City Council · 2021-05-11

All right, let's go ahead and start our City Council work session today. I'd like to read a statement if I could. Pursuant to Mayor Richard F. Brunt's proclamation dated April 30th, 2021, the Orem City Council meeting on May 11th, 2021 will be an all-electronic meeting. There will be no anchor location for the meeting. The city cannot ensure the recommended minimum of 6 feet of social distancing for meeting participants at the usual location in the Orem City Council chambers. Therefore, holding the meeting at the City Council chambers would present a substantial risk to the health and safety of those who may be present. At the meeting and may contribute to the spread of COVID-19. There will be no public access to the Orem City Council chambers. Those desiring to view or participate in the meeting must do so electronically. To view the meeting, please go to orem.org/meetings. To make a comment, please submit your comments through orem.org/comments. We will go ahead now and get Going. Our first item of our work session is a discussion on the North Village District high-density zone, and I and the City Council are the presenters. I wanted to go over a couple of items. There are several items that are of concern that need to be discussed, but the first relates to the traffic study and the transportation concerns. We have Sam Kelly here with us and we have Brady, and we would like to turn some time over to them to address the traffic study as to where it's at and what is being done and the transportation concerns. So I will turn the time over to them.

Thank you, Mayor and Council. I'll go ahead and turn it over to Brady. He'll answer most of that.

Yeah, Mayor, so, so currently we are having the consultant Hales Engineering, who did the study, make some adjustments. We did have some comments and do agree with some concerns that we have heard from the citizens, especially regarding the traffic volumes that were collected with that. We do have some existing data that's pre-COVID available to us, and evaluating that, it does show that, you know, when those volumes were collected on October 20th and October 21st, that they do appear to be low. So that is one of the things that we have currently asked them to look at and make adjustments according to pre-COVID data available. We've reached out to them, and they're also going to— we've added some scope to that traffic study as well. So we are going to include some more intersections with this new study to kind of be evaluated. That's going to be 2000 North and State Street. 2000 North and 400 West, 1600 North and Main Street, and 1600 North and 800 West to that. We also are going to include an AM analysis with that as well. In the first submittal, just a PM analysis was done. They did collect data for the AM peak period between 7 and 9 in the morning, but they didn't actually analyze it. So we've heard concerns from the citizens just regarding— The school— schools in the area and that additional traffic. So we're going to have them kind of analyze that as well. And then we're also just going to have them provide accident and crash data with this next submittal.

Yeah.

It looks like, you know, in talking to them, in about— you know, they're looking at about 2 weeks to get that turned around and get an updated traffic study to us. So if there are any additional questions, I'd love to answer.

Brady, I did have a citizen request the intersection of 1600 North and 400 East be included in the study. That's quite a ways out there, but anyway.

Yeah, Mayor, and that's what we think. I mean, normally that would be outside of what we'd really consider the limits with that. I mean, it's something that we could have added to it, but we feel that going to Main Street further east of the project, that, that is adequate, you know, limits.

Sure, that's fine.

I've got a comment on that. I think what the concern is, is the Canyon Park business, you know, with pre-COVID or COVID now, you know, there's not very many people probably in that facility, so that's what they're concerned Once COVID is over, that volume coming down 1600 North, 400 East type thing.

Well, and as I mentioned, the data that we do have available to us is actually pre-COVID. And so it still shows those would represent that before people would be potentially working from home. So it should account for that before that. So we should be able to pick up those when they were going What was the date on that, do you know? Well, we have stuff available to us all the way back in, I think, around November of 2019. So we could look anytime pre, you know, the March 11th, 12th timeframe. And, you know, the data that I've looked at has kind of been March 4th, but we could go all the way in through February and January to kind of get an understanding of what the traffic was before COVID

And Brady, typically the city receives a traffic study on a new development, but it doesn't just accept it. It goes through it, makes adjustments, makes recommendations, sends it back to the traffic engineer. They make the adjustments and then bring it back to the city. That's the normal course of business, isn't it?

Absolutely, Mayor. Yes, it is. Yeah, I mean, rarely, if ever, we've ever had a traffic study that we've never had a comment or concerns on, you know. So this was just the for submittal for this project. And as I mentioned, we do have concerns just as everybody else and has provided those comments. And we'll get this updated study and we'll go through it again and make sure that everything— that we feel everything is addressed that needs to be addressed and that we're comfortable with everything before technically we'd accept it.

The other item that has been brought up is 2 items actually. The right turn into the project is coming off of 2 lanes headed west towards State Street. I believe the city is requesting that a deceleration lane be put in place by the developers, so you actually have a mini 3rd lane to turn into the project. Is that correct?

That is correct, yes. We are requesting that, that decel lane in there to help try to get those people turning right into the development out of the through lane. Just to kind of, you know, so there's not that speed differential happening that is currently existing now.

Sure.

The other item is that people have had concerns about people coming from the west, from the freeway, to the project having to make a U-turn to get into the project to go around the divider there. There is a turn lane there right now, but it's my understanding that will be taken out. But then have to make a U-turn at the stoplight. The power pole and the power boxes are too close to the street to take them out, and they're too substantial. So then the question is, well, then do people go down further down 1600 North and make a U-turn to the east? Do they turn left up on 400 West and make a U-turn in front of the neighbors there and come back around? And one thing I've tried to mention to some is that actually we have a natural U-turn there in the sense that if you turn in like you're going towards the Quick Quack Car Wash, you go next to the piece of property, little square property that the city owns. You come around that and come right back up to the stoplight, go through the stoplight and hang a left. And you've made a natural U-turn right there without having to violate any laws going further east or further north, and you make that U-turn come into the deceleration lane and then go into the project. Does that sound correct to you?

Yes, I guess that movement could be done. What we would potentially like to see people do who are coming from the west going eastbound is actually make an eastbound left turn at State Street there. They can do that movement as well, do a left turn there and then make a right turn in the cross-access easement that they have available there as well.

So either one.

Yep.

Okay.

Well, Mayor, why would we close off that left turn lane into the project when that's what's causing all the U-turns?

So don't ask me. You're going to have to ask Brady and Sam, but it's my understanding that they're looking at making this a right turn only, and that would allow a left turn there and also could back up the traffic right there.

But I also heard that the reason why is the traffic study fails if that thing is not closed off. I don't know if that's true or not, but maybe Brady, you can answer that question.

No, Brady, maybe— this is Jamie— maybe you can speak to the fact that that is not a public street.

Yeah, that other part's not a public street.

Oh, you're talking about the Quick Quack stuff, Jamie, or— oh yeah, yeah. But no, so, so in terms of— so the—

There's no left turn lane there on 1600 North right now.

That—

yeah, and that's what we're discussing.

Yeah, sure. So, so the, uh, the development, when we saw it when it was proposed, they are shifting the, the access further to the west. That would cause disalignment with the existing median opening. So as a result of that, we would close this off, and it would go right in, right out, and that does reduce conflict points. So we actually look at that as being, you know, potential safety improvement as a result of that. We also have potential for, you know, the through— or the people who are in that little left turn lane there to queue back into the through lanes as well. And I think, you know, the traffic study did identify that eastbound left turn lane at 400 West needing to be extended. I think it was around 25 feet or something like that, so that would also give us— provide us that additional length there as well. And then we'd like to realign that taper there as well, and that would also help provide more storage for the westbound left turns at State Street.

So Brady, they're going to— you said they're going to move the entrance down?

West?

Yes, where they have it shown there, they're shifting it to the west.

Next to the building as it is on an in-and-out. So to me, that, that seems— to me, that doesn't sound right to me.

Well, that building may go away.

Well, but I mean, it's not—

it's not a repair building.

That's what we're dealing with is now is the buildings there now. So to me, it doesn't make sense, Brady.

Well, what they were showing, Dave, was, was still adequate width in terms of the minimum 24 feet required through there. And so when we're looking at it based off of our standards and ordinances like that, they were still meeting all of those.

It's an extra wide entrance right now, Dave, just to clarify.

So could you also maybe address parking? Radium, Sam.

I think maybe leave that up to— I think Jason might be better to speak to that, Mayor.

Yeah, yeah, Jason helped do a parking study.

So we're at 1.75 stalls per apartment or condo, is that correct?

Per apartment over the commercial. So there's a commercial component, right? They have about 7,200 square feet of commercial. That requires 1 stall for every— or 3 stalls per 1,000. And then of that, a third of those could be shared with the residential. So they've got the commercial component and anything over that base density, which is 7, they have to have 1.75 per unit. So collectively they have the commercial this year and then the residential. So overall they have the required parking.

And the 1.75, is that a Standard that is used throughout the city, used by other cities, the state?

That was a standard that we came up with, with the— if you remember back in 2019.

I do remember.

Yes.

We have the traffic study, our overall parking study done with the city. We came back to the council, discussed that. This pertains to the districts only. With consultation with developers, with the city, and with this parking study, came up with a standard of 1.75 in addition to the commercial requirement. So this is only pertaining to the districts.

Okay. And we feel like that's adequate to cover the parking needs. We're not seeing people coming out and trying to park on 1600 North or 400 West.

In this instance, because the developer has another 2.5 acres, you know, behind his storage, indoor storage facility, I mean, there's plenty of parking or plenty of potential for parking if In an event this doesn't work for whatever reason, we missed the mark, they still have the ability to provide parking on site because he has a vacant almost over 2 acres of property to do that. And that doesn't mean it's going to, you know, if there's an issue with this project and they can solve it with that surplus parking, we may want to look at it in the future, but we feel this is an adequate overall parking standard.

What does that do? It's a Phase 2.

So we'd have to account for that. If for whatever reason he comes in and wants to do Phase 2, he's going to have— if there's a parking issue with Phase 1, he's going to have to address that before he comes through for that.

So, I mean, Mayor, I've got a, I've got a question here on the State Street Master Plan. It reads, the North Village District, NVD purpose, the NVD zones are intended to be more residential in nature with neighborhood retail and smaller scale development. Compared to others— compared to the other 4 State Street districts, states your master plan code ordinance 22-24-5. So my question is, this edge zone or this district, from what the information we're receiving from all the— from Osman and everybody else, they're going to put quite a few apartments with retail, and I just don't see the That's not a smaller scale for that neighborhood. And in this district, if you look at the picture, you've got residential backing the whole— surrounding the whole district, which is totally different than any other district in our station master plan. So I have a major concern with this district and the parking at 1.75. So I had it when I was in 2019, me and Brent voted against it, but— I think the traffic study is definitely moving in the right direction, but I still think if their engineer, whatever they contract with, is going to come up with whatever they want to, because it's going to be a biased study. So I think we definitely— we talked about it— maybe going another private individual or company that can do another traffic study and maybe get UDOT involved, because I don't think with all the high density and the parking, I just don't think it's going to pencil in and out. The traffic's going to be so terrible. I mean, just standing there the other day, 3 people did a U-turn in a half hour, you know, screeched the tires and went around the corner. I'm thinking, this is ridiculous. So I don't know, I just don't think it's a good fit.

So the traffic study, we're just going to have to wait and see what the traffic study comes back with because it's not complete yet. And then at that time, look at it. And, you know, I guess if anybody wants to, you know, pursue a second traffic study, that's fine. there's a cost of about $6,000-$7,000 for it, and that would have to come out of somebody's pocket to pay for it. But Hales is a good engineering company, and so I want to see what they come up with when they're done.

Do we know when school is out?

Yeah, the end of May.

No. Yeah, more—

2 more weeks, I believe.

Mayor, this is Terry. Question on the 1.75. That happened just a couple months before Jeff and I were put on the council, and I don't know of any development in the city, any of them of the high-density apartments, where there is adequate parking. I mean, I can name all the— you know, you and all of us can name all the ones that we know about, and you can just drive by there night or day and they're not parking. They don't have enough parking. So I'm here with David saying I'm really concerned because after that goes in at a 1.75, if people are parking along 4th West, that's just an accident waiting to happen for those little kids trying to walk home. When there isn't even a sidewalk on the, on the west side of 4th West.

So that's something the city ought to look at putting in. Jason, any thoughts from you as far as parking goes, from what you've seen?

As far as existing projects?

Uh-huh.

I mean, some projects, yeah, there are some issues with, with current projects, but that doesn't mean that there's not adequate parking. Well, it may be convenient parking by parking on the street. There's several projects that people park on the streets because it's more convenient. But it doesn't mean that there's not adequate parking on the site itself. The parking study— and you're welcome to look at the overall parking study in April of 2019— they studied 10 different projects and all of them had adequate parking, even though they may have not parked on the site physically because it was quicker for them to park on the street and walk up to their unit. So I can't say that, you know, there's, there's not some issues with people parking on the street or out of convenience. park somewhere else. But the fact that they have parking on site isn't the issue. There are a couple projects that I will agree that doesn't meet the requirement.

But I'd like to just have the name of— sorry, I'd like to name 2 or 3 of these projects we can drive by that have adequate parking, because I don't know of any.

Councilmember Peterson, just a few minutes ago I provided you a link. to that study. And so there is detailed information about all 10 of those projects and when parking stalls were counted and vacancies were calculated. All that is included in the study. And you can see the particular projects that were used as part of the evaluation, which are also all the projects probably that you're most familiar with, everything from Obviously Midtown Village to Monteval to Canyon Crossing and other projects along the State Street corridor.

As a citizen, as I drive by these different projects, there, there's no parking stalls.

Well, I think that's the, that's the challenge that I think Jason is speaking to— perception versus fact. And the perception may be That there is not parking, but as a matter of convenience, people are choosing not to park. But in some cases, if you read the study, what the study suggests is that some of these facilities or some of these projects are being parked at 1.42 per unit and not even 1.75. So in most cases, there is a surplus of parking. in these projects.

Boy, show them to me. Just, just drive by.

I don't—

I can't show it to you, but a contractor and consultant we hired can, and that's what's included in the 2019 study.

I mean, drive to Costco at night and show me the excess parking over at Ashton. Drive up and down State, go over to the development on about 10th East on the west side of Orem where they're parked in all the neighborhoods.

I mean, Go down.

I guess that's what I'm saying is they did, and they did document that, and that's in the study.

As you drive down Geneva Road and see all the parking along Geneva. So I don't know what the study says, but if you drive into the parking lot, there's no parking stalls.

So Jamie, thanks for— thank you for sending that link to us. Appreciate having that information. Jason, do you know, so just to the north on State Street in this district. And on the other side of the street, there's a, there's a complex there. Do you know the one I'm talking about? I don't know the name of it. It's, it's just—

oh, probably before Neider's on the west side of the road, the car dealership.

North Abbey, you're talking about?

Okay.

Do you know what the parking ratio is there? Because there, there are always always cars out on State Street all day long, and especially at night. I'm just curious what the ratio is there.

I'd have to pull that out.

I don't know it off the top of my head. No.

I remember with Monteval, they were parking on the street north of the complex, and we finally went in and painted the sidewalk red because they were not supposed to park there, and then found out in fact that they had plenty of parking. They just were doing out of convenience, as Jason mentioned, and then they have since moved into the normal area to park. Debbie Larray's got a question. Debbie, you want to go ahead?

My husband and I drove Sunday night to North Abbey and Monteval because I wanted to see what the parking looked like, and when I drove to Monteval, there were people parked on the road, but When I went inside the complex, I looked all around. There were numerous places still available. I did the same thing at the North Abbey. There were people parked on State Street, but there was still ample parking. So I don't know if it's visitors. I don't know if it's just convenience. But when I actually went— this was 2 days ago— there was still parking inside their complex. So I don't know. Maybe it's the time of day. Maybe it's visitors. I don't know what the reason is, but there was still parking. So it was kind of interesting. I just wanted to see for myself.

So is that what we tell the people on 16th North if they're parking along 4th West? Well, we did a study and there's plenty of parking, they just don't want to park there.

Well, I think you could redline it and say you can't park at all. You could permit it.

And then you bring the police in and write them a ticket.

I think, but if I may, I think one of the, one of the discussion points is, if it's a public street, public parking is generally permitted. And so that, that's part of the— that's part of the challenge. This is not exclusive to this one project. If you go through any neighborhood any night, there are going to be cars parked all through the neighborhoods on the street. It's a public street, and therefore that parking is permitted. So unless we specifically prohibit it, And there are obviously justifications that we would have to meet to do that, then they're parked legally.

I think right on.

I think the issue is we need to change that 1.75.

I've got a question, Mayor.

Go ahead.

On the State Street Master Plan, when I read it before, maybe Jason can, can specify or clarify. And smaller-scale development. What does that mean?

Yeah, in the development itself, basically the purpose was to be more residential, meaning not surrounding residential neighborhoods, but some residential within the district. And then the 10% commercial is the lower, smaller-scale, you know, the mom-and-pop shops that would come in there. So the definition is purposely for residential associated with, or collectively with, smaller-scale You know, inline shops that would go along with that development. So this first floor, for example, in this project, the first floor is going to be commercial, which meets that definition of smaller scale, whether that's office, whether that's a hair salon or whatever. That's the intent of the 10%. And then the, you know, the other can be residential. Also in the North Village District, there's a maximum height of, you know, minimum height of one story, which in the other districts like the City Center District has a minimum of 3 stories. So the purpose was the North Village to be smaller. That doesn't mean a developer couldn't do something bigger, but the minimum requirement the city was going to require was going to be different than city, the hub, or the city center district by the minimum height that's required up there. So it was purposely smaller. That doesn't mean the developer couldn't go bigger if he can meet the requirements.

So I got a question for Brady on the, on the traffic study. What happens if it comes back and it's all out of whack and it doesn't make sense. Does that kill the project or does it— you do mitigation or what is— what's the process?

We look at mitigations and so hopefully the traffic study would provide some of those recommendations in terms of mitigating any potential issues or anything like that, Dave, and we look at those and the feasibility of those.

What would be a mitigation like? What would be a mitigation?

Well, I mean, typically what we would see is something like a decel lane, right, being required. We are already requiring that. Currently right now, I mean, State Street is built out. We've got dual left turn lanes, we've got right turn lanes, you know, don't really see anything happening there. And same thing at 400 West and 1600 North. So it's hard to say right now of what that would potentially be.

Okay, and then also, if this district's built out, you've got no access on 400 West, you have one exit on 1600. And you have 2 accesses on State Street, is that correct?

I believe it's just one.

One, and all that traffic is going to go out of that onto State Street or onto 1600 North? I think that's a little bit—

Well, to be honest, or to be fair, Dave, there's a couple of old properties that we don't know how they're going to redevelop, and they may collectively be bought up and develop as part of an overall project. So we don't know what the future is going to bring, and there may be multiple accesses.

I think we're living in the now, right now, and it's the concern Also, with this North Village is I'm concerned about height. Also, I was standing out there looking at the new power poles they put up, which is probably 60 feet, and this is going to be 70 feet. Concerned about quick quack and that, and maybe the snow will never melt in the wintertime. I don't know. So just a lot of concerns on my part, and I feel for the neighbors because I, I think We did them a disservice on 75 feet. We should have gone longer, which I think we got, you know, information from, from you, Jason, that we should have probably gone a little bit longer, but you're pushing the other way. But, you know, shame on us.

What do you mean by information I should have provided? I don't get that one.

I mean, asking, you know, 75 feet, 100 feet, 125 feet. It's just, you know, we should have just stuck to the guns and stuck at 100 feet minimum, but We didn't.

All right, Jason, do you want to mention anything with regards to height, and then we're going to have to move on?

I guess height— the whole intent of height was to give flexibility not only to the developer but also, you know, surrounding property owners. Part of that was flexibility with the architecture. Part of it was knowing that there would be limitations to being able to physically develop something with the cost of structures over 70 feet. Knowing that not very many people are going to come in and build higher than that, with the limitation of parking and other things, we felt that there was a, you know, leaning on the side of flexibility would be appropriate. I don't know that we're opposed to the height limit, but that's the purpose of why we didn't put a height limit on there.

But you do have a height standard, which maybe you could repeat again.

And yeah, the setback's equal to the height, which was the standard that was in the in the ordinance and all the, all the districts, and that's in any commercial zone next to residential zone. That's currently in the ordinance. And then the 75/35 is also in there. So the North Village has 2 different standards next to a residential zone.

So my question is, Mayor, how do we, with this district, how do we put things on hold at the moment until we figure out the height, maybe the parking, maybe the zoning? Do we call a special session for City Council and say, hey, this is on hold until we figure it out as a council, or what do we do? I'm concerned that other people are going to put in applications, which, you know, I heard the application was not even close to being complete and the city charged the Knighton money so they could say they had the application in. So I'm just—

That's not accurate, Dave. Not accurate at all.

Well, I heard that.

That's not true.

That the application was, was just thrown together and was missing a lot of stuff.

That is inaccurate. Inaccurate.

Well, okay, so that's, that's fine.

You're getting misinformation from somebody, but we had an application that was required by the city and the fees were paid. It was a complete application. They're missing a few minor things, yes.

But just to say that—

A few minor things, Jason, really?

Is not true.

A few minor things.

Which is typical on any project. We don't— yeah, there's a few things that are missing on every project.

Well, I just want to know what we can do, Mayor, to halt anything that's going on there until we figure out what we're doing with parking, the zoning, and the height.

What do we do?

Well, if the parking— I'm sorry, if the traffic study comes back acceptable, then that does not create a stop there. As far as the height goes, The height, again, the buffer was presented and passed. You passed, or you made the motion, and it's 75-foot buffer at 35-foot height. The, the total height of the project is limited by the length versus the height. So for every 10 feet back, it can only go 10 feet up. And it's a max, I believe, of 70-foot because they won't be able to do beyond that. And that part of the project, the corner project Phase 1, an application has already been put in place. I understand that.

So moving forward, how do we— what do we do to put everything else on hold until we figure this out?

Well, if you're looking at Phase 2, then—

I'm looking at any other project that's going to be in that North Village. I understand Phase 1.

Well, you have 2 projects, potential projects. You have Phase 2, number one. But the second one is you have Heather Osman looking at doing a project there as well along State Street.

There's no application. That's what caught us the last time because they put an application and paid it Tuesday at 2:38 PM.

There's no application for either Phase 2 or Heather Osman yet.

What I'm asking is, what can we do as a council to say this is on hold until we really figure out what we want to do with this North Village so we're all comfortable moving forward? What do we do? We need 4 people on the council say, hey, we want to open this back up, or what?

I don't know what we do.

Well, you can open it back up for discussion and take a look at it. You know, if, if we want to change it, then people can vote for that. We'd have to have a long discussion on that.

We've—

Well, that's why I'm saying maybe we have a special city council to just simply talk about this, this district and make sure we get it right.

Well, however we want to do it, we're halfway down the process, so part of it is applied for and he has the right to move ahead. And the other half comes down to looking at it. If a zone change is needed or wanted, that depends upon the council.

So, so, I mean, I would like to make a motion that we, we do a special city council and we open this back up and see exactly, we can get it right for the parking, the height, and maybe the zoning. Maybe we have a setback.

Well, this— yeah, so we'd need to do that and get enough people on board and go accordingly. We're not here to make any motions. We're just doing a City Council work session on this particular district. But if you want to, if you want to bring that up, you can bring it up.

And anybody else want to do that and bring other people involved?

I would like to second that motion that Dave has. I think we need to have a special counsel and try to get this right.

If I may, Mayor, just so The council understands. You have discretion to amend zones and to make changes. However, there is a formal process that you have to follow that involves public noticing. It also involves visiting for— if you are, for example, going to amend an ordinance, it has to go back through the Planning Commission, and then it has to go through the City Council as well. So it's not something that can be done some by way of, for example, your unilateral action. It's something that requires moving through the process and a public noticing process.

And that's all— that's what I was asking, Jamie. So how do we get that process moving? So does the clock stop once we do that?

Well, I mean, I— that's a question for more for Heather or Steve. But once, for example, that process was underway, then I guess we could— and Steve, maybe the language is a pending ordinance kind of doctrine that would essentially come into place.

Yeah, that's right.

I mean, once there's an ordinance amendment in the works, then it basically becomes vested, if you will, once it's heard by the Planning Commission. So at that point, a developer could not submit a project that conflicted with the terms of what was heard by the Planning Commission.

But to that point, the Planning Commission meets once a month, twice a month, and then we meet twice a month, and you would have to coordinate all of that plus work on an ordinance with staff. So it could take a couple of months.

You could do a special— you could do a special city council or special Planning Commission meeting.

But I guess, I guess I would suggest and recommend maybe from you, Councilmember Spencer, since— and Councilmember Pedersen, since you both are the ones that are making a motion, and which, by the way, is not something we can do in this meeting, but for the sake of conversation, what are the specific things that you'd like to address so that we can, for example, as staff, prepare that information for you and some potential recommendations, because we're talking about obviously a process that took 5 years in the making. And I'm not sure it's something that can take just a few minutes to, for example, modify. Because what, what obviously you would do in a zone, in this zone, would have implications across other zones in the city as well, I might imagine.

And I would recommend that you write that up together and send it to Jamie.

So I have a question, Jamie. You know, when it was changed to 1.75, did that go through this process you're talking about?

Yes, it did.

So if I could, we're at the end of our time.

Let me—

so what did you want me to do?

I mean, I would like you and Terry to write up what you would like to see changed about the zone there in the North Village District and make a request as to how to change that.

I just want to make— maybe I could— I don't want to put the other council members on the spot, but what are their—

can't make a motion on that right here.

So no, I'm not saying that. I'm just trying to get their thoughts so I can— we can— so Brent, do you have any thoughts or ideas?

Well, I have no problem taking a look at it again. The one— the 1.75 parking, I I've always— I wasn't really— well, I wasn't for that in the beginning, and I would like some more information on that if it's justifiable in moving forward. I never really could understand why we dropped from 2.0, but anyway, I think that's something we need to look at, and the height.

But if I may, In this particular conversation is addressing parking. If it doesn't work in one piece of the State Street Master Plan, then, you know, you can't do it in one area and not in the other areas, potentially. So if the suggestion representation is that it's not going to work at 1600 North, then it's probably not going to work at 4th South, or it's not going to work at Center Street either. So You, you probably need to consider it globally rather than just at 1600 North. The height issue is also something that probably universally needs to be considered and not exclusively to one zone. Because if the suggestion and representation is that density residential at 1600 North is not going to work at 1.75 stalls per unit, then what's the differentiation between 1600 North and 4th South? Why is it going to work at 4th South and not 1600 North? Do you kind of get what I'm saying?

Yes, but I mean, I think the, the station master plan does point out North— the North Village District as a smaller scale development. So it is, it is a different district because it is surrounded by residential neighborhoods all the way around. There's no other district that has that.

So—

I wonder, Dave, if we could get some comparisons on cities close to us on their parking ratio. I don't know.

Maybe we're alone.

I don't know. That too is actually included in the 2019 study that I provided to you.

Oh, okay.

Thank you.

And then Debbie.

I've always been willing to look at the height. I know commercial was 60 feet, and so I'm— the parking does not concern me as much because I know there was good data in the parking study, but the height is something I would be willing to, to look at and see what makes sense for that area.

So, thanks, Debbie.

And Jeff.

I'd be happy to look at it again. I'm Anxious to look at what Jamie has sent to us. And my, my concern is with Phase 2. And I know we're not talking about Phase 2 today, but we will be. The traffic impact and the way that Phase 2 is proposed, the way that it sits back in there getting in and out, it's just an awkward, crazy positioning to get back into that. those buildings when they're there. So I'd be happy to look at it again.

Okay.

And then actually, for Terry and I, it's the first— I mean, it's the first time, our first go-round. So yeah.

So quick question on Brady on the traffic study.

Dave, we're going to have to—

Is that included in Phase 2, Brady?

The traffic study did not include Phase 2. My understanding is that Phase 2 is— how would I put it— on hold, and I don't know if anybody else wants to speak about that. Jason might be able to a little bit more, but I think moving forward we'd still just have them look at Phase 1 right now. And if they ever came through to do Phase 2, we'd just— they'd have to do a traffic study again just like they did this one.

Right, because Phase 1 is tied to Phase 2. He has to have 1 to get into Phase 2. I don't know about that.

Just that Phase 1 completed, that's correct. Right now there's no indication they're going to submit anytime soon on Phase 2.

Jason, on the— we're doing a new study and possible mitigation, it'll require substantially more expense. Who pays for that?

What study are we talking about?

Who pays? Who pays for the additional traffic study? And if you go to mitigation on roads or whatever, who pays for all that?

So the traffic study for Phase 1 would be mitigated, paid by the developer. The Phase 2 traffic study, if we want to— the city wants to have them do another traffic study, that would be paid for by the city. The developer doesn't have to pay for 2 traffic studies. So, so if, if, for example, the council wants another traffic study to verify the first traffic study, the city would have to pay for that. Not—

okay, so just to clarify that on Jason, so if they come through and do Phase 2, the developer would be responsible for that traffic study.

Correct.

Just— I'm talking about Phase 2.

Yeah, so just as Phase 1, if an additional study wanted to be done to verify the one that Hales Engineering is doing, then it would be The city who would pay for that.

Correct.

Yep.

All right, we need to go ahead and close. Appreciate it, but we need to go ahead and move on to our next discussion, and that is the CARE major grant applications. And our presenter is Steve Downs, and Steve will turn the time over to you.

Thanks, Mayor. I will— of course, you all, you all have access to this, and I'll send it to you as well, but each year with our major grant recipients. And then I should mention, uh, representatives from the Sierra and from the Hale Center Theater are both on, both on this as well for any questions. I don't want to spend too much time on the numbers there. They can be looked at. Essentially what you'll see in that is that each one of them took significant hits in attendance, as would be expected. Um, that's for the Sierra and the Hale. The Utah Metropolitan Ballet took the largest because their event Their event that they get funding from us is in March, and they were only able to do the first night of it, and then they went into shutdown. So they took like a 93% hit. The others were sitting between 35% and 40% hit in attendance. So just giving you a little bit of background as to what kind of year that they faced, which is probably not news or surprising to you. Um, in this report This is based on the final report that all 3 of these organizations gave to us at the end of last fiscal year. Talks about all the performances they were able to, to still put on. And talked— it obviously shows the money that they've received and what they received in previous years, what they're asking for this year. It'll go through the attendance breakdown in these different areas. Again, you see the the hits that they were, um, all receiving, how they spent their money. One thing we also asked for this year was what, what other money did they receive to help them mitigate the losses that they had due to COVID-19. All 3 agencies list their access to Utah County money, the Payment Protection Program, as well as other grants that were made available specifically to the arts. Um, the Sarah the Hail and the Utah Metropolitan Ballet all, um, all received, uh, received money that helped sustain them during what was obviously a difficult year. Um, I can go over anything specific. It's the same report we, we, uh, make available every year, but I thought maybe the time is most valuable, um, for the next few minutes that we have, knowing that we're a little bit behind. with Jeff and Adam on the line to ask any questions of them.

Perfect. So Steve, can you move it up to the HAIL side? I see the SARA.

Yep, yep.

So sorry. So there's the SARA, what they're asking for. Here's the HAIL. Um, this was asked by a couple. Each organization does the same. They request up to 35% of their operating expenses. And they've done that for years, both organizations. So that's the disparity in the request. It hasn't necessarily— anyway, so they're both— so they're all doing that. All of them are asking for less money than they did last year because their operating expenses were less because they were shut down for some period of time. Again, a 35% reduction in participants for Uh, for the, um, the Hale, uh, they were shut down for 100 days. Both the Sarah and the Hale did participate in live streaming performances, which was, uh—

Can you keep moving that up a little bit?

Yeah, yeah, I'll keep going. Okay, um, uh, again, attendance breakdown, how they spent their money last year, what they're asking for this year. Access to different funding that was available to organizations going through COVID-19. Again, I'll send you this full copy as well. Metropolitan Ballet, $75,000. Again, their performances, they said they were able to only do one and then everything closed down. And so then they're asking for $75,000. There's the money that they had access to from COVID-19. So again, tonight's— tonight is not the next meeting in 2 weeks. We'll have a deliberation as to how much we would— we want to recommend giving. Tonight's an opportunity to understand the majors and what they're asking for and kind of what their last years looked like. Debbie, do you have your hand raised?

I do.

Remind me what's available, um, this year. I thought it was a little bit more than last year.

It is more money than last year, um, because we, we obviously in our, in our own budget as well as the CARE budget, we thought we would have a significant drop in revenue, which wasn't experienced. And so there's essentially kind of a, a one-time big jump this year because All the money we thought we weren't— wouldn't get last year, we did get. And now we're looking back to a more normal year. So I'm pulling up that amount right now, which is in total, uh, $2,450,000, uh, split evenly between recreation and arts. What ends up being is what essentially $1.2 million For each arts and recreation.

What we have— what we have last year, Steve?

Give me one second. And $2.24 million.

And don't we usually target a certain amount for the minis? In my mind it was $70K. Was there a target this year?

That's something for the council to actually discuss. There's a couple other applications. that we haven't had in the past. For example, uh, what's being called this year is the Come Together Festival, formerly kind of done under the Geezer Fest name, that they have an application in to help beef up that event. So there are more applications this year, um, but yeah, historically we've been sitting around the 70,000 mark.

I know Dave and, um, Jeff went to CARE, right?

The two of you?

They did.

We've had one of those meetings, and then the Thursday night, the second round of applications will be heard.

Do you guys have a recommendation at all, or you don't know yet?

I mean, I don't, I don't know yet. I think, you know, there's definitely a lot of deserving companies that are asking for money. So I, I think we need to get through probably Thursday, and then we can maybe, if it has to be up to $75,000, $80,000, whatever, We'll look, take a look at that, but we don't really know yet because we only saw half of the, the, you know, participants.

Okay, thanks.

It's not, it's not unlike other years, Debbie, as far as the applicants and the amounts that they're asking for. There, there are some new ones, some new applicants, and so I think we'll have a better understanding and a better feel for that after we meet with the other half.

Okay, well, I would certainly welcome your suggestion if it's $70,000, $80,000, $90,000, or what you think would be— we usually have a target number, but whatever you want to do.

Terry, I see your hand's raised as well.

Yes.

So Steve, you're going to make available what we just went through?

Yeah, I'll send you the whole— yep.

I was trying to follow up. I couldn't catch up.

No, yeah, sorry.

Yeah, keep up with everybody's interest, but So it looks like we're about $105,000 over on the majors this year with extra money.

Yeah, there are some, there are some other arts grants requests in as well, which will, which again, we will talk about during our presentations of record. Part of our deliberation is also presenting the city applications. Hillcrest on the rec side, that's Hillcrest Park. $750,000 for Hillcrest, some, some improvements to the indoor leisure pools. There's, there's a request to do the, the, the Sarah Park North playground, which we've wanted to improve. There's been a conversation about making it potentially— well, making it arts, very arts-focused, given that it's in the Arts District and its proximity to the Sarah Shell. And in a conversation with Debbie Luray, one of the ideas again was perhaps a James Christensen kind of memorial park that has a fantasy theme and dedicated to his artwork. So there's a, there's a portion of that playground that could be paid for with, with what would be paid for on the art side, significant amount that would be also paid for on the rec side. Given the arts features, there's also a request in to buy a used performance piano for the library hall, which has been a conversation that's been going on for a while about that, that piano. The idea this year was there's one-time money that's available because of what happened last year. That would be— this would be an ideal one-time purchase for that. All of that still allows additional money to be given in the major area as well.

So, Steve, I thought that Money coming from the CARES tax was being used to help pay for the rec center for a number of years.

Yeah, we did, we did use all the years that we thought we would, which was 4. We've exhausted that. And so now there's opportunities to use it for some things in there, but not—

We don't need any additional money from the CARES tax to pay for the rec center.

Not to pay for the— what, what was just built. The amount in there is to enhance the indoor leisure pool.

Okay, but what was just built was my question.

Yeah, correct.

Okay.

Okay, uh, now again, Jeff and Adam are on if there's any questions you have for them.

But so I got a question for both, uh, Adam and Jeff. Maybe you could go over what your You know, what you're, you're going to be doing this year, maybe plays and concerts, and just gives an idea of what you're focusing on.

Maybe, Adam, let's have you start, and then Cody and Jeff, we'll have you speak after that.

Well, thank you for giving us a chance to talk with you, and thank you for all that you do and the support you have for the arts. I was encouraged to see, as a side note here, I serve on the Utah Cultural Alliance board as well. You know, a lot of the venues in our community, in our state, have been 100% closed. And at best, those that are open have been at 50%. So you would expect that average to be about 75% down, and our organizations our HAL and CIRA are more around that 35 to 40. So that's encouraging news. And I think that speaks to all of us just trying to do everything we can to, to present something, you know, for, for those that are needing it so badly at this time. But for CIRA, we are, you know, we're full steam ahead with the CIRA shell, with Tarzan, Matilda, and Seven Brides. To our, to our best knowledge, Education Week is still up and going, and we're planning on taking Seven Brides to the de Jong for Education Week as well. We have a full season of outdoor movies and concerts as well. Anthem Lights is a week from Saturday. If you don't know them, look them up. They're fabulous. Um, and then of course Matt and Savannah Shaw, they're the father-daughter duo here in Utah. Uh, they were on the Today Show a couple weeks ago. They have more than half a million followers. We thought this is the year to have them do a concert for sure.

Glad you brought them in.

Say what?

I'm glad you brought them in, they're great.

Yeah, they're, they're very talented. We've got an ABBA show in July, uh, David Archuleta back, uh, and Colby Calais and the Oak Ridge Boys. As well as our 16th year doing Dancing Under the Stars at the Shell with our partners on that show. So we're excited. We just finished Spamalot inside, and we have a full season planned from September to May as well. And we, we simply couldn't do it without your support. So thank you very much.

You bet.

Thanks, Cody.

Yeah. Well, hey, I also want to thank, thank the City of Orem for, for being supportive. We are just excited to be back in business. You know, we've obviously been back in business at reduced capacity, but for the last few weeks, we've actually loved the ability to fill the house to full capacity. And patrons are eager to come back, which, which is fantastic. Like Adam said, we've been on many, many Zoom calls, nationwide Zoom calls, and we have to chuckle a bit when we get notice— notifications saying, hey, we're going to be talking about how to reopen your theater.

And we're like, oh, okay, well, we've been doing that since June.

And, and we've been successful at it. So if you need any advice, let us know. So anyway, we're thrilled to be back at full capacity. And yeah, we're doing Jane Austen's Emma the musical right now. It's a delightful show. And getting ready for our big summer musical, we're doing Sound of Music. It's, it's one that we've been waiting to do for years, haven't been able to get the rights because of national tours and that sort of things. And now we have that. And it's got some, some really great shows coming up the rest of the year. 39 Steps, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, and Christmas Carol. And that's, that's on the adult side, the main stage. And then the kids are with our education department. They're in just rehearsals right now for Annie Jr., and then they'll be doing Beauty and the Beast Jr., and then The Sorcerer's Apprentice in the fall. And then they do a a version of Christmas Carol Jr. as well. So lots going on there, as well as our education— educational classes this summer. Those are getting ready to go into full swing, and voice lessons and all of that. Jeff, what do you want?

Uh, just, Adam, thank you, by the way. Uh, the Sarah, just a great example of partnership in Orem. Um, we— our facility that we used to do recitals at and, uh, all of our children's programs for the end of the year, we couldn't access it because of COVID restrictions, and Adam's team made the Sierra available for us to go over and do those recitals.

Well, that's great.

Shows you another great example of the 2 organizations in Orem working together. So we're excited to hear that there's gonna— in fact, that's a great lineup, Adam. There's a few right there I'm going to come to, so I'm excited. Anyway, we're, we're just grateful to be in operation and There's been so many staff at the city, I don't even know where to start. But, you know, where they've been helping us to access funds with the county and be able to get the funds that we need to stay in business and do the things we need to do.

So we're grateful to see both of you were able to do that.

Yeah, it's, it's been really humbling, to be very frank with you. So, so anyway, thanks, Dave, for allowing us to talk. I'm glad you asked the question.

Appreciate it.

You just knew I wanted to talk, didn't you, Dave?

That's a given.

Anyway, thanks, thanks, you guys.

We're glad to see that both theaters are up and running and doing well. And I can tell you, I, I drive by the Hale and I see a lot of cars out there, a lot of activity, and a lot of activity at the Sierra. Our people love your theaters, so Anyway, Mayor, next steps.

I've sent the report that I showed to all of you. It's in your inbox. On the 25th, we'll go over city applications, the recommendations. On Thursday night, the CARE Commission members will put together a proposal for the minis and mid-majors. We will share that as well as allow you to deliberate on that, as well as the majors and the city applications. We would put that together.

We would—

the, the request, as we've done in the last few years, which has worked great, is we, we debate and we talk it through that meeting. We, we kind of leave that meeting with an idea of what we're okay with, and then we put it on the consent agenda for the first meeting in June. We approve it, and then we get checks cut and inform organizations that, that will be doing it via reimbursement that the money will be available July 1st.

So.

Appreciate all your help and support. It's been, it's been, it's been a good year. We're happy to be in the position we're in, for sure.

Well, you know, our residents love their arts and theater. We're lucky to have it. So, all right. If nothing else, let's go ahead and move on then for a discussion on the water code update. Chris Shirkey and Neil Winterton.

Yes, Mayor, can you hear me all right?

Yes.

All right, thank you. So I'd like to introduce a few items that are going to be coming up over the next few sessions, work sessions and City Council meetings.

Public Works has been actively working and engaging with our legal staff, including Heather Schreiber as our city attorney. Neil Winterton, Lane Gray.

Neil is our Water Resources Manager, Lane Gray is our Water Section Manager, and then also Giles Demke as our Water Reclamation Section Manager. Tonight we will be presenting on some modifications to the water code, as well as the municipal wastewater planning program. Neil's going to speak to both of those in the work session at this time. In our regular session, under our consent items, we have the adoption of the 2021 utility master plans. And in future meetings, we have other subsequent updates to sewer code and pretreatment code. And so you're going to be seeing a little bit from Public Works over the next, next few months. But with that, I'd like to turn the time over to Neil, who I've asked to present on water code and updates that we've been working on.

So, Neil, I'll turn the time over to you.

Thank you. Sometimes you do major remodels, and sometimes you do a paint job. Sometimes you just do some housekeeping items, and that's what this is with the water code. The water code directs builders and developers on how to install our infrastructure that ultimately the city is going to maintain. We're going to just walk through some of the small changes that are associated with this. You can see the, the contents haven't changed or aren't going to change at all. And here are the sections that, that we're going to look at. and briefly scroll through. We've updated a couple of items as it relates to what kind of developments come through, and it's, it's kind of ironic that the city has used this light blue color and Microsoft Word assigned my changes to the document in light blue as well. So anytime you see the strikeout and then The light blue, that's where we've made some small changes. When you see something like this in the meters, we changed that the discretion of where meters are placed from the owner or developer to the city. As developments increase in density and increase in challenging locations, we've always required the developers to place meters in areas that are accessible and and acceptable to us through the DRC process. And they've followed certain standards, and through our DRC process, we've redlined where they went. We've never had a problem with locating where these are, but we wanted to just give a little bit more clarity that the city is going to help the developer know where those are going to go. Some other things that not all buildings are residential and not all residential units are, are small anymore, and sometimes they are constructed in different ways. So we just added the word building. Similar language here for the residential and the non-residential side. We are going to send this document to you. And there's no action required today. We will ask you to adopt it in next week's City Council meeting. We're just introducing some of the concepts today. We did add a section on PRDs and mixed-use developments because the last time the ordinance was updated significantly was around 2006. So we just added some language there that talks about who's going to take care of it and where the water bill is going to go. We changed the word connection and just changed that to fees. We changed it from Public Works to Development Services because that's where development takes place. Again, we're not going to look at everything, but I wanted to give you an opportunity to see the types of changes that were made. We've switched from a radio-touched read to the words advanced metering infrastructure so that new construction will come with those features already there.

So, Neil, a question for you on the AMIs. How far along are we in the city in getting those installed?

We've had some equipment issues with the vendor that we believe are resolved. We have already swapped out about 9,000 meters that are ready to communicate. We've got to get the communication receivers in place. By this October, all the receivers should be in place, and we should have another 3,000 or 4,000 meters ready to go, and that's our target. So we're going to have over half the city by the end of the year—

And do you—

—riding the SwitchUp.

Do you let the residents know when the AMI is put in place and for them how they can access it to determine what's going on?

Yeah, we haven't, we haven't had the access ready yet because the communication devices have had some setbacks. However, when we've swapped them out, we knock on the door and let them know we're switching the meter out and, and eventually When we have all the communication in place and all the, the code, computer code written to receive it and send it, we will send out some mass mailers and create quite a buzz about—

So, are you about a year away on that, or?

What's that?

Are you a year away on that, or?

Yeah.

Yes. But like I said, by the end of the year, October, December, we should be fully ready to receive information throughout the city. We hope to do some beta testing January, February, and that by next March, next spring, we'll have over half the city engaged and, and able to access that information.

Good question.

We had hoped to have that ready this year, but some of the equipment that the vendor had was not working as they had hoped, so we have to swap some things out. All right, back to the code. Just some language related to irrigation versus lawn sprinkling. Again, you see AMI And clarification on a fire line and what that is and the ownership of that, we put in an example in here and we're not going to read that. But you see the examples that are before you and we're going to send this document out so you can read it and look it over. Like I said, it's, it's a housekeeping-related item to the code, and hopefully to provide additional clarity. There's no intention to do anything different than what we have already been doing and just codifying those current practices. So I think I'll leave the presentation of the water code at that and open it up for any other questions. Here you can see that we changed it to create gender-neutral language as well, and throughout the document we attempted to do that.

Any questions or comments from the council? All right, well, let's go to the wastewater planning program presentation then.

All right, let's, let's just present. Can you see the presentation there?

Yes.

All right, every year the Wastewater Municipal Planning Program document is required to be presented to the City Council. There's no action required for this, but each year we present, and, and you might need a refresher as to what the MWPP is, and it is a program created from the state of Utah that is there to assist owners of municipal sewer systems and wastewater treatment works. And it's kind of just a self-analysis to ask ourselves how we're doing with the planning and how we're doing in, in 3 major areas. We do very well because we have a good group of people to take care of our system. This is the organizational chart with Mr. Giles Demke as the Water Reclamation Section Manager and the team that works in the different groups. The collection group is out in the streets with the collection pipes. Then there's a GIS group that's made up of one person. There are 3 in the instrumentation and electrician group, and those 3 service both the water and the water reclamation side. Then on the far right in the pink group is the water reclamation facility with different operators with different tasks associated with the different operations of the facility. The 3 areas that the MWPP addresses are the financials, the collections, and the mechanical plant. And I've taken just a few screenshots of the questions and the answers, and today's exercise is also going to be an exercise in your colorblindness and your vision. Because the way that this report prints Is not an X but a blue circle on the yes when it's yes, and it leaves it black when it's no. So I did that intentionally just so we— to give you— to keep you guys focused on the questions. Here are 3 questions. Clipped from the survey. Are your sewer revenues maintained in a dedicated enterprise account? Yeah, our sewer fees are kept in the sewer fund. Are you collecting 95% or more?

Yes.

And are our debt service requirements being met?

Yes.

That's good. Have you completed a rate study within the last 5 years? Yes, we just completed one. And do you charge impact fees? Again, a yes. The collection system. The total length of sewer pipe is 346 miles, and I want you to think about the magnitude of that 1.8 million feet of pipe that's out in the ground. And, and think that we go clean that and we go and we inspect it. And associated with that pipe are 8 lift stations. And a lift station is an intricate building with pumps that lift the sewer from a lower elevation to a higher elevation when gravity can't carry it. We have those down off of Carterville, and we have some of those down in Springwater, and we have One of those down at the canyon development at the mouth of the canyon. Anywhere that, that there's a low spot, we have to lift it back up.

So, Neil, does that include the ones in the City Center building?

That does not include the ones in the building itself, no. These are large lift stations that service multiple connections in multiple areas. Those in the city center, those sump pumps are managed through the other building maintenance group.

Okay.

We do help, as we just laid a new sewer lateral out of the city center today. Is the entire collection system to be inspected at least every 5 years? That's our goal, and we typically hit that. We run a camera up and down those pipes. We have a TV van that has sophisticated CCTV equipment on it, and it goes out and we look for problems. We have to be very proactive with the sewer. We look at the pipe and inspect the joints and inspect the connections to manholes, and we inspect the manholes to look for deterioration. Is at least 85% of the collection system mapped? Yeah, we've got what we feel is 100% of our system. If we don't, then— and we are alerted to that, we go look for it. This section is on the mechanical plant itself, and the ultimate goal, the, the extreme overarching goal for our facility and our operations, is to not violate our permit with the state of Utah administered through the Environmental Protection Agency of the US. And this is, this is the, the achievement that we strive for in everything we do. in terms of preventative maintenance and operations leads to this notice of violation, and we did not receive any violations this year.

Congratulations.

Thank you.

An interesting part of our facility, and I, I've tried to highlight different pieces and parts of our facility each year because, uh, just to, to give a background, but Some of you have heard and maybe others don't, but our biosolids handling is, is somewhat unique and somewhat boastful in that 100% of our biosolids last year were land applied to agricultural fields in South County. So we took zero biosolids to the landfill. And those biosolids contain what we're trying to remove, are those nutrients in phosphorus and ammonia, and those, uh, and then the nitrogen in the ammonia. The phosphorus and the nitrogen are what agricultural farmers desire for their plants, and, and it's been a beneficial process for us for removal because it's expensive to take it to the landfill, and it's been beneficial to them to grow a better product for their needs. In order to meet the standards to be able to do that, we use what we call thermophilic digestion, which is we cook them, we heat the solids up for a given timeframe, normally around 30 days, 25 to 30 days, and to a given temperature. And that takes all the pathogens out and makes them safe for that type of use. That's the end of that presentation.

So, Neil, got a question. We had several issues with fumes leaving the plant, the wastewater plant, over into the neighborhoods down there in southwest Orem, and I haven't received any complaints this last year. Tell me what's changed or what happened. Were we missing an afterburner for a while?

Yeah, you've got different areas that, that produce odors that are going to happen at that facility. And we make every effort to prevent those odors from, from reaching atmosphere. You're right, we do have a burner that burns excess gas. And I think it was— it's probably been a few years since you've heard anything. At least I have— haven't heard anything for, for a long time. We do periodic inspections, and upon the inspection of, of the burner, we found some things associated with the carrier gas line where it had a belly in it that, that we repaired. Occasionally we'll have the, the burner itself, as I mentioned, the biosolids that we cook We recycle the gas and burn that gas to heat the solids. And sometimes that burner needs to be serviced or it goes out of service due to the nature of the environment that it's in and needs to be repaired. And extra gas is created and then we don't have the ability to burn off as much gas as we want to. And part of our capital plan is to create a redundant burner for that purpose, and that's in the works. So keeping an eye on the processes, keeping an eye on the equipment really is really important to make sure that the equipment functions properly, because when the equipment functions properly, we have a better chance at not spilling gas to the atmosphere. And fortunately, the council has supported those efforts and those replacement efforts, and we're able to do that.

So, I know in recent years we've talked about the percentage levels of phosphate and nutrients going out into the lake and the concern the state has. And their desire to tighten down on those limits and make them even more restrictive. I was at a conference in the last year where people are questioning if that is the right way to go, if that's really what's creating the, the algae out there in the lake. And I know that the state is Trying 4 or 5 different programs to see if they will, in fact, eliminate the algae blooms. Can you bring us up to date on all of that?

Yeah, that's a good point. The, the state has done some sampling within small portions of Utah Lake. Some of the marinas did some sample testing of different products associated with that. Some had seen some results. At the heart of the issue of Utah Lake for treatment plants in general is, are the treatment plants the only thing that is contributing to the lake's condition and excess nutrients? And moving forward, because Orem has already been regulating its its release of those for many years. TSSD has, and Provo through the tailrace has as well. But regulating that down to doubling your sewer bill, for example, will that enhance what is going into the lake enough to even feel a difference? And that's what's at the heart of the discussion, because there are a couple of key indicators You mentioned the phosphorus and the nitrogen. Is there already so much in the soil that reducing it further from what we've already reduced it won't help as much? Or can the atmosphere, when it rains, drop more into the lake than what we reduced it down? Some heavy science and some heavy studies are taking place. Right now, those studies are going to take a long time. They've been going on for 2 or 3 years now pretty intensely, and I expect them to continue another 2 or 3 years and then to have discussions about where the appropriate level is for the level of certainty that those costs will provide. And that really is the heart of it.

And the cost is astronomical to move the last 1% or whatever.

Yeah, it's quite a sharp curve from just a little bit more. It's not just a little bit more money. You're exactly right. Orem's positioning itself and trying to look forward in our reuse project that we're embarking on. Is, is a part of that equation. Not that we will be able to filter all of our water to, to those standards, but we're making it expandable so that in the event, we can certainly be positioned well to not have as large an impact as, as maybe others.

Okay.

Any other questions from the council? Well, I can tell you I appreciate— we all appreciate your good work. That's— those are areas that none of us think about day to day, but if they weren't working right, they'd be at the top of our minds.

So we strive to have you not think about them and just have it work. That's our goal.

Well, you do a good job.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Let's move on to our next discussion, which is innovation teams, and Pete Wolfley is going to lead us in a discussion.

All right, thank you, Mayor and Council. I'm excited to present this to you. We've been working on several different things as far as innovation goes, and one of the main things that we wanted to do is— a little over 6 months ago, you gave us your blessing to proceed with the credit card project, and that was, if you remember, the city was being charged over $400,000 a year in credit card fees. And so we got a little team together that we call the I-Team. The I stands for innovation. And we attacked this problem, looked at it from a bunch of different angles, and proposed a solution to you. And so I'm here to report, after 6 months of implementation, how that's going, and then as well as give you an update on some other innovative things that the city has done recently. So just a quick overview of the credit card cutting program. After 6 months, we've seen a 58% decrease in credit card transactions. Based on behavior changes, you know, people switching from credit card to other forms of payment, we've saved about $93,000. And then the fees— so there are people who are continuing to use their credit cards to pay their, their bills, their utility bills. We've collected about $85,000 of convenience fees for a total swing of $178,000. So 6 months in, we're basically where we want to be. You know, the target was $400,000. And we're trending in that direction. So just to break— to dive in a little bit deeper to the numbers, here's the credit card transactions compared last year, from 2019 to 2020, and then 2020 to '21. So as you can see, the number of total credit card transactions in the utility area has halved, more than halved, 58% decrease. Right here you can see the credit card fees that the city has been charged. So, you know, Visa, MasterCard, American Express, all the big players. They charge us fees for using their services, and so, as you can see right here, October is when we kicked off and implemented the program, and you can see the huge decrease that followed. Right here, this red line is the total credit card fees as well as bank fees that the city has been charged, and the green is the total convenience fees that we've collected. So as you can see, there was a big decrease in total fees, big upswing in convenience fees collected, and this gap in between is the people who are still using credit cards, the people who pay in person, and the bank fees. So we'll never get rid of the, the bank fees. That's just part of doing business. But, you know, we've really closed the gap on— on these fees, and, you know, the city really isn't out that much money anymore. So one of the things that we had worried about when we implemented this program is, you know, by— you can only charge the convenience fee to people who pay their bill with a credit card, not in person. So if they're doing it over the phone or through the website, you can charge a convenience fee to those people, but if they come in person to our offices and pay, you can't charge them a convenience fee. So one of the thoughts we had is, you know, potentially will people, a bunch of people switch over instead of doing it online where it's easy, they'll come in to save the convenience fee. And we're not really seeing that at all. So the star here is the implementation. And you can see that we're really no worse off than we were before back in 2019, 2020. These little dips here are when we shut down for COVID. So those, we weren't really seen any— that many people in person. But yeah, so that, that fear was unfounded. Uh, nothing really changed as far as that. Uh, the other thing that we wanted to report back to you on is the, the convenience fee. So it's $3.95 per credit card transaction. We looked over the last 6 months, and the fee— that fee covers about 78% of the credit card transactions that we get based on the 2.5% charge average that we're seeing from the credit card companies. So, um, 78% of the people who are still paying with credit cards, their bill—

their—

the fees that were charged are being completely covered by the $3.95 convenience fee. And then the app currently, after all these changes have placed— have taken place, the average credit card transaction amount is $129. And that is perfect because the convenience fee at $3.95 completely covers that, so the city isn't out any, any money.

So, Pete, do we have people that just prefer to do it this way and have no intent to change?

Yeah, yeah, it's surprising that, you know, for some people it just, it doesn't matter to them. They like the convenience of the credit card, they like getting the points, you know, probably some people haven't even looked at it. You know, a lot of people are on autopay and they just let it ride. Uh, we've done everything we can to notify people that this has taken place, and many people change, like, immediately. There was a huge section of our customers who switched to other payment forms, but there's just some people it doesn't bother. And, uh, you know, that's, that's okay if that's how they want to do it. That's okay.

Okay.

And then, uh, our recommendation Is, you know, we talked about maybe adjusting the fee, but what we'd like to do, if you're okay with it, is hold for the summer at least, because, you know, we're going into our peak water use times, which means the bills will be higher, which means the credit card fees will be higher. So we want to get, you know, at least 3 more months of data, you know, through August, just to see how, you know, the fees and the customers react to the, to the increased usage. So if everyone is okay with that, we'd like to hold on the $395 and then get a full year's worth of data, and then we can revisit this again and see if we're too high, too low on that convenience fee.

It's fine by me. How's everybody else feel? Rest of council okay with that?

I think it sounds good.

Okay, excellent.

So with that, that was kind of the big thing that I wanted to talk about, but we have several other innovation things that we've been working on that I wanted to share while we have the time. So one of the fun projects that we worked on is we were getting hundreds of people calling every month to our utility office asking for help on the website, and for us we thought, you know, this doesn't make any sense. There's people who are online wanting to pay their bill online, wanting to, you know, use our self-service tools, but then they're calling because they need help with those tools. And so we, we met with all 10 of our utility agents, and every single one of them had amazing ideas on how to improve this. So when you compare April of 2020 to April 2021, we saw a 36% decrease in the people who were calling in with website issues. So we took all of their suggestions, and you can see that the trend is is much improved here. So people are using the tools that we're providing in a more self-sustaining way. Another great project was we got to meet with all of the frontline workers at the fitness center. So we were doing this project before we opened our beautiful new Orem Family Fitness Center. And what we wanted to do was talk to each of the frontline workers and get their ideas and their suggestions on what we could do in the new building that would be better than we were doing in the old building. And once again, this is— this was an amazing thing to me, is even, you know, people who were, you know, 17, 18 years old had only worked there 2 weeks, they all had great ideas. And so a lot of what came out of that was the massive website redesign that we did for recreation. So they had great ideas on where to place information, what information people were looking for. And so we completely restructured the website to reflect the feedback that these people on the front lines were seeing. We also got some great feedback on our payment and customer service operations, and they had some good ideas on how we could make it a little bit more seamless for our customers to get their passes, to sign up for memberships. And then there was also some improved scheduling and registration features that we'll talk a little bit more about. One of the things that I'm most excited about is the new Orem Rec app. It's, it's As far as based on my knowledge, it's the first homegrown public app we've had for the city. So this is kind of exciting that we're entering this new stage of technology for the city. One of the best features in this app is you can actually see how busy the fitness center is before you go.

That's great.

Yeah, I know that Jeff uses this. I use it too. It's great to see, you know, how busy it is. You can completely— you can do all your scheduling and your registrations right from the app. So that's been a huge feature for people. It works on both iPhones and Android phones. And as of today, it's been downloaded over 1,400 times and it's been opened and used over 5,900 times. So really excited about that. It's been a great way to get information and improve both the marketing and the functionality of things that we're doing in recreation. So that's been exciting.

Pete, Brent Sumner has a question for you.

OK, Brent.

I was just wondering, Pete, I've noticed all the employees at the fitness center are now maskless. Is that going forward, no more masks?

Yeah, so masks are still recommended, but there is— you do have the choice now, as the governor put out the mandate that the masks can— we can kind of relax on the masks a little bit.

Okay. None of the employees wear them, so I guess we're okay not to wear them.

Yeah, and we're leaving that up to people, but it is highly recommended still for safety.

I was just going to say, and maybe I can speak to that for a second, we did send the same information that Jamie sent to each of us as employees regarding the new wording, strongly recommended, and so we have put that in their hands at this time.

Okay, another thing that we've done in the last little bit is redesign 3 of our major websites. So orem.org was the first one, and then we did the library and Orem Recreation. And so they've all been redesigned and retooled to be faster and more user-friendly. So we've tried to simplify and streamline all the information. We've used the, the analytics that we get from Google to see, you know, what information truly matters to people. And then we try to put that as close to their fingertips as possible. So we— I think we're seeing great improvements as far as just getting people the information they want in a fast and efficient way.

Those are great websites.

Thank you.

We've had a lot of great help getting that, a lot of great feedback as well getting those put together. Another thing that is really exciting is we're working on what's called upstream thinking, and we do these trainings for employees To— and it comes from this book called Upstream by Dan Heath, and kind of the idea of the book is solving problems before they happen. So, you know, creating systems and being a systematic thinker and trying to find ways to proactively and preemptively solve problems before they turn into huge issues. And so this has been great. We've been— we've done some, some individual trainings, we've done some manager trainings. And then we're also in our City Manager's Department going to be rolling out a series of trainings to help develop this, this way of thinking. And what's nice about these principles, you know, systematic thinking, continual improvement, collaborative problem solving, whether you're in police or public works or City Manager's Office, the principles are tried and true and they can be applied to any, any issues that you're facing. It's just a way of thinking, a new way of working together. to solve problems. So I'm, I'm really pumped up about that too. Now we've got, uh, 2 upcoming projects that we're getting ready to roll out. Uh, the first one is what I'm calling Postagepalooza. Uh, we pay about $150,000 in postage every year, but the secondary problem is we have no communication confirmation. And what I mean by that is we send out mail We have no idea if it got delivered, if they've seen it, if it just got thrown in the trash can or recycling bin. And so we're looking at different ways that we can get communication out, you know, outside of email and social media and all these things that will allow us to confirm with people that they received what we're trying to put out there. I think anytime there's a hot issue, especially people are like, we didn't hear about this, well, we noticed you. And there's, there's this kind of he said, she said, we don't know if it was received. So we're looking at some ways of approaching that. And then obviously saving money is always, is always great. So we're going to see if we can do some innovative things there.

And then— Yeah, in your stamp collection there, you don't happen to have an upside-down airplane, do you?

Is that one super valuable?

Yeah, about $500,000.

So Okay, well, if I see, if I see one of those, I'll be sure to put it aside.

Okay.

And then the other one is expanding our citizen chat. So we've had citizen chat for several years now, and it's been going great. But we want to follow the Imagine Aurum model. And what I mean by that is, if you remember back to the Imagine Aurum campaign, is the whole idea was don't make people come to you, you go to people to get them the information. And so, you know, we did those barbecues, and we went to the library and went to the mall, and there was all these great things that made that campaign a success. And I think a lot of that was meeting people where they are. And so what we want to do is, you know, if people prefer to talk through social media, if they prefer to chat with us through our website, or they want to text us, or if there's some other way that people are already communicating, we want to be there for them in that space and collect all, you know, their, their issues and their questions. And be able to give them good timely responses. And the way that we can manage that on our side is by this idea of communication aggregation. So basically there's programs and, and ways of doing this that you're funneling all of the different channels back into one source. So, you know, our employees don't have to be on Facebook and on chat and on text, but they just open one program and all of the different communication channels funnel into one. And then they can just respond that way. So that's, that's a big project, but it's one that we think is going to pay off a lot with our citizens and make it easier to facilitate the communication between us and the residents.

So Pete, how many chats a day do you get from citizens?

Oh, that is a good question. I, I know it's quite a few. I can get you, I can get you numbers, but it is, it is Okay, widely used.

And how many are positive and how many are negative?

They almost always start positive, you know, someone just looking for, you know, an answer to a question or trying to explain an issue. But depending on the answer is when, when things turn. If they don't like the answer, then it can get negative. But for the most part, people are coming through the chat system looking for, looking for help and, you know, being honest seekers of the truth. So Oh, Brent's got another question.

He's got a question.

I wonder, I wonder if you could tie that into the 311 number, or, or have you? Because that 311 in my area doesn't work.

Yeah, unfortunately, with Provo also having the 311 number, it, it really causes some, some overlap and some, some issues. So based on whatever cell phone tower you're pinging or whatever, you know, wherever you're phone line is being routed. It'll push you down to Provo or it'll push you to us. They get our calls, we get their calls. So that is, that is an issue. So which is why we've kind of moved away from calling it or publicizing the 311 number and just asking people to call 229-7000, uh, just to avoid all that confusion.

Okay, my neighbor got the Provo Utilities.

Yeah, exactly. Yeah, and it all just depends on how your car— your call is routed through the phone phone providers.

Can you use this chat line for things like complaints and that?

Oh, absolutely. Yeah, you can, you can really start a chat about anything. And our 311 agents, they're, they're trained in, you know, in answering— they probably answer 90% of the questions, and then they're really good at finding the information, finding the answer that people are looking for.

Okay, thank you.

Yep.

Well, and that is, that is everything so far. So, you know, I think things are, are going well and innovation is alive and well in, in Orem, and we're just going to keep trying to get better and keep on improving.

Awesome. Well, thank you for what you're doing.

Appreciate it. We appreciate the support.

All right, let's go ahead and move on then to our review of our today's meetings. So first of all, the prayer will be given by Jeff Lampson and the Pledge of Allegiance by Brandon Nelson. We have a presentation from the Heritage Advisory Commission. Brad Prescott will do that. We have personal appearances, 15 minutes. Depending on how many people want to Bring up personal comments. I'm going to allow it to go up to 45 minutes, and then limit it at that point. Anybody else who wants to make a comment, we can record it, send it on to everyone. And I don't know, it may only last 15 minutes, but I thought I'd leave it open to get up to that point. We then have approval of meeting minutes, City Council April. 27th, 2021. The resolution on the defederalization of the Economic Development Administration revolving loan fund, which we've heard about. Water, sewer, and stormwater master plans. And the city manager's appointment for Shawna Meekum to replace Camille Jensen.

Second.

Who has moved? Is everyone okay with all of those items?

So, Mayor, a question about the appointment. This is Terry.

Yes.

How many— first of all, how many people applied for that?

Jamie, I think you'd have to answer that one.

So the recommendation was made by our Development Services Department. So we have an online referral system where individuals can make application to serve on any and all of the city committees. And when we get applications, we generally will interview candidates, and then staff makes a recommendation to me. And then in this particular case, the Planning Commission representative is the city manager appointment, and so the city manager makes this recommendation and appointment. Other cases, other committee assignments are at the discretion of the mayor and city council. So I, I can't speak to specifically as to how many development services interviewed. I'd need to kind of turn to Jason and see if in fact there were multiple candidates involved in that process. But, uh, I do know that Ms. Meekum is, uh, she works for the Mountainland Association of Governments. She's a transportation planner by profession, has associations and involvement with, uh, communities throughout the county and obviously within MAG's jurisdiction. And she has She and her young family obviously live here in Orem, and her application form is included in your packet tonight.

So, Mayor, just a suggestion on that one.

So when I was reading about—

sorry, when I was reading about her qualifications, she's lived in the city about 2 years. And amazing her experiences with transportation. She rides her bike. You know, she was riding her bike and delivering things, and that's her focus is studying transportation, following transportation. So a suggestion is I know that Lenay Millett has applied, and she has a degree in finance and was involved with planning and real estate. And this lady that just applied, a suggestion, she would be fantastic on the Transportation Committee because that's her expertise with MAG and that's what she focuses in and that's most of her bio was transportation. So just a suggestion, we might consider having Lenee Millett, who has a degree in finance and her career was in business and in development and and Planning. When I saw that, I thought, oh, that would be a nice switch.

Jamie, that is up to you.

My recommendation is that Ms. Meekum be appointed to the Planning Commission.

Okay. All right. Let's go on to our scheduled items then. First one is a public hearing, a resolution. The city will receive public comment on the Community Development Block Grant projected use of funds for fiscal year 2021-2022. I don't know whether we have Kenna here or Ken with us.

Yeah, not for this meeting, Mayor, but this is just the second, second, second public hearing. It's the same information that was presented last time. We won't be presenting it in full. But this is where we'll actually adopt this year's allocation of the Community Development Block Grant funding.

Okay. Um, the next one is a public hearing resolution adopting the City of Orem fiscal year 2021-2022 tentative budget. Uh, Brandon, any comments?

Yeah, I just wanted to, um, Let the council and mayor and you know. So normally our normal process would have been we would have provided you the tentative budget, the actual document in your packet. This year we've been trying to— we bought a software program last year and we've been trying to learn it because, as you know, our budget officer left employment back in January and So myself and our new purchasing agent have been feverishly trying to learn the program. And so we are so very close to being able to have it, and we may still have it by, you know, council time. But just know that at the very minimum, that document would be provided to you tomorrow and available to citizens tomorrow as well. But I thought I'd just at least give you a heads up about that. Obviously, our presentation this evening is based on all the information out of that document. And the numbers in the document are totally accurate, but there's some aesthetic stuff within it that I really don't want to put out unless it's totally accurate, right? So that's the reason we're holding off on actually producing a draft of the document. So needless to say, just know that today when we present this evening, The actual items that we're discussing, those are in the document and won't be changing. And so I just wanted to preface that so that you know this evening why you don't potentially have that actual physical tentative budget in your hands or electronically.

OK, I'll look forward to seeing it tomorrow then when it comes through. OK. All right. At the end of our meeting, we're going to adjourn to the Orem Redevelopment Agency. We have a consent item there of approving the RDA minutes from March 23rd, 2021. Is everyone okay with that? Okay, and then we have an RDA scheduled item, which is a public hearing resolution fiscal year 2021-2022. Redevelopment agenda of the City of Orem, tentative budget adoption. Brandon, you're the presenter on that?

Correct. Should be short and sweet.

Okay, this is our annual budget, right?

Correct.

Okay, and then we adjourn to a meeting of the Orem Special Service Lighting District. Again, approval of the Special Service Lighting District meeting minutes. Of June 16th, 2020. Is everyone all right with that? Okay, and then we go to a public hearing resolution for the fiscal year 2021-2022 Special Service Lighting District of the City of Orem tentative budget adoption. Brandon, you're up on that one?

Correct, same thing, short and sweet.

Okay.

All right, good. And then we adjourn. Jamie, anything you want to bring up at the moment?

Mayor, just a couple of— Council, just a couple of items for your information. We have been continuing to negotiate with Mr. Farley, who is the property owner at the corner of 400 West and 400 South, in relation to our Proposed water tank, and we have provided with him a real estate purchase contract that he is currently reviewing, and we would hope to have his approval and moving forward with that project and that property purchase by the end of the week. In addition to that, speaking of utility and utility infrastructure. I sent out a note earlier today about the American Rescue Plan. This is the next phase, or the current phase, of the COVID-19 federal stimulus package. We are, as a city, going to be recipients of a significant amount of COVID response money, and beginning tomorrow, we will, as staff, begin reviewing the 151 pages of rules associated with how that money can and can't be spent. And then finally, just want to make you aware and just remind you that this is National Police Week. Appreciate the efforts of our police department and putting together activities that recognize our law enforcement officers here in the city. Yesterday we had a line of duty memorial up at the Orem Cemetery. Today, the police department had a blood drive that ran through the, the day, and everything kind of caps off on Friday afternoon at 3 PM at Lakeside Park when the department has scheduled a guns versus hoses softball game, the fire department versus the police department. at 3 PM at Lakeside Park. Just want to make you aware of that and know that you're invited to attend and cheer for the red and blue. So that's all that I had today. Thank you.

Okay.

Mayor, can I say something?

Can I say one thing?

Sure.

I know you and I attended that program yesterday at the cemetery, and I want to say I thought it was excellent. I thought it was very moving to honor those who've been killed in the line of duty and those who retired or passed on. And I just think we can do whatever we do to make sure that people are recognized, especially the great men and women who serve our community. So I just say thank you for that program. I've never participated, and I thought it was outstanding.

Good, thank you. I can tell you that our police chief was very moved and appreciative of the program, and his comments have been that he's very much enjoyed being the police chief and appreciates the good working relationship he has with city management and the city. So thank you. Brent Sumner, you were going to give us a rundown on your responsibilities and tell us where you're at.

Sure, you bet. Thanks, Mayor. The UCCU board at UVU, they have not been meeting because of the COVID They scheduled a meeting and then they postponed it, so there's not much going on there. But the Public Works, Neil and Chris, they've gone over the Master plan and updates on that. I won't repeat them, but I, I was quite impressed with the smart, smart meters that they've installed. They gave me a number of 9,000 of the 24,000 residents in Orem, and they're moving quickly forward with that. So that'll, that'll be nice once it We get all warm on those. And the library board, of course, we all know the library hall's opened and Charlene's taking— making good use of our facility there. She's had the Bonner Family, the Cantorium Chamber Choir, Utah Film Festival, Delbert Anderson Jazz Trio. And many more. And then there's also been many meetings, trainings, and presentations for our fellow city employees. And so we're getting pretty good use out of that. And it's even going to be used more this summer with the programs for the youth and teenagers. Also, I'd like to give a— I talked a little bit about the 311, getting the Provo Utilities on that number, at least my mayor or my neighbor did. I didn't call it, and she came right over and told me the situation. So I called Stephen and Kenna, and they said have them call me and gave me their number. And Kenna got right on it that day about a homeless person in their area that was camped out and Anyway, just a tip of the hat to Kenna and Steven for getting right on that. And I think our new organization on taking a little pressure off the MPU units is really going to work. I, I feel good about where that's going. So I think that's about all I have, Mayor.

Okay, well, thank you, Brent. Appreciate your good service. I just wanted to mention that we had the National Day of Prayer last week, and we had a morning service up at the Timpanogos Park. We had Blake Rooney, one of the authorities with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in our area. We had a former BYU NFL football player speak. They let off doves as we had a prayer, and we had a very nice prayer given by a member, I believe, of the Congregational Church Interfaith Program. What I wanted to mention was it was a very well-done service, very nice, and Kenna Matthews was in charge, and I just want to compliment her on what a great job she did up there. So thank you, Kenna. Also just wanted to mention to you a little bit about the roads. As we've talked about before, that we've received $65 million from the legislature for new roads, 1600 North, and then over at Geneva Road. And 1600 North is moving quicker than Geneva because the environmental study had already been started. With the purchase of several of the homes. So that's moving forward. The road on Geneva Road, they are— have yet to do the environmental study. The money for both roads does not come through until July 1st of this year. And they will start to do an environmental study. It will take about a year, so middle to late next year they will start construction. on Geneva Road, and it will take them approximately 2 years to get everything done. So good things are happening there, but it's taking time. Also, if you've had a chance to look, the, the temple for the church is up on its second floor, and you can see it well from the freeway and from UVU. And if you also look, the second floor framework is starting to go up for Dillard's. And they're moving right along. So, and as you know, the parking lot north of Dillard's, the second part of that is being completed. And then they will build a 4 or 5-story office complex, 100,000 square foot on top. And that's purely speculative. They have no companies that have signed up for it yet, but they feel like the market's strong enough, Woodbury does, that they're moving ahead with it. And as most of you know, there's a new entertainment center going in the north section of the mall that's taking 50,000 square feet and will act pretty much almost like an anchor store there. And that will be pretty exciting when that's in place. And we had several ribbon cuttings last week. Sephora, which is a makeup, high-end makeup store in the mall where Charming Charlie's used to be on the south side in the center. And then we had Mo Betta's come into place last week right across the street from the City Center. So we also had a new language school open up. They used to be at Herr Jewelers, but they gotten so large they've taken in their own building. And, and so that's gone well. So nice to see all these ribbon cuttings happening within the city.

Mayor, you forgot the All Reds Ace Hardware.

Yes, thank you. All Reds Ace Hardware. So they've taken over the Walgreens there that went to Rite Aid, and next to the credit union, but that's a beautiful, beautiful facility. They totally remodeled how they set up their stores, and Steve Allred is the one who took the franchise for it, and he's very well known. He owns Allred's in Pleasant Grove and in Highland, and so we're lucky to have him as well.

So Mayor, I've got a question.

Yes, go ahead.

Oh, maybe you could give us an update maybe on the Wiggy Wash panels, if you've made any progress there on a cost, or—

Sure. And I wish I had an update. I'm still working on that. The gentleman in Florida that makes those panels has promised to give me a final figure, which I do not have yet, but I will try to secure that by the end of this week and send it out to everybody. Originally, we had talked about $15,000 to $35,000 for it. I did go through Wiggy Wash this week and got my daughter's car washed, and I opened the window to let my wife and daughter hear the, the dryers, and it about blasted us out. It sounded like a jet airplane.

So—

It needs to be done.

Okay, thanks. I got one more thing on, on the streetlights over by Orem High. Are we still on schedule for this year, Jamie, or just the replacement?

I know that project is underway, and I have been signing off quite frequently on easements that are required because they run the power in the rear of those properties.

I think Sam can probably provide an update as to where we are with Yeah, I would say about 25% of that street lighting Phase 2 project is currently complete. So we're currently in that area doing some work right now as we speak for lighting district—

I think it's 41—

from Center down to 4th South and then from 4th East to State Street. Is that the area you're talking about, Dave?

Yes.

Yeah.

That's good news.

Thank you.

Also, I was going to mention the new power poles and power line for Rocky Mountain Power is actively being put up along 1600 North, and they're not done yet, but they've got poles and wires all the way up to the water tanks and all the way down 1600 North. So that should be done, I believe, by next month. Anything else anybody has?

Mayor, just a comment on Dillard's. Yes, I was, I was going for a walk the other day and watching those guys 2 stories— well, more than 2 stories up— walking along those I-beams was fascinating. I mean, if someone wants to have a fun trip, take your grandkids over, stand behind the fence and watch those guys as they're swinging those around with cranes. I mean, it's amazing. But, and then just a question on Hillcrest. Can we have an update on that? I haven't heard anything for a while.

Yeah, we actually had a meeting last week with Landmark Design, and, and Bryn, could you provide us with just a brief update as to kind of what we, what we discussed and what the path forward is?

Yes, just grabbing my notes. Yeah, so met with them and we all reviewed how the conversation went with you in our last council meeting and reemphasize the major points that we wanted to see in sort of a final concept plan. In terms of keeping the indoor gym, water feature, pickleball courts, putting them around the gym, keeping and keeping them around 12, having the indoor gym be multi-use in nature, having the walking spaces around, and then also looking at some of the, I guess, more cutting-edge playgrounds that, that were mentioned in some of the surveys and some of the comments, and, and that we've also tried to do a little bit around the city and make sure we use those. as our playground features there at Hillcrest. So, so now Landmark will take all that back. There's a little bit of fine-tuned questioning that we need to figure out about the building in terms of, you know, restroom placement with that, and, and then, you know, what our water and sewer connections are, what the, what the storm drain needs will be. And then from— and we'll do that with Method Studio as well. And then from that, they'll take that and come up with that sort of, again, final concept plan that we can further figure out phasing and timeline and everything from there.

Okay, Jeff, did you have a question?

No, I'll save it for another time. It's just, it was a comment. Well, I'll go ahead since we're here. I was just going to mention, you know, we've had a lot of talk about traffic studies and whatnot, and Sam and Brady— well, actually Brady was the one that did the presentation, but Sam and Brady in our last Traffic Advisory Commission meeting gave a Traffic Study 101 that was really helpful, and that's on the OREM YouTube channel for the May 4th Traffic Advisory Committee meeting. And, you know, if you've got— oh, I don't know, it's probably 20 minutes worth of great information, sometime very helpful and very insightful.

Jeff, we, we, we were there for an hour and a half and you only said 20 minutes was worthwhile?

On the traffic advisory. The rest of it was great too, but—

I'm just kidding you.

I know you're, you're good at that.

I think we were just surprised because that's more than usually, uh, helpful.

Oh, Steven, come on.

Wow.

All right, well, if nothing else, let's go ahead and adjourn this meeting and we'll start back up at 6 o'clock for For our City Council session. Thank you.

Mayor, I think I had mentioned this before. I'll take care of bringing people in from the waiting room as we go into the public comment period.

All right.

There's a group in the council chambers right now gathering for, um, for it.

So, Steve?

Yeah.

How many have you got in the council chambers?

I would say there's probably 8 or 9 right now.

Okay.

We're doing this out of a different room, but so there's nobody, no other staff in that room right now.

Okay.

Mayor, there's—

so there's about— there's 12 people in the waiting room right now. We have also some written comments as well. 12 written comments.

And one that's not about the 1600 North project.

And, and one that is not about the 1600 North project. So potentially what we could do is forward you the written ones as opposed to me reading them or you reading them. It's kind of the same, and, and let those that want to speak be the— get, get kind of the dedicated time tonight, Mayor, but your call, of course.

So yeah, that's fine. I would prefer the ones that want to speak, but can you read the one that is not for 1600 North first?

That's someone who wants to make a live comment.

Oh, and that's somebody who wants to make a live comment. You have that name?

Yeah, his name is Jeremy Beckham.

Okay, so there's one person that wants to make a live comment on another issue. What I'll do is I'll bring them in first.

Okay.

And then we can continue on and bring in the live after that.

Yep.

And the dead after that.

Mary, you said bring in the live ones and then bring in the dead ones. Is that what you said?

That's what I said.

Yeah.

Someone else laughed.

I think, I think everybody's dead. We're all on mute.

We're all on mute.

I was laughing, Mayor. I was wondering if you got that from Spamalot.

I did not, no.

Okay.

I heard they had some interesting comments there in the show though. I didn't go see it.

It was funny.

My family went and saw it and loved it. All right, it is now time to start. I want to welcome everyone out to our City Council meeting this evening. I'd like to read a statement. Written comments will be accepted before and during the meeting. I'm sorry, excuse me. This is a notice of an all-electronic meeting and opportunity for public participation. Pursuant to Mayor Richard F. Brunt's proclamation dated April 30th, 2021, The Orem City Council meeting on May 11, 2021 will be an all-electronic meeting. There will be no anchor location for the meeting. The city cannot ensure the recommended minimum of 6 feet of social distancing for meeting participants at the usual anchor location at the Orem City Council Chambers. Therefore, holding the meeting at the City Council Chambers would present a substantial risk to the health and safety of those who may be present at the meeting and may contribute to the spread of COVID-19. There will be no public access to the Orem City Council chambers. Those desiring to view or participate in the meeting must do so electronically. To view the meeting, please go to orem.org/meetings. To make a comment, please submit your comment through—

Yes.

Thank you.

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 as time permits. As technology permits, the City Council may also accept Oral comments. Once an item has been voted on, the item will be closed to additional comments. COVID-19 case counts continue to decline, and many state and local health orders have recently terminated. Changes are being made to make the City Council chamber safer for meeting participants. Consequently, the Orem City Council will return to in-person meetings on May 25th, 2021. Thank you for your cooperation. Okay, I'd like to call this meeting to order and would like to ask Jeff Lampson to give an opening prayer and Brandon Nelson to lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance. Jeff.

Thank you, Mayor.

Our beloved Father in heaven, in humility and gratitude, we bow our heads before Before thee in prayer this evening. We're grateful, Father, to be able to live in this free land. We're grateful to live in this wonderful city. We're grateful for the citizens of this city and for the goodness that they bring to our community. We're grateful, Father in heaven, for all of the city staff and the work that they do to bless each of us and to make our lives more enjoyable.

Amen.

We're grateful, Father, for those who defend our freedoms both here and in foreign lands. We pray for them. We pray for our first responders who work so hard to keep us safe, and we pray that thou would watch over them and protect them. Father, we pray for those in, in our community who are less fortunate, that their needs will be met. And if there are ways that we can reach out to them and bless them, we pray for thy guidance and inspiration. inspiration to know how to do so. We pray, Father, that as we meet together this evening, that we might have the influence of thy Holy Spirit to be with us. We pray for thy guidance and direction. We pray for wisdom and compassion and kindness to be with each of us. And we pray for, again, for thy guidance and direction in all that we do. Father, we love thee, and we again thank thee for all which thou hast blessed us with. And we thank thee for these things and pray for these blessings in the name of thy beloved Son, our Savior Jesus Christ.

Amen.

Amen.

Could I have everybody please stand and please 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, Brandon, and thank you, Jeff. Appreciate that. Uh, we now will receive a presentation from the Heritage Advisory Commission. On for their annual report, and Brad Prescott is the presenter. Brad, are you there?

I am, sir.

Good to have you here.

Thank you, sir. Uh, Kelly Kirkpatrick and I are here representing the American Legion this evening. It's an honor to be in your presence, the mayor and city council, and to express our appreciation for all the support you folks have given us over the years. When I think of the Memorial Day programs and the Veterans Day programs we have twice a year. They have always been very outstanding meetings, high-class meetings, very patriotic, and something I think that Horne would be proud of. And so we'd like to thank you for allowing us to work with you folks to make that happen on a biannual basis. It's an honor to serve in our city. Uh, this year's program, we have Colonel Joseph Green Who is the Chief of Staff of the Utah National Guard. He's a good friend of mine. He grew up next door. I've watched Joey from a young boy until now. He's a full colonel in the, in the U.S. military, if you will. And I think someday he will be the chief of the Adjutant General of the Utah National Guard in our state. He's that quality of a guy. So he'll be an outstanding speaker. This past year, there's been 81 veterans passed away and buried in the Orange City Cemetery. Cemetery and Timb Gardens. That gives the count now of 2,021 veterans who have ties to Orem who are buried in our cemeteries. The thing that I'm very proud of is the work of Dan and Kevin at the, at the cemetery, the Sextons. They recently, with the help of us to a smaller degree, placed 6 new tablets in the cemetery, which at the War Memorial, the Veterans Memorial, which will ensure a place for names to be enshrined for many years to come. To me, that's very significant, something that Orange City should be very proud of. So the next little thing we'd like to talk about very briefly is that President Trump created the Space Force. It's a new branch of the U.S. military, and they have their own flag. I've, I've been doing quite a bit of research on that and other people have too. It's still a little up in the air, if you will, because DOD guidelines kind of conflict from time to time. But it talks about the Space Force flag should fly at the other service, which it should, and then the POW and MIA flag should be on a flagpole to the left of the American flag as it faces the west. The DOD guidance talks about that the flag should not be— the POW flag should not be considered a military flag or service flag. It should be 15 to 20 feet away. And so our proposal, working with Kevin and Dan and some of the other folks in the City Council here, would be to, with the American Legion paying the cost, buying the flagpole, a very nice pole, to mount that to just to the south of the existing Veterans Memorial so that the POW flag will be visible. It won't be somewhere else in the cemetery because in my mind the POW/MIA flag is the flag that is, is to be honored. There's 82,000 veterans throughout the United States who are still unaccounted for and Many of them will never be accounted for, but it's just something we should honor and respect. And so our proposal would be to obtain a flagpole. We've done quite a bit of work on that. We're going to get permission with the city and work with the city officials so we do this right. But that will be mounted near the Veterans Memorial up at the city cemetery, and it'll be a really nice addition to what we already have there. But we'd like to thank the City Council and the mayor and you folks for your support over the years. I think we'll have another nice program this year, and I think one of the best things we do in the American Legion is participate in that, that event twice a year. So thank you for your help and your support.

Well, thank you, and, and we have a lot to thank Post 72 for all of your service. So Thank you for taking care and, and working with all the, the men and women who are passing away and, and moving to another part of life. So thank you. All right, we will move now down to our personal appearance portion of our meeting. I would like to read a statement if I could. 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, not individuals. Those wishing to speak should have signed in before the, the beginning of the meeting, and we do ask that you limit your comments to 3 minutes or less. Typically, we give 15 minutes for public appearance. It's my understanding we have quite a few people that would like to speak or make comment tonight, so we will open it up for 45 minutes. And then we will stop it at 45 minutes, and any additional public comments can be given and put into the record and sent out to the council. We would encourage those who Are— who are speaking, that if someone else has brought up and mentioned the same issue or topic that you're mentioning, that you might limit your comments. And that you might be aware if there's a way to limit your comments to allow more people to speak. With that said, Steve Downs is running that, and so we'll turn the time over to Steve to set that up and start Okay, Mayor, the first one we'll bring in is Jeremy Beckham.

He's one speaking on a different issue, so we'll give him that opportunity and then we'll continue to the group that's speaking on many on the same project. So bring Jeremy in. Jeremy, you're here with the City Council. We have 3 minutes allotted for your public comment, but the time is now yours. Jeremy, can you hear us? Doesn't look like you're muted, but we're not hearing anything.

Maybe move on, Steve, and if he shows up, come back to him.

Yeah, Jeremy, I'm gonna have somebody Else come in and—

Were you calling on me?

Yeah, Jeremy. Yep, your time's yours.

I apologize, my audio on my computer wasn't working for a moment, but now it looks like it is.

No worries, you got 3 minutes and time's now yours.

Okay, thank you. I want to, you know, thank you for this opportunity. My name is Jeremy Beckham and I'm here on behalf of Utah Animal Rights Coalition, which is an animal advocacy organization in the state. And really, I'm just appearing today to follow up on a letter that I had sent on behalf of UARC to the City Council as well as the Mayor's Office about North Utah Valley Animal Shelter, which is run as a special service district, and the City of Orem contracts with the shelter for animal sheltering services. Orem is actually the largest municipality that contracts with North Utah Valley Animal Shelter, and I think that the City of Orem has got a unique position to use that kind of bargaining power it has to make a positive change at that shelter. And specifically what I'm addressing is the use of the gas chamber to euthanize animals. There are only 4 animal shelters in the entire country now, 2 in Utah, 1 in Wyoming, and 1 in Ohio. And the one in Ohio is in the process actually of transitioning to euthanasia by injection. But those 4 shelters are the only shelters left in the country that are still using this outdated method of euthanasia. Where basically animals are put in the chamber and slowly killed through exposure to carbon monoxide. It can take up to 30 minutes for the animals who are placed in this chamber to die that way. And during that time, they experience a lot of the same unpleasant effects that humans would at the beginning of carbon monoxide poisoning. You know, they get headaches, nausea, disorientation, confusion. And they also are just gasping for air. And, you know, there's a reason that if you take your dog or cat to your veterinarian, you know, as I've had to do in my life many times to be put down, your veterinarian uses euthanasia by injection because that's a much more humane method that brings about death much quicker and much more painless. And that's what virtually every shelter in the country uses now, but this shelter has just been unwilling to transition to this more humane and cost-effective method. So as I, as you know, we had mentioned in that letter, what we're urging the City of Orem to do is to take a look at the contract that you have with this shelter, because I think that we, you know, at least owe these animals, you know, a minimum to ensure that their death is as humane as possible. So please take a look at that contract you have with the shelter and add language in there that basically just says they have to euthanize in accordance with the American Veterinary Medical Association guidelines. They have— the AVMA has euthanasia guidelines that they put out in 2020, and they say right in there that injection of a barbiturate is the preferred method for euthanasia of dogs and cats. And so that really is what should be happening at the shelter. So I, you know, I haven't heard back from any of the council members, the mayor. I did call, make some phone calls today, but I'm, you know, I would really appreciate it if the city would give this a hard look and see what they can do to bring about a positive change at that shelter. Thank you.

Thank you, Jeremy, for bringing it up, and we will take note of that and take a look at it and review the contract. Thank you. Okay, Steve.

So, you know, there's about 26 people in the waiting room. There's no, there's no real easy way to do this. So I'm just going to start at random kind of bringing people in.

Okay.

Heather, Heather, you're in the call with the City Council. You have 3 minutes, but the time is yours.

Is it me?

Yep, Heather.

Okay, sorry. I am here with lots of people. We all have the same comments.

We have lots of concern about I'm concerned about the traffic on 1600 North and 4th West.

It gets backed up through that intersection multiple times a day. And there's not room for more people trying to make right-hand turns, U-turns, going through parking lots to exit.

And I also think that 6 and 7 stories has no place in this neighborhood and that height restrictions need to be in place.

Maximum height restrictions.

So that's my comment.

Thank you.

Thanks, Heather.

Thank you.

Okay, we'll bring in the next one. The next one's name is Jordan Farr. Still just connecting the audio. I don't know if Jordan can hear us. Okay, Jordan, Jordan, you have 3 minutes and you're on with the City Council.

Go ahead.

Hi, am I on?

Yep.

Hi. Yeah, so my name is Jordan Farr. Just wanted to express my frustration. With the process and that we find ourselves in this area. We obviously have a lot of people who are very frustrated about, about this project, and, and I haven't, other than the builder, haven't heard of anybody that, that actually wants this project. But to repeat Heather's comments, we're— one, we're worried about the traffic that's going to— that this is going to cause in the area. Also, the height of this building— this area, the intention of the residents in this area is to not have a large building like this. And we're frustrated that the City Council feels the need to put a building like this in this area. It's going to hurt our property values. And as you bring in people in a mass density building like this, And it's going to hurt the traffic in the area. And again, just wish that you will consider changing your minds on this and changing the zoning so that this area matches the rest of what we see in the homes in this area. Thank you.

Thanks, Jordan. Next one, we'll bring on John.

John Baxter.

Just taking a second to connect to audio. John, can you hear us?

Struggling to get his, get his connection.

Okay, John, can you hear us okay? John Baxter? I'm gonna, I'm gonna just move forward with another one while we're— to keep things going, see if he joins on. Okay, Lisa, Lisa, if I pronounce it right, Hale. Lisa, if you can hear us, you have 3 minutes and you are on the City Council call right now. Hello.

Do you think she's on mute?

Yeah, she— I'm hitting the ask to unmute button trying to get her to unmute. Lisa? Okay, Lisa, can you hear us? Lisa Hill, can you hear us? Okay, just to keep things going, I'll bring in the next one. And if Lisa— Millet, I'm assuming Linnea or Ken, can you hear us okay?

Not sure what's going on.

Lynnae or Ken, can you hear us?

Oh, I think—

looks like the video might be starting. Lynnae or Ken, can you hear us okay? Oh yeah, yeah, Linnea, that's you. You have 3 minutes. Well, you're right, you're on now, but your, your connection may be slow. We're just not seeing or hearing you. Yeah, Linnea or Ken, uh, Millit, we're, we're just not getting a good Good connection. I'm gonna go ahead and, uh, bring on the next one.

Yeah, it's working fine.

Um, Lynnae or Lisa Hale, can you— either of you hear me?

Probably over 30 people in here now.

They're all streaming.

Oh, I think you've got about— our IT director said there's about 40 or 50 people all sitting and streaming next to each other, which may be causing some of the issues that they're all on the same Wi-Fi. Stephanie Visnok, can you hear us? Stephanie, can you hear us okay? Um, We can keep trying. Stephanie?

Man, you gotta imagine they're all just, yeah, pulling off the same, just using a bunch of bandwidth because every one of them's got their phone out and they're all on the same.

Yeah, if you can hear us, I think Part of the challenge is you're all pulling off the same access point in the same— in the council chambers next to each other, all trying to stream a meeting, and it's just a bandwidth issue with the number of people all using the same access point. So I'm thinking that's partly the challenge of all— if everybody's there in the same room, but—

There's another one out in the hallway.

Yeah, you may consider switching to data. See if I can find somebody who's in a different location.

Okay, can you hear me?

I can hear you. Yeah, we just Gonna need a couple other people in there maybe to mute, but Heather.

Yeah, can you hear me?

This is Heather Johnson.

Heather, we can hear you fine. You have 3 minutes with the council.

I already spoke, but here's the thing.

We've got 50 of us in this room and there's a 2-minute delay.

So even when we get on, you're moved on before our phones connect.

So we all get off our phones.

Could we get on one computer and line up and all make our comments?

Yeah, if you just— if one of you want to use your phone and have everybody line up, that'd be fine.

Okay, here we go.

Who wants to speak?

Yep.

Go to—

go to Stephanie.

Just give us your name. Give us your name before you start.

Okay, well, I'll pass it on.

So you're supposed to say your name and—

okay, okay, okay. So Stephen, I'm just going to start reading. I can't tell if you're there or not. All right.

Yeah, we can all see you. You're fine.

Okay, great. My name is Lenee Millett, and I'd like to address the Orange City Council members. Today in your work meeting, you reviewed the traffic study for the development proposed for 1600 North. I'd like to thank you all for agreeing that there are some serious concerns with the State Street Master Plan in the North Village District, and I want to emphasize to you some of the main issues. The infrastructure in the North Village District, in other words, 1600 North, Cannot support the traffic from the edge zone zoning. The Orem Transportation Master Plan rated 1600 North as failing by 2024. Those of us who live there and drive this street daily know that this is in existence right now and that this is truly happening now. There are frequent accidents in this area, and the cost to Orem residents in property damage alone should be enough to get this project denied. Secondly, there are no buffer zones or transitions to single-family homes, including the edge zone ordinance.

Homes—

single-family homes surround this area. This means that a 70-foot-high building can be built 70 feet away from a home's backyard. We need different zoning to protect our homes. Orem City Council has said that they don't want high-density housing in neighborhoods. This project is in our neighborhoods and not on State Street. It will have 400 West and 1600 North addresses. The traffic impact, impact study needs to be site-specific. It needs to include information done surrounding the 1600 North and 400 West areas, including the study that was done the fall of 2020 for the 400 West access that was requested in the neighborhood meeting that was done in November. The developer Dennis O'Brien can't just use the positive points of his paid-for study. He needs to bring to light all of the negatives that were listed in that October study, especially the fact that without another access, cars will be making U-turns on 400 West and 1600 and State Street. Secondly, city-owned traffic access points should not be closed in order to help a developer pass a traffic study. and get his development approved. The city's goal should be to provide access to businesses and to reduce travel time for residents, not to restrict our travel, travel time and cause us to go blocks out of our way to get back to our homes to the east. Thank you for your service to our city and for listening to a resident who lives and drives in this area. I fear for the safety of our schoolchildren who walk on 400 West and 1600 North. I fear for my teenage drivers who have trouble getting onto 1600 North because there is so much traffic that exists even now. The residents in this area call 1600 North I-16 because it is that busy. Please take action that will not increase the traffic in this already congested area. Let's rezone this district. And I'd like to give a special shout out and thank you to Council Members David Spencer and Terry Peterson, who are standing up for our residents and for our safety.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Okay, Stephanie, do you want to do yours?

Stephanie Visna. I appreciate the efforts the city has made to keep itself and residents safe during COVID With City Council meetings being held remotely, it has been difficult for citizen voices to be adequately heard. It is my hope that the city will soon allow in-person meetings in a responsible manner to allow residents' voices to be heard. Other cities have been meeting in a hybrid nature for months. It is time for Orem City to follow suit and provide a public meeting appropriate for public comments. I also appreciate the city council members who have taken the time to better understand the needs of the North Village District and the residents in the area. This is a unique district with unique challenges. The State Street Master Plan seeks to direct and improve development along State Street while maintaining and protecting neighborhoods. With the narrowness and close proximity to single-family homes, the North Village District needs some zoning adjustments to effectively do so. I appreciate those council members who are willing to take a closer look and start a discussion on how to improve this district. Building height is of primary concern with single-family homes bordering nearly all of the North Village District. The Windsor Neighborhood Plan addresses future development in its vision statement. Quote, we seek to maintain the nature and quality of our neighborhood by making neighborhood preservation a priority through appropriate land use decisions, growth management, and appropriately buffering new development on State Street. Improving public safety on major corridors and around schools, and improving parks, trails, and other recreational facilities. We implore City Council and city staff to take a close, integrous look at the recent application for a large development on 1600 North and the current zoning in the North Village District to ensure that appropriate land use decisions are made, that new development is appropriately buffered, and that public safety on major corridors and around schools is maintained. The proposed development does not meet the needs or vision of the North Village District or the neighborhood plan. The inaccurate and biased traffic study does not reflect the current traffic issues in this area. This being the first development under the State Street Master Plan, it is imperative that it is done well and right. Overlooking weaknesses and poor design in an effort to push this project through would be a mistake and not be a positive example of what the State Street Master Plan intends. Previous traffic studies in the area have identified some trouble spots. that this project study does not address. Thank you for the attention you've given to the North Village District to hopefully get it right.

Okay, thank you, Stephanie. Next.

Is there anybody else in here? Okay.

Hi, my name is Catherine Christensen, and my family owns over 5 acres of property that is affected by this change that has happened. In 2018, from 2018 to 2019, our property taxes went down a couple hundred dollars, no big deal. In 2020, we have one piece of property because of the rezoning that went from $2,800 a year to $7,900 a year. This is farm property. It's never been built on. It's not going to be built on. You guys have added it to this zone, and the only notification that we received was an invitation to a luncheon to show what the ideas were. This is inappropriately done, and I'm asking that you open an application to revisit the zoning and that the zoning be changed back.

Thank you.

The only thing that happened with changing this property is a way of pricing us out of not being able to farm our land and having to sell it because we can't afford the taxes. That's just flat out wrong. The traffic study that needs to be done— we have children crossing 4th West that can't cross to go to school. These are elementary children, and their safety is a huge issue. We need to make sure that we are protecting our children. They are our future. When I spoke personally with Mr. O'Brien at the last meeting on 1600 North, I asked him, is there a way that we as a neighborhood could work with you to put something in that would be fitting and appropriate? And his response to me specifically was, I'm the only one willing to fight you all And I'm going to fight you. This isn't about a fight. This is about doing what's right for the people in the community, the people that live here and own the property. He came in, he bought property, that's great. He wants to develop, that's fine. But the zoning doesn't need to be zoned to accommodate the developer. The zoning needs to be zoned to fit appropriately in the community. And that's what we're asking the city to do at this time. Please open an application to revisit the zoning, include everyone, and let's find something that works as a community and as a city. And I really appreciate your time. Thank you.

Anybody else?

We don't have anybody else in this room, but I do want to get on record Everybody that we have that are here tonight.

Here we go.

Concerned about this issue. So we're okay if you go to the other calls that you have in your Zoom waiting room.

Okay, thank you. Anya, can you hear us? Anya, can you hear us okay? Anya, can you hear us? Try to bring on another one.

Yeah.

Oh yeah, Anya, can you hear us? Wilford, can you hear us?

Yes.

Okay, Wilford, you have— yep, you're on with the City Council. You have 3 minutes.

Okay, this is Merrilee Whipple.

Okay.

Should I proceed, or is someone else talking?

Yeah, proceed.

Okay, I'm joining you from Hawaii today. This is a very important issue to us. I have lived on that street for over 50 years. My grandparents lived there, my parents, I raised my children there, I currently live there. This has been a constant battle that we have had. This is Merrilee Whipple, and I'm speaking Yeah, we hear you, Mary Lee. Okay, now I'm getting—

Mary Lee, everybody else is muted, so I'm not sure where the feedback's coming from.

Okay.

I'll go ahead even though I'm hearing myself talk. My husband and I are strongly opposed to the proposition. We feel like to put a high-density housing unit between an auto repair shop and a storage unit with no access to State Street is very poor planning, and to have only access in one direction on 6th 1600 North, it is going to cause problems.

Mary Lee, I think you have your YouTube going on as well, and that's where the feedback's coming from.

I'm hearing a lot of voices. I'll just say that for the whole time that I've lived on 400 West, we have had this issue repeatedly with trying to preserve our fragile neighborhood. We've come in front of the City Council multiple times to stop different zoning ordinances. I'm— I distinctly remember when Anderson Lumler came in and we had the same discussion. I believe that area on the corner Was— it was brought up and it was promised to us that that would never be a building site, and it was given a conditional use permit, if I'm correct on that terminology. But I feel like all of us on that street are happy to have development on State Street, but we feel like this keeps encroaching on 400 West, and it is a fragile neighborhood. We do not want access from the business and commercial and high density onto 400 West because, as my neighbors have said, it creates a safety issue, and there is going to be a huge traffic issue because all of us that live there know that. So I don't see that this plan benefits anybody except for Mr. O'Brien. And it's definitely a detriment to the fragile neighborhood on 400 West and 1600 North. I am hoping that you will review and look at a change in this poorly conceived zoning plan. And let's move on with putting high-density and commercial use on State Street where it belongs and protecting the neighborhoods.

Thank you, Mary Lee.

Thank you.

Anya, can you hear us?

Okay.

Aubrey Ashdown, can you hear us?

Aubrey? Oh yeah, so it's delayed like about half a minute.

Uh, Will, can you hear us? Will Fryden or Frieden?

Yeah, yes, I can hear you just fine.

Okay, perfect. The time is yours for 3 minutes with the City Council.

I believe that what you've heard from the community so far is that they want safe, smart, and responsible planning that's going— that's not gone on at this point for this neighborhood. If you take a look up and down State Street between 2000 North in Orem, all the way down to 1200 North, you won't find You won't find— I do believe you won't find a 5 or 6-level story residential housing development in the backyard or close to the backyards of a residential community. It doesn't seem like the Planning Commission, or those that were involved in making this decision, really spoke to the local community. And that's a little bit troubling. It would, it would appear that there needs to be more study done on this project, especially when you're putting something of a development in the backyard of a neighborhood, which shouldn't— which really should be on State Street and not on 400 West. And that's my comment.

Okay, thank you, Will. Anya or Aubrey, can you hear us?

Yes, I can hear you.

Aubrey, the time's yours. 3 minutes with the City Council.

Go ahead.

Oh, I don't have anything to say right now. I'm just listening to what's going on. I was just made aware about this being just in my backyard, so I— this is the first that I've actually tuned in to see what is actually going on.

Okay, thank you, Aubrey. Michael Ogle, can you hear us? Michael, can you hear us?

Yes.

Okay, yeah, you're on with the City Council. You have 3 minutes for your public comment.

Hold on just a second.

I somehow—

I've got this activity going on 2 different devices and it's like 2 different time zones. So just one moment, let me see if I can get myself out of conflict mode here. Okay, so this is Mike Ogle. Can you hear me?

Yep, we can hear you.

Okay, uh, I didn't expect to participate, but I'm delighted to have the opportunity to. Um, I've been in Orem since 1983. I moved there from Silicon Valley, and I bet you can guess what my motivation was. It was to get from high density to low density, and I was absolutely delighted to find myself a member of the Orem community. I worked for Signetics and transferred there and was fortunate to work in that location for 10 years. So I look at this on 3 different levels. The location itself is problematic because of the proximity of the intersection at 1600 North and 4th West to State Street. Those are 2 large intersections that are extremely close to each other. And anything that's done to increase density of any kind of density whatsoever is going to be problematic from a safety standpoint. And to me, as a recovering engineer, if you'll forgive me for— hopefully a few of you folks are engineers— that's fairly cut and dried. The second thing that I alluded to is the issue of population density. As I think about being a homeowner, In the city of Orem, I can't imagine a high-quality argument for increasing population density in the city. And, and to me, that's— that shouldn't need a whole lot of explanation. Why in the world would we want to go upward and jam and cram more people into a city that has finite traffic movement capacity? And again, I'm probably speaking a bit like an engineer, and I don't much regret it. And the final thing is I really hope that Orem stands apart from the political trends of the nation where no sooner is an elected official elected than their focus turns away from voters and towards donors. And I really would hope that Orem continues to be that exception that I found in 1983 when I moved to Utah and adopted this state as it's adopted me, that we don't turn away from the masses in order to satisfy the profit opportunities of an individual. And I appreciate the time that you folks have taken to hear me out.

Okay, thanks, Michael. I just have the initials RBH. I don't have a name that came across with it, but somebody has the initials RBH and they just brought into the meeting. You have 3 minutes to, uh, give your comment. Those that— just so you know, those that aren't giving comments, well, this, this meeting is all streamed live and available on YouTube so that we can manage better who's here to give comments and who's here not to, and we don't keep calling. I'm going to remove those that aren't giving comments, but obviously, again, the entire thing is On YouTube and it's being live streamed, so you'll continue to be able to access it on the City of Orem YouTube channel. Anya, are you here to give a comment?

Okay.

Anya, I saw that you just unmuted. Are you here to give a comment? Okay, I am—

Stephen, she put in chat she can hear you, but you can't hear her.

Oh, okay, I apologize. I'm not sure if something's going on with your mic. If you want to try to exit and come back in, you're welcome to do that. I'll bring in the next, the next person. Okay, Steve LaFranca. Steve, Steve. Okay, yep, the time is yours. 3 minutes with the City Council.

Oh, thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to address the council. I appreciate the time that you're giving us to air our grievances.

Steve, you went mute. We heard you for a second. We heard air grievances. Steve, while you're trying to get that back, I brought in somebody with last name Boyer. Are the Boyers there? Okay, we have somebody here calling in, 358-6662.

Yes, can you hear me?

Oh yeah, we can hear you. You have 3 minutes with the City Council. The time's yours.

Thank you very much. This is Alice Gold. I am actually calling from my school where I work in Saratoga. I have a message ready for you. I have heard people say in our city that we didn't care in North Orham about the high-density housing that went into UVU, and so why should they care about us? And I think that's not true because I was very concerned about that when I used to work at UVU, and I was concerned about the safety of the school kids there.

Thank you.

North Orem specifically, we moved here to get away from traffic, my husband and I. We've lived in Orem about 20 years. We have 5 kids. I would rather not see our city grow and have my children have to move out of the city than to live in a future San Francisco. I'm from Southern California. I don't want to live in that kind of density. It's not the American dream for most people, as you know, if you do some research.

Thank you.

I think the city needs to revisit housing parking recommendations across the city for apartments and condos, because my neighbor is putting in a mother-in-law apartment and she has to have 4 spots. But that is not the case for many of these places. We have tons of overspill onto our city streets from a lot of these places, and we do not want to see that on 400 West. We're very concerned about the traffic increasing in our North Orem neighborhood. I personally called the city engineer about 2 weeks ago. 2 years ago about the amounts of accidents we were seeing on the corner of 1885 North and 400 West. He told me if we put a 4-way stop or a traffic light at that corner, we would have casualties instead of just minor accidents. With 2 of those 4 accidents being teenage kids from our neighborhood, I was still concerned that nothing was being done to keep our drivers and kids safe on that road. Now, fast forward to the high-density housing being proposed on the corner of 1600 North and 400 West. This is within a half mile Where we've had children hit by cars and even killed in crosswalks coming to and from their school. I feel like the mayor has turned his head to the traffic concerns of our area because they don't personally affect him. We've had a lot of support from some city council members, but when I call the city planning office and a city planner tells me that he and the rest of the office would rather have a few children casualties than have a whole generation without affordable housing, I can't help but think we have some of our city leaders and definitely our city employees. Have a growth priority problem. We have the most high-density housing in all of Utah County already in Orem. If you start ignoring citizen safety and even our idea of living the American dream because you want the city to keep growing and get more taxes, then more than just North Orem has the right to be concerned. Yes, citizens voted for allowing the city to grow the State Street area, but I say we take it to vote again to see if the citizens agree with the way the city is putting development into place.

Thank you.

And which is affecting our neighborhoods. Thank you.

Thank you.

Anya, can you hear us? Anya, can you hear us? Uh, Steve LaFranca, can you hear us? Anya, I'm not sure. I'm seeing your chats. I, I don't know what's, what's going on with your mic that's not allowing it. I apologize. Mayor, we have— just so you know, there's a couple residents that are struggling to connect with mics, but we've heard from everybody else that's in the waiting room. I don't know how you'd like to proceed.

Well, we're pretty close to our time. We're only 4 minutes from our time when we should be going ahead and closing the personal appearance portion of our meeting. So let's go ahead and close it at this time. If you have anyone else who wishes to make comments, please go ahead and record those and send them out to the City Council. And put—

I don't— just so you know, I don't have a way to necessarily record them. I think what I'd probably invite them to do is to write those comments and submit, and then we can forward those on.

By record, I meant have them write them down. Oh, and send them to the council.

Okay, great.

So we'll close our personal appearances portion of our meeting. I appreciate everyone who has spoken. Your comments have been sincere. We understand your concerns. I personally have been taking notes from each person who's been speaking about their concerns, and we will look at addressing those. So thank you very much. We'll now move on to our consent items. First one is the approval of the city meeting minutes of the council on April 27th, 2021. The second is a resolution for the defederalization of the Economic Development Administration revolving loan fund. The third is a resolution adopting the water, sewer, and stormwater master plans of the city. The fourth one is the city manager's appointment to the Planning Commission of Shawna Meekum to replace Camille Jensen. If any of you would like this put on a scheduled item, please let me know. Otherwise, we will go ahead and take a vote. I move that the consent items be passed. Is there a second?

Second.

Okay, we will go ahead and vote. I believe Tom is not with us, so we will start with Brent.

Aye.

Debbie?

Aye.

Dave?

Aye.

Jeff?

Aye.

Terry?

Aye.

And I, as mayor, vote aye as well. Our consent items pass. We will now move on to our scheduled items. The first one is 9.1, which is a public hearing resolution. The city will receive public comments on the Community Development Block Grant projected use of funds for fiscal year 2021. 2022, and we will turn the time over to Ken Ransom, our CDBG Advisory Commission Chairperson, and Kenna Matthews, our Community Services Manager.

Hello, Mayor and Council members. Can you hear me?

Yes.

All right, thank you. I'm happy to be here with you today. Thank you for your time to present our follow-up, follow-up to our presentation in a previous council meeting. So, next slide, please. Our Commission members in the Community Development Block Grant Commission are listed there, and we want to thank them for their service with our Commission. We've been busy this year with our COVID funding as well and want to thank them again for their willingness to serve on the Commission. Next slide, please. So, just a quick summary of our funding there toward the bottom. This year's funding totals are $758,806. which come from the CDBG allocation listed there and the rollover CDBG funding. Next slide, please. Here's a summary since we presented this in a previous council meeting. So it's a summary for the— for mayor and council members. So PERC is requesting $6,000. This joint funding with Kids on the Move with Provo and Utah County, they're requesting $10,000. And a joint funding with, again, Provo and Utah County for Centro Hispano for $55,000 and a joint funding with Mountainlands Community Health Center for $2,480. The total is listed there, $73,480. And our commission recommends that these requests be funded. These are the City of Orem. Requests. You can see turns, turns request in the City of Orem for CDBG administration, for Section 108 loan repayment, code enforcement, ineligible neighborhoods, critical home repair, and neighborhood revitalization, revitalization activities, and replace the playground at Sharon Park. You can see those amounts listed there for a total of $685,326. And our commission again recommends that these be funded. So our total recommended allocation is listed there, $758,806. Now the next step is for the commission to adopt a resolution. Are there any questions for us?

Any comments from council? Okay, well, this is a public hearing, so we will go ahead and open up for 90 seconds, uh, anyone who wishes to make a public comment to let it be known, and then we will hear that. So right now we'll go for 90 seconds.

Mayor, no, no comments submitted so far.

All right, 90 seconds are up. Let's go ahead and bring the public comment portion back to the council. Any other comments from the council? All right, then I would like to make a motion that the Orem City Council approve a resolution for the projected uses of the funds for the 2021-2022 Community Development Block Grant and review the recommendations of the CDBG Advisory Commission, which We have done. Is there a second on the motion?

Second.

Okay, let's go ahead and vote. We'll start with Terry first.

Aye.

Jeff?

Aye.

Dave?

Aye.

Debbie?

Aye.

Brent?

Aye.

Mayor, I vote aye as well. The resolution passes. We will move on to 9.2. Which is a public hearing resolution adopting the City of Orem fiscal year 2021-2022 tentative budget, and Brandon Nelson is our presenter.

Hey, let me—

guys can hear me all right?

Yes.

Great, let me share my screen. You can see that okay?

Yes.

Great. Okay, as you may or may not remember, you know, we were required by state law to submit a tentative budget by the first council meeting in May. And then after this budget, it becomes our operating budget if perhaps something was to occur and/or a property tax increase was to occur, something like that that went beyond July 1st. And this would operate— stand as our operating budget as of that time if approved. As you can see, our proposed budget for fiscal '22 is a little over $131 million.

Let's see.

A little too fast. Just as a reminder, we started the process back in January. January with the council retreat as far as dealing, you know, with public items here. Obviously, behind the scenes, we've been doing a lot of work. We had several work sessions over March and April related to revenues, compensation, operations, fleet, IT, and our capital, which leads us to where we are at today with this presentation related to our tentative— the tentative budget. Some highlights related to the budget as a whole. You know, revenues, obviously, as we pointed out in those presentations, those work sessions, have continued to be quite good. And despite the pandemic, they've, they've done really quite well. Sales taxes in particular. Included in this budget is a 3% personnel increase. That 3% is also intended to help cover the STEP program related to public safety. And then there, you know, is some funds also set aside in relation to the compensation study that is still going on, is expected to be done sometime early in the next fiscal year. Health insurance is anticipated to be 8%, and this budget incorporates that percent into it. Our fleet replacement program, which was reduced as we prepared this budget a year ago because of the unknown related to COVID, has been put back to, you know, a level that we normally have done prior to the pandemic. And then obviously a large number of capital projects are also included within it. Just as an overview, these are our budgets over the past few years in comparison to this tentative budget. You can see the growth from '19 to '20, and then, you know, what our anticipated— what we anticipated perhaps related to COVID, which, you know, has not come to fruition. And so that number, $125 million in fiscal '21, we expect to be significantly higher than that. And then this current tentative budget. Here we show the revenues by each major fund that we have. Obviously, the general fund being the largest, with a total of just under $62 million. Each, each of these funds has various things related to it, whether it be street-related, arts and recreation-related, debt, the utilities. And our recreation programs. And you can see kind of the various size of each of those particular funds that the city operates. A keynote also, and this is keeping in mind the items in the revenue column reflect new revenue for the year, whereas the other 2 columns So transfers in are dollars related to transfers between funds to fund those particular funds for different things that they do for other funds. And then the appropriation surplus is basically like using your savings account. It's using those dollars that those funds have available.

Will you explain the debt service?

So debt service primarily— and we have a slide a little later. But it's our general obligation bonds, and we have a sales tax bond and a lease, an energy savings lease, and it— that debt service fund pays for those as well as the Utopia pledge payment. So all of those things run through that debt service fund.

And Brandon, how much is the Utopia debt service payment this year?

I want to say 3— a little over $3 million.

Okay.

Specific to the general fund, which is, as mentioned, our biggest— the biggest fund of the city and the main fund of the city, you can see some history here in relation to revenues for our actuals for fiscal '19-'20. And the estimated amount that we anticipate this year and the proposal for 2022. One thing to keep in mind, however, when you see that is obviously those other years have grants, you know, all these budget amendments that we keep coming forward with. Obviously those particular years all have primarily grant stuff related to them. We don't generally budget grants. We have a few, few ones that we know we're going to get each year, but on the par, we don't budget for grants. And so a lot of the times, that's why you're going to see our proposed budget, the tentative budget, in relation to revenues be a little lower in some cases than other— than those past years that you see. Just kind of to give an outline of what— where do the general funds revenues come from, where are they. Obviously, you can see taxes is the single largest one, and by far the majority of that money, you know, $20-some, $25-plus million-ish, is sales tax of the $40 million. And you can see various building permits is primarily the— and business licenses in that second area. You can see the grant number. Those is the amount we actually are budgeting within the budget is $690,000. It tends to be much higher than that by the end of the year. Charges for services, and those are various things that we, you know, charge fees for. Fines related primarily to the court, and then some miscellaneous and the transfers that we have, that they transfer— other funds are transferring into the general fund. And this year, you know, you'll recall last year because of the pandemic, we had— we were budgeting to use approximately $2 million of surplus funds to balance our revenues with our expenditures. You can see this year that those appropriations are zero. We don't expect that we would need to do that. I give you a kind of an outline here, sales tax and where it's been and where we think it's going to be. You can see a steady rise, even just again despite the pandemic. We anticipate that to be $24 million, with our fiscal '22 budget being a little over $25 million. Property taxes, you know, despite everybody's thinking that the city, you know, loves development because we get so much money from property tax, that's borne out that we don't see that kind of— the school district might, but the city doesn't receive a huge benefit from that growth. And you can see here over the past 5 years and what we anticipate. In the fiscal '22 budget, where we get that little bit of growth that we get each year.

Brandon, one thing we might mention as well is I'm not aware of discussions within the city stating that if we can raise property taxes or if we have a development that will, you know, bring in additional property taxes, that that is a goal of ours for our budget. Certainly we have to have taxes to run our city, but typically we're not out there trying to get a development to raise the property taxes.

So— I would agree. Generally costs us money.

We're interested— that's correct. It costs us a lot of money to service properties more than what people realize. And we're certainly interested in things that will benefit our citizens in the city, but we're not out seeking development for property tax increases.

Right.

You know, one of the other big revenue sources is franchise tax. Again, kind of just trying to point out, while it's stable, that's good. You know, we have a general stable. It's not growing. So even though costs of the city continue to potentially escalate, our franchise tax doesn't keep pace with that. It is just basically become a flat, stable amount from year to year. Giving, you know, we talked— I briefly mentioned business licensing, business licenses and building permits. Building, you know, business license, pretty, pretty stable from year to year. Building permits, however, a very fluctuating piece of the revenue and goes in large part to fund a large portion of our parks, primarily as those funds— any excess over our budgeted amount gets placed in our surplus and then transferred to our capital projects fund and primarily gets used in the park, in our parks. So that's an important element to keep in mind as well. As you can see, fiscal '19 was very good. Fiscal '21, not so much. Still good, don't get me wrong. Still good comparatively across history. But that just means that's less money potentially available for those capital project needs. Give you an idea across the city. This is all funds, not just the general fund. Where does that money go across all funds? You know, you can see 40% of that belongs in personnel costs. You know, obviously the city is very heavy, heavy in personnel. Our operations— the primary component of operations, why it even competes with the personnel, is primarily our utilities. Our utilities have lower personnel but higher operational costs, and so that's borne out in You know, balancing those two, if you will. And then obviously we spend a lot of money in capital, primarily again in those utility funds and amongst our fleet. Give you an idea of where where do those money which funds where do those monies go and and how they're spent. You know, you can see that personnel numbers we as I mentioned and and the operations and and capital that. Spread through all many different funds for different varying different reasons that the city has need of to be able to continue to provide utility services, provide recreation, provide good roads, as well as being able to provide general services of our public safety. And, you know, all the development that we've been talking about, as, as well as Some administration obviously in there as well.

Brandon, one thing I wanted to mention, debt service that you see there, that's basically 4.9% of our expenditures.

Total, yeah, the entire city.

And I believe that the state government allows us to go as high as 60%, something like that for debt service.

I don't remember exactly. It's a big number though. It's a big percent.

I want to say it's 50%, and we are obviously 1/10 of that. So our debt service is very low, and we've worked hard as a city to keep our debt service low and to keep our debts low.

So Yeah, and now I will preface that, you know, that $4.9 million, that debt, that's the debt service fund, so it's only those particular elements. If it's utility-related debt, that is not part of that debt service fund. It is within the water, water reclamation, and stormwater. Those 3 funds bear the burden and the cost of any debt related to those funds. So it is a little higher than the $4.9 million, but Still is very, you know, very good comparatively speaking to what you were commenting on.

And we have a AAA rating.

Yes, and for all 3, all those utility funds, we do have that AAA rating. Yes.

So Brandon, what is other funds? That's 6% of the expenditures. What would, what would be in that basket?

So you have all of the internal service funds except you can see IT right above it, our information technology. So that includes our fleet maintenance Fund, our Facilities Maintenance Fund, our Self-Insurance Fund, and our Purchasing and Warehousing Fund. Those are the 4 biggest elements in there. It also includes Community and Neighborhood Services. You know, Kenna and Ken right before us were presenting the fund that they were referring to. Those funds are part of other funds. You know, it's a space issue, right? So I just combined them all into that grouping. There are some other ones. We have some Utopia, UAA, what we refer to as telecommunications fund. Those billings are part of that. The impact fee funds that we collect impact fees, those are all in there as well. So specific to the— back to the general fund additions through expansion requests This year, some one-time type items, the evidence lockers over in our police down that for a collection of evidence, evidence lockers.

Brandon, Debbie has her hand raised.

Sorry, Debbie.

Oh, we did a property tax to hire 4 new cops. Have we realized that increase in property tax yet?

Yes.

We have.

Okay.

Yeah, that wasn't, that wasn't an immediate, immediate thing that year that that was done.

Okay, I just wanted to make sure that we are getting that.

So some of that property tax increase that you saw was related to that.

Okay, thank you.

That shows you potentially even more how little of a property tax increase has been just from natural growth. So the evidence lockers that are currently there at the police station, they were the same ones that when the building was built. They obviously are— we feel anyway that they're not adequate to what needs to be done to keep the security and the integrity of the evidence. Today they're beat up, and so this will help bring those lockers up to snuff, if you will. Some consulting services related to folks going out and trying to get us more federal and state grants. As you've seen, several of those related to our AMI project, the bike park, some various others that are like that, especially the federal dollars. And then we have a human resource system that is being— trying to be worked on here to try to improve, you know, as COVID has pointed out, you know, the need to be able to do more things online so that not only do they not have to come visit us in HR for things that they could reasonably do online, and this— and not only new hires but even existing personnel, you know, if you need to submit some form for some change, you know, not all of us work here at the City Center, so, you know, sometimes that's really nice to even be You know, midnight, you know, submitting my form, you know, because that's when that's when I have time to do it. So so it's working on that kind of information. You know, as you can see down in ongoing, the last item ongoing that obviously then has an ongoing component to it as well. As as you know, as software goes, it's not just a one-time thing. You you get to pay for it over and over again. In our ongoing. things. We have our library collection. Again, COVID really pointed out and has really jacked up the, you know, the use of ebooks and e-audiobooks and whatever E's you can come up with. And so our library is trying, you know, continuing to try to evaluate what things we can do. And, you know, we could spend, as Chara put it, we could spend millions and millions of dollars to try to have everything. But we can't do that. So we need to try to figure out what's the best way to be able to provide the best e-capabilities that we can. So this, this goes to try to keep pace with that. And our fire department, they use a software right now which has been inadequate, and, and we've already actually made the switch to that software, but it has— again, talking about that software— it has ongoing costs. in relation to, you know, software support. And so this is adding that software support component related to that software. And that's— when we say reporting, it encompasses lots of things, not only putting data information in there, but also, you know, for our ambulance and being able to get good billing information to our billing company for those ambulance calls. On the personnel side of those— of the additions, I think Councilman Sumner mentioned the NPU and the conversion we're attempting to try to make with our civilian ordinance enforcement by converting those— that NPU unit into a civilian group and taking those NPU officers and putting them back in what they do best as a sworn officer in our police department. And that then allows us to our traffic enforcement unit, be able to get it up and going as it, you know, should be. And then our fire department, as they get bombarded with various filing requirements and requests and, you know, answering phones and various other filing-type things and other duties that really our administrative assistant really needs help with hiring an individual. And this would be a variable position, not a full-time position. The civilian ordinance ones are full-time positions. So it needs help, help with that. And I think that also kind of came out of the study, I believe, as well. And the last item is the— we'd like to get a prosecutor, civil attorney, Obviously, with Greg leaving and Heather taking over, there's some things— and quite honestly, COVID and the backup in our court, just kind of all of that kind of combined— we really feel we need to try to bring someone on that we can use, you know, not as a full-time person necessary, but be able to help get those kind of things back in line so we, you know, we're not way behind. Any longer, so hopefully those funds can help us do that. I mentioned fleet earlier. You can see what we adopted in our fiscal 21 budget, keeping in mind, of course, a large portion of those were not they were utility enterprise fund related equipment. You can see the the much smaller dollar amounts in fire police. And some general machinery needs that now we need to go back to getting those needs taken care of. So we have increased that budget significantly in relation to the vehicles. Our street projects, just a breakdown of what kind of projects Both our— the B&C Road Excise Tax Fund money that you receive, you know, we receive from taxes that when you pay at the pump, as well as the sales tax component that was recently added a year or so ago in relation to the transportation sales tax and what— where those funds are going to be going as far as what types of projects they're going to be funding. And those that are capital projects, they do have costs that are not necessarily capital projects. For instance, B&C Road, they do have some fleet elements that— from the prior screen that I mentioned, they have some fleet in there. They have some personnel costs. Transportation also has various other costs that are not necessarily capital, but they're other maintenance-type costs. Councilman Pedersen mentioned, and we've talked about the debt service fund. You can see the components related to that, and you can see down in the, you know, the breakdown for the current year in the bottom left corner of where those dollars are going as far as a principal interest breakdown. Obviously, I mentioned out of that $3.9 million, a large portion of that is the Utopia payment. And the other big component of that is actually the Siemens Energy lease related to those improvements that were made a number of years back.

And so, did we break even on the COVID— on the Utopia payment this year with the revenue we had coming in?

As far as the amount of the— we received back from Utopia?

Yeah, as far as that.

So they're covering that, the increase, right? So that's why I say $3 million, because I'm kind of— it's— we— I think we're paying like $3.3 or $3.4 million, but the rebate, if you will, that we get back from Utopia covers that, that $300,000-$400,000.

So Terry, Utopia increases by 2% a year, every year up until 2040. And because Utopia and UIA are receiving income, they are not requiring us to pay that. They're actually taking care of that for us. UIA, the debt payments for that are covered by UIA revenues. But Utopia, we owe $3 million a year to pay every year up until 2040. And we actually take that out, as you can see, out of our general fund and make those payments. So we don't charge our residents a telecommunications or fiber fee for that payment. We take it out of the general fund. If you go to other cities in Utah County, as an example, Provo, they actually charge a separate fee to pay for their fiber program that they had in place before, the debt they're trying to pay off. Just like the debt we're trying to pay off with Utopia. But we, like I say, so far we've chosen to take it out of our general funds and not charge a separate fee to every resident in the city.

Well, and we cross our fingers that they keep getting us money for till 2040, right?

Correct.

Well, 2%, so that's 2%. So in other words, we, we, we don't break even by any means. We, we are out the door with $3 million a year to pay off debt service, and that is not paid for by anybody except for our residents through the general fund. Utopia does not pay for that.

That's correct.

But yeah, so if they were not to make our payment, obviously that number would, you know, wouldn't go up. Approximately $300,000 to $400,000 more.

Yeah.

I mentioned the internal service funds, and when we were talking about that other category, here are the 5— those 5 pieces of our internal service funds that fund the various main, you know, activities that are more city, right? They do things within the city to help city operations. function. And you can kind of see what the totals there are and the breakdown of those components.

Just—

that's really just more to make you aware that they exist, that, you know, what they do and that they exist. So when you hear about them, you're kind of like, oh, I think I remember something about what those are. Now getting into our enterprise funds, utility funds. Our water fund, you know, we've spent a lot of time talking about the water fund and water rates in particular. So you can see here the revenues related to that fund. You can see the dip in our fiscal '22 proposed revenues, obviously related to the change in our philosophy and the decrease we have planned for those tier rates. And that related to the bonding. And then—

Brandon?

Yeah.

I might mention, I'm not aware of any city in the state of Utah that is proposing a budget with a water usage fee decrease for the coming year. I think we're the only ones.

I wouldn't be surprised. And you can see the water fund I mentioned. Our utility funds are in that, you know, that opera— when you're talking about personnel, operations, and capital, you can see here what I pointed out is, you know, still a pretty good amount of personnel, but comparative to operations, you know, lots of costs in relation to operations as well as capital. And one thing I want to point out is, make sure— to make sure you understand is the capital we're talking about here are generally going to be— they're the non-bond-related items. We don't We're not reflecting any of the bond things that the bond's going to pay for in here. Because that really doesn't become part of our budget. So talking about those tier rates and the reduction, you can see where that would now put Orem in relation to— and keeping in mind, these are the current rates of all of these cities. But this is Orem reflective of the decrease, so we could end up at, you know, near the bottom, at the bottom potentially, if Springville were to be raising their rates, for instance. So just kind of give you an idea where we sit in relation to many of our selected city peers here and within the county. In the Water Reclamation Fund, You know, mentioned, we know, no base rate increase or tier usage rate increase there. We anticipate that we're going to have the revenues we need to be able to do the projects going on. And you can see they have a pretty significant amount of capital projects despite the bonding that, that they're able— we're going to plan to do. And then You know, the costs related to that, the sewer fund. Stormwater. We've talked about the 20-cent increase following along with the existing master plan. You know, these will be obviously being relooked at as they are evaluating all the stuff related to the West Union Canal abandonment. Again, you can see the breakdown here with the expenses on the left side with personnel, operations, and the capital. And a large portion of that capital has to do with various stormwater projects that we already have planned. Kind of giving you an idea, even with that increase, kind of where we sit in relation to our stormwater fee comparative to some of the other cities. Recreation Fund, our funnest one. Obviously, we anticipate our revenues being significantly higher than what we estimate for fiscal '21. Obviously, we have a new fitness center, and that's— we expect that to make a huge difference in what's going to happen in relation to the finances of the Recreation Fund. It has been getting subsidized in the past, and obviously we don't anticipate that occurring going forward. So these— there is no appropriation of surplus or contribution from other funds to the Recreation Fund for fiscal '22. And you can see a breakdown. Obviously, they are pretty heavy in the personnel area comparatively to operations and capital. Because they have a lot of people that have to run a fitness center and a Sierra Pool. Our solid waste fund, our garbage. We have a contract obviously with Waste Management of Utah. And we work with them as far as trying to keep our fees low. But we are somewhat beholden to them. We can obviously negotiate, and we do. And that's what we anticipate needing this year. That there is a— let's jump to this next screen. We can see some increases in relation to their rates for the various cans. And you can see below, you know, the rate for our combined cans as well as, you know, I mentioned being beholden to Waste Management of Utah for, you know, any cost increases that that we negotiate with them, those are passed through, and that's, that's why you see this revenue increase occurring here within fiscal '22's proposed budget. And then we have again a comparison of where does our solid waste fees sit comparative to many of the other cities. And then just kind of a synopsis of all, all the utility funds and giving you an overall perspective of when we combine all of those, where, where Orem sits in relation to our utility costs. This— there's another chart similar to these in our budget that also includes the property tax component. But this is just reflecting just the utilities component.

So it's interesting to note, Brandon, that Lyndon and Provo, 2 of our neighbors, are 50% approximately higher than we are, and Pleasant Grove and American Fork are higher than that.

Right. So that's the, that's the end of our Thank you. That concludes the budget presentation related to the tentative budget for the regular City of Orem budget. Are there any questions about any particular component of the budget? I did send— we were able to complete a couple of items that I needed, so I don't know if any of you noticed receiving that in your email, but you should have a copy of the actual tentative budget available to you in your email, and that will be available online on the web tomorrow at some point as well for citizens to be able to pull down or, you know, you to reference as well. Any questions?

All right. If no questions, this is a public hearing, so we will go ahead and open up the public comment portion of our public hearing. And for the Next 90 seconds, we will wait to hear if anyone wishes to make a comment. Steve, have you had anyone make a comment?

Nobody, Mayor.

Okay.

All right, well, we will go ahead and close the public comment portion of our public hearing and bring it back to the council. Any questions or comments from the council?

I've got a question.

Go ahead.

So if I look at the If I go to the library hall fees, we've got Class 1 city of Orem use, Class 2 government-sponsored facility use. Can you clarify that again to me exactly what that is? Because with the CARE applications, we have some, some groups that are saying, hey, we can't wait to use the library hall for our rehearsals and for our practices. So I'm trying to clarify where those groups fall in this fee chart.

Dave, just so you know, the CARE applicants who plan to use it— I can think of one specifically— they, they're aware of the fees, and part of their application is to cover the fees that it would take to rent.

But where do they— where are they classified?

I'll let Brad— Dave, if I could, The classification in some sense depends on whether or not they are charging for tickets, which would put them into the, the higher category of use.

If they're just performing for an open general audience that is not sponsored by the library or the City of Orem, they are in the nonprofit group.

That would be the Class 2.

No, I'm sorry, I just need to get to my fees. I apologize.

So my thing is, is, you know, we have, we have co-sponsored groups for the library that, you know, that do stuff for the library and perform. But if they use the Hall for practice or for whatever, then I'm assuming that's going to be a fee.

Yes, they are allowed to do a rehearsal before they present a program at the library, but otherwise they would need to be doing a fee.

And where do they fall in that fee?

So we have city use, we have other government use, we have non-sponsored community use, And then we have the nonprofit use.

So the charitable—

Yes.

Is it Class 4?

Yes.

And if they are charging, if they're charging tickets, it would be a Class 5.

Okay. Okay, that answers one of my questions. Okay, thank you. And then I've got another question on, on the recreation. So if we go to Appendix on recreation, well, it seems every year co-sponsored groups get nickeled and dimed on an increase of fees. And I'm a little concerned that we just keep raising and raising and raising, and these are nonprofit groups also. that are giving the city a service, and I'm just concerned why— who keeps raising the rates?

So, Dave, this is Jamie. The rates are incrementally increased based on increases in the cost of providing the service. So actually, the fees that you see in this year's budget are not fees that are currently being charged, but they are fees that will be charged for the next 2022 season. Is that correct, Bryn?

Yep, that's correct.

Because it's based, it's based on the beginning, typically the spring is when we assess those fees. So they would be assessed the fees that are noted in the budget in next Last year's budget, not current.

Yeah, yeah, because of the COVID I understand. So my concern is there is, if you go look at the city-run programs, their increases are only a few in certain categories. So, you know, are we, are we being fair? Because it's, I guess costs are rising. So I'm just saying, if it's going to be a level playing field, I think we need to revisit these rates. I do have concerns with the soccer. Meaning getting charged for 2 seasons when the Celtic Storm and Ranger get the thing for the whole year, and they're a profit center, right? So I think that with the extended budget, I'm concerned with the fees on the recreation.

Well, the fees that we charge are loaded— obviously some of the city costs associated with programs that we provide are loaded into the fees that we charge Our participants. We don't have that flexibility with— we don't determine what the fees for service are, for example, with Orem Youth Soccer or some of these other groups. You know, for example, this year our compensation increases are costing us an additional 3%. Health insurance is costing us an additional 8%. We're replacing mowers and other equipment that are in the tens of thousands of dollars. So the fee increases that you see, and I— year over year, it's— and I don't have the budget in front of me, Brandon. I don't know what the incremental increase is, for example, from this last year to this year. But it is probably a dollar or 2, and not anything greater than that.

I still think— I mean, I've always been a proponent. I still think we're on those co-sponsored groups that are nonprofit, that are doing a service to the city and the citizens of Orem, that we shouldn't be charging them quite a bit of money.

And if they Primarily benefit and provide service to City of Orem participants, then obviously there's a different fee structure for those organizations versus others. And that is why, for example, Ranger and Celtic pay more than the Orem Youth Soccer Organization or Orem Youth Baseball.

Well, I mean, The Celtic Storm Ranger, the yearly rental to me, I think is quite low for what they're getting for the whole year. And they're, they're not being charged per field per season. They're charged for the whole year, whereas Stormy Soccer is getting charged per season, which— so that's just— maybe I need to do more research and come back to the council because I don't agree with it.

So.

And certainly, you know, Dave, that's That's between now and our adopted budget. That's what that time period is meant for, is to— when we come back for that adoption, is if there are things that the council wants to agree to make a change to, that's when we do that.

Thanks, Brendan.

Okay.

Any other comments or questions? All right, well, I would like to make a motion that the City Council by resolution adopt the fiscal year 2021-2022 tentative budget and set a public hearing to adopt the final budget on June 15, 2021 at 6 PM. Brent, did you have a comment you want to make?

Okay.

So I've made the motion. Is there a second?

Second.

Okay, let's go ahead and vote on it. Brent, we'll start with you.

Aye.

Okay, Debbie?

Aye.

Dave?

I will say aye, but we will need to look at the fees.

Okay, and this is the tentative budget, not the final budget, correct? So we are setting the date for the final budget basically a month from now. So you've got a month to work that through. Jeff?

Aye.

Terry?

Aye.

Okay, and I, as the mayor, vote aye as well. So our resolution passes.

So, Mayor, if I may, just— I will, I will refer— if you reference page 32 of the fee schedule, you will notice the proposed fee increases. Many of them, for example, I'm just looking at swimming right now. The cost per lane per hour increased from $2.25 an hour to $2.50 an hour. And if you go down soccer, it went from $8.50 per participant to $8.75 per participant. Lacrosse, there is a— we actually, that's a new fee that we've added. It's a per-game fee. And then if you look at— or of course, that's not a— let me see, soccer and then baseball. It goes from a field participation fee of $6.75 per participant. $7 a participant.

Plus $4 participation fee.

Correct.

And that $4 participation fee did not go up, or we did not propose to have that go up.

Well, thank goodness.

Yeah, it could be the difference between— 25 cents could be the difference between somebody playing baseball and not playing baseball this year. And of course, we have scholarship programs where any, any participant that has struggles meeting these financial charges can go, and these groups do provide scholarship programs as well. And that's actually something that's built into our CARE program. So we actually provide the resources for individuals to participate on scholarship in any of these organizations by way of our CARE program.

Okay, Jamie, do you have any other items you want to bring up?

I do not, thank you, Mayor.

Okay, then I make a motion that we adjourn our City Council meeting to a meeting of the Orem Redevelopment Agency. Is there a second?

Second.

Okay, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Okay, we are now opening up our Redevelopment Agency meeting, and we're starting with a consent item of approval of the RDA meeting minutes for March 23rd, 2021. If anyone would like to move that to a scheduled item, let me know now. If not, I would like to move that we accept the consent items and approve them as read. Is there a second? Can I have a second?

Second.

Okay, we'll start with Brent.

Aye.

Debbie?

Aye.

Dave?

Aye.

Jeff?

Aye.

Terry?

Aye.

Okay, and as the mayor, I vote aye as well. Our consent items of the Redevelopment Agency of Orem pass. We will now move down to our scheduled item. This is a public hearing resolution for fiscal year 2021-2022 redevelopment agenda of the City of Orem tentative budget adoption. And our presenter is Brandon Nelson.

Thank you, Mayor. So Redevelopment Agency consists of several project areas. Almost all but one— well, 2, plus the University Place CDA. So 2 of our older RDAs have expired, and we will no longer be receiving funds from those 2. RDA, those 6, I think there's 6 RDAs, or 5, sorry, 5 RDAs plus, so we still will be receiving for 2 for one more year. The University Place CDA, which is part of the Redevelopment Agency, is, you know, the remaining item that will go on beyond that. You can see the corresponding budget for fiscal '22 related to that, showing that decrease in the associated revenues. And then kind of that— you can see the breakdown for '21 below there related to fiscal '21 estimate for expenditures and what we, you know, have budgeted in relation to that $1.6 million and where that money is at in relation to what the existing, the older project areas there at the bottom versus the 3 CDA components. Are there any questions related to the RDA?

Brandon, I'm wondering if you could, you've done this in the past, but if you could go back and categorize the 5 RDA developments that we did back in 1985. And the money put in and then the money received since then.

Yeah, I can probably find that. Uh, you're talking— I mean, if you had— let's see, it's in the— but you're talking about the actual budget, right? Uh, yeah, yeah, they're showing the actual budget there from beginning to end. Can you see that now?

It's not any different than what we had before.

Not any before, so I got to share differently, huh?

You don't have to do it right now. I just wanted to have you send it out to the council.

So the budget shows what the— you're talking about what the value was at the beginning versus what the value is now?

Is at the end, how much money we put in to begin with and And how much we've received out of it.

Yeah, so if you, you know, in, in our budget right here, if you look at this, there's a— you can see the project at the— across the top right here and in the middle section there for—

No, I know what you've got. I didn't, I didn't realize you had it in there.

Yeah, so I haven't looked at that one yet. So you can look through each one of those and kind of see what the value, you know, how important really treating the RDA and doing these RDAs, what that's meant from a value perspective, as, you know, not only a value perspective, but what that's done for that particular area.

Yes. Yep. All right.

Thank you.

You bet. Public hearing.

I know, I'm just looking on my computer here to—

Gotcha.

Pick up the item for a minute. Um, all right, so this is a public hearing. Uh, we will go ahead and open it up for public comment for 90 seconds starting now. Steve, have you had any public comment come in? You there, Steve?

Yeah, no comments, Mayor.

Okay. All right, we will go ahead and close the public comment portion of the public hearing of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Orem and bring it back to the agency. And I would like to move, as the Chief Executive Officer of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Orem, that the Board of Directors by resolution adopt the fiscal year 2021-2022 tentative budget and set, set a public hearing to adopt the final budget on June 15th, 2021 at approximately 6 PM. Is there a second?

Second.

Okay, Terry, we'll start with you first.

Aye.

Jeff?

Aye.

Dave?

Aye.

Debbie?

Aye.

Brent?

Aye.

And as the Chief Executive Officer, I vote aye as well. Resolution passes.

I move—

yes.

Mayor, can we just clarify that the time for the meeting is 6:10 PM and not 6 PM?

Okay, so we adjust our motion for the time to occur at 6:10 PM. Rather than 6 PM for the final budget on June 15th, 2021. Everybody okay with that?

Yes.

Okay. All right. So I now move that we adjourn to a meeting of the Orem Special Service Lighting District. Is there a second?

Second.

Second.

Okay.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Okay, we are now adjourned and we now open up our Special Service Lighting District of the City of Orem and go first to our consent items. The consent item is to approve the Special Service Lighting District meeting minutes of our district meeting on June 16th, 2020. Does anybody want to move that to a scheduled item? All right, being a consent item, we have made a motion. Is there a second?

Second.

Okay, and let's go ahead and vote, and we'll start, Brent, with you.

Aye.

And Debbie?

Aye.

Dave?

Aye.

Jeff?

Aye.

Terry?

Aye.

Okay, and I, as the Chief Executive Officer of the Special Service Lighting District of the City of Orem, vote aye as well. The consent items pass. We now move on to our scheduled items. This is a public hearing Resolution for the fiscal year 2021-2022 for the Special Service Lighting District of the City of Orem tentative budget adoption. Any thoughts, Brandon, as far as what you'd like us to know?

Yeah, so, so you can see the street lighting Correct?

Yes.

Great.

So our street lighting revenues, you can see the various elements that make up the street lighting fund as far as their revenues go. We've obviously gone forward now without the franchise tax contributions and gone into kind of a maintenance mode while we still finish off— I think Dave mentioned earlier the streetlights around Orem High School and a couple of other areas— why we try to finish those off. So these are the fees related, the revenues related to that. Here's where those revenues will be spent. You can see in power and in the energy lease, as well as primarily maintenance of the various streetlights throughout the city. In relation to the fees, as you, as you may or may not remember, our neighbor— all the neighborhoods, we changed the fee from as they originally was this $325 fee that was charged to the home, the homes in each neighborhood, and they were supposed to be charged that fee for a certain period of time. As that time came to an end, we instituted a new street lighting fee for maintenance. That's the $2.42 going forward. And as those neighborhoods come off of completing their $3.25 fee, then they convert to the $2.42 fee. And there's— after fiscal '22, there will only be one neighborhood left, which is the very last neighborhood there, the Canyon View neighborhood. So they would come off in fiscal year 2023. And so all neighborhoods, and then business, we changed the way businesses were charged that fee as they, they pay that fee all in one lump sum when they renew their business license at the beginning, you know, at the time those business licenses are renewed. Are there any questions related to the street lighting fund or the fee or anything about it?

All right, if not, this is a public hearing, so we will go ahead and open it up for any public comment for 90 seconds. Steve, have you had anyone call in?

No comments, Mayor.

All right, 90 seconds has ended. We will close the public comment portion of our public hearing and bring it back to the Board of Directors. I would like to make a motion. Are there any comments or questions?

Mayor, I'd like to make a comment if I could.

Sure.

Just, just a note, it's refreshing that multiple times tonight we've talked about fees being reduced instead of increased. You don't hear that very often in government, and I just want to point that out. Thank you, Brandon. I just, I find that very refreshing, so just wanted to make that comment.

I'm glad I get your kudos, even though it's not me.

Yes, that is a good thing. I can tell you this, that a neighboring city to the south said, please, please don't lower your water fee, you're going to kill us. Anyway, as the Chief Executive Officer of the Special Service Lighting District of the City of Orem, I recommend that the Board of Directors, by resolution, Adopt the fiscal year 2021-2022 tentative budget and set a public hearing to adopt the final budget on June 15th, 2020 at approximately 6:20 PM. Heather, is that good for you?

Works for me, Mayor. Thanks.

Okay. All right.

Is there a second?

Second.

And let's go ahead and start with Debbie.

Aye.

Dave?

Aye.

Jeff?

Aye.

Terry?

Aye.

Brent?

Aye.

Okay, and I, as the Chief Executive Officer of the Special Service Lighting District of the City of Orem, vote aye as well. The resolution passes. I would accept a motion to adjourn.

So moved.

Is there a second?

Second.

Okay, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Okay, we are adjourned, and thank you everyone.