City Council · 2021-04-27

low-cost, short-term gap financing that will just help them get through the rough spots and help create jobs to promote greater economic security in the city. And at some point, we're not sure when, funds from the Housing and Urban Development Community Development Block Program created also another portion of this revolving loan fund. And these 2 funds, the EDA portion of the fund and the CDBG, or Community Development Block Grant portion. They're maintained separately, but they fall under the same guidelines for our Revolving Loan Fund program. Just to give you an idea, over the past 35 years, these programs have administered 87 loans to a tune of $5 million. The last EDA loan was administered in 2016, and the last CDBG loan was administered in 2018. So you might wonder, why hasn't there been, you know, very much movement in our loan program in the last few years? And this really is because when the economy is good, our businesses can go to traditional lending sources for loans with a good interest rate. And also, generally, the EDA has noted that there's been a downturn in just loans across the nation in their EDA program. And then finally, we've noticed that after— and I'm sure you have too— after the COVID pandemic, now that we're kind of in recovery phase, there really is a lot of federal, state, county, and local grant funding and low-interest loans available to businesses. So a lot of our businesses, they're turning to these lower-cost or grant opportunities first before turning to our revolving loan fund. So in January of 2020, the federal government enacted what's called the Reinvigorating Lending for the Future Act, and essentially what this act does, it removes all the red tape from our EDA revolving loan fund programs nationwide. And so it gives the control back to us, the loan operators, and allows these funds to be used for broader economic development purposes to support business development. development and growth. So they don't just have to be used for small business loans. And the City of Orem Economic Development Administration Revolving Loan Fund Program, we qualify for this defederalization. And the EDA does require that our funds be used and invested in purposes that are covered under the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965. So they have a list and a guideline of what these funds can be used for. Now, the current value of our Economic Development Administration loan fund is $235,000, and this represents the EDA's 60% portion of the fund. And of that $235,000, we have $129,000 available because the rest of the fund is tied up right now or invested in current revolving loan fund loans. And right now we have 5 EDA loans and we have 2 CDBG loans, to give you an idea. Now, since these defederalized funds need to be used for approved economic development purposes, we're proposing that we use these funds to hire a consultant to conduct a complete comprehensive update of our 2014 economic development strategic plan that you see here. And it's just recommended that every 5 to 10 years that a strategic plan is updated, so it provides more of a current framework for determining strengths and weaknesses within a city and to help just the economic development purposes in general.

Kathy, your presentation is not showing on the screens.

Oh, it isn't? Was it before?

It is not.

Okay, here we go. Thank you, Ryan. Okay, do you see it now?

Yes.

Okay, let me back up and, um, let's see.

I don't know how—

there, I'll back up. Okay, so that's when I was talking about the defederalization requests. These are the different loan programs we have. The EDA, the CDBG, and that comprises one fund. They're run from the same manual. And then we have also what's called a new revolving loan fund. It's called the CARES Act, and it is from the recovery relief funding through the federal government. And that will be our program that goes forward perpetually.

then.

I talked about the Reinvigorating Lending for the Future Act, and that brings us to our current slide, the Economic Development Strategic Plan update that we're requesting. And in addition to funding for this program, we're requesting that some of the funding, if there is funding left over from updating our strategic plan, that this funding could be used for economic development recruitment purposes to perhaps hire a development consultant to help us put together a plan for business recruitment. Now, like I said, the perpetual funds going forward will be our CDBG revolving loan fund and then our new Coronavirus Aid, Recovery, and Economic Security Act, or CARES Act revolving loan fund. And so we will still continue to have a revolving loan fund. My recommendation is that the mayor and council approve a resolution for the defederalization of these economic Economic Development Administration revolving loan fund funds in our program. And it's my belief that the defederalization of these funds will allow the Economic Development Division to use these funds for master planning, for the update of our strategic plan, and for the business recruitment efforts going forward. Are there any questions?

So this is something that would come before us at a later date.

This is currently— can you repeat your question?

This is something that would come before the council for a vote at a later date.

I don't know that it needs a— well, it needs a resolution. So if Everyone agrees, then the resolution would come for signing.

Resolution would have to be put on the agenda.

Yes, on May 11th. Yes, if the, if the council approves.

I'm fine with it being put on the agenda, so Mayor, I have a question. Sure.

I'm all for updating our economic development plan. Tell me when it was last done. What year?

2014 is when it was implemented. It was approved. So I assume—

I also assume you'll be doing a new sales tax leakage report as part of that to see where we're capturing.

Yes, and that was updated in 2018. So we did have a partial update of our sales tax leakage and our sales tax information then. Okay, well, I'm definitely for it.

As a former economic development director, it's such a great tool to see where your strengths and your weaknesses and to see where your leakage is. So it's, it's a powerful tool and it seems like a wise use of funds.

Thank you.

Any other comments from the council? Okay, suggest you move ahead. Kathy.

Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity to present.

Thank you, Mayor.

Forgive me, I didn't unmute quick enough. When was our last study done, Kathy?

You—

I didn't— if you said that, I missed it. I apologize.

Oh, that's fine. It was done in 2014. It was adopted in December of 2014.

So it's been 7 plus— almost 7 years, 6 and a half, 7 years. And that's why you're recommending another study. And, and frankly, years and years ago, I was on the EDA committee or whatever that committee was. And, and it hasn't really been active the last 6 or 7 years. So you're asking for— if I hear your request, Kathy, you're asking for a restart. Let's review what we have and then go from there. Is that a decent summary from what I heard from what you said?

Yes. And we also need new sections included that are more pertinent to what's happening in the Orem economy now. So a comprehensive update all across, using what we have as a good basis and then adding new portions and new sections in.

Thank you for that clarification. Thanks, Mayor.

You bet. All right, thank you, Kathy. Let's go ahead and move on.

Thank you.

We'll go down to an update of landlord agreements. Steve Downs, are you the presenter or who is the presenter? I'm not aware of who the presenter is.

It is me, Mayor Steve Downs. This, this is just a kind of a quick update. I've had, I think, all of you at this point or another over the last few months asked kind of where we're at with this landlord licensing. And so I wanted to give you just an update. This is a program adopted in December of '19 by the City Council. It was effective July 2020. The impetus of this came from specific feedback in our neighborhood plans with neighbors that were asking for greater accountability for landlords.

Are you going to show us on the screen?

Yeah.

Okay.

Are you able to see my screen?

We are not.

Anybody else? It says I'm—

I can see it.

I can see it.

Okay.

Um, the, the licensing program revenue from the beginning was intended to fund additional support for our code enforcement efforts. So far, that's included moving an employee from part-time to full-time to help work with the landlord and tenants in our code enforcement, 311 employee for the licensing registration and working with landlords there, software for short-term rental tracking, necessary technology improvements to make our processes of working with landlords better, and additional funding to help with our transition from a sworn to a civilian code enforcement team. That was what we set out to do. We're at about 94% compliance right now, which honestly we're pretty happy with. We're working through these last couple hundred that we know of that still need to be paid, and obviously there's still some that we don't know of, and we're working to address that as well.

But this is what we're looking at as it relates to our compliance on the rental dwelling license requirement.

How much resistance are you getting, Steve?

You know, we did, we did get some, and my next slide suggests one major change, and that was probably the biggest point of resistance. And I know most of you on the council have heard about how we treat LLCs, so we have that addressed on the next slide. But, um, while we do have some concern, we've had many people understand that this is how most college towns operate, and most, most towns that have a high percentage of rentals operate this way. So We haven't since the beginning heard as much, you know, frustration as we did, but it was something new and there was a fee attached.

So good question.

So here's some of the feedback that we've heard, and all, all of these things right here multiple have talked to me about, so I wanted to make sure we addressed. Um, one is, you know, whether a license should be required if they're renting property to children. You know, essentially, we understand nobody wants to, you know, pay this fee. What we've said in those instances is whether it's a child or not a child, it still is a rental unit and it's being used as a rental unit. And it'd be administratively difficult to track who's in there at any given time. And you know how situations would be handled with if there was one child that was there, but then they had roommates and So we're, we're recommending that we continue— if it's being used as a rental property, whether it's children or non-children, then we would continue to charge the $50 rental license fee. The properties that are each owned by a separate LLC— this one, I think all of you have expressed this one to me, and we've been working through, you know, some alternatives here. This one, we're proposing a solution to this one. If If each LLC is owned by the same person, we believe we can limit the number of licenses to one. However, we would propose a one-time cost to review because we'd have to go through LLCs to ensure that it in fact is the same person. And so we would, uh, a one-time cost of $20 per LLC, and that would be one time, it would not be ongoing. So if somebody had 10 LLCs, they would pay rather than what they're currently paying, which would be $500 annually, They'd pay a $50 license, $200 one-time cost for us to review their LLCs, and we would ensure that all of those properties have the same contact information in our system of name, phone number, and email address. And then we could charge one fee going forward on the properties that are truly owned by the same person, but each under a different LLC. The other one is handling of unrented basement apartments. We have people that will say, I'm not, I'm not renting it this year, or I'm not planning to rent it for the next couple years. We're recommending to continue the license in those situations. The difficulty of knowing when it's rented or when it's, when it's empty is difficult. They do have the ability to remove it as a legal accessory apartment, so they don't have to pay the ongoing fee. This is just for somebody who who does want to rent it, just doesn't want to rent it right now. And so again, we're proposing that we would continue to charge the $50 fee in that instance. So though that, that's kind of where we're at with the program and the feedback. Is there any, any questions or additional, yeah, additional questions from the council?

I've got a question, please. So, uh, going back to the, the first one about the children and, um, charging that fee, I still disagree with that. Um, if I own the home and I'm not charging rent to my kid, I don't think I should have to pay the $50. It's the same thing what you do with the LLC. If they have 10 properties and you're going to limit it down to one license, I, I just think that the families that, you know, if you want people to stay in Orem and, and I have a property, I'm not renting it to my kids, it's free. I'm not paying— I mean, they're not paying me anything. I think it should be free. They shouldn't pay that.

I understand that, David.

We—

I know we've had some conversations with some citizens about that.

I—

what, what we've said is a decision to charge rent or not charge rent isn't what makes it a rental or not a rental. That's, that's just a decision on whether to charge rent. The impacts are all still the same, and so that's why we've recommended to continue the fee.

I, and I disagree. So that's my opinion.

Understandable. Steve, I was just contacted just, just yesterday about the LLC situation. And I just want to say thank you for, for working through that. That seems like a common sense approach.

And, and I think that'll be a great resolution moving forward. So thank you for that.

Thanks, Jeff. Brent, I see you have a hand raised.

Oh, you're muted still, Brent.

Sorry.

Sorry.

I was just wondering, this has been in the year almost, or in effect almost a year, and I support the program. Have you seen any benefits by this program at this time, like quicker reaction time for an emergency or any benefits? I know you've got— I know you've got the log of rentals, but I'm just trying to see if it has benefited us.

I—

the answer is yes, and continue— it'll continue to benefit us more as we move forward. So in the short term, and I should have had Sergeant Alborn on this, where the benefit's been is— and do you remember there— now there was 2 changes that happened at the same time. One, the utilities going in the name of the owner. That, that change, and these happen as a partnership, has been a big benefit as we've, we've now had phone numbers to call property owners when there's issues, where historically we had an address to send mail to. And so that, that has been a benefit moving forward as we implement, and it was pointed out here, additional technology. What it'll allow us to do is digitalize our entire effort. So as opposed to knocking on doors, sending mail, and leaving door hangers, we'll be able to document photos, issue warning letters, and automatically email and/or text the property owner the warning letter or the notice of violation, depending on where they're at on the spectrum of code enforcement. So yes, in the short term it has, as we implement this additional technology in a really, really big way. We were meeting with a company today as we look for software. They supply code enforcement software for hundreds of agencies across the country. Just a warning letter that gets to the person who can make the change, in this case the property owner, 75% of those will come into compliance without any additional—

anything additional from the city.

So now the name of the game is, if we can get 75%, how do we get it to more people? And that's going to be electronically. So yeah, we think this is going to have a huge impact moving forward that we weren't able to do because of how the system was set up.

Okay, and one more question. With the loosening of the requirements or ordinances or laws of the state put in last in the legislature for accessory apartments, how are you going to track those or Do they need to register? What's your, what's your strategy on those?

Yeah, so Jason Bench can probably speak best to this, as it's kind of a change that's been speaking a lot of kind of the planning associations. I did attend a class about this in the League of Cities and Towns. This is, this is a law that's effective October 1st, and so we're working towards that, but there will still be the ability to license these Reynolds, that wasn't talked about in the bill. We can still, we can still charge a license. It's just a lot of building codes have changed as it relates to what, what needs to be done to make a legal accessory dwelling unit. Jason, anything you'd add to that?

We are in the process of making those changes. The 2 main things as far as zoning would be the, the size of the accessory apartment and the number of bedrooms that they can have. Those 2 things will not be regulated by the city going forward. There are a lot of building code changes as far as fire codes, air separation, things like that are not going to be required, and those will be coming to the council in the next couple months. But Stephen is right that we still can regulate licensing and things for accessory apartments.

How about, how about an outside entrance? Does that stand?

That stands. It still is required. We can still regulate that, and typically our requirement right now is to have it on either the sides or the rear. And that'll still be a requirement.

And we can also still require an off-site, off-street parking stall.

Yes.

Yeah, yeah, very important.

Thank you very much.

Nope, no problem.

Thanks, Brent.

Terry, do you have a question?

Just, just a comment, Stephen. I've heard a lot more— I've heard a few people complain about paying the fee, but I've heard a lot more concerns about neighborhoods where there's accessory apartments that are appear unregulated, you know, where there's cars parked everywhere. And so if this helps the city get a handle on people that are violating current ordinances that we have, I think majority of people in Orem would say thank you, Orem City, for trying to help clean up our neighborhood and make people follow the rules.

Thanks, Terry. And that's definitely our intent, is just to— I mean, this, this is all about your area of focus of safe and livable neighborhoods. That's what we're really, really trying to target with this program. And as we've always talked about from the beginning, this— the neighborhoods— strengthening a neighborhood is a 3-legged stool. It's the city, it's the resident, and it's the property owner. And in some cases, that's the same person. But if all 3 aren't at the table in the discussion, it becomes very hard to move the needle. And so this program brings the property owner, if it's a rental unit, to the table, as we now have their information to work through and with as we have issues come up. So that's where we're trying to go with it, Terry.

Thank you.

All right, any other information, Steve?

That's all I have, Mayor.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Let's go ahead and move on now to a discussion of water sewer storm drain master plan update. And our presenters are Chris Shirkey, Neil Winterton, Reed Price, and Keith Larson.

Thank you, Mayor. We are running about 10 minutes a little bit late, so we're going to compress our presentation to about 35 minutes or so. Our plan is to present for about 20 minutes on these 3 plans. And I just wanted to give a little bit of history to start with. Back in 2014, we signed a contract with Owen Collins and Associates to develop our initial master plans that were adopted in 2016 for our stormwater, water, and our sewer master plans. Over the course of the last 5 years, we've accomplished many important projects, and as you know, significant amount of the projects were to be funded by pay-as-you-go. There's been a shift in our recommendation and philosophy to accelerate in some cases. Well, even today we had our bond closing meeting this morning on April 27th, so we do now have an additional $30 million to spend over the course of the next 3 years. We have very good plans that have been developed and are in place. We would like to answer the questions as you might— they may come up and arise during the meeting, but we will try to hold about 10 minutes at the end of the presentation to be able to answer the majority of your questions. We'll be bringing this back to you on May 11th to our City Council regularly scheduled meeting at 6 o'clock for adoption. So this is our, our first presentation for you to be able to see this, and then we'll be asking for your support and endorsement and then adoption of this master plan, each of these master plans, in 2 weeks. So please feel free to answer any questions along the way. We do also have these 3 draft master plans available online on our orem.org/utilities website. So with that, I'll turn the time over to Keith Larson, who will be running the presentation. Keith, you're free to share at this time.

Okay, so I don't have permission to share, looks like. Is Steve gonna— somebody help me out with that?

Yeah, I can— I don't either. Steven, can you provide that? Yeah, you can hear me.

Sorry, Keith.

Here we go.

Is that working?

Yes.

Sorry about that again.

Thank you.

Okay, perfect. So, uh, for most of you, you've had an opportunity to see a little bit of this, and so we're going to keep this fairly high level, but please stop me and we'll drill down into some details as you'd like to. So just a quick review of where we've been. This is our 3rd presentation to the council in this go-round. The first presentation we talked about the 2016 utility master plans, and that was a period of some big changes. We identified a number of improvements, and you can see the dollars there, some, some big funding dollars that needed to happen into the system. We looked at funding alternatives, and we came up with a plan. In most cases, there was this 7-year plan that was going to transition us from that blue line at the bottom of our historic funding up to a more sustainable level of this black line towards the top here. And, and then over the last 5 years, we've kind of executed that plan and increased our funding levels, started to build some projects and position ourselves for others. As part of the 2016 plan, we had this goal or recommendation that we would look at this every 5 years, and it's hard to believe, but 5 years have passed. And so here we are again updating the plan. So the second presentation we gave, I believe in November, was to just identify some of the major changes. And these are a few here. The moving vineyard in the future, those water demands, moving those off the city and onto central Utah is a major change since 2016. We've increased some densities specifically along the State Street corridor in accordance with the the city general plan. You've made some progress on your metering and conservation efforts that are beginning to show fruits there and changing the way that we view how water is being used in the city. Canal abandonment is, is a big issue on the storm drain side. We'll talk a little more about that here in a minute. And then funding considerations. When we did this in 2016, there was a decision that made at the time to do this as a pay-as-you-go. Since that time, economic conditions have changed such that bonding and reprioritization of projects has been prudent. And you're aware of that. So in this presentation, we'll just touch briefly on demographics and then hit each of the utilities along the way.

So demographics.

I believe we looked at this previously, but just to review for everybody, the areas outlined in black are the areas of expected significant additional growth. And then there's some infill in the other areas. But what you can see over here is the population in the city is expected to grow from around 100,000 today up to about 140,000 at build-out. So there is a significant amount of additional population and specifically over on that west side to support in our utilities. Any questions or comments from Reed, Neil, Chris?

This—

so I just wanted to mention this data has been obtained from the Utah Governor's Office of Management and Budget?

Yes, in association with the Orem Planning Department, we've worked together to identify these areas. Thank you. Okay, so trying to meet this growth, let's look at our water. We could spend a long time on this figure, but I'm going to point out just a few things. The area—

colored areas in the back Represent Orem city supplies, and they are based on sustainable supply during a dry year. And you can see well sources, springs, storage up in, in the Provo River system and Provo River natural flow. All those are being combined to support Orem residents. These dashed lines represent historic demands, and then the blue line represents projected demands without any additional conservation, basically projected demands at current levels. The kind of brownish line there represents projected demands with conservation in accordance with the state's regional conservation goal. And then up top is a dashed line, which is what the state of Utah requires from source capacity. Essentially, what they're doing there is they're taking projected demands and then putting a buffer or safety factor based on past variation in demand and some other factors there. So a couple things to pull out from this figure. First, you're in pretty good shape right off the bat from an annual perspective. Need for water, even with the conservative state standard is not expected to happen until 2035. The other thing to note is that if you reach your conservation goal, your supplies may be adequate today without adding any additional supply. So overall, the recommendation is let's keep an eye on this for the next 5 years. When we update this again in 5, 6 years, we can look at it see where our conservation trends are, but we look pretty good from an annual perspective.

If I could add on this also, this is a very conservative analysis that's, that's been performed. In other words, this is evaluating the conditions as if we were in a drought or a very extremely dry condition. So if it were under normal conditions, it would be even more favorable. So we're looking at the extreme. conditions under a drought experience.

So we need to supply water both on an annual basis, a total amount through the year, and then on a peak basis, you know, that day in July when we maximize our irrigation, we peak the system. And so that— this second chart looks at demands from a peak standpoint. And before I go that, it looks like there's a question.

Debbie, this is Debbie. The slide before, you had storage, it was kind of your light blue. Is that including the new storage tank that we're planning on building? Has that been factored in?

Yeah, so good question. This references not storage within your system, but storage up in reservoirs. So, this is annual storage versus day-to-day storage. So, this is a different kind of storage. And so, that is not represented in here. We'll talk about that in 2 slides here.

Okay, thank you.

Good question. To move on—

Tom also has a question.

Okay.

You know, when we did this report some time ago, I think we saw that our peak dropped. People were being more— less water consumers, you know, more conservative, etc. Is this built into that? I mean, I think Chris said this was conservative. So if we have— and maybe you're going to talk about this in slide 3 or 4 from here— but if we practice some conservatism, can we eliminate some, if not all, of the additional supply demand?

Yeah, that's exactly right, Tom. We—

Yeah.

You can see the gap between the blue line, which is our actual demand, and the state's requirement here. You see about what that gap is. If we were to match this conservation line and apply roughly that same gap, that would put us at a demand very similar to the existing supply that we already have. And so I'm quite honestly, I'm very hopeful that with some ongoing conservation efforts, you will not have to develop any additional supply. And I certainly think that 2035 is way earlier than we're actually going to need water, but that is what the current state number shows right now. But I think with a few more years of data, a little more conservation, we can get rid of all that orange and stay within our available supplies.

Thank you, Keith, and forgive me if I flip to your last chapter of your book. I apologize.

No, that's great.

Perfect.

Keith, one, one other comment. We are looking at developing 2 new deepwater wells, which I don't think are listed here, but yeah, part of our system for the future.

Yeah, so fantastic. So relative to those wells, as I mentioned, we look at water from an annual basis, which kind of looks at how much water we have down in the ground in the aquifer. But we also need to look at how are we going to pull that out. And that's what's shown here in terms of peak. So in this case, we have our projected peak demands in yellow. And we have the state requirement shown in the dashed line. And what the mayor is referring to is this kind of burgundy color right at the top here, which basically says in the next couple of years, we really do need some more peaking capacity to be able to pull that water out of the ground. With those 2 wells, we'll be able to push the need for additional water out to at least 2030, and then the same issues apply here. I, I haven't shown the conservation line on here because peak sometimes doesn't follow the same trends as annual. We will save water in the shoulders, but we still get that one hot day in July. So we want to track this just a little bit longer. But the conclusion from this chart is, yeah, we do need those 2 wells to increase our peak supply. But then from there on out, again, it's a Let's look at conservation and revisit this in 5 years or so before we make decisions on needing additional supply. Okay, keep moving here. To Debbie's specific question relative to storage, so we have those mountain reservoirs in terms of storage, but we also have storage down into our— in our system. And we've talked about this quite a bit, but for those who might be new to the conversation, you currently have— we look at your different service areas and we add up all the different kinds of storage that are needed. And I really just want to focus on a couple numbers. One is we currently have a 9.6 million gallon deficit. That is satisfied based on borrowing storage from the Central Utah plant, but it's something that we need to address. Relatively quickly. And so that is the 10 million gallons that is not in that number. Once we build the 10 million, that deficiency will go away. In the long term, we have up to 22 million— 21, I guess, closer to 21 million gallons needed. But again, this is another number that we're going to want to keep an eye on and see if we can reduce that over time. Through conservation and our— on our other efforts to manage the system. Any questions or comments on storage, Neil or Chris?

No, no.

Okay, so we've looked at everything from a big picture. Now what we want to do is real quickly say, what does the model tell us about getting the water from where it's available to where it's needed? And what we're looking at are model results from the computer for both existing and projected future conditions. And these are pressures, and generally we really like 60 PSI or better, and 50 to 60 is pretty good. We're okay with that. Once we're starting to drift below 50, we start to get a little bit bit nervous. And so in the peak hour of demand, so this is on that peak day when, when everybody's got their maximum, usually irrigation going, what we're seeing is we have some pressure drop existing, not too bad, but just a little below where we'd like to be. And over time, this is growing to the point where Now we're starting in the future, starting to drop below that 45 PSI. In a couple areas, we're seeing even below 30 PSI, not too many, but in a few areas, specifically in this central zone. And the challenge is we got most of our water sources up in the northeast corner, most of our growth in the southwest corner. So trying to bring that water across limits the amount of water that we can— bring across. So how do we solve that? We have our recommended water system improvements identified here. And those who were around in 2016 remember we originally had some large pipelines that had to go all the way across the city. And so what we're doing is to improve our performance. We're— we've identified a tank in the vicinity of 4 South, Northwest that will be able to take water during off-demand periods and then deliver water during those peak periods to kind of boost the pressures and address the conveyance issues that we have there.

So with that, just overall recommendations on water. You need to complete your wastewater reuse project We didn't talk about that much, but that's an important part of your supply in that southwest quadrant and meeting peak demands there. As the mayor mentioned, you need to develop those 2 new wells from a peaking capacity standpoint. Well 10 and 11 located approximately 4th South and then 16th North. Conduct— excuse me, construct the 10 million gallon reservoir and its support infrastructure, which includes Booster Station and several pipelines. You want to finish your AMI, your metering improvements to continue to gain information there. And then, not to be forgot, with all those big projects up top, we need to continue to invest in the system at sustainable levels relative to system replacement, Well 1 needs to be replaced, so that will be developed at Hillside Park. You have additional maintenance condition-related projects and then fire flow. What this looks like from an expenditure standpoint is this over the next—

we've got 8 years here.

We have some significant large expenditures projected to start in 2022. although it's going to take a few years to completely design and construct those. But that is really where the bonding comes into play. And then after that, we've kind of leveled out our investment, including some system replacement budget shown in the purple and maintenance-related improvements shown in the blue to kind of maintain our system moving forward. So that's what I have on water. Comments, Chris, Neil, questions before we talk sewer?

I would just add that including the bond today, we will be spending more than $50 million for capital improvement projects for water, sewer, and stormwater over the next 3 years.

Could you maybe just touch on the fire flow replacement needs? I know we talked about it before, but I know areas of the city that the pressure is not as good as it should be.

Yeah, so for fire flow, it's in some cases it's pressure, but more often what we see are pipelines that are either dead ends or they are smaller than they need to be to convey peak fire flows. And that's been a little bit of a change over time. In terms of the standards, pipes that were built back in the '50s did not require the same amount of fire flow. So the city is in pretty good shape. There is a map in the master plan that covers those areas, but we've identified a plan to kind of chip away at those and bring those up to current standards.

Mayor, I'll send an email with the link to that map and that in the master plan after this meeting.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, sewer. Water's probably the toughest one. A lot of things going on there. But obviously, these other systems are still incredibly important to us. So this is just a projection of our sewer flow demands, and again, these X's represent our historic flows. You can see that they're actually trailing off over the last 3 or 4 years. We've taken a conservative approach again and projected this moving forward based on, you know, kind of 2016 previous average levels. But again, if we can continue to see that conservation, we may be able to revise that down a little bit once we get a few more years of data and trends. But even with that little more conservative approach, what we're showing is that for average day demands, we're not showing us exceeding capacity until the year 2050. So, it's out quite a ways. Now, that doesn't mean that we don't have needs at the— at the plant. These other lines up here refer to, again, peak demands, and those are looking a little— sliding up a little earlier, depending on what we— what standards we look at. But there's currently a facility plan in the work that will tie that information down a little bit better. But from our perspective, things are looking really great from an overall capacity standpoint.

So Keith, I don't see Vineyard listed there. You have Linden, but I don't see Vineyard.

I think they were included as a part of Linden. They were outside the city. Yeah.

Yeah, and that's a good point, Mayor. There is a portion of Vineyard that comes to the And you're right, Chris.

That portion is extremely small compared to other— the water side, because what we accept from Vineyard is only 4th South-South versus 4th North-South. And so there are very few connections relative to overall flows and peaks from Vineyard.

Good point, though. I think it's lumped in with that Linden, so we probably ought to just fix that. figure. So thank you. Okay, same thing here, looking at the computer model. What we're looking for are pipelines that are red or black. Those are our problematic ones. We want to keep our percent full below about 65% in terms of depth, or that's 75% of total capacity with the way that hydraulics in a pipeline works. So red and black are problems. You can see under existing there is absolute minimal issues there. There's a couple pipes here and there. Some of them are actually designed as siphons, so they have extra depth, or maybe not siphons, but they have extra depth designed into them. So really, for a city in your of your age and size of population, these are really good results. Moving to the future, we see some more that are filling up, but all those orange, that just means we're, you know, we're filling and using up the full capacity, but we're still within our design standards. So we do have some more red and black showing up, but still relatively good performance for, for how much we're looking at here. So what does that mean in terms of pipe improvements? We've identified the improvements shown here and programmed those out based on the timing of projected growth. Did you want to add anything on that, Chris?

I did want to mention that Sam will be presenting on the capital improvement plan and capital needs after this presentation. There is one item on the capital facilities plan that he's going to be presenting on. It's SS-1, which is a major sewer line that's going to take water— storm— or excuse me, sewage from the north portion of— so it's in the southwest part of the community. In the area where we just annexed a large portion of that area down by the temple. And we do have that fully funded. I just wanted to mention that we are monitoring that, and we will be performing superflow studies to determine what the optimum size and the best timing would be for that construction. So while we do have it fully funded, we— it's not necessary immediately. But I just wanted to mention that that is a major line that is going to be serving that Southwest Orem annexation area. And we are fine-tuning that.

Okay, so in summary for sewer, we need to address a number, but a small number, of collection capacity issues. The Reclamation facility is being looked at closer, a little closer, as part of their facility, ongoing facility plan. But we do have known improvements identified there. And then the— probably the biggest issue on sewer is just continuing to invest in the system for system replacement. Large need coming up associated with hydrogen sulfide corrosion inside the pipelines. We need to continue to repair and improve frequent maintenance areas. Those are going to keep popping up, but if we don't stay on top of them, We can create problems for our customers. And then just ongoing system replacement. So the budget for sewer looks like this. Again, we have this a little bit front-loaded to take advantage of the bond funding and get rid of some of the most critical projects. I shouldn't say get rid, but take care of the most critical projects. And then levels out after that. Any last comments on sewer? Questions?

One thing I'd like to add about the sewer is it's a preventative situation where we want to get out ahead of those hydrogen sulfide issues and have those pipelines be ready for the future versus water is somewhat reactive in that we can react to a water leak because, one, we know where it shows up. And 2, it's, it's not as big a problem when the water main is, is in the roadway. That doesn't mean that we ignore the water pipes and let them age to failure. It just means that there's a little bit of a different emphasis on how to approach the future.

Okay, let's talk storm.

Keith, we have 6 minutes.

All right, I think we can do it. It's the most important one, right, Reed?

Right.

Okay, stormwater challenges. We got 3 main things that we're focused on. As we mentioned, the West Union Canal and West Smith ditch are in the process of being abandoned. So we've got to figure out how to get stormwater out of that, out of those ditches, or maintain the portions that we, that we want to use once they're abandoned. Other canals and ditches are not currently planned to be abandoned, but the trend is that things are going that way, so we want to have a plan in place for that in the future. And then we also have some new drinking water source protection zones, both with our new wells that are being proposed, and then some old wells, or existing wells, I should say, where we want to continue to protect our drinking water. So the bottom line is we need to improve the network to address these issues. So just to remind everybody, This is a map of the West Smith Bitch shown in the light blue over on the east side and the West Union Canal, the darker blue. And all these letters and yellow dots are where Orem currently puts stormwater into those canals. And you can see that, you know, that's right off the bench here, and so it's, it's, it's a good place to put stormwater. But unfortunately, it's going away, so we need to have a plan for it. And then, as mentioned, just the drinking water source protection. We have a new 4th South well and a new 16th North well. All these little pink dots are areas where we have sumps that inject stormwater into the ground. So what we'd like to do as part of this plan is get everything out of the 250-day zone, the red, have a plan to eventually move everything out of the 3-year zone, and then be careful with what we do in the 15-year zone. The blue areas are areas where sumps are no problem. They're a safe sump zone. Out on the west side, our soils aren't really conducive to having sumps, and so the You see there's far less pink dots over on that side. OK, so how do we address these? I'm going to throw up a big map with a lot of small little numbers here, but what you can see here, these are the projects that are planned for the long term, including organized by 3 priority levels. Priority 1 represents those items that we want to get done in the next 10 years. 2 and 3 are projects that we want to get done in the long term, but we expect are going to take several decades to complete our overall network of improvements. So this is the north half of the city. This is the south half of the city. And probably most importantly, it's just showing these are the projects that are planned in association or over the next 10 years. You can see a big focus is right along that West Smith Ditch and West Union Canal. That's where most of our projects are located. So those are the 10-year projects. Okay, so with that, in summary, our focus on storm drain is to get the Taylor Drain improvements done, address all the connections to the West Union and West Smith Ditch, either by removing water from the canal or taking over portions of the canal as makes sense for drainage purposes. And then we begin the process of addressing the well protection concerns by, as I mentioned, getting out of the 250-day zone, budgeting for some water quality improvements in the 3-year zone in the short term. And then we have starting on a long-term plan for pulling out the sumps in the 3-year zone. So this is what this one looks like in terms of funding. And you can see we have a little less funding from our bond in storm drain in this current bond. That plus cash would probably take us for at least the next couple years to be able to do these projects from 2024 on. We're going to need to find additional funding through bonding or other options, as the council may want to consider. But that's those projects. And then once we get out to 2029, 2030, we move back to strictly a pay-as-you-go approach to things. Reed, we blew through that pretty quick. You have some comments, or—

I just want to point out that the canal served a great purpose. back in the day, and we relied on that because it was a convenient location for developers and to convey stormwater away from, from their, their sites, and it's been great. However, because of a lack of, of maintenance over, over time, it's fallen into disrepair, and now we're, we're kind of scrambling to find a solution for that, and we need to take take control of our responsibilities in regards to stormwater into our own hands and make plans. So that's the main reason why we have such a focus on— we say take the water out of the canal, but we don't want it to get to the canal. So we're going to divert the water away from the canal and not use it at all in most situations. There are a few segments that that are in decent repair or easily repaired that we will continue to use. But just wanted to make that clear. But otherwise, I think we've— I think you've touched on the main points of the plan, and I have nothing else to add.

So, Reed, a question on the abandoned canals. Are they going to be filled in? Are they going to be just left abandoned? Do we have any pools of water that will collect that could be hazards, or do we know?

We're not exactly sure. State code allows canal companies just to walk away from the canal and leave them open. There's nothing that requires them to do so. I would expect that that's likely what would happen.

OK, we, we have included some budget in some of these projects though to fill in some of the critical locations, but certainly not the entire canal.

OK.

So that I think is the end of what I had. I got done by 4:30 but didn't leave any time for questions. We'll take any that you would like to Any questions by the council?

I don't have any questions either, Keith, so—

Okay.

Very good.

Thank you, Mayor and Council. Like I said at the beginning of the meeting, we will be returning on May 11th for a final adoption of these master plan updates. Thank you for your support.

All right, thank you, Chris. Appreciate it. Appreciate it, Neil and Reed and Keith. Let's go ahead and move on to a discussion then of our 2021-2022 budget for CIP, and Sam Kelly is our presenter.

You're on mute, Sam.

Doesn't look like he's on mute, just not getting any sound.

Does it work now?

There we go.

Yep.

Am I here?

You're here.

All right, here we go. Can you guys see my screen?

Yes.

The 2022 capital projects. Just starting out here. Oh, wow. I'm not used to Google Slides, so I'm a little bit of a learning curve. Learning curve. Here's our summary sheet, kind of going over the totals that we're going to be looking at for the CIP fund, water fund, water rec, stormwater, our B&C roads, and the transportation sales tax fund. Going— jumping right into our CIP fund, looking at our general fund, our Fund 45, Fund 10 accounts. Notice the asterisks on some of these projects. What that means is that we're going to be looking at other funding sources to kind of combined to help with these projects, and those other funding sources are CARE funding as well as the Land and Water Conservation Grant funds. So we're intending in Parks to be— to put— to move forward with these projects, understanding too, like Phase 1 of Hillcrest is likely going to be coming from a CARE funding source, as well as some of these other ones that I'll go ahead and go through.

Sam, CDBG is the other component.

CDBG, okay. And then I guess with that being said, Stephen, I guess you'll jump in. And is that essentially going to be used on the sheds for CDBG?

Yeah, the Sharon and Geneva parks are targeted with CDBG money.

No, I should say Sharon, mostly Sharon.

Sharon, just the Sharon Park. Okay, okay, very good. So Hillcrest Park Phase 1, you guys are aware of what's, what's happening there at At Hillcrest Park is we're going to start moving towards some sort of a design. Likely we will try and get that built next year. The Nielsen's Grove Bowery replacement— this is a large bowery in the park that was built out of timbers. We will look to try and get some funding to put something in that's going to have a feel of what that historic park is, but yet have some, have some sort of a structure that has a longer-term type of maintenance, meaning that it'll last longer with less maintenance. Sierra Park, Sharon Park, both of these— these are photos of the existing playgrounds that we would look to replace, one with CDBG money, one without. The Geneva Park and Sharon Park restroom and maintenance facilities. Then you have the Lakeside Sports Park perimeter fence and pavers. Currently on this main entrance, as these 2 yellow ovals show, there's some pavers right here at the entrance as well as around this light. And because of all that traffic, we're going to look to take those pavers out and replace them with concrete. We will also look to replace the fence along this western side of Lakeside Sports Park. All of the parks are going to receive some sort of improvements as far as drinking fountains, security measures being cameras, as well as some electronic door locks, and some dumpster enclosures, as well as some new signs. If you guys want to name one Kelly Park, that would be awesome. We'll also be looking to add some more money to the cemetery for the cremation niche. We're 3 of 4 on that continual funding, as well as 8th North, kind of finish out the rest of that landscaping along the south side. We did the portion further to the west as we came up the hill, and then we'll just kind of finish out this side and kind of clean it up and have it have something in there. It's like— Debbie, did you have a comment?

I just have a question. I know with drinking fountains, There's some push to have them so that they're touchless, or ones that people can refill a water bottle. Do we have any sort of COVID funds that would eliminate a touch sort of fountain? I'm just throwing the question out there because I know that a lot of new fountains are designed differently.

Reed might be able to answer that. I think it might be a bit of a challenge to have a touchless one at a park. Unless we can secure it, but we could look into it where we have a park where maybe there's a few more eyes on it so it wouldn't get damaged. But likely we can look at that. I don't know what we have available for COVID funding, but I don't think we had looked to use any of that for these types of features.

It shouldn't be any sort of vandalism, it's just how the actual fountain's designed. You know, you just put your water bottle, you're not touching a, like a A button to turn it on. I'm just saying, I'm just wondering if with COVID there's a way to use some funding and make it so that it's a little more sanitary, less, you know, less germ spreader.

Sure, we can look into that. Uh-huh. There's the 8th North landscape. The other CIP fundings, we're looking more at our facilities. Electronic door locks. I believe some of these will be for the fitness center. I don't know if those were necessarily programmed for that project, as well as others throughout the city. And then we have a bunch of seed money, boiler replacement, public safety chiller, fire station roof, furnaces, then getting clear down to where we're looking at more cameras around the city center and then replacing some of the flooring at, at The library. Any questions about those? Seem to be pretty straightforward. The rec, we have some more seed money going towards the Syrup Pool, splash pad, the deck repair, the diving boards, and then as well as putting in some amenities there as far as a picnic table, concession stand awning. And then looking at some of the other facility-type things with some cameras, alarm system, as well as looking at putting away some money for the pump for the pool and the splash pad area. And then also looking at the boiler. This final item here, this fitness center indoor leisure pool, that again, it doesn't have the asterisk, but that's also looking at a CARE source of money to help fund that portion.

That's basically some additional play equipment in the pool?

Right. Then, yeah, I think we're putting away some money because we'll have to look to see what type of feature we can put in there, and as well as look to see what our existing infrastructure can handle in there. I'm not sure if that leisure pool was built with having an additional feature in there and making sure that our pumps can handle all that. And then the final CIP request here is the police, some seed money for their radio equipment. Moving on to the water fund, this is what we're looking to spend this year. Getting back to Keith's point about the— and the point that the mayor made about the 4-inch water main, which is essentially our fire flow, improved flow type projects. This is that map that's in the master plan. You can see where the areas that are black are the priority 1 projects with the red are priority 2, blue being priority 3. Right now working with the water section to prioritize that. Initially, we had been looking to coordinate a stormwater project and a water project down in that Hillcrest area. And you can see where those blue lines are. That might end up being the project for next year, but this is at least what the map looks like for those fire flow type projects. Looks like someone's entered the waiting room. Going on to Water Reclamation, we're looking at about $5.3 million to spend for next year. This first one, this $2.2, almost $2.3 million, that's essentially going to be a lot of the equipment and things like that around the plant. There is going to be a facility master plan that's going to be completed here in about 6 months, and they'll have a complete plan, just like we have a master plan for our city. There's going to be a master plan for that water reclamation facility. Of that $2.9 million, here's a list of items that we would look to replace or improve there throughout the plant. The asphalt around the plant, the maintenance, probably like a crack seal, maybe a seal coat, some modifications to some of the buildings, the digester safety assembly, the Muffin Monster cutter replacement. Everyone loves the Muffin Monster. As well as some of these other items. And if you have specific questions, Neil's available for those to be answered. Next, we did talk about— Chris mentioned about the chambray to the lift station in the southwest part of Orem, as well as the sewer line replacement on College Drive. And that's where these are located. This SS1, as he stated, we're going to do some further analysis to make sure we have the pipe sized correctly. Kind of get one chance at this, or I mean, we could do it multiple times. It doesn't look real, real good on us if we do that, but we would like to do it one time and get that pipe size so that it can meet all that future demand. SS3, we would look to do it probably before SS2 just because we'll be doing the roundabout project as well as some improvements on 12 South. So kind of take that opportunity to kind of seize that. construction window and do some projects in that area. And then here's some more treatment plant upgrades that they were looking to do. Again, the drying beds and some other things, it looks like plant planting equipment, some other things, and miscellaneous construction. Usually these happen with our roads projects or other projects that are happening. Maybe it's a water main or it's a storm drain main and there's a small piece of sewer or that, that needs to happen or needs to be replaced during that. So, we'll go in there and we'll use this fund to go ahead and take care of some of those items. On to stormwater, you can see in here they're going to help participate with some HVAC and the roof replacement. Same with water down at Public Works. They also have some other equipment they're looking to get, a new rover. A camera for inspecting the pipes. Miscellaneous projects, that is usually an account that we utilize for unplanned repairs, kind of takes care of some nuisance flooding that's incidental to some of our other projects, as well as we use that money to help upgrade our sumps and/or pretreatment facilities with our ROSE projects. And then you get into the master plan projects, and here I've identified some of them that we're going to be looking at. This is on the east side of Center Street as you go down into Provo. This one here, the upper middle one, that's going to be one that we'll do in conjunction with our 12th South and roundabout project. And then you also have the very far west one, which is the Taylor Drain working to find a solution to that, as well as looking to see what we can do down in the southwest part or the southeast part of Orem, see if there's a possibility to do some sort of work with Provo and facilitate and get that water further to the west and into Lake Bottom Canal. The road funds, we get into asphalt overlay and reconstruct. These are our Fund 20. This is our B&C road road fund monies that we're going to use. And here we have all of the typical items that we have in there with a slight increase just in, I want to say slurry, but other than that, these are pretty much similar to what we've had last year. The only difference here, we're adding sander rack modifications as well as Phase 2 of the brine tanks. We built the building last year and now we're actually going to be putting in the brine Making the equipment as well as the tanks. And that's kind of what a schematic of what it would look like inside of that structure, and then outside the tanks that'll actually hold the brine. And we'll actually use that to— we won't necessarily be spraying that on the roads, but we will be using it to pre-wet the salt that comes out so it's a little bit more effective. And here's transportation sales tax. This is the fund $24. that we have used. Oh, I'm sorry, I went a little too fast there with the mouse. This is concrete installation and replacement and the ADA upgrades. Those are typically associated with our roadway projects. Each time we go in and do a major structural improvement to our roadways, we have to make sure the ramps in that area are up to the current ADA And then we also have some money in there for sidewalk hazard mitigation. That one's been increased substantially. We're trying to get ahead of the curve on that. With this money and the large— and with it being a little more flush than we had anticipated, we're now going to go ahead and get pretty aggressive with that trip hazard mitigation. In the past few years, we've spent about anywhere from $25,000 to $50,000. And now we're going to go ahead and expand that and get it up to $250,000 worth. So we're going to get pretty aggressive in taking care of our trip hazards. And then utilizing the money for getting our local roads up to snuff as far as for asphalt overlays and recons, and then the miscellaneous street construction. And then also the big-ticket item here, the paint machine, all $9,000 of that, it'll go towards a new machine so we can keep up with the red curb and other miscellaneous striping. We have throughout the city. In summary, we went through all that— CIP, the water— looking at about $15.8 million that we're looking to budget for next year and do some projects. So, and along with some of the ones that we currently have going as well. But any questions, concerns, comments? Did I go too fast, not fast enough? Everyone still awake?

Takes a lot of effort to keep a city running of 100,000 people.

Yes, it does. Looks like Debbie has a hand.

Yes, so this $15 million, is this in our fund balance reserves, or is this money that's just ongoing, whether it's water fund or whatever? I guess my question is, do we have the money, and what are the main sources?

The main sources when you're looking at the enterprise funds, the water, water rec, stormwater, B&C, and transportation sales tax. I mean, the funds, obviously the water, water rec, and stormwater, those are what we collect from our fees.

Right.

And then you have the B&C road funds, the gas tax, and then the transportation sales tax. Those are projections of what we— of trends. The only one that you're going to be looking at— the other ones that are probably a little more in flux are the CIP where we're looking at CDBG, land and water, as well as CARE. And maybe Jamie and Brandon can speak to some of those other— I don't recall a lot of fund transfers from reserves. I think a lot of this is cash in hand.

Thank you.

Anything else, Sam?

Not for this presentation. I'm sure there's other questions for the engineering division concerning some other things, but concerning the CIP, we're good.

Mayor, just for the CARE part, we kicked that off on Thursday night, just so you know.

All of the capital projects component of this will come to the City Council, though.

Sure.

Okay. All right, well, thank you, Sam. Appreciate it very much.

Yeah, you're welcome.

Let's go ahead and keep going then. Uh, we'll go on to our agenda review, um, for this evening. Um, our spiritual thought will be given by Tom McDonald, and Charlene Crozier will give us our Pledge of Allegiance. Uh, consent items, we have approval of meeting minutes.

Hey, Mayor, when we give the pledge, could we ask you and everyone else to hit the mute who isn't doing the pledge? We get some feedback when that doesn't happen.

Sure.

So we have approval of city meeting minutes of April 13th, 2021. City manager's appointment. Jamie, do you want to mention that?

Yes, thank you, Mayor. One of them is an oversight on our part. We obviously made a hiring decision as related to Heather, but we failed to essentially receive your advice and consent. And so that is, that is the first item. The second is just a reappointment of Wilford Whipple to serve as a member of our Board of Building and Fire Code Appeals.

And that is recommended by our Development Services Department.

Sure.

Is everybody on the council okay with— well, let me read one other one here. Then also we have a resolution. The applicant requests the City Council name field number 3 at the City Center Baseball Complex as Clayton Riggs Field. And Jason, do you want to talk about that?

Just to say the Planning Commission did make a unanimous recommendation. And it is before you tonight as a consent, so I have no concerns, or the Planning Commission had no concerns as well.

Is there a cost to the city for that naming, and if so, is it being donated?

It would be a sign and a plaque, so it'd be pretty minimal if the city contributed.

Okay.

And I know Warren Youth Baseball is planning on paying for that plaque.

And will there be a ceremony for when this occurs?

I would assume so. I don't know that for a fact, but I assume so.

I would hope that we would have a ceremony at the City Council, be invited to it out to the field and, and make something special out of it.

And we could pass that along to the applicant.

You bet.

Okay. Is the council okay with the consent items as presented? Anybody against anything?

Looks good.

Okay. All right, then we go on to our scheduled items. The first one's a public hearing, ordinance amending current fiscal year 2020-2021 budget. Brandon, anything you want to bring up?

No, I just want to make sure you can hear me well and good this time.

We hope so.

Okay, I figured out what the problem was with our— with between Google Meet versus Zoom, so I think we've got that figured out. So I just wanted to make sure, but otherwise really the biggest item on there is going to be the bond.

Okay, and Jamie or Brandon, when is the bond finalized?

It is now finalized.

Bond was finalized today.

Okay. All right, and then the last one is an 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 NVD Res B zone to the R-8 zone located generally at 1637 North to 1753 North along 400 West. Jason, you're the presenter on that. Anything you wish to bring up?

Just that we have had opportunity to meet with several of the neighbors and they are supportive and want to move forward with the rezone.

Okay, this is a continued item from 2 weeks ago. It is not my plan to have a public hearing on this. If anybody wants to make comments on the State Street Master Plan, Or the zone there in the North Village District, they can do that in the general comment portion of the meeting.

And Mayor Jody is starting to— there's some comments that have come in and she's assigning them to that area on the comment sheet.

So, okay, good. And my, my thought on that is to hold it to 10 comments at 3 minutes each. I don't know how many you're going to get. But maybe you can let us know and let them know. Jamie, do you have any comments you wish to bring up?

Yes, Mayor, just a couple of things. Some of these things I've already had maybe brief conversations with you about. The first one, of course, is what we just discussed, and that's we closed on our bond this morning. For our utility funds. Appreciate Brandon and his team working to make that happen in cooperation with Chris and his team. So we now have $29.3 additional million to dedicate towards our utility infrastructure projects. If you recall, we came in with a true interest cost of 2.399%. So a very, very competitive number, and we are going to begin spending that money in earnest almost immediately. As related to the water tank and our planned construction of that tank, we believe we have reached tentative terms with the property owner located at 400 West and 400 South. And we would like to excuse Heather. She is actually out of the office this afternoon— or excuse me, this week— but we are working with her to finalize a purchase agreement. Appreciate our city engineer, Sam Kelly, who has been the go-between between the property owner and the city, representing the interests of the city. And I believe we have reached terms that are favorable, obviously, to the property owner and to the city. including an opportunity for us to get started on this project sooner rather than later, as well as an opportunity to have first right of refusal with the remaining acreage that is part of the current property that is owned by the existing property owner. There is some discussion, I think, in the community relative to, now what are you going to do with this property Once the tank is complete, our intent is to turn that property into open space. We have yet to have a real deliberate and direct conversation as to what that means. Is it going to mean active recreation space? Is it going to mean turf? Is it going to, for example, could it be a demonstration garden that promotes and endorses Water conservation, something that we do, for example, in cooperation with Central Utah Water. We have all of these kind of options that we are weighing, but we don't necessarily want to represent we are going to do X until we understand exactly what will be required of us for that property, where the tank will sit, where the, the pump house, where the well. And some of the other amenities that will be located on that property, how all of that will kind of fit into the footprint of that acreage. It is our intent to turn this into some sort of park space, but at this point we have yet to kind of make that recommendation to you. As to what we think is the ideal Use of this— what is the ideal park use for this space?

So, Jamie, a question in regards to that. We had talked about that the corner at 4th West and 4th South is possibly to be improved either with a roundabout or stoplights.

Yes.

Can you bring us up to date? Would you be doing that at the same time?

Well, that's actually a very good question. One of the challenges with that intersection, on the northeast corner of the intersection is a very, very large Rocky Mountain Power transmission pole. And that is not something that can be buried. That is not something that can be moved. And so for quite some time, we have actually had a need for some sort of traffic control at that intersection. Right now it's a 4-way stop. And we have explored the opportunity of adding a signal or potentially even adding a roundabout to that particular intersection. That would require us to shift the intersection essentially to the south and to the west to make everything fit in correlation with that very large transmission line. So in purchasing this property on the corner, We believe that we will also have sufficient acreage or square footage to accommodate the signalization or the construction of a roundabout on it in that intersection. So we don't obviously have a final determination as to what we're going to do. We have had quite a bit of success with roundabouts in the community and how they can facilitate traffic. At the same time, we're very sensitive to the fact that Orem Elementary is in proximity to this intersection, in proximity to the intersection as we build, obviously our water infrastructure, but also long-term as kids cross the road in vicinity of Orem Elementary. We want to make sure that whatever we do there fits with the needs of the school. school, as well as the needs of the neighborhood.

So I'm sure you'll investigate this out with staff. I love roundabouts, but I don't believe that roundabouts are conducive to children crossing well, and I think signalization is the better method. But certainly, I know you'll look at that.

And you know what, I had the initial— my initial first reaction was that as well. However, if you do some research into the, you know, the engineering, for example, of roundabouts, one of the benefits of a roundabout is the creation of a safe zone for children to cross. So it actually divides— rather than making a long stretch of roadway that kids may potentially need to cross, it actually divides that space into 2 sections and creates 2 smaller intersections or 2 smaller lengths of asphalt that a child needs to cross. So yes, Mayor, we will take that and evaluate exactly that. But yeah, there are different trains of thought, as you might expect, as it relates to intersections in the same way there is as it relates to traffic studies.

I just know going through the roundabout on 4th West, down there on 12 South and watch the cars flow and think about children trying to cross there, it would be a very concerning thing to me.

But yes, anyway. Just another note, we have made— well, we are ready now to hire our next recreation director. We have extended an offer and he has accepted. We have hired Bryce Merrill, who currently serves as the Provo City Recreation Center manager, to serve as the city's next recreation director. He is scheduled to begin working in Orem on May 17th, and of course we will bring his name forward to you for your advice and consent as part of a formal council meeting thereafter. We've notified In fact, I notified our recreation staff last night of this hire, as well as all of our employees this morning. We're excited to welcome Bryce. As you know, we completed a nationwide recruitment process and ultimately ended up with a candidate who actually is next door. But Bryce comes to us with a lot of experience, obviously in Provo Recreation, as well as some time with Salt Lake County Recreation and the YMCA of Metro Dallas.

Texas.

So we, we would like to welcome Bryce, and we very much appreciate all of you, all of our stakeholders both inside and outside the organization who participated in this hiring process. And finally, I know those that attended the Utah League of Cities and Towns last week had an opportunity to hear from Harvard Professor Arthur Brooks, who offered the keynote address Dr. Brooks has a book that speaks specifically to the topic and to the information that he shared, and I just wanted to let each of you know that I've put a copy of that book in your box here, or in your file here at the City Center, so you're welcome to come pick it up. I know several of you commented on how impressed you were with his remarks, and I wanted to give you an opportunity to to read deeper into Dr. Brooks's comments. So with that said, Mayor, that's all that I have tonight. Thank you.

Okay, I don't have anything at the moment, so let's go ahead and adjourn our work session and we'll start our City Council session at 6 PM. Thank you.

Hey, Jamie?

Yes.

Thank you for that kind offering.

I'm excited to read that.

Great.

That was very thoughtful of you.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

I agree, Jamie.

Thank you.

Mayor, can you just say something to test the sound?

Sure. So it's time to get started. It's now 6 PM and time to start our City Council meeting, and I would like to read a notice of an all-electronic meeting. Pursuant to Mayor Richard F. Brunt's proclamation dated March 29th, 2021, the Orange City Council meeting on April 27th, 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 annual— 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 orm.org/meetings. To make a comment, please submit your comment through orm.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. I would now like to call the meeting to order. Steve, on my screen all I see is Mark's X. I don't know if you've got the screen turned on.

I do. Is anybody else having that issue? Mayor, may you just go back to that view part on your screen? Everybody else seems to be seeing.

Okay. All right. So we'd like to start with a prayer. to be given by Tom McDonald and then a Pledge of Allegiance by Charlene Crozier, and would recommend that when we're doing the Pledge of Allegiance that you mute your computer during that time. So Tom, why don't you go ahead?

Thank you.

Our Father in heaven, we're grateful for this opportunity that we have to gather as citizens in arm and for the privilege and responsibility we have to try to serve people with diverse opinions and with differing views. We pray that thy Spirit may be with us as we contemplate issues that are brought before us this evening, that we might think wisely and be able to have a spirit of fellowship as we do. We invite thy Spirit here. We ask for protection and peace among those who serve us, particularly our police and fire and all of our city employees who serve to try to make this city a better place.

We pray for thy spirit with us this evening in the name of Jesus Christ.

Amen. Amen.

Please rise and repeat the Pledge of Allegiance after 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, Tom and Charlene. We appreciate that. We now have time for personal appearances. I'd like to read a statement. It says time has 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. Those wishing to speak should have signed in before the meeting— beginning of the meeting, and please limit your comments to 3 minutes or less. We'll go ahead and turn some time over for that. Steve, do we have any persons who would like to make comments? And If we do, I'm going to open it up for 90 seconds to allow comments to come in. But if you have some, go ahead.

We do, Mayor.

I will get started with our— I think we have 4 comments submitted as of right now. First comment, Jill Barrick. Please respond to the following questions regarding 400 West, 1600 North high-density fire safety. Are just 2 ingress and egress right turns only points Sufficient for fire safety protocols for development of this size and use? Where are the fire hydrants in proximity to the development? Are they sufficient for 2-story to 6-story buildings? Where will the fire trucks and firefighters access, manage fires and emergencies, or ambulances? Because the building is extremely close to both 400 West and 1600 North. Specifically, will they have to park on these streets directly to fight fires or attend medical emergencies? That requires shutting off all traffic, which is unacceptable. How will the residents and vehicles properly exit the premises during emergencies? It appears to be too tight for one fire truck, let alone many fire trucks and emergency vehicles. How will the fire trucks pull into the lot if any of the surface parking is already taken? Traffic. Please explain what the city is planning to do to prevent any and all access points from the development onto 400 West. 400 West cannot sustain any traffic from this development. Will the City of Orem try to mitigate potential traffic accidents that occur on State Street for drivers attempting left-hand turns across 6 lanes of traffic? Will no left turn signs be installed and enforced, and where will the signs be installed? Drivers turn, turn left all the time by Suig Costa Vida on 1600 North, even though no left turn sign exists. How will this development be any different besides the single lanes on 1600 North and the 6 lanes Plus 2 turn lanes on State Street. Will turning left onto State Street be impeded by more island cement barriers along State Street and 1600 North? Will other businesses in close proximity be okay with this, the cement barriers? Will it impede clients from easily accessing their businesses? The entrance on 1600 North is especially worrisome in terms of such a small corridor being sufficient to permit retail, residential, and commercial delivery maintenance traffic. trash-moving vehicles through simultaneously, where, where, while still permitting regular fire flow from traffic along 1600 North? Will it be more worrisome and prone to accidents during peak hours or in certain weather? Will the small corridor be hazardous in cold and icy conditions due to its inability to get sufficient sunlight from the 6 stories above? Is there sufficient drainage pooling and groundwater? Please explain the measures The city has taken to prevent them— the plans to install a connecting road from State Street to 400 West. Plans exist on city materials. Please explain how this appears on city planning materials without the existing homeowners' knowledge. This is extremely alarming to residents. There are 3 roads connecting to 400 West with a small area, and turning onto or across 400 West is already difficult. How can the city be secretly planning for another connection to happen here? Is the city really considering putting a road in, in that leads directly from the state liquor store to our neighborhood? What will the city do to prevent and manage any increased crime that results from this? All relevant traffic studies, including but not limited to the LDS Church regarding the traffic— increased traffic use for the Lindon Temple builders, patrons, open house visitors, etc., should be included and shared with the public. This will greatly impact traffic on 400 West, as it is the only connector road directly leading to Center Street besides State Street, where the temple entrance will be located. A Google search of Lyndon Temple from I-15 shows the direct route along 400 West.

That is from Jill Barrick.

Next comment from Stephanie— next comment is from Stephanie Visna. First of all, I appreciate the City Council's concern and attention given to the residents in and around North Village District. As our elected officials, we value our time in hearing and representing us. Therefore, we urge the City Council to hold City Council meetings in a hybrid manner. Both in person for those able and remotely for those who cannot. While technology and the size of council chambers, going hybrid is possible. City— citizen voices are not being adequately heard in this virtual format, causing confusion and more work for the council in the end. I also urge the City Council to direct the staff and Planning Commission to take the time to thoroughly read and understand the traffic study submitted by the OBOK Condominiums application. This traffic study needs some serious attention, as well as understanding residents' concerns with the study and their real-life experience with the area. Spending time to fully understand the current and potential traffic issues will ensure that any development is appropriate in this area. While the traffic study being done during COVID and data being manipulated, real consideration should be taken of its validity. In addition to being the height of COVID it was also on a non-school day, which is clearly not an accurate representation of peak traffic times. Furthermore, the traffic study is inaccurate in identifying and observing one of the 2 easement access points. County records contradict what the traffic study indicates as easements access across Osman Design. The architect verified at the neighborhood meeting that the county records are correct and the traffic study was improperly conducted. For this reason, the traffic study should be reevaluated and considered invalid. It has been stated that this proposed project is the first major development under the State Street Master Plan zone. If this is going to be the first one, be sure to get it right. The last thing Orem City wants is the first project to be full of problems and become a poor example for development in the future. Please encourage the staff to take the time to get this right. The city's image and residents' quality of life are at stake here. Next comment from Jim Condie.

As one of the property owners petitioning to have my home moved back to the R-8 zone, please approve our request.

This rezone gives my home additional height restriction protections from commercial developments growing too close and too tall behind my home. This is a huge issue in light of the proposed developments. I'm still gravely concerned about the traffic and a few other items. One, the NVD is described in the master plan— the North Village District is described in the master plan as a smaller mixed-use zone, but smaller was not defined as part of that. After spending $5 million and years on this effort, let's not trash the master plan recommendations by not defining what the smaller district means. We need height and density restrictions consistent with the master plan North Village description. 1.75 parking stalls per unit is clearly not enough, as evidenced by other developments in Orem that have used this standard. The developer has knocked down 2 sections of the wall between resident Residential and commercial properties. I believe this is a code violation. Does he have any intent to repair or replace them, or does the city have intentions to ensure code compliance? 4, the developer is and has been operating an unregistered sober living home in our neighborhood about a block from the liquor store. I— am I the only one that sees a problem with this from a code issue or a logic issue? A, can the city accept development proposal from a developer that is in violation of city codes? If so, do you expect them to comply with other city codes or ordinances? 5, can the city please, please, please put a traffic measure device on 400 West to get actual data on traffic and speeds, and then patrol during peak times? Also, this data can be compared to the traffic study submitted by the developer to either validate or show how far off it is. 6, it seems like we have an accident a week or more lately around the 1600 North and 400 West intersection. I have heard that it is the number 6 most dangerous intersection in the state. We must take actions to reduce the traffic and lower the accident risk at this intersection area. 7, the traffic study submitted by the proper proposed developer is completely bogus and must be redone on realistic days and times that reflect the truth of the traffic issues in this area. All access to the proposed development should be blocked off on 1600 North. This is such an unsafe area. Next one, Mayor. I'm petitioning the City of Orem to please look at the inconsistencies in the traffic study done by Dennis O'Brien for his development on the corner of 1600 North and 400 West. His traffic study was done when there was no school, people working from home, and was done on non-high traffic hours. There needs to be a study done that shows that the true traffic— that it shows the true traffic that is in our area. This project that he is proposing is not a good fit for this area, and if you looked at real traffic, you would see that. We have noticed 3 accidents in just the last week on 1600 North. Please listen to the citizens, the people you were elected to help, and help us with our concerns. Next one, Sherry Lauritzen. I would ask the council to open an application to look at the North Orem District. The proposed project is not a good fit for this area, not to mention the traffic problems it will cause. Next, Deanne Jacobson. My husband and I are lifelong residents of Orem and actually lived within 2 blocks of this intersection for our whole lives. We currently live directly east of this proposed development for condos and townhomes. It's difficult to believe that Orem City is entertaining the idea of this development.

We were driving along Geneva Road today and noticed all the condos.

When we came home, we looked at the little piece of property of Mr. O'Brien's and wondered how it could even be feasible. to put something like that there with only one access and a right-of-way through a business parking lot.

It—

at this time, it is hard for us to even exit our own— exit our home into the traffic on 400 West to go north or south. The traffic dumps from Linden and Pleasant Grove to the light at 400 West and 1600 North. The curb gutter sidewalk is not complete along the west side of 400 West, Which makes it very dangerous and difficult to navigate by walking or driving. Please take into consideration the cars parked along the curb near the intersection on 400 West. And trying to get on 1600 North from 280 West or 325 West, it is almost impossible. The cars go so fast. We seriously are taking our life— taking our lives in our hands. I worry about my 93-year-old mother who still drives on occasion. must enter 1600 North from 280 West. We feel like we are not being heard. I don't know if you realize how this would impact the whole intersection of 1600 North and State Street.

I wish you all—

I wish all of you could live here for a couple of days, or really, if you would just come and park in front of my house or on 1600 North near 400 West and watch, you'd be able to see what a mistake this would be. We don't need traffic studies that are done with charts and numbers and letters. The traffic study that was done was not accurate. It has many flaws. It did not take into consideration the individual and certain issues directing traffic in this area. It did not take into— or the development services staff needs to deny Dennis O'Brien's application based on certain specific traffic problems the development will cause. Thank you for your service representing the citizens of Orem, and please recognize this is not the right place for this development. Mayor, those are all the pre-submitted Once.

And at this time, nobody has submitted to call in as well.

All right, well, the time is up, so we will go ahead and close the personal appearances portion of our meeting and move on to the consent items. Uh, the consent items consist of, uh, 3 items, and if anyone wishes to move those items to a scheduled item off the consent calendar, please let me know. The first item is 8.1, approval of City Council meeting minutes of April 13, 2021. 8.2 is the City Manager's appointments. Mr. Davidson asks for the council's advice and consent of the following appointment: the appointment of Heather Schreiber as the City Attorney. And second of all, the Board of Building and Fire Code Appeals. reappointment of Wilford Whipple. 8.3 is the applicant requests the City Council name field number 3 at the City Center Baseball Complex as Clayton Riggs Field. Um, does anyone want to move any items to a scheduled item? If not, I move that the 3 items be accepted on the consent calendar. Is there a second?

Second.

Okay, I'd like to go ahead and ask for a vote of the council. Uh, Tom, we'll start with you.

Aye.

Okay, uh, Dave?

Aye.

Debbie?

Aye.

Jeff?

Aye.

Terry?

Aye.

Brent?

Aye.

Okay, and I as mayor vote aye as well. So the consent calendar passes. Now we have scheduled items. The first one is 9.1, which is a public hearing ordinance amending the current fiscal year 2020-2021 budget. And our presenter is Brandon Nelson. Brandon, we'll turn it over to you.

Thank you, Mayor. Everybody can hear me just fine this time?

Yes.

Great. And let me share my screen as soon as, as soon as Steven lets me.

All right, go ahead, Brandon.

You should have power now.

Okay, here we go.

All right.

Can everybody see Exhibit A?

Yes.

Fantastic. So really just 2 elements related to these budget amendments. Item number, you know, item noted with a 1, the 4 items at the top plus some task force grant or money as well as some other donations coming through our Orm Foundation Trust Fund. All of these items are either grants or donations, or in the case of the police, some fundraising money that they're intending to use for, you know, the various things that are associated with those elements. And then really the main purpose for the amendments today are— this morning we closed on the water sewer and storm sewer bonds. Item noted with a 2. are the items related to those bonds and getting— recording those bond monies and proceeds on our books so that we can start spending them on those projects. And those are really the 2— only 2 elements related to this budget amendment here today. Are there any questions related to either of those? Okay.

Well, this is a public hearing. If we have no questions, comments from the council, so I would like to open it up for public comment. We will hold 90 seconds for public comment to come in and then read anything starting now. Okay, our 90 seconds are up. Steve, have we received any public comment?

No comments, Mayor.

All right, we'll close the public comment portion of the public hearing and bring it back to the council. Any comments or questions from the council?

Mayor, just a comment of gratitude that we were fortunate enough to time this right. get the interest rates and the hard work done behind the scenes by Mayor Yu and others to make this happen. Thank you.

You bet. And the timing is perfect for the bond to have one of the lowest interest rates we've ever seen, which will save the public money. All right, I make a motion then that we, by ordinance of City Council, amend the current fiscal year 20-2021 budget as listed. Is there a second?

Second.

Okay, we'll start with the vote. Brent?

Aye.

Terry?

Aye.

Jeff?

Aye.

Debbie?

Aye.

Dave?

Aye.

Tom?

Aye.

And I, as mayor, vote aye as well. The ordinance passes. We'll now go to 9.2, which is an ordinance, not a public hearing, amending Article 22-5-3A and the zoning map of the City of Orem by changing the zone of approximately 4.0 acres from the NVD-RES-B zone to the R-8 zone, located generally at 1637 North to 1753 North along 400 West. Jason Bench is our presenter, and I'll turn the time over to him.

Thank you, Mayor. This is a reconsideration that was continued last time, as you mentioned. The property outlined in the Res B area, we're proposing to take to R-8. We had opportunity— everybody can see the screen, right?

Yes.

Take that property back to the R-8 zone. I did talk to several neighbors along 400 West and a couple neighbors that were in the neighborhood, all agree that there was no confusion and this should be rezoned to the R-8. So glad to address any questions. The Planning Commission, as a reminder, did recommend that this be rezoned back to the R-8 zone.

Any questions or comments from the council?

Okay.

I would like to make a motion then that by ordinance the City Council of Orem amend Article 22-5-3A and the zoning map of the City of Orem by 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. Is there a second?

Second.

All right, let's go ahead and vote. Start with Jeff.

Aye.

Terry.

Aye.

Brent.

Aye.

Tom.

Aye.

Dave.

Aye.

Debbie.

Aye.

And I, as mayor, vote aye as well. The ordinance passes. We have no further scheduled items. Jamie, I had a question.

Yes, I had, uh, Lenee Miller text me saying that she had put in a comment while, um, Steve was reading the comments and it didn't come through, I guess.

But I—

yeah, I do have it right here. It came in at 6:19. I think at that point we were either Yeah, just about finished, but I have it right here.

So go ahead and read it, Steve.

You can read it into the public comments and of course forward it along as well.

Council members, I'm extremely frustrated with the virtual process.

The virtual format has definitely hindered our ability to communicate with our elected officials during the public meetings. These meetings are scheduled for them to hear and interact with the public. It is a scheduled forum in which I as a resident have the opportunity to interact with all of my council members at the same time. It is a time so they can, they can listen to residents. Over the past 2 weeks, I've implored you to go back to in-person meetings. My phone calls have been met with comments like, I'm fine with virtual meetings, I'm fine if we don't go back until July.

I called every municipality in Utah County.

Saratoga Springs and Eagle Mountain have plans to return within the next 2 weeks. American Fork is returning tonight, and every other city in Utah County has already returned to in-person meetings. Most of them returned in March, but there were a couple that have since— have been since January and even last fall. They have found ways to respect the citizens and make it safely work. The virtual format leaves the residents at a distinct disadvantage. There are delays, yawning during the reading of our comments, rushed reading, missed opportunity for council members to ask questions about our comments. I've been a resident advocate for several years and I've never seen anything like this. You can't see the city council members' reactions to things because they're blocked by the presenter screen. Some of them have their cameras off, so who knows if they're even engaged in the meeting. Don't get me wrong, I respect our council members, but it's time to be back in person.

If—

okay, no, there's one.

If there are council members who have— if there are council members who have health concerns, there are ways that they can join the meeting virtually.

Is that the end of her comment?

That is, Mayor.

Okay, her comments are duly noted, and we as City Council will be taking that under advisement when we will be back in full force at our regular City Council chambers. Jamie, do you have any items of business to bring up?

I don't. I covered my items earlier in the meeting.

Thank you, Mayor.

Okay.

Then I would take a motion to adjourn our City Council meeting.

So moved.

Is there a second?

Second.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.