We've got Zoom meetings going and we're going to start in live presentation. The Heritage Committee is moving along and the Youth Committee hasn't really kicked back off, but I imagine that'll start again soon.

Okay, thank you, appreciate it. So our prayer tonight is going to be by Terry Peterson and the Pledge of Allegiance by Sherry Peterson. Jamie, do you have anything you'd like to bring up?

Yes, I do, Mayor. Just a number of issues for— just for your information. Of course, Councilmember Spencer earlier in the meeting mentioned our ongoing water tank discussions. I forwarded to you some information in regards to staff's recommendation that we proceed forward with a specific location. Obviously, now that we've financed—

we've closed—

we have yet to close on the financing of our water revenue bonds, but we are fast approaching that. And we would very much— I would very much appreciate learning kind of from you as a group, your thoughts relative to proceeding forward with the recommended site. If you have particular questions, please let me know. The site that you have right up here that Chris is putting on the screen right now is the Farley property. This is a discussion we have been having with Mr. Farley. He came back to the city and provided to us a revised proposal that makes it far more cost advantageous for us to proceed forward with conversations and negotiation with Mr. Farley. One of the benefits, or there are a number of key benefits that we are looking at in relation to this property. Property. One of them I've already mentioned, and that is the potential for a circular tank, which will save the city money. In addition, the costs associated with connecting the infrastructure on this property to 400 South— obviously, given that it's directly adjacent to 400 South, there would be cost savings there as well. In addition, we believe that we could locate a well— the well and the pump house on this property, also negating a need to acquire additional property in the residential neighborhood to the north. And we could put all 3 of these facilities on this property. And in addition, we are looking to make some improvements at the intersection there of 4th West and 4th South. We've talked about the signalization of that particular intersection, or even looking at some additional configurations associated with that intersection. And that acquisition of property right there on the northeast corner of this parcel would also be something of value to the city. And finally, we are also considering, obviously, the level of disruption that would occur and result in Community Park if we were to build within the park. And so there are a number of considerations, not just financial, to take into account as it relates to the siting of this facility, but we would very much like to get to a point where we reach decision and can proceed forward in engineering and design of the facility. So if you have particular questions or concerns about what I've shared with you, I would appreciate you letting me know. I know time is short tonight, but if you could get with me and let me know some of your concerns or some of your feedback, I would, I would much appreciate that. In addition, we are working on our Rec director recruitment. I have actually been out of the area, and so I haven't had a chance to follow up in recent days, but that is still ongoing. Several of you have also talked with me in, in regards to the latest round of CARES money that is coming from the federal government. Orem will be a recipient of significant dollars. But we have yet to receive clarification from the Department of the Treasury as to how those dollars can be spent, other than we understand that utility infrastructure is, or are, one of the categories that the Treasury has mentioned from a high-altitude perspective we can spend the money on. So they represented to us that we would have this new round of federal stimulus money available to us beginning in May, and that federal guidelines from the Treasury would precede the City of Orem receiving these dollars. So we have yet to receive any sort of direction as to how we can or can't use this money other than in very general terms, but we anticipate to hear from the Department of the Treasury by the end of April as related to these CARES dollars. In addition to that, you recall that many— a number of years ago, Congress made the decision to kind of step away from congressionally directed funding, or what is more affectionately identified as earmarks. Earmarks are now something that is going back into the federal budget. In fact, members of Congress, specifically senators and congressional members of Congress, have been allocated certain amounts of money to designate towards projects within their respective districts. And we have been working with our consultant back in Washington, D.C. to submit a request for up to $1 million. That is the maximum that we can request. for help with our West Union Canal abandonment. You're probably familiar, we've been talking a lot about the need we have from a stormwater perspective to actually pipe a stormwater channel to take water that we have historically been dumping into the West Union Canal and putting it somewhere else. And so we have made that request and are working through Congressman Curtis's office to make that request and working with Nick Crockett, our federal consultant back in Washington, D.C., to help move that effort forward. Also, just— we are going to come to you with an update as to where we are in regards to the fuel tank concerns we've had on the City Center campus. It is Looking like there has been an issue that we're going to have to kind of work through with the vendor that provided fuel to us in relation to whether or not the the fuel that was given, the diesel fuel that was that was given to us was actually tainted, or if in fact it did did contain some gasoline. That is yet to be resolved. But what we are looking at now is actually creating 2 separate tanks, one specific storage tank for public safety, and are looking at disconnecting the lines that we have from our city center storage tank, connecting to our public safety storage tank, and building those 2 systems independent from each other. And that is going to cost us obviously some money, and we're looking to get some pricing on what that would cost and what it would cost us to build a tank above ground and to essentially make it look consistent with the rest of the property. And then the last thing I wanted to just bring you up to speed on is you are aware that we have been working with the Hale Centre Theatre Orem for the past number of years trying to help them in the construction of a new theater at University Place. Yesterday, we had representatives from the city, as well as Hale Center Theater, visit with the Utah County Tourism and Tax Advisory Board. This is the group that makes recommendations to the County Commission in relation to the use of restaurant and hotel and tourism tax here in the valley. They've funded such things in the past as the Utah Valley Convention Center. They funded improvements at the Provo Airport. They are funding improvements to a regional sports complex in, in Provo. They've funded improvements in Spanish Fork with the county fairgrounds. We made a request in cooperation with Hale Center Theater to fund $3 million of the construction of the new Hale Center Theater Orem. The advisory board yesterday and are going to recommend to the County Commission that they fund $1.5 million of the requested $3 million to construction of the new Hale Center Theater Orem. So we're encouraged by this recommendation, a little disappointed as well. In the recommendation, the feedback received from the advisory board was they were unsure as to the return on investment that the county would receive from the new Hale Center Theater Orem. Obviously, we would like an additional opportunity to sit down with them Talk with them specifically about return on investment and how some of their projects that they've invested in in recent years probably hasn't or would not fare or do not fare as well as Hale Center Theater Forum or a new Hale Center Theater Forum. So those are the things that I wanted to make you aware of tonight. Thank you, Mayor.

I think to have that discussion further, The new county commissioner will be helpful.

Yeah, I hope so.

All right, well, let's go ahead and adjourn our meeting right now, and we've got 5 minutes, and we'll start back up at 6 o'clock with our City Council meeting.

Hi, can you— are you on it?

Uh, yeah, are you?

No, I can't, I can't find it to get on it. I thought I had a link, but I don't.

Okay, let me see if Susie can, uh, Can send me—

you the link. You might have to talk for me. I, I, I can do that too. Um, do you know how to send him a link?

Well, where did you get the link from?

Uh, the city.

All right, hold on, hold on a minute.

Um, hey, I'm not going anywhere.

Is it in your email? Yeah.

Do you know how to forward it?

Yeah, if you can get me—

Roger, you're unmuted, just so you know.

We're hearing that The whole conversation.

Oh, okay.

All right. It is 6 o'clock and time to start our City Council meeting. I'd like to read a notice to start out with. This is a notice of an all-electronic meeting and opportunity for public participation pursuant to Mayor Richard F. Brunt's proclamation dated March 29th, 2021. The Orem City Council meeting on April 13, 2021 will be an all-electronic meeting. There will be no anchor location for the meeting. The meeting 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 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 call this meeting to order. And we would like to begin by having a prayer to be given by Terry Peterson, and then the Pledge of Allegiance to be given by Sherry Terry, we'll turn it over to you.

Okay.

Our Heavenly Father, we're thankful for the opportunity to meet together this evening. We pray that we will be sensitive to the needs of the citizens of Orem, that we will be respectful, and that we can make decisions that will bless the lives of the citizens here. We're grateful for the opportunity we have to serve. And we thank thee for blessings thou gives to us as a community. And we say this in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ.

Amen.

Amen.

Please repeat the Pledge of Allegiance with me.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you, Sherry, and thank you, Terry. Thank you. All right, uh, we have time for personal appearances. Uh, this time's been set aside for the public to express their ideas, concerns, and 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, and those wishing to speak are limited to 3 minutes. We'll now open up for 90 seconds for anyone who wants to call in. And then Steve, you can let us know if you receive any.

I, yeah, I have some to get us started, Mayor.

Go ahead.

All of these are related to the same issue. Hello, I would like to reach out on the topic of naming an Orem City baseball field after one of the best father coaches I've ever met, Clayton Riggs. I had the opportunity to coach multiple years of multiple sports with Clayton, but my most memorable, the years I spent coaching with him and against him in the Orem youth baseball program on the city center fields. I can unequivocally state that Clayton embodied the highest standard of parent coaching imaginable. I saw firsthand the hours and hours he invested coaching Little League baseball on those Orem ball fields. His patience was endless. I never heard him use a cross word with any of his players. He had the ability to bring out the best in every team he coached. Clayton's sudden passing was a huge loss to the Orem baseball program. Naming a field in his honor would be a constant reminder to the rest of us of his legacy and example. I strongly encourage the board to consider this action. That's from John Spencer Livingston. I would like to vote for naming one of the baseball fields at Orem Baseball Complex after Clayton Riggs. He was a coach to so many young players and impacted so many lives. Yes, thank you. I vote to change the name of field number 3 to Clayton Riggs Field. Thank you. I support the naming of a baseball field to Clayton Riggs Field. Clayton was an amazing sports dad and spent lots of time coaching, coaching his boys and others. Knowing Clayton's love for life, kids, and sports makes it easy for me to support the name being on the field. Thank you for the consideration. Next, Carl Black. Dear council members, I strongly encourage— I strongly support naming one of our baseball fields after Clayton Riggs. He was truly a champion of Warmuth baseball. He has mentored many, many kids over the years and promoted excellence and strong work ethic. Please feel free to contact me personally if you need additional input. Next, Dustin Dastrup. City Council, I want to send you a quick note about the idea of naming one of the Orem City fields in memory of Clayton Riggs. Clayton moved to Orem about 11 to 12 years ago. Clayton and I instantly connected. He moved in 2 houses down from me, and we had the boys play the same age at the same time. Our boys were 4 and 5 years old the day he moved in. We pulled out the balls, bats, and gloves and started to coach the neighborhood boys. Clayton never stopped. He put in thousands of hours and did it in a way that included and uplifted every single boy he came in contact with. Literally hundreds of—

Roger, you're not muted.

I know. He put in thousands of hours and did not— did it in a way that included and uplifted every single boy he came in contact with. Literally thousands of warm boys. He was every parent's dream for a Little League coach. He was inclusive, instructive, always organized, Was incredibly dedicated and held practice more than anyone else did. He was competitive. His teams won and still included all— and still included all his players. He is exactly what every Little League parent, coach should strive to be. Naming a field after him would be an honor to him, our city, his family, and the Orem Youth Baseball Program. Every once in a while, a coach comes along that's just different, and this has an impact on his players more than any other coach. That becomes a lifelong trusted friend to the players. Unfortunately, sometimes they aren't honored or thanked enough while they're here with us. These coaches don't do it for the recognition or to be thanked. They understand it's not about them, it's about the boys, players, their experience, and the Little League memories. Clayton was this coach. Clayton is a one-in-a-million coach and friend. I hope the city is able to agree to name a field in his honor. It would be such an incredible thing to do, so fitting for a coach and a man that impacted so many. Next, Brian Duchere. I love the idea of naming one of the Orem baseball— one of the baseball fields at City Center Park after my good friend Clayton Riggs. He coached, encouraged, loved, and taught life lessons to many boys over the years. Next, Ryan Smith. The thought of naming the fields in Orem after Clayton would only deserve— would only preserve a well-deserving legacy. I've never met a coach and mentor for the youth who could manage being competitive in sportsmanship as well as Clayton. He is the model of whatever— of what we want every parent and coach to follow. He cared, he wanted to win, he wanted excellence, he wanted what was right, he wanted to teach life lessons. He never lost track of that. He is well deserving of these field names. Next, Nate Quigley. I'm writing in support of the proposal being considered to name the field number 3 baseball field after City Center Fields in honor of Clayton Riggs. Clayton's tireless, positive, and cheerful efforts as a coach to our son were so important to his development as a baseball player and young man. Clayton also encouraged me to volunteer as both a head coach and assistant coach. Something I probably wouldn't have done without his enthusiastic prodding. Seeing him honored in this way would be the perfect way to encourage everyone in Orem to be as warm, as welcoming, and giving as he was. I'd be very happy to contribute to whatever related funds are needed to make this possible. Thank you for considering this comment. Mayor, those are all the ones that are pre-written.

Okay.

Have we received any additional comments?

No, no additional ones have come in.

All right. Thank you. Well, I appreciate all the comments about Clayton Riggs and the wonderful job he's done, and that will be considered. We'll now go ahead and close the personal appearance portion of our meeting and move to the consent items. We have one consent item. If anyone wishes to move it to a scheduled item, please let me know. The consent item is the approval of the meeting minutes of the City Council meeting on March 23rd. 2021. I move that we go ahead and approve our consent items. Is there a second?

Second.

Second. Okay, then I need to go ahead and start. Tom?

Aye.

Okay, Terry?

Aye.

Jeff?

Aye.

Dave?

Aye.

Aye.

Debbie?

Aye.

And I, as mayor, vote aye as well. And our consent items pass. We'll move now to our scheduled items. The first one is 9.1, which is a public hearing. No vote will be taken on it. The city is to receive public comment on the Community Development Block Grant projected use of funds for fiscal year 2021-2022. Ken Ransom is our commission chairperson and Kenna Matthews, our community services manager. Are either one of them on the line?

Hi, Mayor, this is Ken Ransom.

Okay, would you like to go over this use of funds?

Yeah, since we have the Slideshow up, we'll get started. Thank you, Mayor and council members, for the opportunity to present to you today. And we're making our recommendations, our commission's recommendations for our city's 2021-2022 CDBG funding. Next slide, please. Here's our commission members. I want to thank them for their service and their consideration of these requests that we receive For this funding and their willingness to volunteer for their city. So I want to thank them each, and they're listed there for your reference. And thank you again, Commission members. So a reminder about the CDBG funding: communities with populations over 50,000 can apply, and there's historic allocations to them between $600,000 and $700,000. And this year the funding totals $758,806, which comes from our city's CDBG allocation of $674,806 and some rollover CDBG funding of $84,000. Next slide, please. These are the city and county-specific priorities that we've highlighted before, so I won't go into any depth on it or detail on those, but And the overall priorities for Orem. Here's a reminder about those priorities for this funding as well. Next slide. Alright, so for the last couple of years, our commission has collaborated with Provo and Utah County on projects that— to help minimize paperwork, to give higher funding amounts, and to make it easier on these entities when they apply for these funds and have less of a burden on them to try to combine and collaborate. Next slide, please. So, in this joint effort between Orem, Provo, and Utah County, Orem's—

What are you going to drink tonight?

What we're recommending for Orem's portion of the of funding for these projects is Kids on the Move, $10,000. Centro Hispano, $55,000. Centro Hispano has 3 different programs that they're applying for those funds for, and since they had not had a recent history with these funds, we funded part of that and gave them the— we're recommending that they be given the latitude to use those funding dollars as they need them. And then finally, Mountain Lion Community Health Services, we recommend funding them $2,480. So the total for this joint effort between these— between Orem-Provo and Utah County is $67,480. And there were capital projects that had been submitted, but then they were withdrawn, and one has gone For the COVID CDBG funding. So we have no joint capital projects to recommend to the council this year.

Okay. Any comments?

Not quite done, Mary. Sorry, sorry about that. And so the funding available to allocate is $691,326. Next slide, please. And so these are OREM only. So remember we mentioned we have The combined efforts of Orem-Provo and Utah County to try to streamline some of the funding. And then these are Orem-only requests. So PERC is seeking $6,000. This is for at least a 2-year cycle for them. They will not be seeking any funding next year. So we're trying to have higher— we're recommending higher allocation amounts. So we're recommending that this PERC request be funded at $6,000. Next slide, please. In turn, Community Services is seeking $33,000 to replace the roof and siding at their Orem Group Home and Paradise Day Center, respectively. The Commission recommends that this be funded as well. And City of Orem Community Services is requesting $134,000 for the administration of the CDBG program, and we recommend that this be funded as well. Next slide, please. Thank you. And Orem Community Services is seeking $91,000 for its annual payment obligation for the city's economic development loan. And some of the future payments are listed there for your reference as well. We recommend that this be funded. Next slide. And the City of Orem Community Services is seeking $110,000 for its critical home repair and home rehabilitation program. We recommend that this, this request be funded. And City of Orem Community Services seeking $125,000 to help pay the salaries, benefits, and other costs for sworn and non-sworn officers part of the city's code enforcement team. And we recommend that this request be funded as well. And City of Orem Community Services is also seeking $5,043 For neighborhood revitalization activities in CDBG-eligible neighborhoods, and some of those uses of that funding are listed there for your reference, and we recommend that this request be funded as well. And City of Warren Public Works is seeking $186,000 to replace the aging playground at Sharon Park, and this park is located in a CDBG-eligible neighborhood. And our commission, we recommend this is funded as well. So here's the summary of the combined projects that we recommend is funded along with Provo and Utah County that we mentioned earlier, so we don't need to go through those individually. And these are the Orem-only requests that I just reviewed with you, and we recommend again that these be funded. So total recommended allocations listed there for your reference. Any questions, Mayor and council members?

All right, if no questions, this is a public hearing, so we will go ahead and open this up for public comment. We will give it a minute and a half. And then Steve, you can let me know if you receive anything in.

Mayor, I do have one comment to get us started that was submitted a little earlier.

Go ahead.

Thank you kindly for all the support of the House of Hope. This is from Margaret Yates. House of Hope is so very grateful for the CDBG program. The generous funding received throughout the years has been a huge support and made furthering our mission a reality.

Mayor, I have one question when you're done with the public comment.

Okay.

Mayor, no additional comments.

Okay.

Shall I ask my question?

So our time is up. Hold on one second, Debbie. So we wish to close the public comment portion of the public hearing and bring it back to the council. Go ahead, Debbie, with your question.

Ken, I did not see Community Action on there, and in the past we have given them resources. Are they coming under another category? Because the food pantry has, you know, greater needs than ever.

I believe, and Kenneth can correct me if I'm wrong, but they have a COVID request that we're going to do in the next presentation. So they I think they have—

they didn't request—

well, Kenna can correct me if I'm wrong here. Kenna, do you want to add anything?

Yeah, so they did come under the joint application, so Provo or Utah County will be funding them as part of their joint application. So we're not funding them this year, but they will be funded by one of the other entitlements. Okay, thank you.

That was my question.

You're welcome.

All right, we'll now move on to item 9.2. This is a public hearing resolution. The city will receive public comment on the Community Development Block Grant projected use of funds for CARES Act CDBG-CV funding and consider approval of a resolution for a substantial amendment to the 2019-2020 Annual Action Plan. And Ken Ransom and Thank you, Mayor.

All right, so this— just to clarify, this is the COVID part of CDBG funding that we're making recommendations for now. The previous presentation, again, was just the regular funding that we get from HUD.

Right.

So here's a summary of our Specific allocations have been before you. We've presented these amounts previously, so those are just listed there for your summary. Next slide, please. And so the initial grant for COVID funding has been allocated, and then OREM received an additional grant of $287,940, and then those Allocations that have previously been approved are listed there for your reference. So that leaves— after you subtract out those previous allocations— $194,000 to still allocate from this additional grant amount. Next slide, please. As a reminder of how the funds are required to be used for COVID— things related to COVID-19. And the council's previously given the priorities for these, for this funding. Next slide, please. So House of Hope, we had the comment just a few minutes ago about House of Hope, but this is— their request went COVID since it was related to COVID. So we're recommending that this, their request, be funded from this, these COVID funds, and Utah County and Provo are also contributing to this. So this is another joint effort between the 3 entities. And so our commission, we recommend that this be funded, this request be funded. Next slide. And Community Action Services and Food Bank, they, there are 4 They'd like food storage cases— cages, excuse me. And they're requesting $25,000 for this. Utah County will also be helping them fund this request. They'll be giving an additional amount. We recommend that this be funded. And so these are our 2 recommendations, are these for the House of Hope and Community Action Services and Food Bank. And that's our recommendation for the COVID funding at this commission meeting. So thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor and Council. And so there's still— after you subtract those out, this is the amount remaining still to be allocated, and we'll make future recommendations for this funding.

All right. This is a public hearing. So I will go ahead and open it up for any public comment. And we will start right now for a minute and a half.

Mayor, we do have one comment to kick it off. Karen McCandless, Executive Director of Community Action. This is for the April 13th City Council meeting regarding the allocation of CDBG-CV funding. I'm the Executive Director of Community Action Services and Food Bank. Like to express my appreciation for your consideration of our request for an additional metal food storage— additional metal food storage baskets. These baskets will help us continue to meet community food needs and to prepare in the event a COVID variant or some other emergency arises.

Second.

Again, thank you for your consideration and service.

Debbie, do you have a comment?

No, that was my old one. Sorry.

Okay.

All right, our time is up. Any other comments, Steve? Steve, have you received any further comments?

Just checking with Pete.

No additional comments, Mayor.

All right, we're going to go ahead and close then the public comment portion of our public hearing and bring it back to the council. Any comments from the council? All right, I'd like to make a motion that the City Council of Orem, by way of resolution, Adopt the recommendations of the CDBG Advisory Commission and approve a resolution for a substantial amendment to the 2019-2020 Annual Action Plan. Is there a second?

Second.

Okay, let's go ahead and start. Debbie?

Aye.

Brent? Brent, are you there?

Brent? Aye.

Dave?

Aye.

Jeff?

Aye.

Terry?

Aye.

Tom?

Aye.

Okay, and as mayor, I vote aye as well. The resolution passes. We'll now move down to item 9.3. This is a public hearing ordinance. amending Article 22-5-3A and the zoning map of the City of Orem by changing the zone of approximately 4 acres from the MVD-RES-B zone to the R-8 zone, located generally at 1637 North to 1753 North along 400 West. And Jason Bench is our presenter. I'll Turn the time over to Jason.

Thank you, Mayor.

Can you see the full presentation or you just see my—

Yes, thank you.

So tonight we are requesting the city— is the applicant here requesting that the city rezone portions of the property back to— let me get to the next slide— back to the R-8 zone. You can see the areas outlined in See if I can highlight the stripes. Yeah, can you see my pointer going around, or is that the wrong—

Uh, yeah.

Sorry, I think I'm presenting on the wrong screen here. But anyway, so yeah, this— you can see my cursor there, I guess. The striped areas are the area that we are proposing going back to the R-8 zone. The applicants are in agreement of that. Here's the aerial photo. You can see along 400 West, 16th North is at the bottom of your screen.

So the applicants here, Jason, are online?

So the city's the applicant. We did receive letters, and I'm not sure if they're online or not. Because we're the applicant, we didn't send them the link to this, but we do have— each letter is in the packet indicating, except for the one home On the very south. All the property owners gave us letters in support of rezoning it back to the R-8 zone.

Okay.

So here's the current zone. You can see the North Village District Residential B. We're proposing it go back to the R-8. The advantage for the neighbors is that anything developed in the edge zone would have to be now equal to the height of any structure that's built in the edge zone. off of that residential property line. So that is the advantage of going back to the R-8 for the residents. So that's why they asked us to push this through, which we were glad to do at this point. So here's the looking south. 12th West is at the top of the screen there, and just along the 4th West area. Planning Commission did review this and made a recommendation that it does get rezoned back to the R-12. R-12, or excuse me, R-8. It is 4 acres roughly collecting collectively. And so we would request that the council, by ordinance, change the zone from the NVD Res B zone to the R-8 zone. Be glad to address any questions.

Any questions from the council?

My hand's up there.

Go ahead.

Jason, you had said something about the height, and I think virtually every member of the council has received a call or an email on this. Could you tell me, you said the advantage to the, to the residents are the height would be limited. I might have missed something. Could you explain that in a little more detail, please?

So the height, because it's next to a residential zone, R-8, whenever any— whenever, excuse me, a commercial zone is adjacent to a residential zone, any development any structure built on the commercial side has to be set back equal to whatever height they're proposing on the commercial side. So let's say they want to build a 60-foot-tall building on the commercial side. It has to be at least 60 feet off of that back property line when it's abutting or adjacent to a residential property. So if you can see my cursor there going up, that zone right there would have to be— let's say the example of the 60 feet would have to be at least 60 feet off before they could start any building on this property. So that's an added addition, in addition to the 75-foot buffer that the council adopted, you know, several councils ago, with a 35-foot limit that also limits then the additional setback that has to be equal to the height off of that edge. And so by rezoning this back to the R-8 gives them that assurance that it's at least going to be equal to that height off of that back property line.

Thank you.

If you'll allow a follow-on question, Mayor. If I'm building a structure that starts at 20 feet, then goes 40 feet, then goes 60 feet, for sake of argument, I— can I start building the 20-foot section 20 feet back and the 46-foot section 40 feet back, etc.? Or can I not start anything until I'm 60 feet back?

So there's 2 different scenarios going on here, 2 different requirements. If you recall, there's a 35-foot limit within 75 feet, so you can build 35-foot structure as long as it's 35 feet back. Or your example, this is McDonald. If, if you go back 20 feet, you can build a 20-foot-high structure 20 feet back, but you'd have to then extend it 75 feet in order to get over the 35-foot limit. So if you're wanting to go 20 and then 45, that 45 section would have to be at least 75 feet off the property line, because there's a height limit of 35 feet within that 75-foot limit.

Thank you for the clarification.

All right. Any other comments from the council?

Mayor, this is Terry. I've got concerns about this. As, as was mentioned, I don't think any of the people along that potential zoning to R-8 are in favor of the R-8 now. I think there's been a lot of confusion and concerns. And as I'm hearing from some of these citizens, as the rest of us are, why don't we table this for a little while until we get everybody comfortable with what's going on here? I mean, I— like with Tom's question, I'm still confused about, can you put— is there a restriction? Can you build a 80-foot high-density apartment in that space? I think you can. But I think there's a lot of feedback from neighbors. And the ones that wanted an R-8 are now going, hang on a second, let's just figure— let's get a better understanding of what's happening to our neighborhood. So for me, for one, I'd like to just see us slow down on this a little bit and, you know, make sure everybody's on board and everybody's comfortable with what's going on and we all understand.

So Jason, didn't you say you'd received letters from each one of the owners?

I've not received anything to the contrary of the letters that we received with the application, that they were in favor of the RA. So I have not heard any, any indication that anybody's opposed.

When was that application made?

It's been probably 8 weeks ago.

Because Jason, I'm hearing that there's everyone, everyone but one person there is opposed to the R-8 at the current time. So I'm just hearing enough confusion about this saying, let's, let's table this until we get to understand what's going on, is my opinion.

It doesn't matter to me. I'll just be quite honest, if they want to leave it to the Res B, it doesn't really matter to me. But the thing is that nobody has called the city and let us know that there's any issue with going to the R-8. The R-8 is actually a better zone To protect the residents at this point.

They are going to want the R-8 zone. I don't—

I haven't heard any confusion or any indication. Nobody's called me, nothing to indicate that there's an issue with them. They're going to R-8, so that's news to me, actually.

And that actually protects them.

Maybe to Mr. Peterson and others' concerns, or, you know, what I have heard What I have heard is that there is potentially some concern with property that is in the NVD zone, not the— not the rezone to R-8.

That may be true.

I think that matter was addressed previously and could be addressed in the future, but it doesn't relate specifically to the R-8.

So the conversation I had was the RA, Jamie. So I'm just saying, before we do something, you know, citizens need to speak up and let us know what their concerns are. I just hate to vote for something and find out that—

Who did you have a conversation with?

Terry?

Yes.

Who did you have a conversation with?

One of the representatives from the neighborhood was talking. I mean, I'm happy to say her name if she wants to give me permission to, but they called and just asked a concern about us voting for this. So I assumed other people had been talked to. If I'm the only one that's been— that's received a phone call.

I haven't received any comment at all from anybody.

Has anybody else received it?

I've received a call today.

I received a call, but not from any of the residents that are actually there. From the same woman, I'm sure, Terry, in the neighborhood.

Yeah, I think, Mayor, I think you need to go to the public comments, and I think you'll see there.

Okay.

All right. All right, well, there's no other comments from the council. Let us go ahead and go to that.

Mayor, Mayor, can I say something?

Yes, Brent, go ahead.

And correct me if I'm wrong, Ryan or Jamie, now if they— if we do table this and don't make those homes R-8, in between now and whenever, can the developer come in and say buy all those homes? And put up what he wants there with the current zoning?

No, it's— the R-8 is pending legislation right now. So as long as the council continues it a month or two, that's probably appropriate. The longer you— you can't just do it forever. So I mean, you do have some time to do that, but it's pending to go to the R-8 zone. So nobody could come in and develop to the R— or the Res B zone currently because it's pending. So until the council decides It is tentatively R-8.

Okay, and one, one more thing in the public comments. If— and I've talked to a few people, as most of us have— if they would just express what they want to see in this area, I'm a little confused on, on the direction they want the council or would like the council to go.

Thank you.

All right. So let's go to the public hearing portion, part of our meeting, public comment. And we'll go ahead and open it up for public comment. And we'll give it 90 seconds. And Steve, if you have any comments, go ahead and read them as we go through this.

Ready, Mayor. First comment from Katrina Blyle. I would ask that the City Council table the R-8 vote and open an application to review the district zoning and the 1600 North District. It is different than every other area in the city and needs to be looked at again to make sure that the building in that area would work. This area needs to be looked at again to best help neighborhoods and businesses in this area. Next comment, Catherine Christensen. The North Village District zones are located in the city's northern gateway. The North Village District zones are intended to be more residential in nature, with neighborhood retail and smaller-scale development compared to the other 4 state street districts. There's a lack of clarity on what is defined as neighborhood retail and smaller-scale development compared to the other 4 state street districts. This needs to be clearly defined before any permits to build be approved. Without defined clarity of these terms, businesses and buildings could be detrimental to keeping our area residential and smaller-scale development. Next, Joshua Lowe. As homeowners living on 400 West, we're in agreement with our neighbors and nearby residents and requested our City Council members ask city staff to open an application to review the North Village District zoning and to continue the discussion on the rezoning of our homes to R-8, so both items can be evaluated together to better assist in resolving the collateral issues related to our homes and the huge impact the current North Village zoning has on our residents. Windsor and Northridge neighborhoods. Next comment. As stated in the State Street Master Plan, the North Village District zones are intended to be more residential in nature with neighborhood retail and smaller scale development compared to the other 4 State Street districts. As a resident whose property line borders the North Village District, I encourage the council to take this opportunity to revisit the master plan, adjusting zoning to be consistent consistent with the stated purpose of the unique node. I support postponing the R-8 rezoning, which all residents are still in favor of, and request that the City Council ask the staff to immediately open an application to review general zoning in the district all at once. Take the time to get this right. Working together as residents and elected city officials will ensure that the zoning in the North Village District is aligned with its purpose, protects homes, and directs appropriate development for Orange City to continue to be a great place to live, work, and shop as the city grows. As a side note, I would greatly appreciate City Council meetings to be in person again. The virtual format is a huge disadvantage to the public, hindering effective public comments. Once a comment is submitted, there is no opportunity for clarification or additional insights as the meeting discussion progresses. Thank you for your continued support. Mayor, that is all the comments that have been submitted. Pete's checking to see if there's anybody currently in the queue. Mayor, that's all we have at this time.

Okay, well then our time is up for the public comment portion of the public hearing. We'll go ahead and close the public comment portion of the public hearing and bring it back to the council. Jason, a question I have for you has the Commercial owner of that commercial property made an application to the city for development of that?

They're in the process of making an application on the corner.

So they've submitted paperwork to you?

It's not quite complete, but they have started the process, yes.

Okay, so really what these people are talking about is trying to rezone The commercial zone there that we've already passed. And the applicant is in the process of, of doing his application. But what we're considering tonight is neither one of those. We're considering moving this property back to an R-8 residential zone, which moves it out of the State Street Master Plan North District zone. So, pardon me.

That's correct. Right.

So I think there's confusion on the part of those people thinking that if this does not pass tonight that they have the right to go back and re— or change the commercial zone that we passed before. But if there is an application being made, I don't believe that can occur. at this time until that's resolved. And this, what we're doing tonight, does not affect any of that, and it is putting this back into an R-8 zone and out of the State Street master zone, which I believe is what they want. So I'm a little concerned over Continuing it because this is taking it out of the State Street Master Plan. And we're just talking about this piece of property. We are not talking about rezoning the commercial zone or changing the zone that we've already put forward. That would be a separate or different discussion. Any comment from the council?

Mayor?

Yes.

I'm just wondering, and maybe Steve Earle or Jamie could answer this, what, what are the advantages or disadvantages for the neighbors if, if we table this or pass it? I mean, I, I thought that was the right direction. The, the the direction from the neighbors, but I'm—

I think you're getting confused. But Steve Earl, do you want to make any comments?

Yeah, sure.

Um, basically, you know, passing this doesn't affect anything that you might want to do in the future, you know, whether you want to relook at the NBD zone or leave it the way it is. It makes no difference if you go ahead and approve the rezone to the R-8 zone today. And it sounds like maybe there's some confusion on the part of the neighbors that somehow that, you know, legally affects their options or the City Council's options, and it does not.

That's what I thought. Okay. Any other comments from the council?

Okay.

Steve, to be, to be clear, the council do any— if we pass this, the council can do anything down the road or next week or whenever?

Well, I wouldn't say you can do anything, but you could do— what you can do will not be altered by rezoning the property to R-8. You'll still be able to do the same things that you otherwise could have done.

Okay.

So, Steve, I've got a question for Steve. Could we make a—

could we let the city know that we want to do an application to change the zoning in that area?

Well, again, you have a property owner who's made an application.

I was talking to Steve Earl.

Okay.

I'm sorry, what was the question?

So can we request the staff to do an application to change the zoning in that area?

State Street Master Plan North District, right?

You know, I think that you can, you can request— I think our general policy has been that if a majority of council members request staff to look into something or to take a certain action, then, you know, we typically follow through with that.

But Steve, if somebody has made an application or is in the process of doing that under the idea or the understanding that that is that he's following the proper zoning. You can't go in and, and pull the rug out from underneath him if he's made an application under the guidelines that the city sets.

Yeah, that's correct. I mean, if somebody submits an application to develop property under the current ordinance standards, then they are entitled to approval under the standards that exist as of, you know, the time they make the application. I mean, you can have— you can start the process to make amendments, but that won't affect somebody who already has their application in. It will only affect people who file applications after that process starts and technically after it goes to the Planning Commission.

Jason, have we received their application?

We have. They've got a couple of items they need to Continue to submit, but the majority of the application has been submitted and the fees have been paid.

So, Jason, the change to an R-8 versus an NVD-B, does that affect that corner?

It does not. No, it does not.

It doesn't matter?

You can see on the aerial right now, the area outlined in blue, That's the area that's affected by the R-8. You can see the corner and the other portions of that corner are not affected by the rezone.

Tom, did you have a comment?

Yes, thank you, Mayor. I think there is confusion on the, on the, on, on the neighborhood, perhaps, that not changing this to R-8 would somehow change the zoning within the north within the State Street District that we referenced. However, to Jason's earlier comment, he said if we postpone this, it just leaves it as though it's pending R-8 and no one can get in and buy up those homes. So while the neighbors may or may not be confused, postponing it to Terrier's earlier suggestion just kind of sits it at a bayance for another couple weeks. My fear is Every time we delay anything, it just kicks the can down the road. And, and are we any closer to a final decision? That being said, I got a call late last night. I'm sure others did either. I think Debbie said today and others yesterday. But I think there's a lack of clarity that changing this somehow will change the zoning on the adjoining property. And I think, Mayor, you hit the nail on the head that what they really want to do is change the zoning on the adjacent property.

Correct. Terry, do you have a comment?

Well, just, I think what we're— with the confusion that the residents have in that area, to me, I don't see anything that hurts us to, to do— to table this until everyone understands what this does and doesn't do. Steve was telling us, you know, what, what this— I just think it'd be good instead of us saying, okay, let's hurry and vote on it right now, let's, let's have this conversation so that everybody understands, no, if it's R8, it doesn't change this, or it does change this. Uh, and I'm more comfortable with that, making sure this is understood.

Terry, make a motion.

Well, hold on a second.

Hold on, I'm not ready for a motion just yet. Jason, what I would like to recommend is if we go ahead and continue this for 2 weeks until the 27th, that there be an opportunity for you to meet with the neighbors there, and certainly Dave and Terry and Tom and everybody else, with only 3 council members being there, could be in a meeting where the neighbors could understand, because clearly They're— somebody's told them that if they, if they make this change, they lose the opportunity to change the commercial zone. And they don't understand what's occurred with the commercial zone.

Yes, I agree. And I guess my, you know, misunderstanding or not understanding, but just not understanding why these residents haven't come to the city and asked us questions instead of going to the City Council and trying to confuse the issue. I mean, the source, and find out what the actual reasons are rather than trying to confuse us at the public hearing.

I mean, I'm happy to continue this, but what I would ask is, would you call them up and ask them to come into a meeting and have Dave and Terry and Tom there with you?

So we're talking the residents within this R-8 potential, 7 homes there.

Yes, 8, but the other gentleman—

the issue is there's others that are outside of it that are obviously wanting to be included. So I'll be glad to call the 7, but that's not going to solve the issue because there's other neighbors that are acting in behalf.

We're voting on the property of 7 that are there. I, you know, I don't care if they bring other people in, but I think those 7 should be invited, or 8. should be invited into a meeting with you so that it can be explained.

And to be quite honest, Mayor, we met with them about 2 months ago and sat down and went over these very issues.

I was in favor of the rezone. I was out in the hall with that meeting. I met with the gentleman directly across the street.

So, you know, I'm just not sure how many times we have to go through it.

Well, it seems like they keep calling up all the council members. And I would like them to fully understand what's going on.

So, Mayor, could I, could I add something to the discussion? That's okay. I think what the root cause of everything is, is, quite frankly, the neighbors don't want the district. And we've met with them and they were happy with the R-8 zone and we moved forward to apply for that.

And then we worked with coming back with the setback, and they were fine with that.

And then they wanted it deeper, and we worked with them, and that was approved.

So I don't think the root cause is these homes changing to RA. The root cause is, is the district going away.

So the—

I guess what it's really going on is, you know, 5 years of work on the districts and all the public input from thousands of Orem residents versus this situation. So in Jason's defense, if we meet with him again, I'm not sure what we're going to resolve unless we have direction from the council as to what we really should be doing.

Because it's pulling us away from other projects that we're working on.

And a lot of work going on right now.

I appreciate that. It's— we're probably talking in hours. worth the time, and I think it would be beneficial to them to understand what has occurred. And I'm happy to meet with them, I don't care, but I, I would recommend that we continue this for 2 weeks, and then at that point we vote on it and we spend 1 hour with them and let them know what's occurring, those homeowners that are there.

Well, Mayor, I would also add that we have a conversation with the applicant as well, because we have set a goal line and then we changed it, and then we set another goal line and we changed it, and now we're talking about changing it again. And so in, in fairness to all involved, there needs to be consideration of those who have made application and who are working to conform with existing ordinance.

Are you talking about the city or the commercial?

I'm talking about— I'm talking about, to Ryan's point, there is an applicant and he has in the last number of weeks and months been putting together an application consistent with the city's adopted ordinances.

So we're not talking about his application or What's occurred in that zone. We're strictly talking about the residential zone and explaining to the people who live there that there's nothing, you know, nothing is going to disappear.

And I, and I know that that's, that that's the tactic being used. I'm just speaking to the overall concern, which is, as Ryan has stated, the district itself And concerns that a group of residents have with the district.

Well, I don't, I don't believe there's enough of the council to vote this and pass this tonight. And I would say that there's enough of the council that would like to have—

And I agree, Mayor, but I, as related to the R-8 zone, There's—

I mean, I'm happy to meet with them by myself.

And we can— we can table the R-8 zone discussion. I'm not suggesting that that's not an appropriate action to follow, but it's not— that's the smoke. If there's an interest in addressing the fire, then let's have the conversation about the fire. Let's not keep on addressing the smoke.

Well, in, in my opinion, in having a discussion with them, the discussion, Jason or I or somebody could explain that in fact what this vote is on is changing this to a residential zone away from the State Street North District. And if they have concerns over the commercial part, then they have to look at that as to what that really is. And that's a zone that's already been passed that already has an application And I don't believe anything can be changed. But I'm happy to give them 2 weeks to understand and devote 1 hour of Jason's time, my time, I don't care who, and explain what that is. And then that's it. I mean, they can't come in and change the zone. That time has passed.

So, Mayor, I've got a question.

I'll go ahead, Dave, and then could I say something after?

You know, you know, can we as a council say, you know, even if this building goes through, can we go back and reevaluate and make sure that this zone, this little small wedge, is right for that area, and we move forward and maybe change that zone to whatever?

But—

Oh, you can't change a zone when somebody's building in there.

If he's building something, we can change it that it doesn't happen around him.

Yes, correct.

Well, to that extent, uh, there are other property owners that are on State Street that are planning on rebuilding.

And that's fine if it's Court State Street. That's the whole problem with this whole mess.

It's not on State Street.

What I'm saying is there are other people within the zone that have— and the zone has been—

And they can be on State Street all they want and build it.

That's what it's Building on it, so I don't see anybody else who's trying to build right next to the buffer zone. And so this is all kind of a moot question, but—

That's why they want to, they want to look at it and say exactly, we understand, because I'm still confused about the 75 feet. I thought that pushed it closer to State Street, but it didn't. It just, it lowered the height of the building moving forward to State Street.

So that was That's not what I wanted. I wanted the buildings moved towards State Street, which is what the actual State Street Master Plan is supposed to do. And if we had to— And I think the ordinance that you passed, the amendment that you passed, did in fact push the, push the height of the building towards State Street.

But not, not on State Street.

That's the problem.

Well, I guess the question is, How far off of State Street is sufficient? Is it 100 feet?

Your neighborhood, that's my problem.

But I know, but what I'm saying is that the— what has been pushed to State Street is there is limited— if there is limited acreage available to develop, given the current requirements.

Understood.

I mean, the AT&T building could have been bought. And it could have been solved.

So the AT&T building wants too much money, and they're unwilling to—

Relative.

It's all relative. If you want to build it on State Street, then it's, it's not, it's not too expensive.

So, but I guess you make a motion to continue this.

Mayor, could I say something?

Yes, Jeff, go ahead.

Thank you. So Jason and Ryan and staff, thank you for For all of your work on this, and, and it is quite confusing. But as we were looking at University Parkway tonight, you know, if you look at University Parkway, and if there was, if there was a property that, if there was going to be some building and it was going to be some tall housing, I believe that that building would be pushed towards University Parkway, not towards 1200 South. And in this little stretch of land, this narrow neck of land, it feels like that's being pushed closer to the neighborhood, not closer to State Street. And so I feel like, you know, the closer we can get it to State Street, the better, just like we try to push everything towards University Parkway. Parkway and away from the neighborhood. And so I'm, I'm all in favor of taking another 2 weeks. And I would be happy to attend a meeting or not. I completely trust—

You can only have 3 there, so—

I know, and I'm saying I'd be happy to be one, or I would be happy to not be one, trusting that we, that we get the good information to the neighborhood and to the City Council. Thank you, staff, for your patience. But I really feel like we need to get this right, especially in that, that little piece of property there. And so I would be in favor of tabling it. And, and, you know, like I said, be happy to attend another meeting or not. But let's get, let's get everyone on the same page understanding what we're talking about, because there does feel like a lot of confusion. And, and then let's, let's move forward.

All right, any other comments? So I would like to make a motion to continue item 9.3, an ordinance amending 22-5-3A in the zoning map of the City of Orem by changing the zone of approximately 4.00 acres from the NVD Res B zone to the R-8 zone, located generally at 1637 to 1753 North along 400 West, to our City Council meeting of April 27th at 6 PM. Is there a second?

I'll second it.

Okay, let's go ahead.

What are we deciding in 2 weeks?

Well, what we're going to do is, if we can convince Jason to go for one more round, to spend an hour with these people, and I don't want to spend much more, and allow 3 council members to explain that this area is being put back into a residential zone, and this does not affect the commercial zone in the north District of the State Street Master Plan, that is a separate item, and they need to understand that somebody has already made an application under the zoning requirements of that item, and they can't go back and rezone that.

Okay, thank you.

Need to understand that.

So we'll be glad to meet with them there.

All right.

And I'm sorry, Jason. Let's go ahead and take a vote.

Tom.

Aye.

Terry?

Aye.

Jeff?

Aye.

Dave?

Aye.

Brent?

Aye.

Debbie?

Aye.

And Mayor, I vote aye as well. That item is continued for 2 weeks. Let's go ahead and move on to the next item. This is 9.4, which is a public hearing ordinance amending Appendix A of the Orem City Code. By enacting Standard Land Use Code 0303, Shave Ice Shack, and amending Article 22-5-3A and the zoning map of the City of Orem by changing the zone of approximately 0.84 acres from the R-12 zone to the C-1 zone at approximately 1323 East 800 North. And Jason, you are our presenter.

Thank you, Mayor. So the applicant request, you can see the area outlined in the red, is currently a miniature golf course that was part-built back when Cascade Golf Course was in full swing, no pun intended on that. You can see the, the old clubhouse to the west. The applicants before you tonight are the applicant Is here tonight to change the— or change the zone, if I can get my thing to flip— to the C-1 zone. You can see the zoning map on the right. Currently, part of the property is zoned C-1. The other part on the corner is actually R-12, which golf courses at the time were permitted in the residential zone. So currently, the golf course itself, or the miniature golf course, is a legal nonconforming use, which means it can stay and operate as long as it wants to. But once it redevelops, it needs to— wouldn't be able to be allowed in an R-12. And so the applicants are proposing to rezone it to a C-1 zone for purposes of future redevelopment, if that comes to play, or— and I guess not or— to allow for commercial uses on that property. The C-1 zone does not allow typical commercial uses like restaurants, things like that. And so the applicant is also requesting that we create a specific land use code for shave ice shacks. I don't know if you've visited this establishment, but when you rent your clubs, they also want to be able to— where you return your clubs, they also want to be able to sell you some shave ice while it's there. Because it wasn't included included in the original mini golf course, we didn't or won't allow them to do— add to the uses that are currently there. And so in order to do that, they've requested that we change the zone, add a land use code that would be allowed in the C-1 zone and other commercial zones, specifically for a shave ice shack. So you can see that there's a dental office and things to the east that also could in the future have a shave ice shack, but no other retail development in a C-1 zone. Retail is typically limited to a C-2, C-3, or other heavy intense retail uses. The C-1 is designed more for office, or, you know, professional office, medical offices, things like that. And so the purpose of this going forward would be in the future redevelop to more of an office-type development with the addition of the shave ice Shack, summer to when we— at Christmas time, we have a specific land use code for Christmas trees, things like that. So it's, it's in line with those. So there's 2 things in play tonight. One is rezoning the property to the C-1, and the other one is to create an SLU code 0303 that would specifically be designed for the shave ice to go on that corner. Currently, you can see the zoning map is R-12. It is adjacent to the C-1 zone, both on the south and East, along 800 East. What they're proposing, of course, is to rezone it and then create the land use or SLU code that would allow shave ice shacks in all commercial zones that are currently under the restaurant land use code. The addition to adding a C-1 as a permitted use for this use, and this is showing 5 different locations. You can see the map there. On Center Street. Behind the Smiths, there's a small C-1 zone. 8th North, of course, in the upper right-hand corner, which is the property we're talking about tonight. There is some on Center Street as you head towards I-15. There's a few office buildings along that. There's one across from Tippenogos Hospital on the corner of the historic home. There is a C-1 zone. And then around University Place. South of University Avenue or University Parkway, and then north of Kohl's, there's a C-1 zone there. So there are a few zones around the city that are C-1. Typically they're next to residential zones that are either adjacent to a heavier commercial zone, so they're, they're designed purposely to have some buffer between heavier commercial and a residential zone. So you can see there, most of them are sort surrounded, or majority are adjacent to residential zones designed for a low impact next to residential. So the city does not have any issue with the C-1 zone as far as on this location, nor do we have an issue with the shave ice shack. But just keep in mind that it would be allowed anywhere a C-1 zone is currently in place.

Jason, Tom's got a question for you.

Hi, Jason. Shave ice seems to be a very narrow group of refreshments that can be served. Can they put ice cream in the bottom of the shave ice? Can they sell a Coke or a soft drink?

What—

or can they only sell crushed ice with flavor? How limiting are we making this?

It is going to be pretty limited. But I'm sure if, you know, like a typical shave ice shack from Hawaii allows, you know, ice cream in the bottom, and then they put the shave ice on top, or if they have, you know, a a Coke can or something for sale as well. I'm sure that's accessory to that. We would not allow a convenience store or things like that. It would have to be specific to a temporary use. Shave ice stands in this 0303 would be a typical temporary shack. So they're there for 6 months during the summer months. They would be removed during the winter. And so it's more of a temporary type facility.

Okay, so no hot food, but ice cream, soft drinks, maybe a can you bar and shave ice, those type of things, right?

Right, it'd be, it'd be a limited scope, but yeah, I'm sure they could have small accessories to the shave ice.

Jason, Jeff's got a question for you.

Yeah.

Jeff?

All right, Debbie's got a question for you.

Sorry, I was muted. To the west of that, and thank you for your pun, That clubhouse is a really nice building. Currently, I believe they rent skis and some other things from there. Any plans in the future to turn that into a restaurant and/or any other use that that zoning would need to be changed as well, or would we just look at that at that time?

Yeah, this isn't establishing that at this point. Any future use other than what's currently there as a legal nonconforming use would require a zone change. Any restaurant or, you know, those types of things would have to be something other than a C-1 zone, like a C-2. But a C-2 allows, you know, gas stations and other things. And so that would be, I guess, the question in the future if that does come in. If they wanted to go to C-1, it would be limited more to the office-type uses and not retail, restaurants, things like that.

Okay, thank you.

Debbie, did you have a comment? Debbie? Debbie, any comments? All right, Jason, we'll go back to you.

Okay, so just the Planning Commission did— well, let me just show you the picture of the existing. You guys have all, I'm sure, familiar with the location. The Planning Commission did make a recommendation to approve both the SLU code and the rezone. It is consistent with the general plan and is, I think, reasonable request. So glad to address any other questions.

Mayor, I had another— sorry, raising my hand again. Is the applicant with you, Jason?

He's—

I don't know if he's on. He should be. I sent him the link, but I don't know if he's on. He's not in my office.

Okay, well, I'll let you relay this question. As you know, I live within a half mile of this place and would be happy if they sell great snow cones to go down and get one, but I haven't been happy with the landscaping to the west. They often let weeds grow along that little patch as you walk to Palisades Park. It's a pretty entrance to that park, and I would like to remind them of keeping their landscaping in In better shape.

You're talking about the old clubhouse?

Well, the clubhouse is terrible to the, to the west of them, but just along their sidewalk between them, just before the street, they just don't keep it up. They let weeds 6 feet high grow there, and I'm not happy with it.

I will relay that to them. Absolutely.

Okay, Debbie, you have a question?

Yeah, sorry, I couldn't unmute. Does this apply to, like, a Kona Ice food truck?

Could they locate their Truck, because you keep saying the word shack. Does the shack include a food truck?

So food trucks would be allowed anywhere on a public street, so they could pull up on the street on 850 or any of those types of public streets. They could do that, yes.

Or they could—

yeah, but not— they wouldn't be able to park a food truck necessarily in the parking lot because there's really not a lot of space in that parking lot, but they could pull up along the street.

Okay, thanks.

All right, any other comments? All right, this is a public hearing, so we will open it up to the public for any public comment, and we'll start now for 90 seconds. All right, Steve, have you received any comments?

No comments, Mayor.

Okay, then we will go ahead and close the public comment portion of this public hearing, bring it back to the council. Any additional comments from the council? Okay, then I would like to make a motion that the City Council amend Appendix A of the Orem City Code by enacting Standard Land Use Code 0303, Shave Ice Shack, and amending Article 22-5-3A in the zoning map of the City of Orem by changing the zone of approximately 0.84 acres from the R-12 zone to the C-1 zone at approximately 1323 East, 800 North. Is there a second?

Second.

All right, Debbie, we'll start with you.

Aye.

Brent?

Aye.

Dave?

Aye.

Jeff?

Aye.

Terry?

Aye.

Tom?

Aye.

Okay, and I vote aye as well as mayor. So the ordinance passes. We'll now move down to ordinance number 9.5. This is amending Section 22-11-35L2E of the Orem City Code pertaining to roofing materials on buildings in the PD-22 zone, and our presenter is Jason Bench.

Thank you, Mayor. The applicant tonight is simply wanting to change a specific line, I guess, in the ordinance that allows for asphalt shingles on 4-story buildings with a 4:12 pitch in the PD-22 zone. If any of you've been out there recently, this is one of the last properties that's remaining on the project to be developed. This came before you— the project itself, which I'll show you some elevations here in a minute— came before you with a modification to change some of the allocations about a couple months ago. Bruce Dickerson is the applicant. I believe he's on the line and he can address questions as we move forward. As you can see in the red, basically notwithstanding the above, 3-tab architectural-style asphalt shingles may be allowed on 4-story buildings, minimum 4-story roof, With a 4:12 pitch. The applicant is required by ordinance to have clay tile or tile. That's— that was the original design of the PD-22 zone. And they're coming in and wanting to change that. You can see these are the existing buildings that they built several years ago. It's very hard to see what the material is on the roof. They're proposing that they change— this is their proposed elevations that would be on that vacant property. To change that roof, which normally would require the clay tile or some type of clay roofing material to be changed to allow this building to have asphalt shingles.

So it would match the previous buildings?

It would match the previous building. For whatever reason, the planner that was in charge of this project allowed asphalt shingles to, to go on this roof. If you look at other roofs throughout the development, they all have the clay tile. We obviously made a mistake and didn't want to repeat that mistake, and so he's going through the process to make the change so that it would be a legal use rather than perpetuating a mistake that we did in the past. So that's why he's before you tonight. He's requesting that— staff supports the change, and the Planning Commission did make a recommendation that the council change that and allow him to have— or allow the developer to have the asphalt shingles on. It is limited to things over 4 stories and a 4:12 pitch. So any questions that I can address?

All right, well, this is not a public hearing. This is strictly an ordinance.

It would be a public hearing, Mayor.

Okay, it's not listed as such, but we'll go ahead and make it a public hearing then. Any comments from the council? All right, let's go ahead and open it up for public comment, and we'll give it 90 seconds. All right, let's go ahead and close the public comment portion of the public hearing. Steve, have you received any public No comments, Mayor. Okay, so we will close the public comment portion of our public hearing. Any comments from the council?

Just a quick question, Mayor, for Jason. Jason, does this take into consideration the previous building? You mentioned that there was a little bit of a slip there. Does that take into consideration, or is it— is that all just kind of grandfathered in?

It would be grandfathered. If this ordinance is changed, that then would become illegal. So it actually would help that as well, and not necessarily be nonconforming on the roof, but it would actually be a permitted material.

Thank you.

All right, any other comments? All right, I'd like to make a motion that the City Council of Orem, by ordinance, amend Sections 22-11-35 L2E of the Orem City Code pertaining to roofing materials on buildings in the PD-22 zone. Is there a second?

Second.

Okay, Tom, we'll start with you.

Aye.

Terry?

Aye.

Jeff?

Aye.

Dave?

Aye.

Brent?

Aye.

Debbie?

Aye.

Mayor, I vote aye as well. The ordinance Passes. Thank you, Jason.

Appreciate it.

Thank you, Bruce. Now we'll move on. Jamie, do you have any items to bring before the council?

No, I shared my items in the work meeting.

Thank you, Mayor.

Okay, so I move then that we adjourn our meeting. Is there a second?

Second.

Okay, everyone in favor say aye.

Aye.

Meeting is adjourned.