City Council · 2021-06-29

So exciting.

Don't you guys feel like we should have like assigned seating?

No.

Mark, that was definitive.

Yeah, we used to have assigned seating at Lifeline.

Yeah.

Every time I went in or I came to a tapping, I sat in somebody else's chair.

They got mad.

That's like sitting in somebody else's pew at church.

Oh yeah, they do it all the time.

I just never want to be in the way of whoever wants whatever seat.

I just think it's funny because people are so ingrained in their comfort zone that they like to push you.

They like to push you.

Oh yeah, I think that's good. That's how change happens, right?

Good change.

Pushing boundaries.

Let's show the, uh, yeah, the TV.

You know what, Ryan always has a lot of luck in that seat. Isn't that the— I think it is because you're presenting tonight.

10 minutes? Oh yeah, close. I guess we need to take that off, right? Because there's nothing to share over here. Jody!

I think that's the cord.

I wish we had a system. Yeah, maybe TV. Yeah, let's go try that.

So Jenny, we're in here, I guess so. Do you need help moving?

Okay.

We got it.

You sure? How are you today?

Good, how are you?

I don't know where you want your bottle.

That's perfect.

Great. Is this yours?

No, that's mine.

Good to see you.

How you doing, Mayor?

Good, how are you?

Good.

Hey, Chief Counsel, is that the right—

Hey, Jerry, how you doing?

Good to see you.

That's it, isn't it? Chief—

Sure.

Yeah, is that good?

Let's go with that.

I like it.

It's got a good ring.

So I've got 2 attorneys in my family, by the way.

You do?

My— our oldest daughter—

Hi, Mark. What does she do?

Hi, how are you? Well, she, uh, she's a mom now with 5 kids, but she, she did, uh, Adoptions and you know that kind of stuff. Very cool. So she she she went to the she was a fail. So I'm there with the president. He's graduating.

You know, always real fun.

There's a guy from.

Yeah, I know.

Zoom in on him. And there's my little daughter.

That's so fun.

And then our son just finished his first year of law school a few years ago.

Oh, good job.

And so he doesn't know yet where he wants to go.

Yeah.

Right.

How do you—

what do you think of it?

He loves it. Yeah, she loves it.

If you survive this one, you can show it to the U of O.

Yeah, you show it to the U of O. I'll kind of wait for the phone to ring.

Really good.

Yeah, exactly, exactly. Okay, yeah, so that wasn't— she was very simple.

Yeah, you open that once.

Everybody I talk to loves the room.

Good, that's, that's what we're hoping, or at least we can fix something so they do love it. There are a lot of families, a lot of, you know, this year's obviously having the Friendship Center, but we're seeing it at both locations. College kids, teenagers, you know, we're hitting a lot of the different groups of residents that we wanted to make sure they felt like they could use it.

So do you know how we're doing full table-wise for seniors?

That's all been taken care of. We had vendors come in to freshen them up and all of them. And I think even like repocket them. I think they determined that they did not need to reupholster or something like that. They still have plenty of room. You know, I think we have— Yep, this is usually all the same area.

So have you brought some of the stairs back?

No, they had all the things. Except for what they want to do. So, you know, talking with Gina who runs it, they've basically increased their capacity in the vending machine operation, but not at the expense of the brand. It's only been going on 20 years or so. There's nothing that we're borrowing from them anymore. Sure.

Is PB worried about expanding right now?

Gina says it's getting back to pre-COVID size and budget and activities that we can get back to.

That's a hot place over there.

It is, and that's—

and it's not just from the back.

They do it several hours a day, which is fun to see.

And we get a lot of people from all over the island.

Yeah, no doubt.

I mean, just looking at— we just had our big flamingo day on Wednesday, and I was over there.

I said no idea.

Yeah, it was a thing.

Didn't know about that.

I was underdressed. I only had one pink Pull over the closet. I'll be better next year. Just fun to see so many people come together and be there for it. I got a picture.

Yep.

I'll go get it. I know, Graham has it.

Oh, I got a picture. I'll be right back. Golden Girls and Old Spice Girls are both taken, so I'll have to go.

We had Marilyn Monroe one year and she was just putting on a show, man.

I'll go later. But hailing her down, it seemed like the most appropriate.

I know, it worked.

It's gonna work.

Have you met Kay?

Kay's last name here?

Bradford? Bradford, yep.

She's amazing.

So she actually, she's 93 and she exercises.

I have met Kay.

Yeah, but every day she exercises. She tells me she does it in a different place.

Yeah, for the— she comes to announce when we get to the report.

I see you guys.

Okay.

And what's the main issue?

Frustrated virtual hugs and no one to talk to. Yeah, yes, I met her, met her once, and same thing, she filled up the room pretty quick. She's good at what He just couldn't talk to them. So yeah, it wasn't much.

He said it took—

well, our shuttle bus system's working again.

I agree.

And Mark, I did try to go into the Barb website and search for—

so Gary the Dude starts next week. All right, did you reach out to him? I talked to— they said amazing.

I talked to Lauren.

What's her name?

Lauren.

Lauren.

Yep.

I did try to do that.

Have you met him in person?

Yeah.

Okay.

Speaking of Filadelfia, he's a big boy. Oh yeah, but like pretty soft-spoken though.

Yes.

Like just gentle type. Here he is, 6'8, 240, personal trainer, and then yeah, just barely above whisper. Yeah, exactly.

How's it going, Mark?

I'm good, how are you?

I had a lady call me today and say, you know, there's a drought, we shouldn't have fireworks.

Oh, I had a bunch of calls today.

I'm like, yeah, but we can do them safe.

I had an irate lady today and I said, I had that guy. Now you understand there are a lot of people in City Forum who actually like fireworks. She wants to celebrate. She goes, well, I don't want to hear that.

Where's your page 2?

That's interesting.

Okay.

We found out we were missing page 2.

So do you like that guy?

Oh, I love him.

Do you?

Yeah, I love him so much. Our guy's getting old and he always talks about it.

It's making me nervous.

I'll steal that one.

It's like, don't do that. Don't keep saying that. And he keeps trying to get us to do it.

Bryce, welcome.

How are you? Good to see you.

Good to see you too, in person. I know, instead of grilling you in an interview.

Yeah, it's so much kinder to see you.

Well, obviously I rated you well because you're here. I guess I was one of many, by the way. I would have sent a text to Jamie saying, here's a problem.

No, no, please.

I did the opposite. I really like Bryce.

No, that's right. Perfect. Thank you.

We were gonna be short, wasn't it?

I'm doing stadium fire.

I got her late.

And I leave the next day for my daughter's, my new granddaughter's birth. So most likely I'll be just home getting things ready to head out and go to stadium fire.

I know. You know how, uh, have you heard how ticket sales are?

I'm not sure. So all of my family from Arizona's coming up, so we're going to have a whole house full of kids. So it just depends on what everybody wants to do. I think I'm going to the gala. Definitely want to go to the parade. I'd like to go to the stadium.

I haven't missed it in—

trying to think.

I know I've been 30-plus times. So it's just—

we love it.

I told Les when I married him, I can stand in the fire every year.

Unless we're out of town, so just put that in the budget.

Those are like $90.

I'll go print some. Mine were $75.

You get the nosebleeds.

I'm on the car.

I don't drive a Porsche, babe.

Oh, mine's a 2010.

Figured you didn't.

Figured it'd be a surprise.

Mine's an old Porsche.

Mine's a 2011 Juke, but I—

Yours is newer than mine. How many miles you got on the engine?

Um, she thinks it's up to 91,000.

I think so.

I think we're kind of feeling like we're kind of back to normal.

I don't drive it.

Pay anybody?

I drive it on the side.

So yeah, check my car.

They have all the paperwork and I have it. I've got a copy of it.

Jim felt bad about your dad's car. It was starting to overheat the truck.

Was it okay?

So, um, he didn't do anything crazy, I promise.

Yeah, they just had to replace it. If he had the air conditioning in idle, then it's not just overheating.

Hold off right now.

Yes.

Because, well, have you gotten the instructions from the title? She's just giving me a heads up.

No, she was asking, do you know anything about— did she get a message from the title?

I just want to make sure you know.

What time are you starting? Uh, 4 o'clock.

Wow.

Just to make sure. So I don't have time to run the rest of you.

Sure, go ahead.

You have to go to the library.

I need my key.

I did when I came back this morning.

You did when you come back, that's correct.

Yep, we're recording studio.

Have you put anything else from United Title. I did request a funds fee transfer. She just asked if we were going to do it today, and I said, because she wouldn't send me the warranty deed, we were supposed to wait until we do it.

And she just says, are you going to do that today?

How early today did you talk to—

um, was this afternoon?

It was, I don't know, 2 o'clock maybe. So was this afternoon.

Well, why don't we go ahead and get started? Uh, we're about 20 minutes late, but that was a great tour. And I think Campus on the Green has turned out really well and is doing well. So we thank the Woodburys for that. We're now going to go through some items on our work session. The first one will be a discussion of the American Rescue Plan Act. And Steve Gons is our discussion presenter.

Thanks, Mayor. Tonight during the City Council meeting, we'll be amending the budget to receive the first half of the American Rescue Plan Act money. So ahead of that, we wanted an opportunity to give you a little bit of overview regarding the act, what the limitations are, what the timeline looks like, what our responsibilities are for reporting eligible uses, ineligible uses in the matter. So a little bit of overview, the City of Orem received just, just over $16 million in ARPA funding, 2 different tranches of $8.04 million. And we just received Last week or the week before our first tranche.

Early June.

Yeah, early June. So just the use of these funds are generally to address needs looking forward from March 3rd through 2021 and going forward. The money must be spent by December of 2026, but obligated by December of 2024. I will send this presentation, that's why these links are here. FAQs from the Treasury, infrastructure questions about infrastructure from the National League of Cities, and then the interim final rule, which is the full bill that has all the detail as well. As they released this, they gave some general guidance to help kind of lead the discussion as to what we do with this money. That is, identify the most pressing local needs related to the pandemic and its effects, and then engage constituents and communities in developing plans to use these funds. And I put in the parentheses In some cases, we've already developed plans of things we and the citizens want, and we've been looking for funding sources. I.e., we'll discuss like a Hillcrest Park, you know, then— so some plans have already been developed. We've just been looking for a funding source for neighborhoods. There's 4 specific kind of categories that they put out. One was to respond to the public health emergency, or it's a negative economic impacts. 2, to provide premium pay to eligible workers performing essential work. I put in the parentheses, if you'll remember, we during the CARES Act funding, we actually did do this for our workers. We did a premium pay kind of hazard pay for our employees. 3rd, to replace reduced revenue. I crossed that out because that is not something that we're eligible for. We didn't have a reduced revenue during COVID And then 4th, To make necessary investments in water, sewer, or broadband infrastructure. My words, not including projects that have debt service prior to March 3rd, 2021. For example, we couldn't make our Utopia payment with ARPA funding. There's expenditure categories on the right. As we file our reports quarterly, we have to identify with each specific item that we spend what is the category that it's going to be under. So they they'll be tracking it closely. So I just want to go a little bit into each one, and I recognize that we're short on time, so I won't go over this quickly, but we have 5 years to kind of hash this one out, so we, we have some time. Public health. These are key questions they want to ask. Does a public health need or negative impact exist? Does the program or service address the identified need? And is the response related or proportional to the type and the extent of the need? So again, in one of the categories of public health, Examples: COVID-19 mitigation prevention, medical expenses, behavioral healthcare, public health safety staff, expenses to improve the design and execution of health programs, and then addressing disparities in public health outcomes in qualifying census tracts. And then it lists a few different things down there— improvements to housing, to neighborhoods, lead. They have quite a few things about trying to get rid of lead pipes and any lead paint. And then evidence-based community violence intervention programs. One of the things they specifically talk about is taking traditionally law enforcement activities and looking for opportunities to do them without the use of law enforcement. Code enforcement is something that we were— that is kind of mentioned. We're already kind of looking that way. Mental health is another thing. We're already kind of ahead of that curve too.

So—

But the types of things they're looking at are things that the city of Orem has been, luckily, you know, because of good foresight, proactive on. Economic impacts, looking for economic harms that have been caused, and then using these funds to identify those harms. Again, the same kind of sets of questions related to public health, to the economic impact. Some examples: assistance to unemployed workers, assistance to households, state unemployment insurance trust funds. Recognize that this is— this bill is not specifically local government, so counties and others. So that's why some of these things that maybe we don't really get involved in are written in the bill. Rehiring government staff, aid to small businesses and nonprofits. Out of the CARES Act, we did just over $1 million to economic impact to businesses and nonprofits in the area.

So Steve, we actually did $3 million through the CARES Act from the county for like 150 Oh yes, our portion, we gave $1 million, I think, towards it.

Right.

Yes.

But I'm just saying the city received more than $1 million. We had $3 million from the county.

Right.

So you're $4 million.

No, thanks for that clarification. Impacted communities. Does a need exist in a disproportionately impacted community? Does the proposed response address it? Again, kind of the same questions for impacted communities. Examples, building stronger communities through investments in housing and neighborhoods. Addressing homelessness, affordable housing development, housing vouchers, addressing educational disparities. You see a list of things there as it relates to tutoring and high-poverty school districts, improved learning services, promoting healthy childhood environments through childcare, working with young families and with children, enhanced services for child welfare and foster children.

Thank you.

Premium pay. Again, there's a list of that. And just to shorten our time, this was handled during the CARES Act. We did that, council approved that for our employees. So then there's infrastructure of water. Does a necessary infrastructure need exist that's unlikely to be met with private source of funds? And kind of a list of other questions. There's a lot of— and I linked it from the second slide, a long article from the National League of Cities cities, towns, specifically as it relates to infrastructure with ARPA money. So a lot of opportunities to do projects that we may need in the water, wastewater, and stormwater front.

So stormwater, not so much, but basically clear water, clean water, and drinking water. Those are the 2 big requirements they want to meet.

Yeah, stormwater is actually very clear that it's allowed use.

It's allowed, but they recommend that you go this other way first.

Oh, okay.

Could we use some of this money to build our tank or no?

Yeah, I mean, we could.

We've drawn down— yeah, these are things that we're still kind of trying to work through. We've drawn down bond money for the project. But yeah, a tank is allowed use, treatment centers are allowed use, pipe replacement, you know, things like that.

So we have all the funding for the tank. If you remember, we have $8 million in reserves with our water fund, $8 million in reserves with our sewer fund. And that is is matching and covers what we need for the tank together with the $29 million bond. So we actually have those funds covered.

Could you use it to pay that down?

You can, you could, but then you'd have that money there set aside and need to go somewhere else with it.

What about our AMI meters? Can we use that to deploy more of those?

It doesn't talk about that.

Part of the issue is time.

The bond money, the The time requirement for that bond money, right, it's shorter than— okay. And this part that's related to that.

Yeah, this actually, you only have 3.5 years to do this. And the bond—

well, at 5, because I can obligate it. Yes, fine. But 2024.

But the actual setting up, and depending on where it's going to go, you actually have 3 years to determine that.

Correct.

But I have to have Bond money actually physically spent within a much shorter period.

So do we have something targeted with the water already, or will you let us know that?

Yeah, we don't have a specific project. We're just, we're just right now just digesting. This in the last month was all released.

So they have, they have all these different categories, but what I'm saying is our tank, storage tank, pipelines, etc., already covered through the bond, through the reserves we've been saving for 3 or 4 years. We already are fully funded to pay for that, even though they're saying that could be a use.

So are we just going to the next project after that?

Well, he's got more slides to go.

Yeah, so right now the intent of this is just to give you an overview of the bill and what the allowed uses are. So examples: building or upgrading facilities, distribution storage systems, to your point, Debbie, including replacement of lead service lines, lines, supporting the consolidation, establishing drinking systems, public treatment infrastructure, managing and treating stormwater— it's a very specific one we talked about— or subsurface drainage water, facilitating water reuse, securing public treatment works, providing cybersecurity needs to protect water and sewer infrastructure. Broadband, kind of the same sets of questions, right? Is there a need that is created, or will this— will it take care of the need, and are the beneficiaries considered underserved entities or individuals? Examples: upgrading infrastructure to adequate speeds, providing digital literacy aid to underserved communities. Administrative expenses. There's always usually bills in there or language for things like this. There's going to be administrative costs to administering a program of this size. It also allows us to partner with other units of government that might be better to address the most pressing needs related to the pandemic. One of the examples they use in their writing is local governments may not be involved in affordable housing. There's another government that's better for that. You can transfer money and allow them to take care of the need. That would be considered an administrative expense. Examples, paying wages proportionally to hours spent on pandemic-related work. Conducting needs assessments for public health and broadband and others. Transferring funds to school districts to support a local school. Our reporting requirements are essentially— essentially what the reporting requirements are going to be is a quarterly report of how we spent the money and in what categories that money has been spent. Our first report is due August 31st, which is going to take care of March 3rd, which is the award date, to July 31st. And then October 31st, we will be doing July, August, September, and then we just get on a quarterly report of the expenditure, what's the individual project, any subrecipients, and detailed obligations and expenses.

And when does Helen get the money?

It has to be spent by December of 2026. That's what you were saying, 3.5 years. And obligated by December of '24. So that's our 3.5 years.

So you give a purchase order, but you don't send them the check until 2 years later.

Okay, so from the conversations I know that you've been having, here are a couple of projects that have been requested to be explored with the money. The first is the funding for Hillcrest Park. Most recently, a frequently asked question seems to open the door for us to use this funding for Hillcrest Park. The question is, would investments in improving outdoor spaces like parks be an eligible use of funds as a response to the public health emergency? Answer, in recognition of the disproportionate negative impacts on certain communities and populations, the rule— the interim rule identifies certain types of services to be eligible uses when provided in a qualified census tract, which Hillcrest is, to families and individuals living in those. For example, investments in Parks, public plazas, again, in a qualifying tract, public plazas and other public outdoor recreation space may be responsive to the needs of disproportionately impacted communities by promoting healthier living environments and outdoor recreation and socialization to mitigate the spread of COVID-19. And the conversation with Hillcrest has always been, how do we provide that type of outdoor recreational opportunities to that neighborhood? neighborhood and expanding them and making it a healthier living environment, walking trails, splash pads, pickleball courts, all those opportunities. So yes, from what we're seeing, Hillcrest Park is an eligible expense with ARPA funding. So perhaps we found the funding source to take care of Hillcrest Park, which has been a big nut we tried to—

we're trying to crack.

And this is clarification we only received like last Thursday, Friday. Yeah, last Thursday is when that was updated.

So Steve, one of the other slides you just had said transfer funds to support local schools, and especially like the Title I area, which Hillcrest did.

So that fits, I think that fits perfectly.

Yeah, yeah. You know, where a community is impacted by a school that was closed to the local community. Yep. It also says many governments saw significantly increased use of parks during the pandemic that resulted in damage or increased maintenance needs. There are certain playgrounds, for example, like the Altogether Playground and others that were just hammered for nonstop for the last 15 months, last 5 years on that one. But others, those increased maintenance needs can be covered as well with ARPA funding. So that's, that's the Hillcrest Park.

The other one— Are we talking about?

What's that?

Altogether Playground.

$16 million.

But we have $8 million in the bank right now.

Yeah. And then, yeah, yeah.

Thank you for clarifying.

And then in one year we'll receive the other $8 million.

And for the Hillcrest Park, we've already designated or moved over $750,000 from the CARES Act. So if you took the $8 million from the ARPA funds and the $750,000 from the CARES Act, you're almost $9 million of cash in the bank right now, ready to go.

And that doesn't include other fees. For example, we have parks impact fees that also could be associated with this. There is a smattering of other dollars that could be put towards this project outside of ARPA, essentially covering the full amount.

Cool.

If you were to choose to do that. Another project that we've been asked to research is perhaps the use of this for a new city hall. We do think there's additional research that probably needs to be done on this one. May recipients use funds to invest in infrastructure other than water, sewer, broadband projects? A general infrastructure project typically would not be considered a response to the public health emergency and its negative impacts unless the project responds to a specific pandemic-related public health need. For example, investments in facilities for the delivery of vaccines or a specific negative economic impact such as affordable housing. In a qualified census tract. However, there are some other considerations. Capital investments in public facilities to meet pandemic operational needs are also eligible, such as improvements to public buildings to implement COVID-19 mitigation tactics. So there is some amount of that, that there's flexibility provided. And then improved ventilation in public buildings is an eligible use. What we don't know is Is that to renovate a building or would it apply in a new building given that you're already going to be putting a new HVAC system in a new building? So those are still questions that we're working through and trying to get better clarification. We want to make sure before we spend any of this money, especially on these larger projects, we have very clear clarification so we're not on the hook paying this back years down the road. Sorry, Mayor.

Well, I was just going to mention, um, so I did send a letter to the Treasury requesting if they could verify what it is we want to do, that that is correct. And they sent back the letter and said, we are not going to verify anything. You go by the interim final rule and your best judgment and use your lawyer. But we have 5, 10, 20,000 requests of verification which we cannot get to.

So— Yeah. Use your best judgment according to what we've So you need to cover yourself, not have us cover you, essentially.

Yeah.

Yes. And they'll continue to, I think, update the FAQs, maybe some general guidance or themes. But it would be like a city hall would be a question based on the information we have, whether that's something the city council is comfortable putting ARPA money towards.

But on the park, it's very specific.

Seems very clear.

And it's— we meet that Yep.

Could you do the new infrastructure that you'll need for new building? If you could run the water, the sewer, build it as if you're gonna make it ready for when you do pull the plug? I don't know.

Yeah, no, it's— I think that's kind of getting into that gray area for sure. Not, not 100%. But for example, Chief Sanderson and I have been talking about a need to essentially bolster or or upgrade our emergency operation facilities.

Yep.

So if we were to build some sort of emergency operations center component into a new structure, I think you could draw a line and create that nexus between these ARPA dollars and the purpose and use of these monies much easier than if you are, for example, just trying to tie it directly to a, uh, just a city hall Yeah, I think that's a great point. I mean, you— that EOC then could be used specifically for response to a pandemic. It could be used for a vaccine distribution type of, you know, we can use it for those types of uses. But general offices for utilities, yeah, that's probably where you start running into—

anyways.

The next step. We'll continue training and conversations to obtain clarifications on the uses of funding. The Treasury, the League of Cities and Towns, they're all doing regular webinars that we can continue to watch and get clarification.

And also our State Water Department is heavily involved determining things.

Yes, great point there, Mayor, too. And we'll continue to collaborate with community partners to understand other opportunities and needs, and we'll work closely with you as we identify the use of uses funds. of the ARPA funding. We're encouraged with what we're seeing. We're lucky to be a community that was not impacted nearly the way other communities were. And because of that, economically, we've come out of this relatively strong compared to a lot of other places. And so we were able to use this to kind of make different investments that others may have to. And I think another thing to note is, while we are talking specifically about Orem-specific dollars. There are other ARPA monies that are available. In fact, today Char and I signed off on— was it $56,000?

One was $56,000, one was $12,000, and we got another one for $16,000 for digital inclusion.

So all of those are ARPA-related activities that benefit the City of Orem, but they're not running directly through Orem. They're running through the State Library, or they're running through other programs. Community Development Block Grant discussions and programming dollars are also available. There are Economic Development Agency dollars that are available.

Other water.

Yeah, other— so we're trying to kind of keep our focus on this forum-specific money, but there are other dollars to do stimulus or pandemic response type activities. Any questions or specific, yeah, things that you want to discuss? We, uh, we see a lot of opportunity to use this money to make our city come out of this stronger. We just got to make sure we're doing it right. Tom, would you have something you were going to say? No, it sounds like we have more study to do, right? We have more of this research to say because they're not going to get you the get-out-of-jail-free card. You've got to get your own. And you've only had it a couple days, but it looks extremely promising.

Promising.

And like the CARES Act, we used a— we utilized a component of the bill that allowed us to do public safety payroll because what— and I believe what the Treasury will want too, and that is do as few projects as possible to draw down this money. And the reason being, they don't want to be auditing 100,000 lines of expenditures. So if we can hone in on Hillcrest Park, for example, as one. That just makes us much cleaner in how we report to the office. So anyways. And another thing that we saw with the CARES Act dollars is over time the Treasury would release additional updates to their frequently asked questions. And it seemed to be that they were moving towards more kind of open-minded uses of these dollars. When they first released FAQs, was pretty tight. And then over time, it kind of expanded the scope of acceptable uses. You know, had we had this conversation, for example, about Hillcrest Park early last week, I would have said no, it doesn't qualify.

Yeah.

But late last week or early this week, the conversation has totally shifted because of an update from the Treasury. And that update then becomes our cover our back kind of counsel because, yeah, you don't specifically reference—

you don't need a verification.

Exactly. That's right.

Now we can say you published it in your frequently asked questions. There's a rational basis and a nexus for us to use this dollar, these monies for the rest of our—

All right, well, thank you, Steve.

Thank you.

Appreciate it. Uh, let's go ahead and move on to holiday activities, and our update presenter is Our Fire Chief Mark Sanderson.

So that money should just be spent on 5 new fire stations that all include an EOC in every one of them.

Yeah.

So go ahead.

This is—

I'm gonna have you click on this link.

This is gonna be—

Do click on it. And then if you'll just zoom in on the area when it comes up.

Mayor, wait, what are you saying?

Yeah, you're gonna click that. Then this is gonna actually zero in and show you The area of concern. And you can see that when it comes to Ormond Provo, I mean, there are other communities to the west of us and north of us that have much more significant wildland interface. Of course, with our recent fire, our focus is that whole east bench. I know that I talked to Adam and Lyndon and The police department's been handling their fire restriction signs in conjunction with Chief Earle and our fire prevention staff, but they've done the majority of their own posting. If you'll just back out of that and go to that next slide, I've got a couple other little maps that really— it's all really the same thing, just showing our area of focus. One thing I want to let Everybody knows yesterday we printed, I think it was 750 flyers. Fire department delivered them door-to-door. Everybody was busy on the east side from one end of the city to the north end hanging doors identifying our fire restrictions, which is the next slide.

And you do have new lawn signs up along the east side as well, additional ones.

Okay, yeah, I know that Chief Rome. Brian Myers is out posting all of those signs.

And so this is our area of focus. These are our current restrictions.

This information is all on our website. It's all been shared door-to-door with that whole East Bench. And then the last slide, just to give you an update, this is the extra patrol coverage that we've committed to. And so as we receive those phone calls, residents During the times when we get light fireworks, we have additional brush trucks staffed with our personnel that's going to be mobile on that whole east side. So we are going to do everything we can, and I'm just keeping my fingers crossed that we don't have any issues. If I may, Mayor, I think part of the community feedback we're getting when we, for example, post a social media post is, well, why don't you just ban restriction or ban fireworks throughout the entire community? If you base it on information as provided as related to fire risk, we're not banning them in the entire community because the risk potential is not there. So we feel like The justification we have is not really sound. Now, in certain areas it makes absolute sense. We have the documented data to suggest these are hazardous areas. We're going to restrict them in these hazardous areas. But if somebody says, well, what about 4th West and 8th South? How come you're not banning it there? Well, because data suggests that's not a fire danger in the same way as Trouble Canyon is. Or the Northeast Bench or all the cattails down in Vineyard. Those are obviously clearly hazards. So I know some of you are facing pushback from residents saying, why doesn't anybody, anybody have the courage to ban fireworks entirely? Part of the discussion is, well, if there is justification to take action, we're taking it. And we are actually being proactive in the areas within the community that are fields or extended weeds, and we're making stops and knocking doors just to say, look, if you're going to shoot fireworks, you're not restricted in this area, but have your hose out.

And we're really just verifying that a little grass fire isn't something that's going to burn down.

I noticed some other cities have limited it only to park areas, right? Not in private. You can talk about that. I live on Palisades Drive, and just off the east of that, they were mowing the other day and hit a rock and started a fire.

No doubt you're aware of that.

It came up the hill. And so I'm grateful that they're— but that just shows what could have happened. And I know there's block on the east side of Palisades. Is that the same? Did we do anything more than we did last year? Or is it the same restrictions we had last year? They're the exact same restrictions. The map is the same.

So a lot of our populace that is not calling loves to celebrate the July 4th holiday with fireworks and with families and get-togethers, and rightfully so. And I think they should be afforded that opportunity. But as we know, fireworks can start a fire. So I had a lady call me earlier in the day yelling at me, and she said, You know, my neighbor shoots the fireworks off, it goes into my field behind my house, I get upset, and I say something to him and he won't do anything about it. And then if I call you and something's done with the neighbor, the neighbor knows I'm the one that's calling, and so then I take the heat. And I'm going, well, you just have to work with your neighbor, you know. Work as a community. But I believe the community as a whole would love to celebrate this holiday in a safe manner.

I believe, and I mean, Josh, you just walked into this conversation, but I think from a dispatch perspective, if a citizen's calling just reporting illegal fireworks, I don't necessarily think they need to share their name. They can just give us a general area. If that's concerning, that's where they're being shot and Obviously, we'll respond because we'll be on that east side, and we just won't be able to make contact with them to do anything about it without a victim or a witness. But if that's a concern of people, please have them call and let us know that they're going off. We'll focus our patrol there.

So, I mean, do we actually have the authority to do this?

I mean, there's been a— they're saying it's not— you can't do it, and people are doing it. But what is the What is it legally? What can we do? I mean, I think the counsel we've received is if you can draw a nexus between an actual hazard, then you can place a restriction on a specific area. So we've already done that. But a broad-based, we're not doing it in the city, or we're not doing it in the state, I think that one, that's a challenge for enforcement. And two, that's where we potentially People question, well, what authority do you have to do that across the entire jurisdiction?

TNT Fireworks is going to sue the state of Utah or whatever your city—

I mean, so I think we've done exactly what we're supposed to do.

Well, different than last year, if you guys all saw that bigger brush truck that we just finished that was in the parade, that thing, had we had it last year, would have been able to drive right up on top of that mountain and we could have got ahead of that fire. Our normal Rush trucks just don't have the ability, that surplus state vehicle.

Where is that one parked at?

It's, uh, it's currently at Station 2. They're doing some training on it today. You may have seen it here in the public.

It almost ran me over a couple times. I didn't see it. That's in the front.

Yeah, no, it's, it doesn't go fast, but it carries a ton of water.

Is it yellow?

No, it's red.

Red.

It's really, it's a really, it's a good-looking vehicle. But it's a state surplus that we've— yeah, we nickel and dimed it and made it really nice. It's probably the nicest state surplus vehicle in the fire service in the state, I think.

Cool.

Chief Hurst did a really good job.

So, Mayor, this is a number of years— my mother, my parents lived 2 doors from the mayor's house, and so a number of years ago we loaded up the trunk with a bunch of fire equipment and we're going up, we're going up to my mom's house.

This is a part of Rexburg. Carry on, Terry.

Anyway, as we got up there, my mom was worried that that hillside behind her was going to go on fire. So I tell the kids, don't say a word to Grandma.

And I said, don't—

because we're talking— they're talking about fireworks. Don't say anything about what's in the trunk.

We'll go someplace though.

Anyway, that was your neighbor.

Well, just so you know, about 8 years ago, somebody in the neighborhood— I don't know who— shot an aerial off and it landed in the backyard 3 houses to the west of your parents and started a fire, and they were able to stop it with their hoses.

But anyway, no, that's a scary spot. Yeah, I mean, as Chief Sanderson can attest, every year we have issues with somebody enjoys the fireworks and they open their garbage container and they throw everything in. Yeah, next thing you know, we're responding to calls. They haven't extinguished Garbage cans melted. And in, in one case several years ago, the garbage can happened to be next to a natural gas meter and created serious problems. But thankfully, in most situations, that's not the case. I think we're as prepared as we can be.

We've never staffed like this, and so I think that based off last year's fire, we're trying to be really proactive.

I always appreciate that.

And you did mow the Murdock Canal. I verified with Jamie. And my fire—

they're currently working on that.

And the fire that almost got my house on Murdock Canal was, you know, it was about 10 feet away.

So yeah, not—

I think, Chris, I mean, that's a Public Works coordination.

So, so I also know that our police chief will be very busy, and we appreciate his efforts because I know that he'll be out there.

Lighting them off?

Anyway, all right, thank you. Let's move on to a water tank property update, and Jamie Davidson is our presenter.

Thank you, Mayor. I'm just going to go forward and I have a couple of slides I want to show you. So, uh, also pleased to have Neil Minnerton, our water manager, here with us. I need the adapter. And Chris Shirkey, our public works director. Just wanted to give you an update. Today we actually finalized the purchase of the Farley property, so all the closing documents are signed and we are now in possession— or obviously shortly are going to be in possession of the project, of the property, and we are anxiously wanting to get in there and start to do some preliminary work in advance of the school year. So, uh, and Mr. Farley has given us permission to do that. And so we are in the process here in the next few— even the next few days of making preparations to mobilize and do that. But in advance of that, we understand that there is a public education component associated with it. And as we reach out to residents, one of the questions they're going to ask is, okay, what are you going to do with the property? And, and can I be, uh, can I be given an update as to what that— what's going to happen?

So I would include with that, what are we going to do with the trees?

So Mr., Mr. Farley has the trees, uh, up until— in fact, he's actually busy working the land. I drove by there on my way back. He's working the land trying to transplant some of the trees.

And is he going to take all those?

He is not going to take all of them. At some point in the future, obviously, we're going to have to clear the site. And part of what we want to talk to you about— I'm sorry, I had it all set up and it's now disappeared. Who's sitting back there now? That's Mr. Farley. So typically when we talk about water tanks, what you see are kind of typical tank-type sites throughout the state of Utah. For example, right here, Flatiron Tank and Pepperwood Tank. You have Pepperwood Tank is built into a mountain, Flatiron Tank is in a city park, but of course it's elevated. Now, there's a reason, and it's a cost reason, that tanks generally sit above ground. You know, if you can get 5 feet of elevation above ground level, you can save about, Chris, a million bucks?

Yeah.

So there's, there's financial motivation to get it as high as you can. But our commitment to the community has been, no, we're going to, to the degree Reasonable, we're going to bury this tank. So it's not going to be necessarily something that is a very prominent part of the neighborhood. But we want to— obviously it's an important asset and an important piece of infrastructure, but our intent is to put it in the ground. And as part of many tank projects, what you will see is you will see landscaping and some sort of generally passive recreation-type uses. So walking trails, some level of landscaping, but generally the tank sites are fenced and public access is limited, if anything. We're kind of looking at it with a little bit of a different perspective here in, in Orem based on what we've seen in other communities. And what I want to show you here Is a particular tank that is in Sandy City. This is their Sega Lily tank. It's located right about 102nd South and above 13th East. So if you're familiar with Sandy, it obviously— there's somewhat of a bench right around 1300 East, and then it drops down to the I-15 corridor. This tank kind of sits on the precipice of that of that bench. And a number of years ago when they built this tank, they decided that this was going to be an area for them to showcase conservation. And so they created what they called the Sagalili Gardens. And the aerial you see here, you can actually see the footprint of the tank, the round circular tank. On top of that is some sort of graphic or design that was there. Using crushed stone and gravel. But in and around, they have created a garden atmosphere. And they have highlighted certain, I guess you could say, conservation efforts that residents can engage in to be water-wise in relation to landscaping. And so here you see, for example, a little garden area that they put together. This is actually an interesting demonstration, demonstration piece here, where they have different types of turf that are on the ground off the path. Each one of those pieces of turf has a separate meter. And they actually can measure the amount of water that they're putting on each of those spaces. So individuals can come and you say, well, what if I, what if I went with some sort of fescue as, as compared to Kentucky bluegrass? Well, they actually have somebody who is there, who can, from an education perspective, tell you, well, this is how much this kind of turf uses on an annual basis, as compared to this other kind of turf. A lot of the plantings, if not all the plantings, are drought tolerant, and they're identified specifically within the garden. And so you can actually walk through the garden, and you can see the different types of plantings that they have. They have some kind of arbor amenities, and they have a lot of trees. They probably have, what, Chris and Neil, I would say a million-plus dollars worth of trees in that area. Yeah, they said that they planted too many trees. Yeah. So you, you walk into this space, and it's a beautiful space, but it is overwhelmingly Busy. There is a lot of maintenance, there's a lot of upkeep. There is a part-time employee that is there through the summer months to essentially provide tours. Access is only— is limited, essentially between sunup and sundown, and it's gated. There's very limited parking, and they have a walking trail in and around it. People come here often for wedding photos. And those— they don't program any of that space, but they, you know, people use it either actively to walk in it, or if you're taking an engagement photo or some sort of family event or some sort of family photo, they go there. Or for educational purposes, they learn more about certain plantings and what might work in their property versus not. Which part is gated? The whole walking area? The entire thing. So they have They have a fence around the circumference of the tank itself.

Yep.

And then the actual property, you can see all the homes that surround it. There's actually a fence that surrounds all 4 sides of that. So the footpath isn't open all the time? No, it's not. And how big is that park? It's about 2.5 acres. I was gonna say 2.4. And ours is gonna be bigger, right? We bought 4.1 acres. Now this is an 8 million gallon tank, so our tank is going to be bigger, but the property— we have more property to work with.

This tank is 8 million gallons, but it's vertically—

it goes down about 30 feet or more.

So it's 8 million versus 10, but the footprint for this is much smaller than ours.

Oh, because they're going deeper? They're going much deeper. Right.

So, and I'd like to say also that in the winter months they lock this and it's not even So in the—

we actually took a tour of this property because we thought, you know, this might be a good, a good use of our tank site. And could we apply some of what we learned here to our tank property? We walked away with an answer, a resounding yes. But at the same time, what they have there is just too overwhelming. It's, it's a maintenance challenge. In fact, Sandy City, the folks that we toured with said, look, it's, it's a nice property. But if we could, if we could lock it up and not allow citizen access, we probably would do that. Because you can't unring that bell. Yeah, you can't unring that bell, so to speak. So we started having conversations with the landscape architect and the engineering firms that we've hired to help make this decision as to what would work for Orem. Now, part of the reason we're having this conversation now versus later is whatever we decide to put on this property and potentially on top of, for example, the tank, requires engineering and structural kind of consideration before we actually build it. So for example, if we were to put a ball diamond on top of this, The engineering associated with it would be significantly different than if we went with something like what you see on the screen today.

Like a pickleball court or something?

Correct.

So Jamie, I think when citizens hear that we're putting it on the Farley property, everybody I talked to jumps immediately to the conclusion, and a gentleman did last night, that's great, you're going to put in another park right here on top of that tank, what are you going to have in the park?

So, and this is, and this is kind of what we as staff are looking at from the perspective of, we have a very active park across the street with tennis courts, ball diamonds, and obviously proximity to our new fitness center, walking paths, so on. Part of the conversation negotiation we had with Mr. Farley was we would make an effort for this to be more of a passive than an active space. And so these are some of the considerations that we had in— as staff in relation to, you know, what potentially could go here and what would be the messaging that we share with the public as we move forward with this tank. And let me kind of show you what we have kind of talked about. We think it would be neat if we identified a space that we would call, for example, Orem Heritage Park, which would serve as part education, part passive open space that would highlight the city's heritage. Obviously, the city and its history is tied to fruit trees and agriculture and activities that are much different than they are today here in And so we thought about, well, what if we could make something like they have in Sandy, but geared more towards recognizing and celebrating the city's agricultural heritage? While at the same time building a tank, having a walking path, having some potential, for example, little pavilions or something in and around the park. But also providing for a needed well, a needed pump house, and obviously 10 million gallons of water. I know we've had some discussions about, well, let's turn this into more of an active space. As a city, we would discourage the active use of the— essentially the footprint that sits on top of the tank itself. But prospectively, maybe there is an opportunity for us to activate this space to a greater degree in the future when we have an opportunity to acquire the additional acreage that sits next to the tank site from Mr. Farley. The other challenge we run into is the moment we activate this space, then we have parking requirements immediately. And if you look at the footprint, where are we going to accommodate the parking on this site? And can we reasonably do it in a way that obviously meets the needs of our public works and our water staff, but also the needs that residents may have associated with activating this space and putting, let's say, pickleball courts or whatever on top of it? So we have kind of come up with this idea of what we call Orem Heritage Park. And The orchard concept is not unique to Orem. In fact, these are images that I pulled out of similar type demonstration gardens from information available from Utah State University. There's also a picture here. This picture here is a campus of Colorado State University, and I think this picture here with the trellis is something from from the University of Missouri or Missouri State University. So there are some obviously models that we could follow, but it kind of keeps with the passive nature of the park, and I think would serve to recognize our heritage. That's one of the things we heard when we held those public meetings of, you know, what about the fruit trees? And that's one of the things you asked almost immediately, Mayor, was, well, what about all these fruit trees? What are we going to do with those fruit trees? Well, potentially there's an opportunity for us to incorporate some of those trees into something like this and to make it something that celebrates and recognizes the city's heritage in a way different than Community Park or some of our other active parks, where we could actually have education stations where people could come and they could actually learn about our history. And, for example, why Orem was so prominently recognized as an agricultural community.

You know, one thing that was really big in Orem at the start, but not a lot of people know about, were the strawberries. So they actually brought strawberries up from Provo, and a big part of the Provo bench for a while was strawberries. So it'd be nice to have areas for strawberries there, and maybe areas for berries and so forth. Let the fruit—

I mean, I think there's heightened sensitivity with some of the neighbors in and around any park as to what is its use going to be. And they were, you know, for example, the conversation we had at Community Park a number of years ago relative to a dog park. We think a dog park is a good idea. We just don't think it's a good idea in this park. So you need to relocate, you need to locate it somewhere else. And, and so we obviously— this is in direct adjacent to single-family neighborhoods. And, and part of our conversation is we think this would be a nice passive use of this space.

So—

Still allowing us to use portions of it. Well, obviously, Majority of it would be used for water.

So like we've done with the dog park and we did with the pickleball court area at Sharon Park, could we do a survey of the surrounding residents and say, we think a heritage park here would be great, do you have any suggestions or thoughts, and get some feeling back from them as well?

Rick, if I may, I think we already got I think we already got that feedback. If you recall when Lisa Benson with Landmark Design came in and they— and Kyleen give one-to-one updates when they were showing the survey data, by far the amenity that was in demand was walking paths and paths of type No, but I just think it'd be nice—

a lot of that was around the Hillcrest area. It'd be nice to include these neighborhoods.

That was a citywide survey.

Well, specifically these neighborhoods, and find out if there's something they'd really like to see.

Well, I guess the concern would be, one, we don't necessarily want to push this project back too far into the future, because then we do obviously run across with uses across the street, Orem Elementary, for example. At the same time, too, if whatever we, whatever we accept, or whatever we put on this space, if we provide opportunity for feedback, the expectation is We're gonna go with the majority consensus of what the group is. And we better be prepared to do that. We have a limited budget. This is not something, for example, that would— for example, we went something like this. This is on the lower end of the budget spectrum versus the higher end of the budget spectrum. If I hear you correctly, this is not going to be play on top of this. This is going to be not— Not 10 feet in the air, but 2 or 3 feet in the air. Yeah, I mean, you could— because we have, what, 40 feet on either— on every side. So we could berm it up. We could berm it up. So it doesn't look quite like it's 5 foot out of the ground.

Correct.

But whatever we do, I think you're asking for this council to make a decision. If we're not going to do something on top of it, it's going to be primarily a water tank. And if we, if we go into it with that understanding, Then the budget's X instead of Y.

Then we can get these years.

And then we can determine how to do the work around it. So if we make a decision today of, okay, it's going to be a few feet above the ground and, and there's not going to be sand, it's not going to be grass we're going to fertilize, it's not going to be anything we need to fertilize on top, it's going to be natural so it doesn't corrode. And then we can have a little more time to make decisions about what goes in the periphery of it. Well, right now we're saying this is a water tank first and a surrounding park, not a park with a water tank underneath it.

Correct.

Which would have— one of the reasons we bought the Farley property is it was going to be much more expensive to maintain something on top of it. Is that correct? My memory on that correct?

So could you come back to us with some examples of what— more specific what you're thinking?

So this is—

So you're looking at keeping a lot of the trees around the outside?

Not necessarily, no, because when we dig deep down into the ground, we're going to need a lot of that square footage.

You'd replant those trees.

Correct.

So we would essentially replant— And far enough away that they don't cause trouble with the tank.

Exactly.

I have a new home going in just to the west of me, and I think they killed our trees because our roots had gone into what is their property. They didn't have the right to dig that hole. We would essentially have to scrape the property.

Yep.

Do we know how many trees Farley has?

There's a couple hundred lots.

Yeah, there's quite a few there.

A couple hundred?

And so here you're looking at maybe 50, 70 trees, approximately?

Well, I mean, again, this is just a concept.

Right.

There may be certain pieces of the space that are focused on— that's focused on strawberries.

Sure.

And then you're going to have very limited tree cover, or you may have other—

No, that's fine. It'd be nice to see a couple of examples a little further defined.

I also think our Natural Resource Committee would love something like this because they'd be all over this and they'd want to have some input and they'd probably have some good ideas.

And for years that we've been doing recreation-type requests from citizens, a park that honors our kind of passes an orchard community has been always one of the big ones.

Yeah, it'd be a great thing to have.

I like the idea of the heritage. But is this big enough to do it justice? I mean, you got so much here. Would you rotate the signage or—

Well, I don't think it's big enough to do it justice.

You look at Nelson's Grove, I mean, to some degree that too is a Is it, you know, a credit to those that came before us?

Sure.

It's different. This would just be another piece of our history. No, we couldn't in a very, in a very big way do what I think Nelson's Grove, for example, has done. This would be something a little different where we would focus primarily on on just our agricultural history in terms of plantings and trees and leave it at that. But at the same time, I mean, there is, Neil, you know, 40-plus feet. Yeah, I think that it looks underwhelming on this page here a little bit because you say, yeah, that's a big tank. And if you were to imagine that around, there's going to be a quarter-mile track. You know, that's the same size as a high school track, and then we're going to have 40 to 100 feet in the corners to do something with. It's a bigger space than what I think that this really gives you, and the Segal Lily, I think, represented that. You look at that aerial and you say, gosh, we can do that. It really does change your perspective. If you went and looked at it, and then if you imagine how much we can put in there around the perimeter. So how long does Arlen plan on staying there for?

I mean, he's not planning on moving, right?

So we are in the process of subdividing the property. We've purchased 4.2 acres. He still owns 1.5 acres. We have a first right of refusal. So when and if If he ever decides, if he passes away or if he decides to sell, then we have first right to purchase that remaining 1.5 acres.

So he could be there 20 years?

He could, yes.

So I like this.

This is the last remaining 5 acres of the whole part of that city that was farmed. I grew up over by there, and so Arlen and I went to high school together. Anyway, so I mean, it was a huge farm.

family had.

So I think it shows a lot of respect.

And when you talk about heritage, this part of town, you know, they have still some fruit trees, but, but to have green space and to respect him living there with not a lot of noise.

He's very private, as we know, very private man. And to have green space, I think, is a great thing to do. Jeff, I just said I love this concept.

I love the idea.

I think we should move forward with it. I like the idea of having passive green space and something different from every other park we have in the city. I think it's a great idea. I do want to say something else. I want to say thank you to everyone. You know, we go back a few months, and this was a hot topic and a source of contention and anger with a lot of people in the city. And I love how everyone, you know, we all kind of worked together and worked with the neighborhoods and went back with the neighbors and met with neighbors and board meetings. And I just think it's a great example of community and staff and, you know, everyone coming together and finding a wonderful solution to a really difficult situation in really difficult problem. So, well, and frankly, I think Mr.— credit goes to Mr. Farley for his willingness to work with the city. And to, you know, we had that conversation previously, and at that point, he wasn't ready to do what he has done.

Right.

And, you know, Heather and Sam Kelly, our city engineer, were just— worked in a very, in a very, I guess you could say, sensitive way with Mr. Barley to represent to him that we're going to try and make this property something that you can be proud of. And it feels like a win-win-win all the way around. You know, the neighbors didn't want it in their neighborhood, and now we have it in a really great space. So thank you. How much parking do you need for a type of park like this? Well, I mean, you— I think in the Sagalalee Park there were 12 spaces. Yeah. And you technically, I think, could accommodate some on-street parking, although we wouldn't, we wouldn't work that into the overall concept plan because we can't account that. Well, we have parking right across the street at a park, right? It isn't like they're landlocked.

Correct.

And again, picking up 5 more, 4.2 more acres of green space. And, and the whole reason we did this was to help the neighbors as As Jeff points out, and reduce the cost, I think this is a plan we ought to move forward with. And what we do on the periphery can be decided later. What's the timeline? Well, we actually find— we bonded for money, so we have really a 36-month window to use this money. And a big amount, a big piece of this, uh, of that money goes to this tank. So we have to get going now. About 2 years, is that—

2 years.

Yeah, that was part of the neighbor's concern, that their park was going to be torn up for 2 years. So, you know, we, we already are meeting with the engineers. We actually— and Neil and Chris can brief you— but we actually have separate, separate groups that are working on the tank, the pump house, and the well. And the folks that are working with the tank are saying, look, we need kind of quick answers to some of these questions because that does affect the design and structurally how we would build this thing. So do you need us as a council to say yay or nay? I just, you know, a head nod as to we like the direction you're going.

What do you guys want to go?

Will allow us to engage the public and to start having conversations with them about this concept.

Sure, I think we're pretty much all in agreement.

Yeah.

How deep is the well?

It could be probably 900 feet deep.

Okay.

Any reason why you wouldn't go deeper?

We'll do some test drilling and then that'll help us dictate it. But that's where all of our wells are about in Orem, and we've had great success with that. That would be the reason. And how deep will the tank— how tall is the tank? I realize however many feet above the ground it is, it's going to be the other— Probably about 18 feet.

Okay.

Yeah, we have a meeting tomorrow with all the SET teams, including the public information group. We have a draft letter that they're going to go knock doors door to door and engage. We have a very aggressive public information group on hand for this project, and like Jamie said, they're ready for us to move forward.

Tell us what you want. I think we're behind you. Anybody against?

Okay, so are we better off to not cover it at all? So our thought with the, I guess, the roof of the tank is to put some sort of crushed stone design. Just different than concrete. To mix it up. So it's technically not just a— Maybe that could be part of the— That doesn't have to be attached to it. So what you see here at Sigilily, that's just the design that they put on top. I mean, we could put the city logo for all that's worth. How about an image of our mayor in rock?

No, what you could put is land here.

A helipad, big H. Like on the top of the houses?

That'll change the structural design though.

Yeah, they can't land here, right?

Thank you.

Okay, appreciate it. Uh, we'll now go on to a fraud risk assessment discussion. Is this standing between Brandon Nelson?

This is standing between you and dinner. It's as Jamie put it, I get to hit cleanup. And so it's the most exciting part of the evening, I'm sure. So part of our The requirements of the State Auditor, um, here 2 years ago that we expressed to you using this fraud risk assessment that they developed to give you an idea of what, what elements make up fraud risk for the city and how, how we address which one of those we are addressing.

Right.

I want you to keep in mind as you looked that over, that the point structure is entirely based on the State Auditor.

They determined which elements, how many points those were worth.

You got one more point, huh?

Yeah, well, you know, and I know we all like to be the best, right? Keep in mind this is developed for all sizes of entities. So while many of the elements we don't Do, you know, as you can see on there, some of those, a fraud hotline, a formal internal audit function. We have an internal audit function, it just doesn't meet the qualification as a formal audit function. Should we make that your cell number?

The fraud hotline?

Yeah, I thought about that.

It's got to be separated. 1-800-Brandy.

What are you talking about? You know, the online training for all of you, for instance. Those are all elements that, quite honestly, the State Auditor thinks are important. Whether or not they're worth the effort and time to get the extra points on this assessment, I leave that up to you. to you to determine. I, I have not— this assessment is exactly the same as last year. So we have not changed a thing. We haven't changed our processes to do anything different because we feel pretty strongly that our—

Excuse me.

Based on when our auditors come every year and do their assessment, That we meet all of the needs of our internal controls to avoid fraud potential. Would the items that are missing on here improve that? That's the debate, potentially, right? So, as you can see, the very most important item, item number 1, in my opinion, and item number 2, Followed— following that. Those are probably the 2 most important items, and we meet every single one of those. So I leave that with you, and are there any questions that you might have about any one of these items as you look through those, those fraud items?

I think number 4 we could easily do, signing a statement of ethical behavior yearly.

I don't know about your employees, but we can certainly do it. Right, and it—

the all employees part is the part that concerns me, right? Obviously we do training.

We do a training every year through attorneys, through Jason in our risk area.

Could it be something that their yearly evaluation, they just sign it yearly?

I'm not saying it's not possible. It's certainly possible. We just haven't done it.

Right.

I'm just saying that doesn't look like that's that difficult.

So, so if those— if there's elements on there that you, you know, as a group you feel like I would like— you guys would like us to go down that path, I certainly would go down that path.

If you think that's a reasonable thing that we can do.

I've looked into a fraud hotline. looked into this formal internal audit function. Both of those things, in my opinion, are cost prohibitive, not necessary in relation to what— to do them well, let's put it that way, right? Does it have to be a dedicated phone number?

It does.

Something like a 311?

No, it doesn't.

I shouldn't say it does not have to be. It has to be something that doesn't— so the problem with a fraud hotline is like if you look at Provo's, it just goes to into their accounting. Yes, that does. That doesn't really work. You need a third party. So number one, the person who's calling generally wants anonymity, for one. And number two, you don't want to know who they are either, because you want to be able to feel like what you're being provided has some merit to it. So, so not, again, not that they can't be done, just Does it provide anything more than what we already have? And is that worth the cost?

Which in accounting is what we look at everything, right?

Cost-benefit, right?

So what does somebody do now if they want to report fraud?

They would probably contact one of you. They probably would contact me. Probably contact Jamie. Any one of those.

Anybody.

Yeah.

The employee handbook identifies a particular process that employees can go through, for example, and if they have, for example, whistleblower-type action, there is a path for them, a formal path identified in the handbook that they can follow to voice a concern outside of their supervisor, for example. So thank you for bringing that up because that's another example.

We—

I mentioned a formal internal audit function.

We have an internal audit function.

It's just not formal. We have things in relation to a fraud hotline that are specific to employees, but not necessarily external.

So we do have something in that area, just not what they—

the state auditor is asking for in that particular arena.

You guys all go do training.

The Utah League of Cities and Towns does training when you come into office, and every— I believe every year. Well, does that— that doesn't meet this requirement that he has in here, but you certainly get trained. Um, you know, the item on here about ethical behavior, we hit on that all the— every year, same thing, we hit on that kind of element. don't do it specifically the way that they've kind of requested that that be done. So that's why, again, that's why I say I feel comfortable with where we are. I feel comfortable with these things. If we want to, you know, step up from on the border of moderate to low by doing one of these elements, great. So outside of that, any other questions?

That's all I have.

I just needed to make sure we brought this before you so that you are aware of where we feel like we are at in relation to this, so that then I can report back to the State Auditor's Office that we've had this discussion. You're aware of it. That's the only requirement, is that you've been made aware.

Okay, thanks. I think it's time to take a break for We'll have a prayer on the food first. Terry, could you give us a prayer on the food?

Our Heavenly Father, we're thankful for this opportunity to meet this evening. We're grateful for this food that's been provided.

We pray it will nourish and strengthen us, and we pray that we will have Thy Spirit and wisdom and guidance in discussions and issues that confront us as representatives for the city. We're thankful for this opportunity to serve, and we say this in thy Son, Jesus Christ.

Amen. Amen.

Thank you.

If you can be done by quarter to.

Is what you do here—

would you use 6.0 for that?

Or is there a reason you say 5.0?

Check, check, check.

Oh, no problem.

Discussion about Gordon and Sue Smith's house.

No, I appreciate you calling me.

So I'll tell you what I was calling about. So we bought this, the Gordon and Sue Smith's house on the—

just next to your mom's. And we're putting some serious money into fixing that up, which we were— Well, it's a long story. We thought we had one daughter we thought would move into it, and she bought a home in Highland. Then we have another daughter that probably will be moving into it, but not—

he's just finishing a fellowship. So anyway, they're here right now, and they're kind of helping us choose things.

But guess what we ran into?

That shared— what do they call that? Shared shed.

Shared shed is a mess. I mean, you knew someday that would happen, I guess.

But anyway, when we're trying to get a building permit to remodel, the city said you can't have a shed on shared property. It has to be on one property or the other. So I said, okay, give me my choices. Well, and they said this is not only just a city ordinance, this is state law. Have a building on shared property. And so they're denying a building permit. And then I said, so we were able to buy the house with that. They said, you can buy it, but they said the problem would be if you ever, you know, like what we're doing, or if you're remodeling.

And they said the parks will have the same issue.

If they were sold that home and if somebody wanted to do any kind of remodeling and get a building permit, the city will deny Because of that piece of property, you have to resolve that.

So I go, oh geez.

So I said, what are my—

yes, because they're looking at the—

yeah, which I don't know why.

In fact, you know, I'm on the city council, so I walked into the planning—

and I serve as a representative on the planning commission.

So I walked in and said, Cheryl, What's the deal?

Why am I getting turned down? She said, Terry, they won't make an exception just because you think they should because of you. This is a state law. And I said, oh, okay. So because that— they look at the property, the shed has nothing to do with what we're doing. We're taking down the deck in the back, we're taking out a wall, and, you know, a bunch of stuff like that. But she said, we won't give you a building permit because that shed showed up when we looked at the property.

So here's the choices there that I said, okay, brainstorm with me, Cheryl, what are my choices? So probably the easiest one would be to do a boundary adjustment.

And, you know, either we get the shed or you guys get the shed. And we file a property line adjustment and have to get easements signed off. Because there's an easement right down the middle of that shed.

The city told me, said, "By the way, there's a ditch under that." I said, "Yeah, I've learned that." And they said, "If the ditch company ever wanted to, they could take down your shed." And I said, "Well, I have news for you guys. It's been there for 40 years, so chances of that happening are pretty slim." But I mean, there are some weird options too. The other option would be the shed. They said, "Sorry, I'm talking fast.

I'm just trying to get." True, before this meeting started. But they said the shed's about 480 square feet, which I can't believe it's that big. But the city just took a picture of it with their computer, and you can't have a shed more than 200 feet.

I said, okay, what if we just split the shed in 2 and put 2 walls up? I mean, I'm just kind of— and they said, you could do that.

I go, oh.

I said, okay, here's the issue, is we're dealing with the neighbor who's She's a sweetheart and we've known her for 37 years since we lived there, but she's 90.

I don't know if she's 90, that's what I've been told. I said she's 90 years old and anything like that is very upsetting to anybody, but I can't go to my neighbor and say, are you okay if we cut 3 feet off the middle of the shed and put a wall up on your side and a wall up on our side?

That's kind of dumb.

Or you take it down. Or you take it down. And I said, well, she stores her stuff in there and she's stored it there for 40 years and I think the people who have our house would like to use that shed and store their stuff because they're going to have a garden too.

So anyway, I'm just kind of throwing these at you. So to me, I'm just—

I'll throw this out at you.

What if we change the boundary and I mean if there's a way The way we could do that, that Margaret doesn't even know about it, and you and I have an agreement, you know, that, you know, it's her shed, she uses it all her life, nothing changes. But then when she's gone, we put a boundary around it. The boundary just goes right around where the shed is instead of through the middle of the shed. That, as Cindy said, is probably the easiest, is just to change the boundary. Unless you've got—

But then I said, you know what, the guy I'm going to talk to is an attorney, so he might have a better idea.

I mean, that, or we could take down our half of the ship, but the problem with that is you still have to put a wall up. I mean, you have to fix it because you need to put a wall up where Margaret's half is.

And they shelved me on the map, I guess the, uh, well, there's a, there's an underground ditch that runs right under the shed.

I think that's what she told me, it's 4 feet on my property line, which I don't, I don't really care or know, but I said okay. So that makes it easier for us if we ever want to put a fence between the two. I said we weren't really intending on doing that, and the one reason I was telling Sherry, I said that because it looks like the kids store like snowmobiles and, you know, stuff. I said a fence is going to be a pain for them to try to back stuff in and out.

So I'd say just don't unless whoever gets it from us wants to, then they can deal with it.

But anyway, okay, I'm just throwing that on that. So I guess they're delaying the building for that because we can't share the shed. And I said, well, you know what, we were able to buy it without this problem. But I'm repeating myself now.

But they said, your neighbor can have the same problem.

She passed away and they sold it.

They got the same problem.

Even if you wanted to put solar panels on that house, they wouldn't let them do it because you've got that joint shed. Well, really?

Anyway, that's what they told me. Unless you know something different, But I mean, that's what they're telling me.

And my poor general contractor is saying, I can't keep going because— now, they didn't tell me he had to stop. They said that he has to send them a picture of what he's done to reply.

Yeah.

Oh yeah.

Yeah.

Down.

Down.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Good, that's a great point.

Yeah. I need you— well, the city—

well, city council may start at 10:00.

and so I can't probably catch him now. What I was going to say, the city planner is in the other room I just walked out of, and so I'll see if I can corner him afterwards. And because I was talking to 2 of his assistants when I walked in this afternoon, and just see— they didn't bring up—

when I said, so it's a city law, she said it's a city ordinance.

I said, okay, which I'm not sure I know the difference, but—

No.

And she said it's a state So I don't know if she said state code, state law, state something, but she said, yeah, you can't change it or it's a state—

so I don't know if that was a state code or state law. Let me— I'll see if I can corner Jason tonight. I don't know if I can. If not, I'll come in and talk to him tomorrow. I mean, that, or if you talk to him, you know, you should talk to him. I can't, but I can I can bring that up and say, isn't this grandfathered in? And I'll just tell them, listen, I'm talking to the neighbor whose husband—

or husband—

whose son is an attorney that deals with real estate matters, you know, professionally.

So, um, just see if, uh, you know, that makes sense to me. I don't know why it has to be part of it.

It has nothing to do with— You gonna present today? Uh, I'm not presenting, but I am telling a tale. Yeah. Hang on for a minute.

You got a 3-minute spot?

Yeah. So did we get power down on the other side? Yeah, we did. I switched everything over here. I just have this logo on there for now. What time is it? Still got 7 minutes? Yeah, about 7 minutes.

So cool.

How long have you had those rims on your vehicle for?

Um, maybe like this time last year or something.

I like it.

That was a nice choice. Those are really cool. I love that color. Yeah, it works well with the car, especially when it's clean. A lot of people kind of look at the long rims for their wheel, which I think is disgusting. I just think they're a bit too daring. Oh, you can talk? Oh yeah. But I just got such a good deal on them, I couldn't pass up. It had to be done.

Yeah.

I was like, because I want ideal rim height. So you gotta find that sweet spot.

Yeah.

Um, most people are coming back from that, right? Those doors are locked.

Okay.

Yes. But I just ran it around.

City Council, like the sign?

Yeah. I have had that happen before where for some reason the audio is only coming out of the front driver's side. So I would only use the one.

I bet that's what it is. That I don't stick my— that's right, you did tell me that happened. It only comes through one.

All right, well, good luck.

Okay, thanks, Nathan.

This is the LBC.

If not, you might be sitting in the wrong place.

I know, it's been crazy, huh? Yeah, well, I knew it might be a risk. That's why I was saying you might need to knock on this door.

Could we have the council members come forward? We're going to start in about 2 minutes. We're going to start. We would like to welcome everyone out to our city council meeting this evening, and we would like to begin by having an invocation by Jim Larray and a Pledge of Allegiance by Debbie Larray. And we'd ask Jim to go ahead and come on forward.

Let's pray at this time. Our Father in heaven, we're thankful for the blessings that are ours and the chance we have to join together this day in the City Council chambers and may have a chance to discuss the business of the city and the different problems and issues that affect each one of us as members and citizens of this wonderful city. Father, we pray for thy spirit to be with us so we can have our minds open and understanding of the different issues and the different problems that people have and that we can be kind to those around us and, and that work with us and that might have different views. And Father, we pray for these things and do so in Jesus' name.

Amen. Amen. Um, do you want to go down?

But please rise and join me in the pledge. I pledge allegiance to the flag 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, Jim, and thank you, Debbie. We'll now go into the personal appearances portion of our meeting, and I would like to read a statement Time has been set aside for the public to express their ideas, concerns, and comments on items that are not scheduled as part of the 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 rather than individuals. Those wishing to speak should have signed in before the beginning of the meeting. And please give us your name and limit your comments to 3 minutes or less. I, first of all, see that some people have signed up to speak on the North Village District, uh, at 1600 North and Orem, and zoning. That is an item that is on our agenda, so you should not be speaking on that during a personal appearance time.

I'm sorry.

Um, and actually, I do not see anybody who is not speaking on that item. So all of you have— yes.

My name is Catherine Christensen, and I'm not speaking on the item.

That, that's great. So you're welcome to come forward at this time for a personal appearance.

It's Catherine Christiansen. My family owns property on State Street and 400 West. We have over 5 acres. Part of it is homes, and the rest of it is farmland. When the North Village District was rezoned, And the plan was set. It was for all of our property to be developed into high-density housing.

That's not the intent of our property.

My mother got the bill for $7,900 in property tax on one piece of property that went from $2,700 to $7,900. She came to the city, said, what happened? The city said, we didn't do anything.

That's right.

She went to the county. The county said, not our problem, we didn't do anything. BYU, the students at BYU did research for us, and I believe each of you have received a letter describing exactly what did happen. And I'll tell you what happened. When you rezoned our property without notification, we didn't go to any meetings. It's farm ground and residential homes.

Thank you.

When you rezoned that, it shot the taxes up because the county goes off of your zoning, and that's what they charge. At this point, we're— it's costing us an extra over $5,000 a year because of the way that you folks zoned that property. And we've done everything we can. There are exclusions for greenbelt.

We gotta jump through hoops for that.

We may or may not qualify.

But right now, you've put our property in a position that if we leave it like it is, which is my mother's dying wish, and she died of COVID in October, and she said, you figure out what happened because this is wrong. And she's talked to the city, she's talked to the county, she's done research.

Okay?

That's what happened. So the height's important. There's a lot of things that are important for the community, for the safety. All of those things I understand. But for the city to literally put— impose such a ridiculous tax because of the zoning and decide what we're going to do with our property, which is not what we're going to do with our property, is absurd. And you do, you have, should have all a letter of the research that's been done and what we're requesting. We need you guys to change that zoning. And I appreciate your time. I know this is tough. I know that there's a lot of high emotions, but we have good people here. Thank you. all the way around, and I appreciate your time, and I know you'll do what's right. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else who wants to speak that is not on the North Village District? Okay, so you're not going to speak in regards to height or parking in the North Village District? Okay, make sure you're— you are or you aren't.

There might be one sentence. How about that? But that's not the theme of my comments. Is that all right? Can I go forward, or—

One sentence, yeah. No.

Okay.

My name is Lynnae Millett. Tonight, we're going to be talking about the height and the parking, but I'd like to talk about a legal issue about the zoning changes that we're making. I've heard it said that changing the height maximum more than 10% would be illegally downgrading the zoning of this area. That is incorrect. There is Utah law called the Land Use Development and Management Act, also known as LUDMA. That's the paper that I gave you with that information on it. I just want to read into the record those codes and ordinances. It says, Orem City Code 2215, the city council may vote to approve, modify, or disapprove the proposed amendments made to the Planning Commission, or may take any other action allowed by applicable laws. LUDMA, which is Utah Code Section 10-9A-302, says a legislative body may adopt, modify, or reject a Planning Commission's recommendation to the legislative body under this section. And then the last applicable code is LUDMA, Utah Code 10-8A-5022. The legislative body, meaning the city council, may adopt or reject the land use regulation described in subsection 2, , as proposed by the planning commission, or , after making any revision the legislative body considers appropriate. So basically, these are very strong codes, ordinances. There's also strong case law that says that a municipality has broad legislative authority to modify anything that has been presented or reviewed by the Planning Commission. That's kind of what we're going to be talking about tonight, but I'm not going to get into that. One point I want to make with this is that a lawsuit from a developer challenging the changes that we're voting on tonight would not prevail in Utah courts. And that the— from what I've seen, that that is very settled case law, and we have these codes and ordinances that also back that up. So, So we urge you to confidently vote tonight on these height and parking changes. And I thank you, and I hope that this additional information is helpful to you tonight.

Thank you. Anyone else who wishes to speak? Yes, go ahead, John. Give us your name.

My name is John Barrick. I'm an Orem resident.

I'd like to speak about a completed development application.

If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth. This is a fundamental law of propaganda. What the Orem City staff and a couple of Orem City Council members, as recently as last week, have been telling anyone who will listen is that, that once an application is made, the land use application is vested and you cannot stop it. This is a half-truth.

They want both the entire City Council And Orem residents to believe. This is a false narrative and a half-truth because Utah law states that it is applicable once it is a complete application.

Utah law requires that each municipality in a timely manner shall determine whether a land use application is complete. What is the status of the Knighton Architecture OBO-K lofts at 1600 application?

It's been approved. Is the application complete or not?

I've spoken with almost every member of the City Council. One was flying this last week and out of town. But my question is, what is the status of the application?

Let's see what Sunshine does to the claims of Orem City.

On April 13th, the developer sent an email.

Can the application—

can we have the application accepted while working on getting that report?

Suggesting that we're missing a report.

City planner in the meeting: They are in the process of making an application.

I believe that's probably true.

In the process of.

We have a property owner that has made an application. Made is— that's a tough word. Truth: There was an email asking for the application to be accepted. The fees were paid 22 minutes before the work session started that day. Lie.

There is no complete application on April 13th. April 14th, a city planning staff member told Lynnae Millett and Stephanie Wisnaw that they weren't entitled to a copy of the application.

That is a lie.

Yet the city planning staff could not produce the application, and a GRAMA request was filed on April 4th. Now I'm going to skip a lot because I have a lot I'm missing.

You have 42 seconds.

Yes.

So my favorite is— my favorite thing I found from a grammar request is the development agreement. The developer said Phase 2 was no longer being pursued, no further pursuit, but yet a development agreement by the staff the next morning.

That's, that's my favorite email I've found.

We've turned in a number of grammar requests. The mayor asked me to produce a list of everything yesterday in a meeting, asked me to produce a list of everything that's required for a complete GRAMA— I mean, a complete building application, or DRC application, excuse my language, and it's 3, just over 3 pages.

And I have the list, but I don't know the dates of when any of these things happen because my GRAMA requests and others in our group have not been fulfilled, which is a violation of Utah state law. Thank you so much.

Okay, thank you. Anyone else wish to speak to something other than the North Village District? Yes. My name is Ken Millett.

I live at 288 West 1500 North. I'm not here to talk about North Village District, but I am here to talk about something that's in that particular area. And that is, you all know there's a Kwik Quack on the corner of 1600 North and State, and next to that there's an Allred or an Ace Hardware store. On the east side of that Kwik Quack is an access to those 2 businesses. Both of those businesses have access on State Street. That access on the east side, it exists in a lane that's a through lane of traffic. It's not a turn lane. And I've been in that lane many times when people have stopped to turn into that area and had to stop right behind them and almost hit them. I believe that that access area needs to be closed. The reason I believe that is because, and you all know this, they put a stoplight just a few hundred feet to the east of that and then an access road off of 4th West through that stoplight to those 2 businesses. And if— so if you close off that, that access point, then we eliminate all those problems that we have with traffic being stopped there, because every time someone turns in, traffic backs up. You eliminate all those problems, and all the people have to do is drive 200 feet more, make a right-hand turn, and they have complete access into both of those, um, those businesses that are there.

And there was a time a couple of months ago where there was a huge storm and everybody on Saturday decided to go wash their their car at the Kwik-E-Mart, and it backed up all the way down 1600 North to the State Street intersection.

You couldn't turn in there.

People couldn't turn left, couldn't turn right.

It was a real problem, and it's all because of that access point that's there. And also, if you notice—

and this is anecdotal—

is that people hit that curb all the time on that access point. And if you just go look at that curb—

I took pictures of it today, but I can't show you pictures— so people are driving over the curb all the time just to get into that area.

So I just believe that that access point needs to be closed off.

So I would appreciate it if the council could direct the Transportation Committee to consider closing off that access point and making the access go through the stoplight as it should.

Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else wish to speak to something other than what's on our agenda? Yes, go ahead. My name is Jim Condie. I live on 400 West in Orem. I've looked into some of the UDOT numbers for 400 West. as a fairly major corridor in Orem, as all the 400-block streets are. And it's just under a 7,000 vehicle a day number, looking at the UDOT measuring devices on that 1600 North, 400 West intersection. It's a main road that feeds from I-15 that at some point, the road from I-15 to State Street will be wider. That has been given to the state, as I understand, which will drive more traffic. to that intersection. People don't turn left and go north on State Street to get up into the areas. They go straight. They turn left and come right up my street. They do U-turns all the time right in front of my house because they're trying to get somewhere else. And the traffic on that street is ridiculous. The public safety has been very helpful and put out some of those traffic signs that have the radar and show the speed. I'm providing free drinks to any officers I see on that street. patrolling or pulling people over, and I will get in my car and chase them down. If the people don't pull over on my street, I'll find them and give them a drink. Not the people who are getting pulled over, just the officers. I would respectfully request that we do more traffic studies on that road. I would say the traffic measuring devices that they have put there are broke down most of the time. So I drive by and it doesn't tell me that I'm going 25 miles per hour. Which is the speed limit on that road, although most cars aren't even close to that. Yesterday there was a car doing close to 60 that flew past my house. And so I— this is a personal issue for me. This is a personal issue on my street, and I request that we do more work. Paint some additional lines to make it feel like it's a slower speed limit. Put more speed signs. Put a few measuring devices up.

Get more patrolling.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak to something other than items on the agenda? Okay, appreciate that. We'll go ahead and close the public comment portion of our meeting, the personal appearances, and we'll continue down to our consent items. If anyone wishes to, on the council, move our consent item to a scheduled item, please let me know. Otherwise, we will go ahead through on our consent agenda. The first item is 8.1, approval of the meeting minutes of the City Council of June 15th, 2021. Second one is— is 8.2, the mayor pro tem appointment from July through December 2021 of Council Member David Spencer as mayor pro tem. 8.3 is a resolution on the Sunset Heights residential parking Permit program. 8.4 is an ordinance amending Chapter 7 of the Orem City Code pertaining to building, plumbing, mechanical, electrical, fire, and abatement codes. I move that we go ahead and accept these items and approve them. Is there a second?

Second.

Okay, let's go ahead and start on our vote. Terry? Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Okay, our consent agenda passes. We'll move to our scheduled items. First one is 9.1, which is a public hearing. This is a resolution that the city will receive public comment on the Community Development Block Grant projected use of funds for CARES Act CDBG-CV funding and consider approval of a resolution for a substantial amendment to the 2019-2020 Annual Action Plan. Our presenter is Ken Ransom and Kenna Matthews, and we'll turn the time over to them.

Thank you, Mayor and Council. I'm before you again as, uh, on behalf of our commission, making 2 additional recommendations to the council for our COVID.

When we do our TVs, it appears that One's on but one is not. Is this one over here on? Okay. And these 2 up here are on? Okay. All right, go ahead.

All right, ready to proceed? All right, thank you for hearing our proposals, and thank you to Kenna and to our commission for the time and effort they put into our Our recommendations. So this screen— this slide is a summary of the allocations previously approved by the council. They're there for your reference. We don't need to review those again. And the second grant that Orem received for COVID CDBG funding is listed there with the recommendations we've made previously as well. So we have left to allocate from our COVID CDBG funding $109,455. And these funds are required to be used for COVID-related purposes, and the council has given us these priorities for this, for these, uh, this funding source. So our first proposal for you is to fund Aging and MAG's Aging and Family Services Meals on Wheels program, $25,000. And we'll be partnering with Provo and Utah County for this to— they'll be contributing to this also. This program has seen significant increases in usage from COVID during COVID and so they are requesting additional funding. So that's why we think it's appropriate to provide this funding. And our second proposal is the Critical Home Repair and Home Rehabilitation Program. We're proposing $24,773.32 be allocated to this program for emergency home repairs for homeowners in Orem who are low to moderate income and are at risk of becoming homeless during the pandemic. So these are our 2 recommendations for you for this presentation, and there's an additional $59,000 to allocate. We'll have future— a future recommendation for you on that if there's before that funding expires.

So next steps for the council to, to consider our recommendation.

Thank you, Mayor and Council.

Any questions or comments from the council? Okay, well, this is a public hearing, so we will open it up to the public. Anyone wishing to make a comment, please come forward. Hold your comments to 3 minutes and give us your name. Seeing as how no one is coming forward, we'll close the public comment portion of the public hearing and bring it back to the council. Any comments or questions from the council? Okay. Yes, go ahead.

It's good to see you again, Ken.

You're becoming a regular here.

Is the real reason you didn't allocate it so you can come next time too, or, uh, you've been regular?

Thank you.

All joking aside, thank you for your phenomenal service.

This been a busy year for this particular assignment, and he serves without pay or, or maybe even a whole lot of thanks. But I wanted to add some thanks to your efforts, and along with Ken, I thank you very much. Thank you.

Thank you. I'd like to make a motion that the City Council adopt the recommendations of the CDBG Advisory Commission and approve a resolution for substantial amendment to the 2019-2020 Annual Action Plan. Is there a second?

Second.

Okay, we'll go ahead and start with Councilmember Spencer.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Okay, the resolution passes. We'll move on to 9.2, which also is a public hearing. This is on an ordinance amending portions of Section 22-24-5F pertaining to the design standards Including heights, and portions of Section 22-24.5H pertaining to parking standards of the North Village District NVD zone. Our presenter is Jason Bench.

Thank you, Mayor.

There we go.

So the application before you tonight is a request by the council to bring this forward. 2 of the amendments that we're proposing, or the 2 amendments, are for the height of 60 feet. As you know, the NVD zone currently has an unlimited or no limit on the overall height of projects in there. It's limited on other factors. What we're requesting tonight is to change that to 60-foot height limit, which reverts back to the C-2 zone, which was the previous zone prior to the North Village District being adopted.

Thank you.

We're comfortable with that going back to that original zone of 60 feet. Keep in mind that the setback requirements of equal to the height and the 75-foot requirement, 35 max height, is still in play. We're not proposing to change any of those. So for example, if a 60-foot-tall building wanted to come next to the R-8 zone, they would need to be at least 75 feet from the residential zone and not 60, as the equal to the height standard would. apply. And then also, we are proposing that the parking standard of 1.75 for anything over the excess— the base density of a mixed-use project be from 1.75 to 2 stalls per unit. Those are the 2 items that are before you tonight. That's what was requested, and the Planning Commission did make a recommendation that both these be approved. I'd be glad to address any questions.

Any questions from the council? Yes, go ahead, Councilmember Sumner.

Now, this is for the North, uh, zone. We have 4 other districts in, in Orem. Does this affect any of them in any way? This currently only affects the North Village District. Okay, the parking— Parking would stay the same in the other districts, correct.

Any other council members? Councilmember Spencer.

So Jason, I've got a question on the, uh, going from 1.75 to 2 parking stalls.

How does the—

with the 2 parking stalls, how does that include the visitors? What's the variable for visitor parking with these 2 points? So within the standard, if you look at the bottom sentence, 0.1, so a 10th of a percent of the parking required would have to be labeled as visitor. So that's included in the count.

Okay.

0.1, right?

Correct.

So you're looking at, on a project, uh, example up there, you're looking at what, 8 visitor stalls roughly? I can't do the math in my head, but depending on the number of stalls required, obviously would be the number of visitors required.

Any other comments? Councilor Laree.

Would you remind me how the shared parking works with the commercial and the residential component? And there's day and night, and how do you— how do you count that? I can't remember.

So the base density is calculated on the required commercial square footage that's proposed, right? In this village, the North Village District, 10% of any project, the size of the overall project, has to be commercial. That's divided by 3 stalls per 1,000 square feet. Of that base density of that component, a third of that can be the residential component, which is shared with that commercial. So the typical shared development that happens throughout the country is that during the day, typically people are gone to work. In the evening, or in the days when the retail and others are the busiest, in the evening time when the retail closes, then that space is open for that shared component for the residential that comes home. So that's the overall idea behind the shared.

And based on that, Mr. O'Brien's project going from 1.75 to 2, I can't remember how many more stalls this would require.

So based on his project, it would be 10 additional stalls.

Yeah.

Councilmember McDonald.

Could you walk through some of the math with me, Jason? I think this has been an item that I haven't understood. If there are 100, uh, residential units, then they need 200 parking stalls for those 100. Is that correct? Over and above, right? So if it's not— we're not counting the shared component. If they have over and above that requirement of mixed use, So 200 would require 2 stalls per unit. Okay, uh, okay, so let's say there were 10,000 commercial buildings and they're 4 to 1,000. 3 per 1,000. 3 per 1,000. So they would need 30 stalls for that 10,000 if I did my math. And would they need an additional 200 for the housing, or do they share somehow? So the 30— so the 30 that are required for the commercial 10 of those stalls can be used for the residential, up to 10 units. Okay, so the, the 30,000 square feet and 10 units would use that parking standard. Anything over and above the residential units, above the 10, would require 2 per unit. So again, to do the simple math, I think I used an example of 100, correct, Jason? So 10 wouldn't need the— So 10 would not need parking because they would share the commercial. The 90 would need 2 stalls per unit.

There would be 180 parking stalls plus 30.

Is that correct for the 10,000? Well, the, the 90 multiplied by 2, 180, right? Plus the 30. Plus 30. Yep. And then are there visitor parking in addition, or does that cover it? So that covers that up to 0.10 has to be labeled as visitor, so that's included in the overall parking count.

So in my straw— my example, which is not supposed to, uh, Represent any real one, right, of 100 units and 10,000, there'd be 220 parking required. In the past, how have we— we've done some mixed use. Has that been adequate?

Can you help us understand that a little? So the Midtown Village is the only other one that's really mixed use other than the University Place, right? They have mixed use right now with their— by Costco and others that have some commercial component.

That one's harder for me to visualize because they So much parking, right?

Right.

So it's not a great example. Midtown Village is probably the better example where we had the same similar standard. It was a little different standard. We modified it a little bit for the districts, but they have a similar shared component where it's 4 per 1,000, and they have the, the shared component as well. If you look at Midtown Village, the majority of the 2 levels underground, there's typically enough parking. If you go during a busy time with the restaurants, there's still parking on the south. of the facility. So overall, it seems to be working as far as the mixed-use component. What is the parking requirement there? If it's 4 for the 1,000, what— I'd have to pull— I didn't review that today, so I'd have to—

I know when I go, I'm going for breakfast, so I don't go look and see if there's parking below, or dinner, right?

I don't, I don't understand that, and I don't think John Q.

Public can park in the underground parking.

I assume that's— I think it's limited to those tenants, right?

Okay, I, I just I have never been down there.

I don't know what's down there, but it's often crowded, but I don't know what the parking is for the residents. So we know it's 4 per 1,000 for the— I'd have to pull the actual standard. I don't know off the top of my head, but—

I think Ryan is trying to do that, so I'll, I'll pause and maybe you can answer that later for me.

Any other comments or questions from the council?

Yeah, so Midtown, it's interesting if we talk about Midtown versus putting something in a neighborhood. That's, it's a whole different challenge. They both have State Street. I mean, it's basically part of State Street. So Midtown's on State Street and the parking's on State Street. Yeah, it goes to both Warren Boulevard and State, correct. But where is the State Street building being on 1600 North? Well, it's part of the— it's basically, it was a C-2 zone for years, so it's been part of the commercial district for years and years. Will the building be right on State Street on 1600 North? Doesn't have to be, no. So, so that's different than Midtown, where Midtown's right— Well, Midtown is an example. It's not, you know, the only issue or only site plan that we have in the city. And everything around Midtown is residential, or is that, uh, commercial? You mean on the corridor itself? Yeah, it's a different example. It's not the same example. Versus this is what we're talking about, 1600 North is putting a high-density apartment in a residential area.

Yeah, mixed-use.

That borders— that behind it— Borders it, right, but it does have, you know, 16th North and access to State Street directly. Yeah, so I see what you're saying. That's a different comparison because the one's in a neighborhood, the other's on State Street. Well, I'd argue that it's not in a neighborhood. It's next to State Street. Fourth West isn't a neighborhood, or? Well, we can all laugh and have a good time, but it is part of the commercial corridor. That Fourth West is commercial? West of Fourth West is a commercial corridor, yes.

So it's residential. Midtown does have residential around it on the west side and on the south side.

Across Doran Boulevard, it does, yeah. On the west side, it's got—

On the west side, it has residential past, like, the, uh, yeah, past Orme Boulevard. Yeah, the other side.

Yeah.

So not— but yeah, it's not on, but it's past that. Okay, can I have it quiet? Can I have quiet, please? Anything else, Terry?

Well, I just— just— and Jason already mentioned it— it's not comparing apples to apples. It's Midtown's different than, than this development we're talking about. Well, we, we compared the parking. It wasn't comparing projects.

Any other comments from the council?

Just for the record, Midtown isn't built out. In fact, I saw them turning dirt there on—

They're going to build another building.

Midtown's what?

They're building another building, um, south. Which they have the rights for.

I have a question, Mayor.

Go ahead, Debbie.

So you quoted a 4 per thousand in the Midtown but only 3 per thousand?

I'd have to, I'd have to verify.

Okay.

Yeah, Ryan's going to verify that.

But generally speaking, is it—

The 3 per thousand was changed by the council a couple years ago when the study, the citywide parking study, was determined that 3 per thousand was adequate for commercial in a mixed-use development.

Okay.

And part of that study we brought forward in 2019, the council modified it from 4 per thousand to 3 per thousand. The district originally was approved at 4 per thousand.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, Councilmember Lamson has a question.

So I just, I want to say something. Um, Jason, thank you for all of the work and everything you've put into this, and I think that we're all in agreement that we want our State Street to be a beautiful street, a beautiful corridor. Sometimes I think that we worry so much about what things look like from State Street that we forget what it looks like from the neighborhood looking towards State Street. And I think that's an important part of it as well, is to make sure that the people that live there, the neighbors that live there, aren't buried in concrete and cement and that they have a pleasing surrounding as well. So I just want to say that I feel like that's an important part of this process. And if I can address that briefly, I mean, we have obviously addressed that in the standards itself, right? We have setback requirements from residential. We have equal to the height. The council's adopted a 75/35. So we have addressed that issue. You're always going to have a commercial and a residential on State Street. You're going to have multiple times where a commercial abuts a residential. Smith's is a good example across the street that abuts directly to residential to the west— or to the east. That is equal to the height off of that. So when it was built back in, you know, 20-plus years ago, that was taken into account. The Harmon's on 8th and 8th, same thing. Target on Center Street, those issues were brought up by the residents then as well, and the council determined that equal to the height was sufficient for that case. So it's not like this is a new issue for the city. This is an ongoing issue. We understand— I mean, I live in the North Village area, right? I live in that area. I understand the issues. I use 16th North on a daily basis. It's not like I'm trying to cram something in there because I don't live there.

I do live there.

So I, I take a little bit of offense that for some reason I'm now the victim or the proponent of trying to cram something in. I'm not, because I live in that area. I'm the planner here for the city for almost 20 years. It's not like I'm trying to, you know, pull the shades over somebody's eyes. That's not the case. We've built in standards to separate residential from commercial. Now, not everybody's going to agree with it, but that's how we've done it over time, and that's what's currently in place in this district. We purposely put that in the districts. All 5 districts have those same standards so that we're not building a concrete wall. And I, I agree, I don't want that next to my house either, but we have to have development on State Street. in our commercial zones, and we're always going to have somebody that's going to butt up to a residential zone, and that's why we built in these standards. So that's my question.

Councilmember Spence has a question.

So, Jason, I want to go back to the parking. So when, when we were at 4 for 1,000 square feet for parking, what was the visitor parking?

Was it 5.5?

What was it? The, the original one that was approved? 0.25. And the study determined that that was—

When we— even though I didn't vote for it, we marked it down to 3 per 1,000.

Are you talking about commercial? I'm sorry, re-ask the question. So I'm talking about the, uh, when we did the state's remap and took it down from 4 per 1,000 to 3.

Okay.

It was at 0.25 visitor parking and we took it down to 0.1. Yes. Okay, thank you.

Councilmember Pedersen has a question.

Yeah, Jason brings up a good point. I mean, Jason's in a real tough spot. He represents the city, and the city has certain ordinances and codes, and Jason represents those and follows those. So the job of the City Council is we can make life a lot easier for Jason if we decide we change height requirements, we change parking requirements, which makes it something that's doable, makes it more doable for a neighborhood, and also makes Jason's job— so Jason doesn't have to be the defender of something the City Council passed. I mean, that puts him in a bad spot. So, uh, I think as we talk about height requirements and adding parking, that's, that's a fair thing for Jason to just— so he doesn't have to defend something that he might not personally even agree with. But, um, so I pre— I understand.

Thank you.

your dilemma, Jason. I mean, what's he supposed to do? This is the rule. He's, he's saying there's— the rules are, but we can change them. We can change the height. We can change the parking.

Um, Steve Earle, do you have a comment?

Yeah, just to answer Councilmember McDonald's question, uh, in the Midtown Village, the parking standard is 1.65 per residential unit, with the exception or the addition that what we call large residential units Those are units over 2,000 square feet. Those have to have 1 additional parking stall. They were not allowed to have more than 60 large residential units. So for the vast majority of those units, it's a 1.65. That, that includes the any visitor parking, so there's no additional requirement for extra visitor parking as well.

And can you confirm, was the commercial 4 per 1,000?

Yes.

And Steve, what you're referring to, is that when Midtown was approved by the council?

Yes.

Because what they built in Midtown later in the refurbishment of it is different than what was originally planned for large units. They narrowed down many of the large units to smaller units.

Yeah, so they may have actually— they may not even have 60 large units. I don't know.

I don't believe they do.

But they were capped. We did not allow more than 60 large units, so.

Okay. All right. Any other comments by the council? Okay, well, this is a public hearing, so we will open this up for public comment. We would appreciate you giving us your name and keeping your comments to 3 minutes. And you're welcome to come forward, whoever would like to speak to this.

I'm Lisa Hill.

I live in Orem. Smith's, Target, they have a nice back wall. Nobody drives down the streets in the back of their, their establishment. So don't compare a Smith's and Target to this thing because they're going to be driving down the streets of our neighborhood.

It's not the Hi, thank you.

I've got to teach a class tonight. I've got to go.

So can you give us your name?

My name is Christina Much.

I live at 398 West 1560 North. My backyard looks out over 1600 North and 4th West. In fact, there was a crash there on Saturday. But what I want to address Yes. My concern is that if you do limit the height to 48 feet and there's 38 or 35 feet from the back of their structure to the fence, then people can— who right now have no privacy, they can plant like cedars that grow like crazy and they'll go up 35 feet.

If you leave the building height the way it is, those people are going to lose their privacy.

I had that happen, and I finally had to move.

My family had to move from where they were because the building height was higher than anything we had.

We had lost our privacy in our backyard, and that's not right. You know, I understand that you want to put in— this gentleman wants to put in high-density housing, but if you address this situation where the landowner can at least do something to block views so that when they go outside, they don't have an audience, okay?

They want a little privacy.

I wanted a little privacy.

I understand that.

I didn't get it, so we moved, okay?

And we came here 30 years ago.

And it's been nice, but I'll tell you, if that big thing goes up across the street, I've lost my privacy again, okay? And I don't think that's right. I've loved Orem. I've lived here, like I said, for 30 years. I don't want to lose that. Orem is a good place to live. I don't want to have to move again. Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Stephanie Visna is my name. I give my utmost thanks to each one of you who have taken the time to listen to and hear what we as residents want for our neighborhood and area, whether we've agreed or not. I give even greater gratitude for those of you who support zoning adjustments in the North Village District to preserve our neighborhoods, traffic safety in the area, and quality of life. Development is inevitable in growing cities like Orem. Development must be well thought out and appropriate for the area to be a positive asset to the city. As has been discussed before, the North Village District is narrow and surrounded by single-family homes, not giving the opportunity for transition zoning like in other areas. The North Village District currently goes from unlimited height potential abruptly to single-family homes. Providing appropriate height maximums near homes is good city planning. The North Village District is Subjectively described as smaller-scale development compared to the other 4 districts. Developers and residents need to know what smaller scale means. Providing actual numbers brings clarity and definition to development. Residents are requesting, rather than 60 feet that is being proposed, 48 feet maximum in the core and 35 feet in the edge zones. The requested 48 feet is essentially a 3-story commercial building. I've provided pictures for you. There's a picture there. In the colored pictures— there's 3 there— of the Alpine Credit Union on North Village District as an example of a 45- to 48-foot building. The requested 35 feet is taller than what is currently behind some homes along the North Village District. The pictures— the other pictures you see show examples of a 30-foot building from the perspective of adjacent homes. These examples show that a 48- and a 35-foot building are ample And provide many options for developers while providing some protection for the homes. It has been stated that smaller-scale development refers to the commercial use of the area with more mom-and-pop type retail or commercial. If smaller-scale development is referring to the commercial element, then it should read smaller-scale commercial. The word development includes the development as a whole, not just the commercial element of it. Providing adequate height maximum is key in clarifying and supporting the master plan's purpose for the North Village District. Parking must also be adjusted to protect and support surrounding neighborhoods and businesses. We all know that there are areas in our city as well as in other cities where reduced parking requirements have caused increased parking conflict for residents of both the development and the nearby neighborhoods. Businesses have also been frustrated when overflow or convenience parking has encroached on their parking lots. My personal experience living in mid-density housing has proven that shared unassigned parking is not ideal. Residents need to be given clear and assigned parking near their place of residence to ensure that where they live is easy and safe to access. It was difficult enough having to share parking with other residents, which would have been even more difficult had there been a commercial element to share as well. The City Council is well within its legislative abilities to adjust the zoning in the North Village District. It was done in 2018 with the master plan creating the core and edge zones, and it can be done again to help preserve warm neighborhoods and direct appropriate development.

land.

Voting in favor of the residents' request of 48 in the core and 35 in the edge and 2.25 parking stalls per residential unit will reflect this commitment to neighborhoods and appropriate development.

Thank you.

Thank you. Hi, my name is Jim Condie. I'll try not to repeat a lot of what has been said, although I agree with a lot of what has been said. Also, I appreciate Ryan and Jason. I am not jealous of their jobs in any way, shape, or form. I know that they're committed to the city and maintaining consistency as we develop and grow, which we're going to continue to do. I want to reemphasize my traffic concerns that I mentioned earlier and the fact that 1600 North, as I have heard, is the 6th most dangerous intersection in the state. Whether that's true or not, like the fact checkers figured out, but it is a very dangerous street, especially between State Street and 400 West. The notion that we're considering putting an apartment complex in there that would have access right in, right out, is a ridiculous mess up of the existing traffic problem that exists in that little half a block, quarter of a block segment. We have Accidents there all the time. We hear sirens all the time, and it cannot handle more traffic. It's already feeding three other cities, and as the Linden Temple goes in, that will add more traffic to it naturally because people will use that road. That's outside of Orem's control, maybe, but it will be additional traffic on that street. Dennis O'Brien purchased landlocked.

Property.

He owns a little bit on 1600. He doesn't own anything on State Street. He has an agreement with Osmond to use their parking lot. I don't think people are going to try and navigate all the streets to get in and out of their apartments. They're going to come around the block and drive down my road, add additional— well, it's not my road, it's Ryan's road, right? But it's going to add additional traffic to that road. And so I'm extremely concerned about the development. The North Village District was described as a smaller district than the others, but no requirements or no restrictions were put in that defined what smaller means or how to make it smaller. O'Brien has proposed, I think it's 40-something units on that little corner where the car lot is. He's also told us there's another 120 units going in in the back in Phase 2. I've been told that Osmond, within another year and a half, is considering tearing down and adding on to that. as well as AT&T. And if you do the quick math, 46 plus 120 plus maybe another husband, 100 where Osmond is, we could end up with 200 or 300 apartments. We were also told that he wouldn't allow any more than 10% to be rental. They would be condos. And the most recent thing I've heard is now they're all going to be apartments. So 200, 300 apartments behind my house in one of the most ridiculously dangerous intersections in the state is completely irresponsible. And I think allowing the development to go through, while may create— possibly creating some liability for you guys in the short term, it passes a lot of liability onto the shoulders of the homeowners in the future. And I would just ask that you do the right thing now instead of passing that responsibility on to the residents.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Short down here.

I'm Sharon Mitchell, 1923 North 280 West in Orem. I've lived there since 1985, and I'm planning on staying there till I die. And I love Orem. I don't want it to become another Salt Lake City or a big metropolitan.

I like small.

And I don't want any high-rise apartment complex or whatever. As is, I saw 360 down there and that monstrosity just sit there for a couple years.

That bothered me.

I see business going and coming and leaving their old places empty.

I go from University Diagonal, and between Geneva and the freeway, there's homes on the south side, and they park on the diagonal. They don't park down by their homes. And I'm just going, student parking, if you've got students in there, where are they gonna put all their cars?

Thank you.

They're going to need more than 1 and 7/5 parking place or more than 2.

Most students like to go home on the weekends or at least on holidays. What would happen if they were residents and we had another disaster like COVID and residents had to stay home?

Where would the businesses park? I am concerned. I remember when there was a big problem with how high Macy's flag was gonna be. Finally, we decided we wanted patriotism. And so I'm saying, let's try and keep Orem friendly. Let's try and keep it small. There's already some apartments going.

There's tons over by University Place.

We don't need a big high one in North Orem.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

John Barrick.

I live at 365 West 1750 North, about 1,000 feet from the epicenter.

We're here today because David Spencer, in the May 11th City Council meeting—

and this is a transcript— asked the question—

I heard—

or made the statement, I heard that the application was not even close to be complete, and the city charged the developer knight and money so that they could have the application in. A city staff member responded, that is not true.

That is not accurate, Dave.

Not accurate at all.

I heard that. I have heard that.

That is not true. The application was just thrown together and missing a lot of stuff.

That is inaccurate. Inaccurate, that city staffer said.

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, and it was a complete application. They were missing a few minor things.

I believe this is a fact. I agree with our city planner. Someone's getting misinformation, but I believe in most cases it's the Orem residents.

Now, I've talked to a couple of commercial real estate professionals, not realtors, but commercial real estate professionals. This is what they said. One said, the new Orem State Street zone is the most frustrating development that I've seen in my career. Given the crazy requirements, it is a large building with very limited retail or office incorporated into the development. I've seen very— I've seen a few projects killed due to this zone.

Another commercial realtor, real estate professional with 30 years of experience in Utah County, he says, just south of 800 South on the east side of State Street, there's a large parcel that used to be a Meadow Gold Dairy plant.

The original developer had proposed a retail building. Now, that was killed. He said, no one wants to be directly—

have retail directly on State Street with the parking hidden behind the development. And he thinks parking is an issue.

Now, I just want to know why the City of Orem staff is pushing so hard for this development, the one we all keep talking about but no one puts on the record.

As an Orem resident, we have asked legal counsel to address some of the legal issues related to us that we think are important.

And so I'll introduce Dan McDonald.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Yes, my name is Dan McDonald. I'm a lawyer licensed to practice law in the state of Utah, and I represent Orem Residents for Responsible Development, LLC, who own— who are property owners immediately adjacent to or within the zone in question tonight. There's been some information that I want to just correct for the record, and one is the City Council's power to deviate from recommendations of the Planning Commission. Orem City Code Section 22-1-5.1 Yes. Point E says this, quote, after closing the public hearing, the city council may vote to approve, modify, or disapprove the proposed amendments, or may take any other action allowed by applicable laws, close quote. Some of those applicable laws include LUDMA, the Land Use Development Management Act passed by the Utah Legislature. Section 302 of that act says this, quote, A legislative body may adopt, modify, or reject a Planning Commission recommendation to the legislative body under this section. Close quote. Section 30— excuse me, Section 502 of LUDMA provides that after providing the notice and having the Planning Commission hearing, quote, the legislative body may adopt or reject the land use regulation described in subsection 2, as proposed by the Planning Commission, or after making any revision the legislative body considers appropriate. Furthermore, the Utah Supreme Court has made it crystal clear that its role is not to second-guess the legislative decisions of this body.

In Bradley v.

Payson City Corporation, the Utah Supreme Court held this: The guiding principle behind our interpretation of legislative zoning decisions is that we will not substitute our judgment for that of the municipality. The standard that a court would review your decision tonight is not arbitrary and capricious. It is a much more deferential standard called reasonably debatable, and it goes something like this. This is from Smith Investment Company v. Sandy City, where Sandy City downzoned a property owner. The Supreme Court of Utah held, quote, if the ordinance and the stated policies and reasons underlying it do, within reason, debatably promote the legitimate goals of increased public health, safety, or general welfare, we must allow Sandy City's legislative judgment to control, close quote. There's no issue of public clamor. The Utah Supreme Court has said for legislative decisions, Public input is critical, and it should not be ignored. So I would urge the City Council tonight to listen to the voices of your constituents and the public to guide you with your experience and their experience to make the right decision for Orem City. Thank you.

Thank you.

My name is Lynnae Millett, and I live at 288 West, 1500 North. First of all, thank you so much for taking my phone calls and my texts. I feel like I've been kind of a bother, but thank you for your patience with me. I truly do appreciate your efforts to listen and to understand our perspectives and what our research has helped us to discover as we've worked to study and understand the zoning of the North Village District at 1600 North and State Street. In November, we, the residents in this area, learned that the zoning implemented by the State Street Master Plan was not a good fit for the 1600 North area. Our district is unique, and it's different from the other districts. As you know, 1600 North and 400 West are one-lane roads, which are lined with homes. Several schools are adjacent to 1600 North, and many young school children walk and ride their bikes along these 2 busy roadways. With the traffic on 1600 North already at or near capacity, The developments in the North Village District must be smaller scale. There simply isn't the capacity for more vehicles. And the saying, if you build it, they will come, while a good message in Hollywood, is not a desirable outcome for 1600 North. City code agrees that infrastructure needs to be in place before developments are built. You wouldn't let a subdivision of houses be built without sewer— putting sewer and water in first. You can't add over 550 cars to a road without making sure that the road can safely handle it. It puts the lives of the residents at risk. It took me 3 minutes to get out of my neighborhood today onto 1600 North. I just have to tell you. It was never mentioned that there are— I'm sorry, it was mentioned tonight that there are standards to separate residential from commercial, and we are here today because unfortunately those The building standards right now in the North Village District are just not adequate. We ask you tonight to vote to set a maximum building height of 448 feet, 48 feet at the core, and 38-foot maximum on the edge zone. Thank you again for your service and your time that you've given this issue. We truly do appreciate it, and we, like you, would like this to be wrapped up and finished so we can enjoy the rest of our summer. So thank you so much. I appreciate it.

Anyone else want to come forward?

My name is Spencer Peterson.

I live on 413 West, 1950 North, so right on 400. Just following up on a lot of the comments that have already been stated. I'm very concerned because I live on that corner right off 400. I have 4 kids under the age of 13 with bikes. And, you know, the kids— there's probably 25 kids that age on my street. They all walk to school. As it is, you know, before any of this, I bought them little flags to cross the street. 'Cause it's scary going to school, it really is. And whether it's Oak Ridge, whether it's, my kids are in the dual language program, so they go to Rocky Mountain in Linden. It's a scary intersection, it's a scary road as it is. I'm very concerned with the increase of people, 'cause I can tell you, having gone through that intersection every day, nobody's gonna go to State Street. All of those residents are gonna come on this road.

And with the temple coming in, it's just gonna get worse and worse.

I'm very concerned about that.

Thank you.

kids.

And so I'm not the kind of person to come up here and talk, but I just wanted to express my views. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to come forward?

Keith Walker, 1969 North 600 West, behind this development. Just a couple thoughts, and I— 2 couple, as there's not been— there's more addressed to you tonight, but generally over the last month or 2, there hasn't been a lot of people address you, and that's because we've tried to limit that and leave that to a few people so you're not bombarded with one or two— with hundreds of people.

To me, this is Orem City, family USA.

I've lived here for 65 years, and I have a warped sense of mind, I know.

But if, if this is Orem City Family USA, let's build family homes.

Linden, Pleasant Grove, Lehigh, Saratoga Springs, all those places will build high development for you. Don't put yourself through all this mess. Let those other places do it.

Keep Family City USA in Orem.

That's number one.

Number 2, just a thought on the— we talked about the roads, and I don't even know the address.

18—

no, 1830.

1830, that comes back in by the Redmondwood Hospital.

That road was put in when those new houses from about 6th West to 4th West was developed. Orem City asked that that be a sleepy neighborhood or a sleepy street, and that was from the city. So if you ride those 2 or 3 homes— roads back through there from 6th West to 4th West, as these people will travel through it as they exit out.

That was a sleepy neighborhood.

There's—

if you're parked on the side, there's one car in the middle and that's it. And that was requested by Orms City to stop the flow of traffic. Now we're trying to push that traffic back through that road that is very narrow that Orms put in. And then I'm concerned long-term where we go from here when we start this process. As it's been mentioned, the developers that have talked about will be into maybe 200, 300 apartments on that corner of high-rise because of the height.

My request is the height come way down. I live behind the height of Allen's.

I don't have a problem with it.

We've talked about the stores. I've been in that industry all my life.

It's a whole different ballgame.

But I'd just like to request that Orem City stay a family city and we let the apartments and the high-rises go to these other cities and try to develop.

And I know there has to be development.

I I'm not trying to say it. I've got apartments in my family.

I understand that. But I don't think we need to go to 6 and 7 stories high out in the middle of no man's land for Orem City. Thank you very much.

My name is Craig Jacobson. I live at 1684 North 400 West. I'm not close to the problem, I am in the problem, okay? I have lived there for approximately 65 years. I had a business on 1562 North State Street, okay? Maybe you can get a picture of that where the, uh, Oh, pharmacy, the drugstore there, the credit union, the car wash, that was all mine. I sold travel trailers, recreational vehicles, motorhomes, whatever it took. The property taxes, the sales taxes, and stuff that came back to the city.

That's right.

Was in hundreds of millions of dollars. Why would you want to be— take such a prime piece of property and turn it into a pain in the butt?

It's stupid. Get out, promote it to somebody, bring in a car dealership.

Yeah, they're not pretty and things are going, but they're not going to get anybody killed. They're not going to increase this, the traffic on 400 West. They might put a little bit out on State Street, but do something that builds the city, not destroys it. Okay, I hope we're all on the same page here. This is stupid.

I'm, I'm 2 doors away from this mess.

And I, I can't imagine that our wonderful City Council would allow this to happen. Think about the future, not about the mess we've— we would create with this, please. Thank you.

Thank you.

A rush to the mic.

My name's Greg Duerden. I'm at 433 West 165 North. I'm not involved with North Village development, but I'm concerned as a resident of Orem, and I think there's a lot of concerned residents throughout the community. Orem has always been A high-density housing area. I think it's one—

the second or third highest density housing in the state.

We don't need more high-density housing. We need more single-family homes. We've got 70,000 students in this valley, 70,000-plus. They've got plenty of housing if they want it. One of the developments that just opened down by UVU was a problem. And believe me, it will bite you in the butt.

The traffic that's along there on 4th—

on that end of 4th West, that's going to become hellacious. The traffic concerns up here, you can eliminate now.

By—

and I know this is a radical concept—

denying the development.

You can do that.

It is possible. You can deny that developer. And that would be my urge to you. Orem does not need more high-density housing.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

My name is Lillian Simmons, 1717 North, 320 West. I am a resident in that area and, and was notified about this building. So while it's not in my backyard, it is very close to me. And my concern is the planning of Orem as a whole. When I was a county and a state delegate for the Republican Party, a lot of the Republican delegates would come and tell us all of their grand plans and how they were going to be looking at the future for development. This, to me, is a ridiculous development idea. So what is your long-term goal for each area? Where are you going to put your high-density housing? Where are you going to put your homes? So my mother-in-law, before she passed away, she was a state representative. She was also the Appropriations Committee chairwoman on many, many boards and helped out with some planning and zoning and getting businesses into the city of Tempe. And I myself was a resident of one of the number one communities in the country, which was Power Ranch at the time. I see almost no development as far as the big picture, the long-term goals. Like, why don't we have trails and things like that that don't cross major roads to get to the elementary schools, to get to the junior highs and things like that? Why was Orem— you know, you guys weren't on the council back then, but why was Orem not thought about in a progressive way of what the needs of the citizens are in the area. And I ask you to look at smart development, wise development. What are we going to be bringing into this city, and how are we going to do it in a smart way? And that's all. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, my name's Deanne Jacobson, and I live with the white-haired guy. We face the development. And either way, the heaps, the condos, none of us are ever going to see a sunset again from our house, either way. But an interesting tidbit that will lighten things up today, while I was spraying Roundup, going down my driveway and across the front, probably a total of 5 minutes, 2 motorcycle patrolmen were sitting on the shade— in the shade somewhere, I wasn't sure where they came from, pulled over 3 cars. I'm not kidding, I was there for 4 or 5 minutes. Pulled over 3 cars for speeding. And there was so much traffic down there. I sit back in a little, so I don't always see the amount. I mean, I know it's bad when I try to get out on the road, but I was glad. And I thanked him. And Mr. Condie's wife took out the soft drinks to him. I said thank you to the one, and he said, this is a good fishing hole.

So, thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

My name is Kevin Hale.

I live on 1555 North, 325 West. One thing that just struck me with everything I'm hearing is that the voice of the community should be heard loud and clear and should be considered for what is the planning is. Do you have anybody that wants this development in? Is there any argument that says that this development will bring something positive to the community rather than all of these people saying they do not want it in? Please listen to the community and listen to what we're asking because we live in Orem and we want it to be a place that we want to live. That's all I have to say. Thank you.

I'm Stephen Hall.

I live at 722 South 1490 West. So I just want to lay out a vision of what you can look forward to if this passes. You can look forward to late-night parties. You can look forward to cars constantly parked in front of your house. You can look forward to trash in the street, in the gutters. You can look forward to loud music, Definitely huge parties on the weekends, and you can expect to see the parking garage of the development half empty because they don't park there. They park in front of our homes. They park at the church, and there's nothing that anyone can seem to do do anything about it. There's actually a police officer. That lives around the corner, he has printed signs in front of his driveway that says "Do not block the driveway." Now this is someone who has the authority to issue tickets. Does Orms City issue tickets?

I don't know.

From what I've seen, they don't. There's a fire hydrant directly across the street from my house. There is a car parked there. Every day. Every day of the year. It never moves. The police have been alerted multiple times. Car's never been ticketed. It blocks the hydrant. I don't know what's going to happen if there's ever a fire. I don't know what the city's going to do about that, but there is a risk there. Let's see, what else? There's just so much, so much to look forward to. I yield back my minute of time, I guess. Thank you.

Anyone wish to address the council?

Sorry, you're getting twice. My name's Catherine Christensen. I live at 426 West, 1800 North in Orem. Now, my family property is a little bit to the south, and it's part of this edge zone. My personal home is on 1800 North. That road comes out on 1830 on State Street. I live in that little, quiet, sleepy road area. We have little children that play in the road. Imagine that. Because we don't have a lot of cars going in and out. When you put this in and you approve it, you're going to drive people through that neighborhood that you didn't want people in. You're going to put all those children and their lives, as far as playing in the road, on a safe street.

I'm sorry.

At risk. There's no way to prevent these cars from going up and down that road. You're not going to stop it. We don't do speed bumps. We can't block it off. We need access. But they got to go somewhere. And if they can't get in, you think they're going to go clear down to 2000 and come back up around? Would you?

No.

I wouldn't.

I'd go straight up that little tiny road. It's quicker. Hang a right and then go back to where my home is. And I guarantee you, if you're in a hurry, you'd do the same thing.

If you don't want to go—

you don't want to go all the way around, that's where you're going to go. Putting this in is going to drive traffic straight past my house.

Thank you.

There's a lot of children there. My little grandson's 3, the other one's 2. They live at my house. I have an apartment in my home. I have 3 little children in that apartment. They all play in my yard. They don't play in the street, but they ride their bikes in the street. They're not on 400 West because it's too dangerous. And I'm grateful that, that we have this little road. But what you put in there, what you decide tonight, is going to determine what happens to that little neighborhood that the City Council wanted to be sleepy. You're going to decide how busy that road is and how dangerous that is and how dangerous 400 West and 1600 North become. And I urge you— To reconsider what's been done and to fix it. You have the power. You know the desires of our area. It's not that we don't want people to live there. We want affordable housing for, for our families too, but we want it to be safe. Thank you.

Thank you.

I'm sorry, I'll be quick.

I've left something off that I forgot to do when I was here before.

I want to thank you on behalf of us and your efforts and your concern for Orem City, and I didn't say that when I was here before. Thank you.

Thank you. Would anyone else like to come forward and speak?

Good evening.

My name is Dennis McDonald. I live at 1854 North 280 West, so we are one street east of 400 West. I've talked to a lot of my neighbors about this, and there's at least 300 people in our LDS ward, and I haven't heard a single person ever say anything about they want this to happen. Nobody I know that I come in contact with in my neighborhood wants this development there. I've heard a lot tonight and before tonight about the costs of this development to the people who already live there. So far, I can only tell of one benefit to one party who wants this development. There's a lot of cost and risk for the people who already live there. I haven't heard anything about what this will do for them. I don't see any benefit to the majority of the neighborhood at large. I'd like to know if there are any, but I can't find any, and nobody that I know in that lives in that area can find any. So I'd like you to consider that, and I think this development should be disapproved. You should not approve it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

My name is Merrilee Whipple. I live at 1864 North 400 West. When Keith Walker said he'd lived in Orem for 65 years, I thought that was ridiculous, and I realized I have lived there That long too. I've been in Orem since I was 2 years old. And the Benjowari that time on 400 West. I know that things change and progress happens. When we were kids, we swam in the ditch on 400 West and laid in the street to dry.

We brought it.

When I raised my kids, the street had become so busy that my children were never allowed to play in the front yard. That was a rule that was never questioned. My grandkids are not allowed to play in my front yard because 400 West is so busy. I shudder when I see the children walking to school. It is a busy street. My husband loves to ride bikes. I don't let him cross 1600 North at 400 West. It's scary to live in this neighborhood anymore.

Thank you.

My biggest fear is that it's going to keep slipping downhill. I'm old enough, I remember when Anderson Lumber came in and 400 West, that little piece, was given a provisional use permit for parking. And now here we are, it's a commercial. How did this happen? I beg you, like everybody else has in this room, this development needs to be stopped completely or downscaled? Where are we heading with this? I know that you people on the City Council were not here in previous years, and I appreciate all the help that you've given, but where does it go from here? If this is allowed, where are we in 10 more years or in 20 more years? We still have quality neighborhoods. We still raise our kids and our grandkids, and we love to interact with our neighbors. Please help us to keep Thank you.

Anyone else willing to come forward and speak? All right, I'll go ahead and close the public comment portion of the public hearing and bring it back to the council. Um, does the council have any comments? Okay, Councilmember Spencer.

So, um, going from unlimited height to 60, you mentioned, puts it back to the original C-2. Um, I've heard some requests for 48. Um, I guess my question is, for people who bought property thinking they could build to 60 feet, is there a fairness issue, or does it— I'm trying to, to weigh the personal property rights of people who bought the last 20 years and and could have built up to 60 feet versus maybe honoring a compromise with the neighbors. So can you comment on that at all?

How—

what's the length? How long has that been? Did you say 20 years?

Well, 20 years that it was C-2.

It was—

it's been commercial for a lot longer than that, but different variations of commercial.

So what's our total length that's been commercial?

Uh, I couldn't tell you that. I mean, it's before I was born, I'm sure, because Highway 89 obviously was the main Thoroughfare through Utah County before I-15 was built in '70. So it's been commercial for years.

I don't know how old you are, Jason.

So C-3, C-2 has been around for at least 30-plus years. Longer than that, probably. I'm throwing out numbers.

So if you're a property owner and you bought that with the idea that you could build commercially, you had an understanding of what your height limits could be, correct?

Right.

Understanding though that property owners understand that things change, right? Councils have the ability to change ordinances and zones and different things, So you need to be aware of what's going on. But yeah, you would have the expectation that you could build to that zone. Okay.

I'm just trying to— I'm trying to in my mind figure out a fairness issue to personal property rights versus maybe lowering it even a lot longer.

And if I can just comment on the— what they're requesting. If we can look at the map on the left, you can see the darker purple. That's the core. So that's the one they're proposing, the 48.

The red—

the edge, which is the remaining properties around, is the 35. So the majority of the property that they're wanting to go would be actually 35 feet, not 48 feet. So a compromise would be more of having the whole thing 48 feet and not 35 feet, because that really restricts from 60 to 35. Is the bank that she mentioned, the credit union, would not be able to be built under a 35-foot height limit. So—

You're talking about the dark purple?

Oh, thank you.

You're talking about the dark purple versus So the dark purple here— sorry, it may be hard— so this area here, the 4 corners, that's the core. The remaining parcels that you see that surround the area, the old Vasa— whoops— and others—

Yeah, you're not—

your pointer's not working. It's not working on ours. Is it working? All right, hold on one second.

But it's the dark purple, right?

Not the shaded.

That's correct.

There we go.

Okay, now it's working.

So you see the 4 corners That's the core. The remaining parcels that you see that are in the regular purple, that's the edge. So the only thing that would be 48 would be the very core. The rest of it would be 35 feet. So in our opinion—

So has this whole area been 60 feet? Everything?

Yes.

What about these? And these C-2 red, they're still considered 60 feet because they're C-2, correct?

So the red on the north and the south are C-2, which is 60 feet.

The whole area was 60 feet.

Anything in the purple that you see, any purple was C-2 prior to the district coming in.

Okay, so if we reverted it back to 60, it was just what it, what it was previous to 2015 when we went the other way, correct?

Correct.

Okay, that's what I'm trying to figure out.

So Jason, real quick, if you revert back to the 60, is that then in the lighter purple? Strictly in the dark.

So it would be all of, all of them. So all the purples would be 60 feet the way that we're proposing it.

With— so beyond the buffer zone?

Right, beyond the buffer, right.

Yep.

Councilmember Pedersen? I, I did not get my turn. Oh, I'm sorry. It was Debbie Budden. You gave your turn up.

Debbie Budden.

Okay, Councilmember—

So I have a question for Linné.

In your comment, you mentioned 48 height in the core and 38 in the edge. I'm assuming you meant 35.

35.

Okay, clarification. Also, I have a question for Steve Earle. Um, um, John Barrick mentioned the, um, in the council meeting we had, I think it was May 10th, um, that it was said that the application was complete for this Project. So the question is, if it deems that it's not complete, I had asked for an application to go back and start it over, and we said we couldn't because it had already— the application was filed. So if it comes to fruition that it was not complete, what do we do? Is somebody going to sue, or what's our legal for the city.

That's my concern, because if, if we're not telling the truth or it wasn't complete, then we might have a problem on our hands.

So, so basically, you know, a developer who submits a development application— in this case, we're talking about an application for a site plan approval— uh, if they submit an application that's complete and complies with the, uh, ordinances that exist at the time they file it, then they're entitled to approval under under state law. Okay? So I guess initially you have a question of, was this particular application that we're talking about complete?

Correct.

You know, and I've had discussions with Jason, and, you know, basically we deem an application complete if they have submitted everything that the ordinance requires them to file in connection with the site plan, and that it's a, you know, it's complete, it's a good faith effort, if you will. It doesn't necessarily have to be perfect because, frankly, no application that we ever get is perfect. They all have—

Don't you have a checklist?

Yeah.

You have to do a traffic study and a neighbor meeting and all this stuff, and if it's not checked the box, then you shouldn't charge the person and it shouldn't be a valid application.

Right. So, uh— Right. So, so I think that's our situation. So I think we need to prove that, well, that it was a complete application. So to finish my comment, I think that, you know, in my discussions with Jason, and maybe Jason can speak to this, 'Cause he's the one that actually receives these applications and reviews them. But my understanding is that— and I don't remember the exact day, but I think it was a few days after the application was received— he and another couple of development services employees went through the application, looked at our checklist, and basically checked off that they had submitted everything that was required. And so they did go through that process. verifying that everything had in fact been submitted. Now, he can correct me if I've misstated that, but that's my, that's my recollection. It's what he's, he's told me.

I'm just hoping we have our ducks in a row is all I'm saying.

Yeah, absolutely. And to be honest with you, you know, sometimes we— I mean, in the recent past, and I'm talking in the last 6 or 8 months, you know, we received an application from a developer to— for a development, um, under somewhat similar circumstances that was very obviously not complete. And they, they were claiming that they had vested rights, and we frankly told them— and they hired an attorney, and, you know, their attorney claimed they had vested rights, and we said, no, that was not a complete application. We're not, we're not accepting that as a complete application. You're not vested. So we, we do go through that process to verify whether they are complete or not complete, and it's my understanding that happened in this case.

Okay, thank you. Okay, Councilmember Pedersen.

So I have some questions with that too, but I'm going to go back to some of the comments. So, and I'm kind of going between different emotions, one of anger and one of very emotional, because I grew up with some of you folks. I went to high school with some of the people who are living in this neighborhood. And we should always feel safe when we have a home, that we don't have to worry about what's going to be built across the street or down the street from our home. I mean, that's our home. That's where we raise our kids. And, you know, we have a great— we have our fire chief and our police chief sitting over here. Both these guys do a great job, and we feel protected. I feel protected in my home in Orem, and I've been here Almost as long as Craig and Keith, not quite, but anyway, and they do a great job of protecting us. But shouldn't we also have the peace of mind that we're not worried about a high-density apartment going in across the street from our home? I think as citizens we should have that right. And now I'll get emotional thinking here's a group of citizens that are going to be impacted by this, and they had to go out and get an attorney. in, in our city. We can't just sit down and do a Stephen R. Covey win-win situation and say, okay, there's a developer and he wants to do something, so let's reduce— if this is a smaller scale development, let's go 48, let's go 35, let's go 2 and a quarter. Let's— that's a compromise. You could still put, uh, you can still put a business there. You could, even though it's— I don't find it's on State Street, but that's But you can still put a business there, you can still do, uh, some apartments there, but it makes it more livable for the people that have been there for 60-something years. So, and that seems to be a win-win. He can still come up with something. Uh, the question that I heard some of the people ask about, uh, what's, what's in it for the city, I don't know that answer. But I'm not defending 60 feet, and I'm not defending that because when I campaigned a year and a half ago, the number one concern I heard throughout the city, and I knocked on a lot of doors, was the concern about high-density apartments. That's the number one thing I heard throughout the city. So, and, and, and somebody mentioned this, but we do have about 50% rentals currently in Orem, about half the city's rentals. So I don't know what the magical number is, but that seems like a high number to me. So I would— my vote will be— I don't know what the rest of council is going to say. I say 48 on the core, 35 on the edge, and 2.25 stalls. It doesn't solve the problem, but it certainly reduces some of the pain. Anyway, that's my comments, Mayor.

Any other comments from the council? Okay, Councilmember Sumner.

Um, yeah, thank you for participating tonight. Um, this has been a tough, tough subject and, uh, tough decisions on at least our part, but I have a couple of concerns. Oh, I think it was 2016 or so, we spent 2 and a half years on the master street plan. I can't tell you how many open houses, how many visitations in businesses up and down the street and residents. I campaigned twice during this time and talked about that.

I can't—

thousands of responses to what we were trying to do, some positive.

That's a good thing.

Of course, I'm negative.

But I'd just like to know where you guys were 2 and a half years ago when this thing was being planned, because you could have avoided all this right now.

Don't ask that.

It's fine.

Well, I am asking it.

You weren't around, apparently.

But another thing— The, the, uh, I know a couple of brothers that approached me on this situation. 15 years ago they bought C-2 commercial property, paid a ridiculous price at the time, ridiculous. But they were banking on that C-2 stand there and they could make some money. Now I'm not sure, it isn't in this zone, But, you know, I think we have to have some feeling for those that's invested lots of money in this project. Mr. Jacobson, I know your situation very well. If we would have downgraded your zone, which was C-2, you would have been retired.

It—

you'd have lost probably 2/3 of your money.

I'm not retired.

So I, I have some compassion for the developer because he's invested tons of money. And, um, this has been C-2, Jason, and you can check it out, but it's been C-2 since— I won't tell you my age, but at least 50 years. And, um, and tonight I think we're changing the goalposts a little bit. Now we want lower Lower height, more setbacks, and I'm not really sure where we're at now.

I think we—

the agenda item said we're going to make it a C-2, which is 60 feet, correct? The height, yeah. Height, height, yeah. Anyway, I'm just a little confused tonight, and I honestly have compassion for the developers. Thank you.

Mayor? Yes.

Sorry, that might be a good segue for me to make a comment if I can.

Sure.

So the application you have before you tonight is, is quite limited in scope, actually. It's just really modifying or proposing to modify these 2 standards of the MVD zone. One obviously is to impose the 60-foot height limitation where there's currently no height limit, and the second is to increase the parking standard from Uh, 1.75 to 2 parking stalls per unit, right, residential unit. That's, that's the scope. You know, I know a lot of comments and a lot of feelings have been shared about other aspects of this zone, but that's not before you tonight. Those are really the only 2 questions before you. Now, if you want to do more than that, potentially you could direct staff to file another application to do more, either to, you know, come up with even more restrictive standards for example, and we could file an application and do that. But tonight, those are the only issues or the only questions before you. So hopefully that helps, that you don't have to decide anything other than just whether you want to approve a 60-foot height limit and a 2 parking stall per residential unit standard. If I can ask, Steve, so if we vote one way or another on this, Then if they want something different, they start the process again. Is that correct? Yeah. So if you, you know, you might, for example, say, I really think that we should have a 45 or a 48-foot or a 35-foot height limit, but what's before us is a 60-foot limit. And if you wanted a lower height, I would suggest you vote for the 60-foot, but perhaps with the note that in your mind it doesn't go quite far enough, but at least it's better than what you've got right now. And then if you want to go lower than 60 feet, that you then direct staff to submit another application to do that.

Thank you. Steve, question for you. On the 60 feet, that is up to the buffer zone, which is 35 feet. Is that correct?

The buffer zone is actually the 75 feet.

75 feet in, 35 feet—

Yeah, so within a 75-foot buffer.

At that point, then you go to 60 feet.

That's correct, right. So Steve, question, if you had, uh, 4 members of the city council tonight say 48, 35, 2.25, that's a pretty good directive from this to the council or to the staff, right? I mean, if you had 4 people say that tonight, then you go, okay, we come back and we write that up and, and put that on the agenda. I would think so. Okay. Yeah.

Well, you would actually, uh, if you put that in The motion, then you actually pass it.

We don't have to take it back.

We can pass it.

But I would caution you against that, and let me explain the reasons why. So basically, Utah state law requires that we provide notice of any land use change or any change to our ordinances and so forth. And, you know, it's got to be— I think it's a 10-day notice or something like that. And it's obviously to advise property owners, neighbors, you know, of a proposed change.

So that's fine, I understand.

Yeah, so the problem is, is that if you go from 60 feet to imposing a 48-foot or a 35 height limit, you're substantially deviating from what's been noticed. So some, you know, property owner might very well say, hey, I'm fine with 60, I can live with that, with no inkling that you might be changing it to 48 or 35, which might seriously impact them and might not be okay with them, and they thought they didn't need to come and speak to you. Now, Utah law— and there's been some comments made, I think, and legal opinions given about what the city council can and can't do. And I certainly agree that the council has very broad discretion in imposing standards. But what wasn't— and you can deviate from what the planning commission has recommended or proposed, what's come to you from them. But the question is, how far can you deviate from what they proposed? How much can you modify what they have proposed to you? And that issue hasn't been discussed. And the Utah courts have said, you don't have unlimited discretion to deviate from what's been proposed, because you've still got to comply with the spirit and intent of these noticing requirements. And basically, you know, the courts that have looked at this issue have basically said, If you're changing or you're voting to do something that's so substantially different from what was originally proposed, to the extent that it's basically a new application, that's going to be invalid because you haven't noticed that. And so you'd be violating the noticing provisions. Now, could you get away with going from, you know, where a 60-foot height limit was proposed, could you go to 48 feet? Would that be a substantial deviation? That's a judgment call. I mean, I can't say for sure one way or the other. A court would have to look at that and say, yes, that's so different, or no, it's not so different. But doing that is going to create a risk, you know, that somebody is going to claim that you violated the noticing provisions. And so the safer course, in my, my opinion, would be to simply, if you so desire, pass what's been proposed tonight, and then if you want to change that standard to go even lower, that you direct staff to file another application to do that.

Or would you make a motion to pass and it does not pass and then come back later with a different motion another day that's been noticed?

Well, I mean, what would be the point if you want to lower— if you want to increase the parking, you want to put install a maximum height, what would be the point of not passing what's before you? Because then you go back to no height limit And you go back to a 1.75 parking standard. So that does not advance the interests that seem to be expressed.

Correct. And it allows someone to make an application later and come back in with a new—

But an applica— another application can be made even if you pass this tonight. So why would you pass it if you don't support it?

Pardon me?

Why would I want to pass it if I don't support it? Well, because it goes part of the way. It may not go as far as you want, but it goes part of the way that you want. Or we could put it on in 2 weeks Well, if you have a majority tonight, you could— we could vote on in 2 weeks. Well, no, because what we need to do, if you want to go lower, you got to file a new application. You've got to re-notice it.

Okay.

So that's what I'm saying. This may not accomplish everything that you want, but it goes part of the way that you want. And then we— you can direct staff.

But you can file a new application?

Yes.

If we pass this tonight, you can file a new application if we don't pass this tonight?

And, and Steve, just for— yes, for a point of, for a point of clarification, when we're talking about a new application, we're talking about a process with both the Planning Commission and City Council, right? So it's not something that could be returned in 2 weeks but would have to be reinitiated at the Planning Commission level.

But so, question, if, if we continue it and we tell you to open application for 4835, then that stops everything?

No, we would re—

We would essentially make a new application.

But we'd still continue that one, and then we could— No, you need to start over.

No, we don't want to stop the clock. So as far as in terms of when the clock would— when that or those new standards would vest, is when the Planning Commission hears it. So if you direct staff to file an application for, say, 48 feet, that would be applicable to any new development proposal once it's been heard by the Planning Commission. But if we continue this, it's still open. Yeah, but it doesn't make any difference whether you— I mean, it doesn't help your cause in any way whether you continue it or whether you go ahead and pass what's been proposed tonight.

Why is that?

Because if we, if we continue it, if somebody comes in for an application, they have to live by whatever we vote on in 2 weeks or whatever it is, correct?

I'm not sure I understood your question.

So if we continue it This thing, this application is still open.

Yes.

And that means that if somebody comes in and files an application for building a building, they have to adhere to our height.

They would, they would, they'd have to still adhere. That we came up, we came up with. So it's, we're just continuing it. So we're not closing the door. No, that's true. I mean, either way, either way, staff could file a new application to do what you really want. So, you know, you could, I, I, I guess personally I just don't see any point in continuing it, but if that's what you want to do. I just don't want to stop the You wouldn't be stopping the clock. If we, if we vote it down, we're stopping the clock, we're starting a new process.

That's true.

And then the door's open again, and that's not what we're trying to do. I guess, I'm sorry, maybe I was operating under the assumption that you were going to vote for it and not vote against it. But yeah, if you voted against it and it failed, then you go back to the current standards, which is no height limit and 1.75.

I mean, what if we keep trying to keep the clock open? What if we propose 48, 35, and 2.25 parking and it passes.

If you do that tonight?

Yeah.

So then, then a developer could challenge that basically, and basically, and, and a court could find that that's invalid because it wasn't properly noticed.

I mean, I'm fine with that. But if we continued it and then later when we brought it up again May— had an application made before, um, and then that is allowable? So in other words, what Dave's trying to say is he doesn't want the clock to stop where a developer can come in and go ahead and make a new application when we've stopped the process here. We voted against it, stopped it, etc. So the question is, how do you not allow a developer to come in, but at the same time make an application to change this where we're not running into a noticing question?

So to maybe try and answer the question a different way, until an application with these new standards that you want, say 48 feet or 35, until that's heard by the Planning Commission, the developer is going to be able to, to be entitled to come in and get approval for it. A building with 60-foot height potentially. Okay, whether you pass this tonight or whether you continue it, it's the same. But if we vote on it and it's 48 feet, then they can't do 60 because it's still open. But, but then again, that opens the city up to legal challenge because they could come in and say that 48-foot height standard was passed without being properly noticed. Which is maybe something some of us are willing to do. And I guess, I guess the response is that would not be staff's recommendation. So Steve, the city, the Planning Commission meets on July 7th. Uh, I mean, that's, that is correct. Yeah, we're not, I'm not, I'm not asking, I'm just— We're not noticing, we can't notice it by July 7th. So yeah, we have to have like 10 days. There's no way we can notice the meeting. But from now till then? Yeah, we don't, we wouldn't meet the noticing window. It would have to be the second meeting in July.

So I—

or special meeting, or spe— well, yeah, could be a special meeting. So I guess my— 11 days. Yeah, good point. My question is, is there 4 that want to change it to 4835? I guess that's the question.

I'm all for it.

Steve?

I would be in favor of that. I'd be in favor of that. Yes, we have 4.

So I'm— I am not in favor of that.

Steve, sure. Now, where the, the Planning Commission approved what's before us tonight and the developer does decide to go after us, sue us, is that kind of a, a step in his favor? Uh, now I know you're not— Not sure I understand your question. The Planning Commission passed it, what we're looking at, right, like 5 to 2, I think.

Uh-huh.

Now if, if there's litigation on this from the developer, um, that would work against us, wouldn't it?

The Planning Commission— Are you—

oh, um—

If it went—

and I know we're not in corridor and litigation. Are you talking if you just pass the, the 60-foot and the 2 parking stalls, or the— if you try and do If they, they passed what's before us, and if we vary from that, isn't, isn't that— Not really, no. You don't have to follow the Planning Commission recommendation.

Mayor, could I, could I maybe ask Dan McDonald maybe if he has any case law that he could talk to us about quickly on what we're doing?

So, Mr. Spencer, I'd just like to remind you that your legal counsel is sitting at this table, 24 years of legal experience in land use in Mr. Steve Earle. So, um, I, I, I'd just like to put that on the record.

Thank you.

Any other comments from the council? No, I guess not.

Okay.

So I would like to make a few comments. One thing that was brought up here by one of the individuals stated, so what is Orem doing? What are you doing for planning ahead? What are you doing for looking out for the interests of the city as a whole, not just one area? The other thought came forward is, are you being smart and wise about what you're doing for the future of the city as a whole? Or are you just looking at one particular spot? I'd like to just bring up a little bit of history, and that is that back in 2014, a lot of apartments were being built and commercial zones were being changed to high density. When we looked at this, when we first came into office, I requested that we change and not allow— put in a moratorium, as it were— and not allow any high density to be built out on any of the major thoroughfares. That would be University Parkway, that'd be Center Street, that'd be State Street, that'd be 8th North, so that we would slow down. And the moratorium actually states that no high density, no commercial zones can be changed to high density until the State Street Master Plan had been put into effect and passed. So then we moved forward to 2015, 2016, when we're considering the State Street Master Plan. We did put that into effect, and we also put in neighborhood plans. I believe it's 5 neighborhood plans throughout the city. In those neighborhood plans, it mentions that we want to keep the neighborhoods solid. We want to keep them good and protected for residential homes. For single-family homes, and we're not in favor of high density going into these zones. At the same time, a year later, we passed a law that said we are not going to allow any R zones, residential zones, to be changed to a high-density zone. So the whole idea behind what we've been doing now for the last 7 to 8 years is to try to protect the residential parts of our community, the bedroom parts of our community. But as was brought up, I think Terry said it's 50/50 residential to high density. I don't believe that's the case. I believe it's 40% high density and 60% residential in, in the city of Orem.

Rentals.

Rentals. And So the question comes, we have people who need apartments to live in. Whether you like it or not, that's what we need. And the reality is, I would guess almost every single person here has lived in an apartment in their life and probably needed that apartment at that time in their life. So to sit there and say we aren't going to allow high density in our city, we just want what we want for what we want, And not allow that, I think that begs the question, are we being fair to all of those who live in the city as a whole? Now, we've desired to keep the high density away from the residential neighborhoods. On the council in the last 7, 8 years, we've had multiple cases where high density proposals have come forward to be put within a residential neighborhood. And we've turned each one of those down. We voted against that.

What about the one at UVU?

So— Directly what you're saying. The one at UVU is the Palos Verdes, and that is a round neighborhood. And that round neighborhood asked to sell their property, all of them with the exception of one person, to a developer and to go ahead and allow for high-density housing On Campus Drive. But the neighbors all came together and said, we want to sell, we want to close down this neighborhood, and that developer went ahead and purchased that land. And that is an excellent thing for the students over there. They need on-campus housing. That group actually tried to buy a different development earlier in that year, and it was right across from the student classroom building and the student library. And we turned that down because that would have affected that neighborhood adversely. And so we were against that high density. But what I'm saying is we have tried to strategically place high density along certain— excuse me— zones on State Street in 5 districts, and then keep our residential neighborhoods uh, succinct, solid, and protected from high density throughout the city. And so we've tried to look at it and say, how do we do this properly? How can we protect all the neighborhoods that we have— because we have wonderful, strong neighborhoods— but then allow high density just along certain spots on State Street and allow high density to go in? So, well, I guess that's a question that you— You have to answer. This particular zone is on State Street, and in that zone, it does allow for high density. And as Debbie brought up earlier, you have to look at this and say, when someone purchased property within this zone and their understanding was they could go to a 60-foot height, Yes. And do a 1.75 parking, then they base their program on investing with those parameters. And those parameters have been in this zone for 20, 30 years, so 50 years, whatever. And so the reality is not only has the developer known those parameters, but the neighbors, I believe, should have known those parameters. Okay, so many people who have purchased homes with— hold on for a second— that many people have purchased homes in that area, I believe, should have known and checked out what that zoning that they have allows and doesn't allow. They were hiding it. Well, say— what I'm saying is you should have looked and said, this is a commercial zone that I'm purchasing, the land within. Okay, and that, and that is the case.

But when, when these people purchased their property, high-density housing was not even a thing. It was not even a consideration.

But commercial zone was there, and the commercial zone allows for the high density.

I, I don't think we're getting anywhere with that discussion.

So if you can stop for just a second, Tom.

Can you stop for a second?

No.

What I'm trying to say is we need the ability to have High-density housing within our city. If you want to stop high density from going anywhere in the city, then you're stopping your kids, other people, from having a place to live. And, and, and the reality is we all, we all want an opportunity— please be quiet for just a second— we all want an opportunity to have a place to live, and these zones allow for that to happen in a strategic manner. So this zone was set up when Dennis bought it that he thought he could build to a 60-foot height. It did allow for a 60-foot height. So the reality is there are property rights by both Dennis and by the people who live within the zone, and I think those property rights need to be respected.

Whose?

So both, both sides. So I, I believe Tom McDonald has a comment, so let's let Tom speak.

If I may, I, I—

my—

Could you please be quiet for a minute and let him speak?

My earlier statement is I don't think we're going far with this. I think you know where the council wants to take that. I think it's in harmony with where you want to go. And, and to echo Councilman Peterson's earlier comment, our staff has done exactly what we've asked them to do. And so to the degree that's been offensive to any of you, we apologize. But the fault should lay with us for not fixing that earlier, not with staff.

You know, when we passed the master State Street—

the master Orem plan—

State Street master plan.

State Street plan, there were bits and pieces that none of us could have assumed been here. And that's why we have a, you know, thank goodness for repentance in life, and thank goodness we can fix some things on this.

And so you nor I could think through everything as we made the state street master plan.

And our staff is much smarter than us, and they laid it out.

And I think they did an admirable job, and I thank them for them. But they're also very susceptible to accept counsel from us who take counsel from you. So I thank you for your input today. We're not going to get exactly— it doesn't sound like we're going to get exactly where we want to tonight, but we're going to take the proper noticing to get it to where we need to be in very short order.

Thank you.

So, uh, thank you for your involvement today. And David, I think you wanted to—

Yeah, Councilman Lamson has a question. Okay, go ahead. Go to David.

Well, I, I already made my comment, um, about the, the neighbors, but just, just, uh, to go back, that this— on the State Street Master Plan, that this area was to be a smaller-scale development. And so now we're defining that. And, and so now, yeah, now we need to Define that.

Councilmember Spencer.

So I mean, the question is, do the 4—

do you want to pass, uh, do a motion and pass, or you want to continue? Um, let's wait. We'll make a motion and see how that turns out. I think Terry Peterson's got a comment.

Well, just going along with what Dave says, I, I'd like to see us make a motion on the 48, 35, 2.25 and, and see where we're at tonight. Well, if that fails, it opens it right up again to what it was before. No, it, it actually closes it. I think if we do that—

No, but it actually runs into the noticing problem.

Well, maybe I can comment on that.

Yeah.

If you make that motion, 4835, and it fails, then somebody else can make another motion. That doesn't close the matter. Somebody can make a motion to continue that application, or somebody can make a motion to approve as proposed with the 60-foot and the— So Steve, if 4 people agree to the 48, 35, 2¼, it's done. Someone else can make a motion, but you— if you had 4 that agree with that, it's done.

Yep.

So I, I mean—

But in that case, are you running into the noticing problem?

Yeah, yeah, then you run into the noticing, uh, risk where the city could get sued for that.

Yep.

Well, there could be worse things happen. But the problem is—

go ahead.

The problem is, is then if somebody does challenge it and win, what you've done fails.

Okay.

It doesn't accomplish what you want it to accomplish. So why not— I mean, in my opinion, the safer, more effective route would be to go through and properly notice it so that when— if and when you'd actually enact those standards, they have the force of law and they're not going to be subject to challenge. Okay, so we look to you for counsel, as we've been properly instructed to.

Thank you for the reminder.

Um, where I think, I think there's some who are willing to take the risk, but we don't want to take stupid risk, and that's a challenge in life. If we, if we deny or pass this and then properly notice, we're probably 3 to 4 weeks out before the Planning Commission could be rescheduled and hear it, and we could have a meeting and schedule it. Those are a month away, and we run whatever risks there are that someone slips in and approves at the 60 and the 2.

Can you give us any counsel as our wise legal counsel?

I mean, yeah, there's, there's that, there's that possibility, right? I mean, I, you know, what, what would be the next Planning Commission meeting, Jason? Do we know that date? It's the 7th.

Schedule it.

7th of July. I mean, the next one we could get it noticed So we'd be looking at the 21st, or is there a meeting on the 21st since it's July 24th holiday? We ought to check that because sometimes we don't have a Planning Commission meeting.

But just like we have special meetings, they could have a special meeting, correct?

Yeah, I mean, we could try and— we could try and schedule a Planning Commission meeting. Obviously we'd have to contact Planning Commission members, see if they're available, that sort of thing. The next meeting is the 21st. The other part of this, Steve, when we worry about lawsuits A child crossing 4th West or 16th North could get hit and the city could get sued. I mean, you know, lawsuits happen all the time. So that's— And I don't disagree, and I don't think staff disagrees, but staff's recommendation is to not approve it tonight, but to continue the matter or to vote on the matter and then to reopen or initiate a new application to move forward with the, um, additional parameters that you've identified. That's staff's recommendation.

Well, so if we pass the 60 today, that makes it— I mean, Planning Commission passed it, but it's not legal till we vote on it, right?

Right. It only prevents a developer from submitting an application that that does not comply with the— what the Planning Commission—

Okay, so if let's say we pass the 60 and then we open up to see if we can, you know, lower down, is there any harm doing that? To me, that seems wiser.

That's, that's what I think too. So, Mayor, I've got a question. So for Steve, go ahead.

I'm not, I'm not sure this is about Phase 1.

I thought this was for I think we're talking about other than Phase 1 primarily.

Right, so I have a question.

So if we continue this, it's still on the books, the clock is still ticking.

We put an application in for $48,035, and if somebody comes in and puts an application in, we can still vote on the continuation and make it $48,035, so they're still stuck, correct?

We'd still be—

the note—

the $48,000 4835 standards would not be vested, would not be applicable to a developer until it's heard by the Planning Commission. No, no, no, but I'm talking about if I continue this and tell the city to—

ask the city to open up an application, then the clock is still ticking on this continuation, plus we have a new application.

And if somebody comes in, then we can always vote on this continuation and make it a 4835. So I think we're safe. And I don't know, I disagree. I don't, I don't think you're safe in this, in the sense that The 48-35 would apply to a future development application, would not—

No, I'm talking about the continuation that we're doing right now.

Yeah, so that would, that would mean that the 60-foot limit and the 2 parking standards still apply to a developer who submits an application. But even though we continue it, we can't change the 48 to 35 when it comes before us again? Again, you'd have to do that by way of a new application.

Well, we are going to do that, but But if you're continuing it, we're not voting on this tonight. We're just continuing.

So we still have that option to say 4835 when we hear it in 2 weeks or whenever it is, correct? So yeah, if we file a new application—

No, I'm not—

Okay, I don't understand.

We're still continuing this application, right, at this— at where it is now.

Okay.

And then we say, okay, the city needs to open a new application at 4835. If somebody comes in and does an application We still have this continuation.

We can still vote 48, 35 because it's still continued.

It—

this application does not block a developer from filing for, uh, it— this application only prevents a developer from going higher than 60 feet. It does not prevent a developer from going higher than 48 or 35 feet, even though that's something you have talked about doing. They're only blocked from doing more than 60 feet based on this application.

Can you help us stay in place for any future applications for the next 30 days while more information is gathered?

So if we continue it, it's continued. We haven't voted on it. It hasn't been approved, but it also hasn't been rejected. So it does stop the clock from a developer coming in trying to put something in place. But at the same time, when we go ahead to try to make a change, you have to have the proper noticing with the, with the Planning Commission. So either way, you then put yourself at risk. Whether you're continuing now or later, you're putting yourself at risk.

They're different types of risks, obviously. Different types, yes.

So is it just easier to vote what we have before us and, and then open a new one?

Honestly, it's probably sixes. Whether you continue this tonight or you vote on it, it probably has the same impact. If we're going to file another application regardless, it's probably the same, same impact. I mean, if it were me, I would just vote on it, but, uh, you know, it's probably the same legal effect. Because Steve, if you're a developer watching all this going on right now, I'd probably just put everything on hold till I see where this ended up. I mean, isn't that— I don't know if I'd run out and try to do something where the city council, you know, you're not sure where the city council is going to go. Well, you know, I— and I think— and Jason can speak to this— I don't think we have any, uh, development proposals that are imminent, um, you know, as far as Phase 2 or other development in BD zone. So I don't think It's terribly likely we'd get an application, but you never know. No guarantees.

Mayor, can I make a motion? Sure, go ahead. I want to make a motion that we continue this item and also ask the city to open application for 48 in the core, 35 in the edge, and 2.25 parking.

Second it.

Dave, hold on a second, Tom. Dave, you have to put a date on when you want to continue this too.

Well, um, when do you think the—

So it's Jan— well, it's got to— yeah, you have to wait for the— well, we can vote on this another time without the Planning Commission doing what they're doing, but you're not going to get what you want. So you— if you really want to get what you want, you have to wait until we have the Planning Commission do something first, right? And then you have to know tonight You have to know when you're going to continue this to. So it's not going to be July 13th.

Mayor, do we still have the special session coming up on the 27th, or are we not doing that now?

Um, that is in the works. We haven't finalized it.

Is that a good time that we could— so we could do it on—

but you have to—

if—

yeah, so if it's the 21st, they've heard it, then we can do it the 27th. All right, so can we go ahead and plan for the 27th? Because it's not a meeting time that we scheduled yet, but we've talked about.

Yeah, I just—

you want to mention something? Okay, so put the 27th, July 27th, July 27th, 6 PM.

6 PM. Okay, council chambers.

So we are—

that would be a, that would be a continuation to date specific, which wouldn't require us to notice. At the same time, that's not a scheduled council meeting, so that does differ from what we talked about earlier. And then we would be able to hear—

I'm just making you aware—

we'd be able to hear the—

if the Planning Commission approves or denies, and it could come for us that meeting.

So we could, we could, uh, file the noticing concurrently. But it wouldn't make a difference whether it was the 27th or the 10th. on August 10th. Either way, it's the same.

Well, I think August 10th we've canceled as a council that we're not holding.

Because it's the primary election.

Regardless, I guess if you have a scheduled meeting is what I'm saying.

I mean, you can hold a special meeting on the 27th, but it doesn't matter if it's pending. It's still going to be valid regardless if you meet it now or in the end of August.

Sure.

I guess it's my question.

All right. So we have a motion—

Okay, Mayor.

May I just— so if the intent of the city council is to file a new application, application, why not just continue the current application to, for example, the second meeting in September with the understanding that the new application that you have pending will pass in advance of that?

Which holds everything to at least 60 and 2 is what you're saying?

Correct.

What date in September?

I, I'm just suggesting that our city council meeting in September— we have 2 council meetings, the first one being the 14th, the second one being the 28th.

I, I think we just keep it at July 27th special session.

All right, so we have a motion on the table. Is there a second? I think—

Tom, what date did his motion take it to?

July 27th.

I'll second that.

What's that?

Yeah, it says—

okay, so let's go ahead and vote. You want to vote first?

Sure.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Nay?

Aye.

Aye.

Okay, that continuum passes and we'll go accordingly. We'll now move on to a public hearing ordinance amending the current fiscal year 2020-2021 budget, and Brandon Nelson is our presenter.

I would be really upset if I owned C2 property after 50 years.

It's 60 Well, I was comfortable with 60. I could probably go 48 for the whole thing as a compromise, but not— I don't think 35 is— that's ridiculous. That's down to residents.

Well, 35 is down by the buffer zone, so it's either 48 or 60. So the question is—

I could compromise to 48 even though I think fair enough is 60.

Okay.

But I understand.

That's a hard thing because he's invested the money. Okay, Brandon, you were pretty quiet there.

I know, I was getting all ready. Not quite as exciting as what we just went through, although does have a lot of money involved in it. Yes, that's always fun. Uh, so obviously we come before you tonight, uh, our last budget amendment for fiscal '21 year in relation to budget items that we need to amend in relation to that fiscal year. The items, as mentioned in any number of council meetings, listed with a note of number 1 are all related to grants or donations of some sort or the other. The one I obviously I want to mention is the one at the very top of this On the screen, as you can see, the initial tranche number 1 of our ARPA money and the dollar amount related to that, which then obviously will carry forward into our fiscal '22 budget. And we can start spending that money as we had discussions about what those elements might be, but then it is available and ready to go once those determinations are made. Various other grants, as mentioned, as you can scroll through there, be it things related to the fitness center, related to our task force. Those are almost all of those elements are related to those items. The item number 2 that you see here in the middle of the screen related to the 2019 GO bonds. This is the last of the interest as those funds have all been spent. There are— so all of the 2019 GO bond money is now gone, and this is the last item related to those bonds. How do we manage that interest earning? Do we put it with a state fund or— No, so we're allowed under GO bonds to actually hold those funds ourselves, and so we— those funds were put into the Public Treasurer's Investment Fund, which managed by the state. On here you can see 2 item number 3s, one near the top of the screen and one there near the bottom of, uh, bottom of the screen.

Those—

so though, as we've done in years past, we had surplus in relation to our fiscal '20, um, actual financials, um, approximately $2.2 million was required under the, um, the surplus amount that we can retain within the general fund.

Reserve amount.

And the— that represents the amount that must be moved to get fall under that the old 25% limitation. That has been changed since then. Now it's not applicable to fiscal '20, it obviously is applicable for the current fiscal year that was raised primarily because of COVID from 25% to 35%. So, um, you know, next year realistically the amount that we would be mandated to move would, would not probably be there because we were, we were approximately 28, 29%, somewhere in that neighborhood for fiscal '20. So, you know, we would potentially, hey, reevaluate and say, okay, are we still okay going to that 15%. We target that 15% threshold, and so we would potentially reevaluate that. I, I still think that's a reasonable threshold when times are good. Obviously, going to 35% allows us some room when things don't— aren't good, and we can leave that money in there for operations.

But—

We, we used to target it at 9%. 15% is healthy.

I think so.

It allows us to do stuff with that, those dollars, particularly, you know, we— so we move the, the budget amendment here is to move those funds out of the general fund, move it to our capital projects fund, and primarily we're using it for parks. I mean, that's the major component of what that money ends up getting used for, although that's not restrictive in any way.

We have other uses.

And we, we do it for equipment and other things. But, um, so that's what item number 3 is in relation to, is you can see up in the very top, that's the general fund, the $3.7 million, and then you see the lower one, which is Fund 45, which is our CIP fund, Capital Projects Fund, and that's the amendment for that fund to receive those funds. And item number 4, um, near the top there, the Public Order Unit that we are acting kind of as a central gathering point for the county, many of the county public safety entities. And I say county meaning the individual cities, but I think we are also working with the county as well in trying to get equipment in relation to particularly protests and things like that so that the personnel, the public safety personnel who are responding to those protests in any given city, that they have the available equipment needed to be able to respond to those and, and be safe, right?

Have a—

and so that, that equipment is being held in one place, and then all the cities wherever that protest may be occurring and those who are responding to that can go and, and and that equipment would be delivered to them so that at the place where that protest might be. So we're simply acting as the conduit by which that money is being received and then eventually buying all of that equipment. And number 5, the— you, you are well aware of the utility billing convenience fee that was put in place here back in October for the fiscal year. We failed, quite honestly, to— also, we were supposed to add a credit card convenience fee for our development services group of a 2.5% fee. Now, utility billing cannot charge a percentage. They are required under law by— to charge— they can only— can only charge a stated amount. That is not the case for our groups outside. outside of utility billing, unrelated to utilities. So this represents the, the fee basically that we are charged by the, you know, credit card companies on average. And so we're asking that that fee obviously now get put into place moving forward. There's all— there's also in our development services group, we have a restriction as far as how much they can even charge on a credit card when they're paying their fees. So this amount technically is kind of limited, you know, there's a top end to it, but obviously we still do allow them to charge a certain amount on a credit card, and so we just want to recoup the, the fee associated with using that credit card. Those are all of the items in relation to the budget amendments. Are there any questions about any of these elements? I have a question. I had a concerned citizen ask me about his water rates, and he said— and he, he called the city about what the— what he's charged for each of the tiers last year and, and told me it's the same this year. Have they not gone down this year, or when does that happen? That goes into effect July 1st. Oh, July 1st of— okay, okay, thank you. I'll tell him because— yeah, okay, thank you.

You can tell your wife that as well, so.

What's that?

You can tell your wife that as well. She's probably wondering.

Um, I write the bill. She could care less.

Oh, sorry. Okay.

Anyway, this guy does— did care. He has a huge lawn.

Anyway.

2 more days.

Okay, is that everything?

I believe so.

All right, appreciate it, Brandon. This is a public hearing, so we will open it up for public comment. Anyone wishing to come forward, please give us your name and take no longer than 3 minutes. All right, seeing that no one's coming forward, we'll close the public comment portion of our public hearing and bring it back to the council. Any questions or comments by the council? Okay, would anyone like to make a motion? If not, I'll make a motion. It's item 9.3. So moved.

Sure.

I move that the city council hold—

do we got to hold up by ordinance? We've already done that.

Okay.

Just by ordinance amend.

By ordinance amend the current fiscal year budget, 2021 budget.

Okay. Is there a second? Second.

Okay.

Councilmember Spencer, we'll start with you.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Okay, the ordinance passes. Thank you, Brandon, as always. Appreciate having you here. Uh, we now— Jamie, do you have any items you wish to bring up?

I don't, thank you.

Okay, then I move that we adjourn to a closed meeting for city manager evaluation. Is there a second?

Second.

Okay, everybody in favor say aye.

Aye.

Okay, we are adjourned. Thank you. And that will be to room 107.

Sure.

Mayor, apparently it requires— a closed-door meeting requires a roll call vote.

Okay, sorry. All right, we'll start over again. So, Councilmember Spence?

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Okay, it, uh, our adjournment is adjourned, and we're on our way to a closed-door meeting.