City Council · 2022-01-04

Relaxed?

Yeah, ready for the session?

So ready, so ready. No, starting to panic just a little bit, trying to do my zen moment.

Your zen moment.

Well, we, uh, we appreciate everybody's attendance. Mayor, thank you for logging in. I apologize for the difficulty in connecting.

No worries, I found Josh and Jeff over there too, so the 3 of us will move over here.

I'm here.

Well, Mayor, I'll turn the time over to you.

Alrighty, looks like we've got everybody here. We've got Who have we got here as far as the legislators? If you can, if you can just introduce yourself real quick.

I'll go ahead and start. Nelson Abbott, I'm here, and I think I might be upstairs from you, Dave. Looks like it.

Just don't walk too loudly.

I know, maybe I'll just come down if I—

okay, so we got Nelson Congratulations, Mayor Val Peterson. Oh, thank you. Thank you, Val.

And Marcia Jetkins.

Hey, Marcia, I haven't met you before, but it's nice to meet you.

Nice to meet you.

Mike McKill from the south. I don't really represent parts of Orem, but lots of— and Jamie put me on the email, so I'm blaming Jamie if you didn't want me here.

Okay. Last time I saw you was on a fishing boat, so That's probably true.

And I appreciate the leopard in the background. I've got a wolf over my shoulder and I appreciate the leopard. So, right.

I didn't put it there on purpose. It just winds up in the picture, but—

And I have an elk above me.

Oh, nice. Very nice.

Kevin Stratton as well. Mayor, good to join you. Congratulations on your swearing in, and also Councilmember Millett. McDonald and Spencer, we're grateful for your service, all of you, and excited for this coming, coming season for the City of Orem.

Awesome, thank you, Kevin. So is that all of our representatives we've got here? Is that everybody?

And Mayor, we have, we have Senator Kennedy who is going to join us here in a minute. He's traveling in his car. I understand that You had meetings— this— the Senate had meetings today, and so he is going to connect via his car phone.

Okay. All right, great. And then we've got all of our city council here, right? Let's see, trying to scroll through this. We got Terry, Lenee, Dave Spencer.

I'm at the Orem City Council room, you just can't see me.

Okay, great. Got Debbie. Chief Adams. Alrighty.

You got Terry.

I got Terry Peterson. Okay, so I think we've got everyone, right? Alrighty, well, let's, uh, go ahead and get going unless there's anything else we need to, to address before we start. Has everyone got, uh, the, uh, items for discussion that Jamie sent out? Has everyone got those, or should we just— I'll just run through those real quickly.

Got them there, so I'm good.

Okay, I've got them. All right, so as a mayor, city council, what, what we're interested in, uh, these are some of the, the, uh, potential meeting discussion topics. The number one thing for us is probably housing and housing affordability, what the legislature's got going on with that. And then I'm just going to list these, we'll come back, but we've got economic development, we've got taxation, the sales tax formula adjustment specifically, we've got growth, which is a primary concern everywhere, we've got some public safety issues. and transportation. But if we could just start at the top, and maybe if, if some of the representatives could tell us what's on the docket as far as housing and housing affordability and how that might affect Orem.

Well, obviously, that, you know, housing affordability is a huge issue across the state. We've had a task force that's been working on, on housing affordability. I haven't actually seen a report on that. I don't know if anybody else has seen anything on that yet. I know that that's been a discussion item by many of us. I don't think anybody's had a magic or silver bullet to solve that issue. Housing affordability is, as we all know, is starting to impact people who are wanting to come into the state or even people who want to stay in the state as we look at average median house costs of $540,000. I, I don't know if anybody has anything they want to add or if they're on that housing task force that they have any insights on that, but that's kind of where I know it's at right now.

You know, Mayor, this is Curt Bramble. I may— sorry, I'm getting my haircut right now, but one of the challenges we have at the legislature— Jamie and I had a great discussion yesterday— and that is the intersection of state policy versus local usurping local land use. And I think the legislature generally is going to be a bit reticent to step very far into that arena.

Okay. You know, that's exactly what we want to hear because as a local community, our preference is to, you know, manage our community. And I mean, we understand it. We know what the issues are. And so that would be our desire, that the state would essentially let us do that and not have any overarching legislation.

Well, but let me give you another example, though. This was just announced today. I think it was somewhere in Weber County. A Japanese food manufacturer wants to come in, create 500 jobs. About 6 or 8 years ago, I floated an idea. It didn't go anywhere because we didn't have the same pressure that we, that we have now. But if you're looking at a major economic development initiative in your city, Shouldn't one of those components be, instead of looking to the state for a solution on housing, that one of the components for that economic development project be that if you're projecting 500 new jobs, that there— that you also have to have a— not necessarily providing the housing, but at least have a plan, whether it's changing zoning, changing densities, whatever. that, that your city has a plan on how to deal with that, those additional employees. In other words, we can't keep having the economic development incentives and expanding the economy at the local level and then wring our hands and say, state, what are you going to do to fix the affordable housing? I think those, those tend to go hand in hand.

Yeah, yeah, definitely. There's, there's an overlay there. I just lean on the side of that the cities can figure it out for themselves as far as how they want to solve that. And, and I feel like the best thing that we could get from our legislature to support that is to support us and letting us manage our city and managing those particular issues. So I don't think there's any We're not looking for any kind of an overlay for this, the state to, you know, mandate us or really push us or guide us in that direction. I'll leave that up to local government, but—

But, but, Mayor, the state does have some funds available for housing affordability, but they rely on us to set some zoning and some places where we can put those. There's a, I think, a bill coming up this year, and Jamie, you referenced it, I think, in some of your notes, to provide some additional, some capital for some housing affordability. And again, how we apply it is up to the local cities, at least as I understand it.

Yeah, and I think that's great. I think if there's money available that they want to put into the cities or incentivize the cities to do different things, that's great. But ultimately, I believe the cities need to decide what they want. Just for example, in our, in our county, there's a huge discrepancy in the amount of high-density housing in the different cities. I mean, it's drastic. And so, yeah, I think it's fine if there is money for affordable housing. But I don't think we need— we just have to have the final say on how that's all done and allocated is all I'm saying.

Mayor, I think as someone that represents a good portion of Orem, particularly with 3 districts, and I agree with that completely, one size can't fit all. The situation in Orem with the growth of UVU, the situation in Provo with the continually increasing enrollment of BYU, compounded with UVU, that puts our 2 communities of Provo and Orem in a very unique situation that's not going to be the same for Nephi or Moab or anywhere else.

Right, right. No, yeah, and I agree with that. I, I, uh, as far as UVU is a really interesting situation because while it borders on Orem and obviously it's our campus, You can get to UVU just as quickly from Springville or Pleasant Grove or Lehi as you can from Orem. And so it's really a county-based college. And so in my mind, the housing for that should be spread throughout the, the county. The other, the other thing with UVU that's a little bit different is just that it's It's a real commuter campus, so there's not nearly as many students that are living there and staying there as there are, for example, at BYU. But I don't want to be talking all the time, so—

One quick comment I'll just make, if I may. You know, anytime we begin talking about housing affordability, we begin messing, you know, using levers that that can have unintended and adverse consequences. And the free market really does work. Just anecdotally, I was visiting with one of our mutual constituents the other day saying, boy, we've got a real housing affordability problem. This is what— I can't believe it. My son just sold his house and made this much money. You know, on one hand, there's rejoicing with what it is. On the other, there's criticism. I just think we need to be very, very cautious in beginning to manipulate the market. That's what I would have. And to Senator Bramble's point, you know, there's a couple of years ago, there was a bill, and I think we worked to, you know, on that bill to how Orem-Provo, in large part, a lot built out. There's not a lot of— there's still pockets here and there, but nothing like some of the other communities. Another issue is the land. And, you know, we have 29,000 acres of federally managed public lands in our county. that could— many of those can, can be loosened up to make, to make become available for, for, for, for the, the placement of residential living and so forth. That was part of the process, and we knew as growth would take place that we would need to do that. So those are some of the things we are working on legislatively, working to try and loosen up some of those potential additional uses, balancing, of course, the lifestyle and the open space that, that we need to be sensitive to as well. So that's my input, Mayor and council members.

So, Mayor Young, I've got a question. Yes, this is David Spencer. So I think when we talk about high-density housing and we talk about affordable housing, I think there are 2 totally different separate subjects, because to me, affordable housing is somebody that they can buy a condo and have homeownership.

High-density housing, that is a rental in my mind.

So we heard, you know, from Jamie in the past, you know, that the legislature is talking about, you know, every—

you can put high density everywhere. And if you don't have zones and all that stuff, then they're just going to force you to have high density anywhere. You can have it in any neighborhood.

And my thing is, if Orem has 42%, 43%, 44% rentals, meaning homes, accessory dwellings, and apartments, and Mapleton and Highland have 5% or none.

If you pass a law or do a bill, you need to bring that percentage—

they need to come up to our standard of 42% before you come knocking on our door, making sure that we have this percentage or more high-density housing. So me, it's got to be fair. Maybe it's not that one glove fits all or whatever, but percentages are key.

And if, if you're talking Orem has that much percentage, other cities in the county need to step up and do their part, period. So that's my 2 cents. I think it just needs to be fair because we have high-density housing, and I'm all for affordable housing, but I want it to be homeownership, not rentals. So That's my 2 cents.

Councilman, let me support that. Before I was elected to the Senate— now that's back to the 1990s, okay, I'm dating myself— at the time, Provo had 270 low-income units, the rest of the county had 70, and yet the legislature was trying to say Provo needed to do more for low-income housing. Orem wasn't a particular player in it at that time. Those things have changed. But your thesis that Orem is doing as much as it can, and if you look at Provo with the high-density housing and whatever, I think that the numbers are going to be actually a little bit higher for high-density in Provo than they are Orem. I agree with you, and that's where the one size doesn't fit all, saying that whatever we do, Orem and Provo are going to have to to up their game as much as Highland and other cities are when they haven't— we're not at the same starting point.

Right.

And I talked with Cameron from Utah League of Cities and Towns last night at the inauguration, and I guess they have some kind of thing they did. And I guess it talks about what cities and what percentages, and he said that Provo and Orem were way up there in the top 1 and 2 on percentage of high-density housing.

So I think we've done our part, but we would like other people to fulfill that need.

I know Lehi has some 5,000 units going in, or trying to put that in, but I just think that if, if it's all fair, we need to make sure that it is fair to all the other cities, that they bring up and they start a starting point and get moving.

But don't lump it on Orem and Provo, because Provo is definitely ahead of the game because of BYU and so forth, and UVU is now coming on strong. And that's where we're feeling the pain.

And thank you, David. And for the record, uh, I mean, Lehigh's at 17%, uh, rentals, and we're at 41 or whatever. Uh, so even though it feels like Lehigh is doing a lot with affordable housing, we're way ahead. And, and, and I totally agree with everything you're saying there, uh, Kurt, and also Kevin. Uh, I I personally believe that the best way to solve these issues is through the free market, but it is an issue and it is a problem. And, you know, I guess what we've talked about as a, as a council is just that we really want to be in control of our city. And so our message to you would be not to impose anything on a macro basis that would, you know, negatively affect our ability to do that. So.

I have a quick comment, and I'm somewhat new to all of this, but there— short-term rentals seems to be an issue that I've heard a bit about, and the legislature has passed a bill that cities can't use advertising for short-term rentals in order to find where those are happening. It seems like that's a piece, maybe not the hugest piece, but that is a piece of, of, um, find— of people being able to find affordable housing, rental housing, or buying housing. And I've heard that there's, um, there might be a bill this session to, to take away that limit, or to allow cities to be able to use. Am I— and I'm just hearing this through other, other places, and I don't know, is that something that you'd be interested in us looking at?

Yeah, I'm not sure I totally understand. Are you just saying that they— that there's— they're putting— some cities are putting something in place where they can find the—

Well, I think right now, and anybody can jump in and correct me if I'm wrong, but right now cities, municipalities can't look at listings to find where short-term rentals are in the city. Even if, even if cities have ordinances that limit or ban short-term rentals, cities cannot— do not have the power because of what the state legislature has done to go in and find where those short-term rentals are happening in their city.

Okay.

So I heard that there's a bill this session coming forward that would lift that ban on cities. And I was just wondering your feelings about it.

Mayor, this is Jamie, if I may. Yes, short-term rentals are in fact an emerging and increasingly concerning part of our, you know, part of the housing mix here in the city. And we see it surprisingly, if you go on to an Airbnb website, and you look at the number of short-term rentals in Orem, I frankly was surprised at the number, the sheer volume of those rentals. And so, you know, they do pose a, albeit a different, but a significant impact on neighborhoods and communities in ways different than your long-term rentals. And so, yes, I think from a city perspective, we're very much interested in better understanding and how we can make sure that short-term rentals do not undermine the integrity of our neighborhoods in the same way long-term rentals don't undermine the integrity of our neighborhoods.

Right. And to her point, if there is legislation that would make that more apparent, I don't have a problem with that.

Mayor, this is Terry. So just a comment, and I've heard kind of this theme from Kevin, Kurt, also said the same thing that I think as a city, I feel that the direction I'm hearing is we want to look for demand. We want to— excuse me, just on the supply side, we want to attract good businesses to come to the city.

That helps resolve some affordable housing issues if we can lift up the wage level of the city and have the kind of company— some of those businesses we've lost. to, to other cities, but we have an incredible situation in the Orem-Provo area with our transportation, with our, you know, opportunity for great employment with people that are highly educated. And I think as we attract good businesses to the city, that will help with some of these other issues. And, and like you say, you don't— it's not so much location anymore. You can, you can travel to the different, you know, to UVU from all around the county. But I look, I look forward to seeing the city have a bigger effort on attracting business and less effort on trying to cram more high-density buildings into the city.

Mayor, this is Debbie. I'd also like to say I really appreciate last year at the legislature there was an accessory dwelling unit kind of mother-in-law apartment, and that was kind of addressing some of the housing shortage. And while I see the value of it, we appreciate that we were able to carve out a provision because of our— we're a college town. My question is, as far as the ADUs, is there any other bills that you see— this is to the legislators— that will modify that? Do you see any changes to that? If I remember correctly, there was some Elimination of some parking requirements on cities and things like that. But, um, I think that was a— I don't think it hurt us too much, but I know in other communities that it may have been a difficult thing. So my question is, is there going to be any modifications or anything related to basement apartments or mother-in-law apartments?

Based on discussions that I've had with the Provo City Council, at least a few of the council members, while we thought we made it clear about the college town exception, We thought it would exempt Provo and Orem. The Provo City Attorney and a couple of our council members have interpreted it entirely differently. And so as a minimum, I think that there needs to be some clarification regarding the exemption for college towns. Now, that doesn't go to your broader point about further modifications, parking, and those kinds of things, but just the— what qualifies for that college exemption, there's a certain mindset among some, at least in Provo, that the ambiguity is requiring Provo to have ADUs citywide. And that was never the intent. That's not the plain reading of the language, but plain reading of language sometimes is not as plain to everyone.

Thank you. Any other thoughts on housing and housing affordability? They are kind of two different issues, but is there anything from the legislature that you guys would like to add or legislators would like to add? Mayor, just this— I'm not from legislature, but one other comment. We're trying to tackle a nationwide problem. And I mean, Utah is one of 50 states trying to figure it out. So it is a problem just not unique to Orem or to the state of Utah. I mean, it's throughout the country. So I think there's a lot of smart people trying to figure it out, but it's not an easy solve or easy fix.

Mayor, I would, I would just offer, in every challenge, there's an opportunity. And you look at, boy, I can remember days back in the '80s and '90s, some different problems we faced. And so I just, I just look for the opportunity and the way to pivot and leverage this for all of the benefits. So that's what I would offer.

Okay.

Mayor, may I say something?

Yes.

So, um, when you talk about the incentives for affordable housing, we're kind of in a unique situation that I've seen in Orem, is that we have older housing We don't have the incentives, the financial, you know, the financing incentives that the rural housing does, the people in Saratoga and Eagle Mountain. So if there's a way to figure out how to help revitalize Orem, we're an older community, I'd rather, I'd much rather see incentives for affordable housing, you know, by way of the homes that we already have here instead of building high-density housing and creating affordable rental housing? Because everything I heard this past 6-8 months was kind of what you said at the beginning. We want to be able to buy a home. You know, a $500,000 home at 3% interest is a $200,000 payment. So what do we need to do to get these people in these starter homes where, you know, homeownership is the biggest determinant of building personal wealth. So I don't know, I just see Orem as a different city compared to some of these cities that are getting all these new homes. And, you know, how do we— is there a way to use some of that money that Tom was talking about instead of having it going to rental, building high-density housing, to actually encouraging the whole you know, starter home mentality that existed when we moved in our house years, 30 years ago.

Right. Say, Lynnae, would you mind explaining just quickly the specific example of what you're talking about? You're telling me about what's allowed up in Heber that is not allowed in Orem. That seemed pretty—

Yeah, and I wish I could remember the name of the program, but my niece, I'm sure you legislators have heard of this, but my niece, they qualified, they got on a list They qualified for this group where the property was purchased. There were 5 homes built in a cul-de-sac. They all helped each other build their homes. The foundations had to be in, the, the, you know, everything had to be done at the same time, and then they all moved in at the same time. They hired professional electricians and plumbers to come in and do that, but most of the work was done by the families. And like, we went up and helped my, my niece, um, with some of the labor to try to get them in their homes. And because— and I asked someone about that and they said, well, Heber qualifies because it's rural, and so it qualifies for these incentives.

So was that sweat equity they were gaining, Lynnae? Is that—

It was, it was in a way, and it was, it was kind of like the Habitat for Humanity, but not really, because really the key was it was building a neighborhood. There were 5 homes that they each helped on— they each built their homes and helped on each other's homes, but really they had to have so many hours in their own home and they had to commit to that. And she's got a beautiful home, you know, an 1,800-square-foot rambler on one level. So—

And so, yeah, it's called— sorry, Steve, it's called Self-Help Homes.

Brad Bishop is the individual that runs it. We actually— they get some federal money through the home funding, which is like CDBG. It's a, it's a federal program that's run.

Can that be done in Orem then?

I don't think that we qualify for the federal program, but Brad Bishop, who runs it, we could have a conversation and get at least an explanation and understanding of that.

If we could lobby someone to make that, to kind of tweak it a bit, to have for these older homes, to opportunity exists for couples to move into these older homes.

For renovations. Okay.

That would be extremely valuable if you're looking for home affordability, would be a lot of these older neighborhoods. If there was a pathway for them to upgrade those neighborhoods but still keep them affordable, that would be something really valuable as far as from the legislature.

Mayor, this is Jeff Lamson. I just, I agree with that wholeheartedly. You know, as we've been looking at this situation with the Hillcrest Park and reinvesting in some of our older neighborhoods, that feels so much better to me to be able to provide opportunities for young families to get into those starter homes. Obviously, for the investment opportunity for them as a young family, but secondly, the way that the upkeep of the neighborhood and the individual properties You know, as you, as you drive around, you can tell in those older neighborhoods which houses are owned and which houses are rented. In a lot of cases, that's a, that's a big blanket statement, but I think it's pretty telling that, you know, sometimes those rental homes aren't taken care of the same way that somebody that is investing everything that they have into that home to make it their home And I just said, I think it really has a lot to do with the beautification of our city. And, you know, the beautification of the neighborhoods. So I think that's a— if there's a way that we could do that, I think that would be, you know, would yield benefits far into the future.

Okay, no, that's Yeah, that's a great suggestion. Um, as far as— because I think we're gonna need to move on to some other categories, but as far as, uh, the general message, because we just all went through a major election, but our— one of our messages to the legislature would be anything you can do to help us revitalize neighborhoods, you know, that sort of thing, um, is great. But we, we really don't want any basically overreach from the state which forces us to build high-density rental apartments more than what we see necessary. So that would be, you know, the general feeling that we got from our citizens. Does anybody got anything else before we move on?

This is Councilman Larray. I have one question. Sometimes in resort towns like Park City, there's kind of an inclusionary zoning for projects. What I mean is like a 10 or 20% of a project has to be set aside for affordable housing. I'm wondering if there's any sort of tendency on the state to do that, or is that something you would let us locally do the inclusionary zoning as we see fit based on, you know, need? I guess my question is Is that something that you guys are thinking about at all or not?

Yes, I mean, I can jump in quickly. That's something we've been looking at, and it's actually happening in some parts of our state. If that's something that Orem City wants to look at, I would work with the League of Cities and Towns and the legislature because that is happening in the state.

But that is optional, right?

It's been an optional program with certain developers. We had, I believe it was Ivory Homes in our political subdivisions committee came and talked about some of the programs they were working on. It may not have been Ivory, it was one of them. There's, there's a couple companies doing it for sure.

Okay, thank you, Mike. Anyone else, any, any thoughts on this before we move on? Okay. Jamie, where you sent this to me, would you like to introduce that next topic? And I don't know if we'll have time to go through all of these, so maybe we'll pick the ones that—

Sure.

Are the most important.

Thank you, Mayor. And this is maybe an appendage to what we've been discussing relative to housing. There has been a lot of talk about economic development and economic development incentives. And I know even Governor Cox has been focused on kind of retooling the Governor's Office of Economic Development, GOEO, and, and kind of trying to align economic development incentives with state and local priorities. And part of that discussion has centered on the, you know, the potential elimination of local governments using tax incentive dollars to help a particular retailer or to help a particular project. And while I think the concern that, for example, has been— we have discussed is some of those tools, I completely understand that As cities, we should not be zoning for dollars, so to speak, and using those dollars to attract and cannibalize retail outlets from other jurisdictions, from other municipalities. But in cases like Orem, where we have, for example, infrastructure that is aging and we're focused more on redevelopment than economic development, not greenfield development, but trying to essentially reinvent ourselves, sometimes those incentives and sometimes that framework can be the difference between us being able to do something or not being able to do something. And I'll just use the example of, for example, what has happened at University Place, which is really at the heart of the city of Orem and is recognized by many as kind of the city center. We had a developer who came in and worked with us and invested over $500 million into that, into that development, and it did receive city support. And that city support was centered mainly on things like infrastructure, utility lines, road infrastructure, and the like that really served to change that area and to revitalize it and to make it something significant today, because admittedly, 10 years ago, it was on the decline. And so I guess one of the concerns that we have too is if we, if we eliminate all incentives and we apply a one-size-fits-all solution, Then there are some who probably don't need incentives, but there are other projects who could really benefit from incentives in terms of, for example, like Councilmember Pedersen was talking about, attracting good jobs, shoring up infrastructure, strengthening neighborhoods. And, and I've even heard that some of this conversation has been to completely eliminate the use of sales tax dollars to help or support any organizations in the community that, I guess, that benefit from ongoing support of the city in terms of development and sustaining themselves as organizations. And we, for example, have an organization like the SIRA, which we spend a lot of time and effort with them, and we make it a point to try and help them succeed. And we actually use our Zoo, Arts, and Parks, or our ZAP, or we call it our CARE dollars, to support and sustain that project or that, that effort. So, you know, we're concerned about economic development incentives and the elimination of incentives because we see in limited circumstances the opportunity to really benefit the redevelopment and strengthening our communities by way of these incentives.

So does anyone have anything they'd like to respond to that with?

Can I— this is Debbie. Can I add, I used to be the economic development director in American Fork, and we always looked at job creation, but there was the project out at the Meadows that did have a 10-year sales tax. It was a CDA before CDAs were passed from the legislature, and it was actually a very good project. It was used for infrastructure, but it did have a sales tax component. I didn't love sales tax incentives because retail doesn't usually have high-paying jobs, and so that was for me a very important thing to look at the jobs that were created. But I do like the idea that Maybe there are some cases. And if I was reading the bill, a lot of it was tied to housing and whether they, you know, you could get exemption if you had a housing component. And I guess it's just one of those things where you never know exactly what you might have and there's unique things, but it's generally retail is not something you spend a lot of time and effort because of the low wages that are created. But like you said, there may be a redevelopment area, there may be a place that you, you want to, you know, revitalize. And that's important to have a component that you can use, even though it probably would be very limited use here in Orem. So that's my 2 cents.

Are there any thoughts from the legislature as far as anything that's going on with that? It sounds like the economic incentives are being decreased. And so this is more of a pitch for— would there be exceptions or things that you could do for Orem that would be specific to this area?

So, so, Mayor, I'm the chair in the Senate for Business and Economic Development. There's always discussion about those incentives. I mean, to me, it's kind of a race to the bottom when, when cities are competing against each other. It doesn't make a lot of sense. With that said, my colleagues can correct me. I'm not aware of a bill to look at that right now. We are certainly looking at what, what has worked with with Go Utah, Go Ed, and what has worked. And that evaluation is happening right now, happening through the session. I think there's some changes and some consolidation that'll happen. But as far as eliminating that ability entirely, I could be entirely wrong, but I'm not aware of a bill that would do that right now.

Okay, thank you. Any other thoughts? Okay, let's, let's keep going. Um, next thing on the item on the agenda is the taxation, the sales tax formula adjustment. Uh, if I understand it right, there's essentially a split between where we receive 50%, uh, of the sales tax and based on our— well, maybe why don't you explain it, Jamie?

Based on population, the other 50% based on point of sale. And there has been some discussion in years past about modifying that formula. When I talked with Senator Bramble yesterday, he suggested that that was not a focus or a priority in the Senate. But obviously, there's 2 houses, and we're always concerned because a shift in that, moving it to more of a population-based type formula, could have devastating impacts on the city of Orem.

Any thoughts from the legislature on that? If that's—

Maybe I could just comment on that real quickly. We recognize that there's reliance and certainty in things, and that would be a very disruptive process to go through. And I'm not aware of anything or any discussion like Senator Bramble in the Senate, the House. However, there's a lot of bills that are yet still protected and we're not aware of, so they can always come up. But as a matter of principle, certainly, if that was even considered, which I doubt would be there, there would have to be mitigating efforts to hold it— do a hold harmless. to allow proper adjustment. But to Jamie's point, that would be— that would be really devastating, and I don't see that as a viable— a real viable option getting traction.

That's good to hear because that would— I mean, from my perspective, that would be like pulling the rug out of all the economic development plans that you've implemented over the last 20 years.

Right.

Mayor, let me try to weigh in here for just a minute because, uh, when I was first elected— and again, going back 21 years, okay— we had, we'd had a sales tax formula that was 75/25 and we flipped it to 50/50, but we put a hold harmless in. 23 years later, there was about a dozen cities that could selectively do 75/25 or 50/50, whichever gave them a higher revenue, and a hold harmless was intended to be a, a glide slope, a soft landing, so that cities could adjust. Well, 23 years was— Both as a senator and as a CPA— was absurd. And so we ran legislation successfully getting rid of that, that hold harmless, and telling cities, look, you've had plenty of time to adjust. Having done that, and then a couple years ago we ran a resolution encouraging the League of Cities and Towns to do an ongoing data analysis and a study of the sales tax allocation formula. The reason for that resolution at the time, we were getting some pressure from certain quarters about changing the allocation, but every time you do, you've got winners and losers, and the winners are always the ones that are advocating to make the change. Sometimes the losers, it's unintended consequences, or they're— they haven't analyzed it. So we wanted the league to be at the forefront of any discussion among its members on whether there should be a change in the allocation formula. I don't think that's something that the legislature is going to have the appetite to weigh in on at all. I agree with Kevin completely. But the idea that if we do make a change, we're going to do some type of a hold harmless We got ourselves in a pretty deep rut once from doing that.

Okay, I think I agree with Senator Bramble. That's exactly right.

Alrighty, thanks. Any other thoughts on that?

No, I think that's exactly right.

Okay. All right, um, are we doing okay on time here? We've got 3 more items on our, on our agenda. Um, and this is kind of broad, but it's just about growth. Growth seems to be the number one issue facing cities and towns across Utah State. Apart from aging housing or from housing concerns, traffic, infrastructure, the cost of land, materials, and labor are making it difficult to keep up with services delivery demands. In recommending new laws, consideration should be given to the cost of such measures at both the local and state level. So that's just more of an input on growth. Any thoughts on that?

Can I— let me jump in with one last issue, then I actually need to run. Growth in general, water in general. So I've been working with a A group of House members, a group of senators dealing with ARPA money, and our task was to deal with water and ARPA money. And we've— what we're trying to do right now, and so I'm lobbying you, Senator Bramble, Representative Stratton, and Representative Judkins, you're going to see a proposal. Mike Schultz will have the proposal allocating some of the ARPA money. $25 million would actually come to Utah County to help improve water quality on the lake, and what that means for Orem City is you've got your water reuse conservation project, $9.3 million project that you've got in front of you right now. We would take a portion of that $25 million and allocate, you know, hopefully the numbers I have that I'm suggesting is $1.5 million to Orem to help that growth. We do have a water quality issue with growth. So, put that just out there that that's something that the legislature is working on. There's projects in Provo, Payson, Timpanogos Special Service District, Salem, and Springville. So that is there, and that's something that we're trying to get in that ARPA budget.

Senator McKell, is that $1.5 million, is that preparatory for the infrastructure challenges of the island that's gonna be built just offshore?

Nope, entirely different. So every community has a different type Project to treat the water before it hits the lake. So Orem City, my understanding, talking to DEQ, and Jamie, you can weigh in, is you've got a wastewater treatment project that you're looking at. Water reuse conservation project is what the DEQ has titled that. You've got $9.4 million local contribution, $7 million remaining funds needed. You need $2.3 million, and legislature's looking at $1.5 million.

Yeah, part of it—

hey, Mike, that was a joke about your— I know. Giving us the island in Utah Lake. You're an attorney, so you missed the humor there. I think the mayor probably got it, though.

He probably got it.

Yeah, Senator McHale, you are right. We do have a project underway with our wastewater treatment plant to take effluent water from the treatment plant to use it for parks and open space, golf course, In and around the treatment plant.

Gotcha. Well, hopefully we're able to get that funding done. So Senator Bramble, look, look for it. And, and Representative Peterson, Representative Judkins, if any help you can get, that, that bill will come through Mike Schultz on the House side. That's where it'll start. And a lot of money for metering. I think metering will make a big difference. It's made a big difference in the communities that have it. You'll see a significant investment in that bill for metering, but direct allocation to OREM as well.

Yeah, metering is definitely something we'll discuss a lot, especially on the gray water, to meter all the gray water. That has shown just by having a meter that has reduced water consumption by 30%.

Yeah, metering is part of that project as well.

Yes. Yeah, the meter amount could be, could be as, I mean, several hundred million dollars in the end.

Thank you.

I'm gonna jump off. I appreciate you guys. You got good representatives and senators from Orem. They do a great job, so thank you.

Okay, thank you, Mike. Let's move on. to public safety. Jamie, if you would address that.

Sure. As you— a number of you obviously were around in 2011 when the state made modifications to the Utah State Retirement System and created a Tier 2 system for retirees. There are— there is a bill that is pending this next year from Senator Gwynn— or excuse me, Representative Gwynn that would make adjustments to the Tier 2 retirement system and essentially change the public safety retirement system back from being now a 25-year system to a 20-year system with an increase in benefits. The city is not in opposition to putting more dollars in the pockets of our public safety officers. The challenge that we're facing now relates to recruitment and retention and where we take the limited monies that we have and where do we put them. Do we put them in wages or do we put them in retirement benefits? When we're trying to recruit, for example, a 23-year-old police officer, the argument that 20 years, 25 years down the road, they're going to have a very nice retirement as compared to putting more money in your wage today so that you can put bread on the table and gas in the tank is a far more compelling discussion with the next generation of law enforcement and firefighter personnel. And so one of our concerns is, and I know it's the concern with the Highway Patrol as well, is if we are going to solve this recruitment and retention issue with law enforcement personnel, for example, then we need to have a conversation about where our money is best spent. Is it best spent in the wages of our public safety personnel, or is it better spent in the retirement benefits? The, the bill that is being proposed has a $42 billion fiscal— or million dollar, not billion, excuse me— $42 million fiscal note attached to it. And in Orem, that, that share of that $42 million would amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars. And that's money that, you know, could be spent in retirement, or it could be dedicated to wages for employees in our police and fire departments today. So I think, Mayor, that's, that's one of the cons— that's one of the concerns that we have as related to law enforcement. firefighters. The other concern relates to mental health, and the city is very supportive of whatever measures the legislature takes in the future to encourage improving and efforts to improve the mental health of our first responders. And whether it be requiring additional hours of training, whether it be additional conversations or training at post, or whatnot. Obviously that can be in conversation with the Utah Chiefs of Police Association and other organizations. But we, we're actively making changes to our mental health program for our police and fire. And we hope and would encourage other jurisdictions to do the same and would endorse the state even making that part of their agenda in the future. Thank you.

Yeah, any, any thoughts on that? The— I mean, my takeaway from that is just that, that when you're hiring new officers, they can be incentivized by immediate cash in their paycheck, or they can be incentivized by a retirement plan. And from what all the conversations I've heard, they're much more incentivized by immediate cash in their paycheck. And so a bill like that could could have unintended consequences?

Mayor, I would not hold my breath on that bill. We had a robust discussion about it today up at the Capitol. And what's being ignored here is the situation that we were faced with in 2011 was not just abusive double dipping, but we're also faced with a retirement system that had been fully funded before the economic downturn, When the economic downturn hit, uh, nationwide, a defined benefit plan is, is economically viable if it's funded at 75% of the actuarial present value of future benefits. We were at 107% when the downturn hit. We dropped down to about 80% at the lowest point, and we weren't comfortable with that. So there were multiple reasons why we changed the retirement system. the abuse of it, the gaming of it, because when you have individuals that, that don't follow a normal retirement trajectory, that changes the actuarial values in ways that's not positive to the system. That was part of the problem. And then you had the economic downturn. So I don't see that there's going to be, at least from the Senate side, I would be very surprised if there's going to be a, a rush to endorse that. The bill from Representative Gwynn. I understand his intent, but I agree with Jamie and I agree with your concerns about the— a young officer is going to be worried about how does he support his family, how does he get into that affordable house, how does he— how does he pay for, for his kids' clothes or start worrying about his kids' future college education, whatever. That's going to be much more current than worrying about what he would do at retirement. when he turns 45 or 65 or whatever. And I think we're aware of that. So I— while I think there's going to be a robust discussion about it, ultimately I'd be surprised if we see much final action in that regard.

Okay, I think I would agree with Senator Bramble, Curt, on his analysis. Jamie, I think you've formed the arguments very well, and that's— that'll be what the debate's surrounding. Obviously we want to to be very supportive of our public, public safety and all that they're doing. How we get there is, is an ongoing challenge. I just commend you and the city for the good, good work you've done in that area.

Yeah, I agree. I think that the legislature will be really cautious about any changes to retirement system.

Okay, thank you. We've got one more thing on here, and then there's just something I wanted to throw out real quick, but on this transportation, Jamie, do you wanna go through that?

Can I just jump in super quick? I'm on the Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Committee, and we've heard a lot about mental health for first responders, and there was a grant program set up for agencies to, provide more mental health for first responders. And I know there's another bill coming up in this next session that is also going to address it. So you aren't alone in that concern.

Fantastic. Fantastic. Thank you. And this is— this last item, Mayor, thank you, is not really an item of concern, more just an expression of appreciation for your ongoing support of transportation. Needs in the City of Orem. Last year, you and your peers were very generous in allocating millions of dollars to 2 specific projects in the City of Orem. One is 1600 North from about 1200 West to State Street, a consideration of future expansion and the means to build that expansion or that expanded corridor, as well as improvements from along Geneva Road from University Parkway to about 1800 South in the community. Those are much appreciated and needed improvements. And we just wanted you to know that we are proceeding forward with UDOT Region 3 in the environmental process for 1600 North, as well as making plans for improvements along the Geneva Road corridor. We understand that transportation is always a concern. remains a concern for Orem. Some of the areas that we are concerned about prospectively include the University Parkway interchange and doing what we can prospectively to improve access in and around Utah Valley University. In fact, Representative Peterson and I have a long-standing discussion about a direct access point from I-15 onto the UVU campus. to alleviate congestion at the interchange and at Sand Hill Road here in the city. Some of the other projects we're kind of focused on— Center Street here in Orem continues to be a much-traveled roadway. It actually cuts across— it's a local road, it cuts across 4 state highways. So it's a local road, but it serves a regional and a state purpose. And that's an issue that prospectively we're going to obviously need to tackle, and my hope is that we can have the help of UDOT and the state legislature in the future, at some undetermined time in the future, to tackle. And also we have an aging structure at the mouth of Provo Canyon that at some point in the future that crosses Provo River is going to need the attention of UDOT and the City of Orem to make sure that there is obviously a sustainable structure across the Provo River connecting to 189 and Provo Canyon. So those are some of the kind of the projects that lie ahead as it relates to transportation within the city, but really first and foremost just want to express our thanks for literally the tens of millions of dollars that UDOT and the state legislature allocated to 1600 North and Geneva Road. Very, very much appreciated. Appreciate the leadership of our local delegation in getting that money for, you know, much, much needed projects. So thank you.

Jamie, just let me say that I think the delegation has worked has been really unified in making sure that we look at those priorities, and that I think I can speak for all of us that we're all very supportive of making sure that those projects can move forward in the future.

Thank you.

Thank you, we appreciate that. That is a— in this last election, behind high-density housing, traffic was a huge issue. And, and so We'll be back to you as our reps to help us and guide us and help us fund some of these different things that need to happen in Orem with the highways. It's a big priority here. One last thing, unless anybody else has got anything.

Yeah, before you jump, Jamie, where are all those projects with MAG? I mean, are those going through the technical committee? Where are you at in putting those through the process? Because that becomes key for us to be able to help move those projects forward, that they're being supported by Mountainland Association governments.

They are in process. The Center Street conversation is not, because we're going to make some improvements first for expansion of the roadway between I-15 and Geneva Road. And that project is— we're working closely with MAG there, and that was an issue more with the relocation of the Union Pacific Railroad line that cuts across Center Street just east of Geneva Road. So that will be the first piece that we work on. The other 2 projects are conversations that we are having and are on the local agenda. TIP, Transportation Improvement Plan. Okay, thank you.

So Dave, I have a question that's off topic.

Yes.

Okay, so, you know, we have the Alpine School District in, in Utah County, the biggest, you know, 800-pound gorilla, I guess, in the county. But, you know, they're closing our schools. And Terry mentioned Hillcrest. We as a city bought Hillcrest and made that into a park. But my question is, with the, with the bonding that they do, we've already paid for our schools how many times over? And I don't know, I'm just asking a question. Why would we have to buy that school back when the taxpayers or the citizens have already paid for it? So I'm trying to understand that, and if there's a law or something, I'm not sure.

I think what you'll want to consider is possibly, uh, the, the split up of Alpine, if that's your concern. Um, and that, that we've seen that with Canyon, uh, Canyon School District, uh, um, etc. I think I— your concerns are, are well known. Let me put it that way.

Yeah, well, I mean, my concern was just, we, I mean, we had to come up with 5-point-whatever million to buy Hillcrest Elementary. And my point is, the citizens of the taxpayers have already paid that bond amount for Orem for that property in that school. So why we—

why do we have to give Alpine School District another $6 million and they're going to put it over out west when we— it should be our schools, it should be our land, not Alpine School District.

So I'm just a little concerned on how that works because our taxpayers— Orem's been around a lot longer than Lehigh and Saratoga Springs. We paid for our schools how many times over because they weren't around, and now we have to pay Alpine School District to buy our property that we've already paid.

So to me, I'm just— it's a question. I don't know how it works and why we have to pay for it.

Well, because they're 2 separate entities. The city— I mean, you know this, but the city, the city does their own tax, and those taxes go specifically to the city. The school board and the school district do their own tax, goes specifically to those. It's just like if the school board wanted to buy a city building, they'd have to pay you for it too, or buy city land, they'd have to still pay you for it. Because they're the 2 separate entities that have to do their budgeting and everything completely separate. So the taxpayers do end up paying for all of it, right? But they're paying 2 completely separate entities that have their own budgets and their own What laws that govern how they can utilize the different funding and money. I don't know if that probably doesn't help, but—

No, I still think that's bogus, but that's fine.

Yeah.

I just think we've— I mean, Orange Mound's been around a lot longer and they're selling property here and using it for over Saratoga Springs, and they haven't even been around for a few years, right? So I just don't think it's fair, but Maybe it is the, you know, as Senator Bramwell said, you know, maybe it's a split. You know, we say, you know what, we're done with Alpine School District, let's have our own schools because they're closing our schools like crazy and it's like, it's unbelievable. And I feel we don't have representation on our, on the school board either because they're pushing everything north and west. So, okay, just my question. Thank you.

So, Mayor, can I say one last thing also, just kind of float an idea out there too. I guess it's almost another question, or maybe an idea for the police and finding ways to increase their salaries and their wages. I'd like to be able to understand or see if there's a way to— I know we have the property, the primary residential exemption for property taxes for, you know, my primary residence, I get a 45% exemption. on that. And it's kind of interesting to me. I'm kind of wondering why, when a developer owns a 100-unit apartment complex, that developer gets to take that 45% exemption on every single apartment in that complex. So it doesn't seem— I know you're saying, well, it filters down to the people in the apartments, but I want— I'm wondering if there's a way in the future that we could possibly reduce that exemption to help find ways to fund our police a little more. And, um, as though a lot of times those apartments really do demand a lot of our services, is what I've—

So here, here's what you're going to face with that, and I appreciate the thought. Number one, you've got a constitutional provision that you're going to buck up against because it's in the Constitution. That primary residential property gets that exemption. Number 2, because of the certified tax rate, as soon as you do that, you're going to be telling all of those lower-income folks that are renting that they're going to be paying higher rent. The landowner, the property owners are going to be passing that increase on to their tenants, and whether they do or not, the public relations is going to be, and the perception that they are, and that's going to be an excuse. So I, from someone who's kind of been around the block on that a couple times, I think you're touching a third rail to mess with property taxes in that, in that sense.

Well, I've been told that, that when I brought that up, but honestly, I think it's something that needs to be looked at.

Okay, so let's look at it. I'm sorry, 72% of all property taxes go to public education, so you can be alienating the public education community as well as the rental community. I, again, I appreciate the creativity of it, but I think from a political point of view, it's going to be extremely difficult.

Well, I understand, but it seems to me like we're giving the tax break To the big corporations that are owning these high-density housing units, which is what are things that we're transitioning to.

So—

You're missing my— you're missing my point. You need to change the consti— you're missing the point. You need to change the Constitution if you want— if you want to pursue that. Okay, let's do that, because they're tearing down our homes to put in high-density housing units.

We're losing that property tax.

Okay. And they're actually, they're actually harder opportunity for homeownership if we keep moving to apartments.

So I guess I'm thinking maybe the market— appreciate the passion. Good luck.

This is, this is Councilman.

You're saying I need to lobby you guys to change the Constitution then? Is that No, I'm saying, I'm saying good luck. I do have a question. It's not just the Constitution. The fact is that the majority of those tax dollars right now are earmarked for public education. So you're going to be taking the money out of public education as well.

This is Councilman Larray. I do have a question. I know that we have to have truth in taxation. hearings anytime we raise the, you know, the city's portion. My question though is, because of inflation, and especially this last year inflation has been high, it would be nice to tie the amount that we have to inflation, a LIBOR index or some sort of thing, that we wouldn't have to have a yearly truth in taxation for just that, because I think our buying power goes goes way down year after year. And so my question is, would there ever be something where we wouldn't have to hold a truth indexation if it was just tied to inflation? And that's just my question. I'm, I'm throwing that out. I've mentioned that to Senator Ann Dredge before. So what's your response on that?

Well, maybe, maybe I could weigh in for a minute. I guess you have to back up and look at the purpose of the Truth in Taxation. And all of us have to stand accountable to those that— as part of our stewardship and how we're using the funds and justify those funds that we made. And if the policy behind the Truth in Taxation was to meet that need, certainly It's painful for all of us, recognize that. And that's a good pain that we feel to be able to justify it and make our case to the public. I think to the prior issue, you know, looking at a change in the taxation, probably want to look at the do a fiscal analysis on that to begin with. You can— we can always propose a constitutional amendment to the people. That's— that my legislative role in that is to present it, and those constitutional amendments are presented, and if you have 2/3 vote in each of the House, the Senate, then you have— it's put to the people on the ballot. So that's certainly a viable process. process and want to pursue that. I think the starting place would be looking at the fiscal impact of that. So just a couple of points on those 2 issues.

Okay, thank you. Any, any other thoughts on that? One other comment, Mayor. I know this is getting long. This is Terry Peterson. Just with what Kurt was just saying about, you know, the issue about what David Spencer brought up about the school district.

Hopefully we would have support from our local officials if there was a feasibility study done to see what's the best for the education of our children.

You know, Alpine School District—

and I used to be on the school board—

but they represent 14 schools.

And our concern is we've had 3— we've had a high school and 2 elementary schools closed in Orem. with more plans for more closing of more schools to help, like, say, fund the needs in other parts.

So I would hope, uh, as this goes forward, that, that we would have that support from our local representatives, just not, not to say what we'd do, but to support the feasibility study to find out what's, what's feasible for us and maybe other, other several adjoining cities. It might make sense if they would unite with us and see, would this be a better education for our children if it's not one of the biggest districts in the country? Gary, to your point, I'll just say that that's something I think you'll generally see a receptiveness to the— from the legislature. I don't want to speak for everyone, but to consider and look to see if there's better options and look and go through the analysis. I think that the concern is to make sure it's biased— not biased, that there's independence to it and there's checks and balances. in that to make sure that we have good information. There's nothing like good accurate information to lead to good public policy. So, you know, thank you. Certainly, I, I think that's, that's very viable, and it's helpful from your perspective to speak from that, given your, your place on history and your service there at Alpine School District. Thanks.

I agree. Oh, sorry, Terry.

I would agree with Representative Stratton. I think having a feasibility study would be the starting point. I think that there are some growing concerns that Orem has, and I think they're legitimate. So I think you'd find general— again, I agree with Kevin— I think you'd find general support for that approach.

Great, thank you.

Yeah, and I was just going to say that there's some real specific— because of the issues that happened when Canyons and Jordan split, there's some real specific steps to take, and I think that you're on the right track of what you're saying. I mean, you can look up in the statute of what it takes to split a school district.

So, thanks, Marcia. Yeah, thank you.

I'd also just really note that the Canyons, uh, you know, that, that district splitting, there's a lot of lessons to be learned from that. You know, some of the questions you need to ask are, do they— do each of them feel better represented with these 2 districts, or Are they in better fiscal health? You know, so there are a lot of things that I think would give a good pro and con analysis by going through the study and certainly learning the lessons of others. So, let's do it. Let's do it.

Yeah, thank you on all that. I think we as a council have a very— a real interest in pursuing that and seeing what that looks like because there are are some problems right now. As far as— I just have a question for you, Kevin, really quickly, and I don't want to go too deep on it, but I know you're involved with it, so I was curious. But as far as this legislation that's allowing some sort of build-out, construction, redevelopment of Utah Lake, just where we're right next to Utah Lake, can you just give us a brief summary on what that is and What's going on with that?

Sure, thanks, thanks for the question. 2018, the legislature passed a bill, House Bill 272. It's a good bill, lays out a pathway if thresholds are met to look at the potential of a transition to benefit the lake, the state, and the environment. It's a really high standard that's been set. There's been some discussion potentially on that bill, and I've said I'll look at it, see if we can make a good bill better. And there's some things that I think we can do there to put concerns that may be associated with process to rest. There is obviously a group that's looking at making a proposal to dredge and put islands there. There's, there's, uh, 200 scientists that have signed a letter raising some points, the concerns, I think. And I think right now we're in danger of going to our corners and fighting. And so I've— just so happens that I represent the majority of those that are on the expressing the concerns. So there representative, I said, let's have a public meeting. We'll be meeting next Tuesday, information-based, trying to recognize that there's processes in place, explain the process, explain the benefits that have been taking place. One of my legislative priorities has been to work and help Utah Lake. My grandfather, when he served as the chair of the the local Chamber of Commerce there, you know, back in the late '50s, early '60s, their goal is let's fix Utah Lake and let's make it viable. And as we look at the reality is, as we look at that tremendous asset, we need to do all we can to make it its best version. And the legislature's committed to doing that, and they've done a great job. So, the intent is let's let's make sure that we allow the process to work. There's checks and balances there in place. There's great questions being asked by the science side of it. And I think if we allow it to work and work together versus in a polarized mudsling, we're gonna be a lot better off. So that's my intent of wading into that. So we'll see how it works.

Okay, I appreciate that summary. He'll just keep us posted if there's anything we didn't know on the Orem side, because it's a— we're, we're right here.

Yeah, we recognize that, you know, there's a lot of the communities that have lakeside property in all jurisdictions, so it's a very complex issue. I think Brady Brammer's tried to put together a good way to move forward. So there's lots of moving parts, but we'll get there, you know. If, if we communicate, we work together, we'll come up— we'll be able to have the best version emerge. But, uh, that, that's the intent. So, okay, a lot, lots, lots of political— it's a political hot potato and lots of, lots of passion. So we'll see if we can help soothe and, and help the process.

Okay, well, I appreciate that. Is there anything anybody else would like to bring up before we adjourn?

This is Councilmember Laurie. I just want to say thank you, of course, to our legislators, and I'm not sure what this legislation— well, the themes of this legislative session will be, but I wanted to just know if there's things that we can do as a city to help you do your job, or just Because we're asking you to help us, but also I think we can also help you. Please let us know if that's lobbying our constituents or whatever it makes— I just want to say thank you and let you know that we're here. This is a two-way street and we appreciate the dialogue, and, and I personally will lobby neighbors or whatever I need to do to help you if there's specific things that you want to help with in this next session. So that's all I wanted to say. This is Thank you.

I really appreciate that. Maybe if I could just quickly comment, uh, what's very, very helpful— it is, it is a fast-paced 45 days, and every legislative session takes on its own personality. And frankly, I couldn't forecast what that's going to be this go-around. You know, there's some key issues. This has been very helpful to understand your priorities and input, but please let's make sure We each have everybody's cell number, and texting is very helpful for me, and I think that's helpful for most of my colleagues. Any input, we'd love, love, love to have. So there is such— we have such a challenge. There is so much information, but how do you sift through the accuracy of it? And the best way to do that is to talk, talk, communicate effectively. Thank you. together. So that's, that's my offer, what I would offer to that. Thank you, Councilmember.

And I would just add, a lot of times we don't know what's coming up. Like, I don't know what's going on on the Senate side a lot of times, or what went through another committee. And so if there's, um, if there's legislative, you know, bills that, that you flag as something you want us to support, or you have reasons why we shouldn't, reach out, because We might not see it until the day before it comes up, and then we don't know all the ramifications necessarily. So I would appreciate that.

Yeah, and I'll repeat that. I'll agree with that. Feel free to reach out to me anytime— email, cell phone, texting— and let me know if you see something coming up that you have concerns about. I'd be very interested in knowing your opinions on those bills.

Let me weigh in on this one as well. Councilwoman, I appreciate the, the offer to assist. When we go into session, we're one of the shortest sessions in the nation. We have 33 legislative days, 45 calendar days, because we don't count President's Day, and we don't convene on Saturday and Sunday. So the entire work of the legislature from a balanced budget to roughly some 530, 540 bills that will pass, some 700 or 800 bills that will be drafted and considered. That all occurs in 33 days. So we need all the eyes and ears and input that we can get. So I think it'd really be helpful, Jamie, if you could get together all the cell phone numbers of the members of the council and compile our cell phone numbers for everyone. I think that would really be helpful because if there's issues, sometimes time is of the essence and being able to pick up the phone, a cell phone, hit a text or whatever is going to be critical. So, and by the way, thank you all for putting this together. I think this has been very, very helpful.

Well, thank you. Anybody else got any last words? Any last thoughts?

I just— I would also like to say thank you, and let's do it again.

I think this is very helpful to be able to communicate like this and to, to, you know, have these meetings. And maybe it doesn't have to be a long one like this, but I think it's helpful on occasion to be able to get together, to be able to talk like this, and to be able to see where we're moving forward. So thank you for your time.

Thank you, Jeff. Alrighty, um, well, I think we've covered everything. And, uh, like it's already been said, uh, we as a mayor and city council really do appreciate our representatives and the work that you do to, uh, to run the state and, uh, and make good laws and help our community. So we really do appreciate that. And, uh, as Debbie said, feel free to feel Feel free to reach out to us if we can help in any way, and we'll keep moving. So with that, I'll make a motion to adjourn.

So moved.

Okay, well, thank you, everybody.

I'll second. Thanks, everybody. Appreciate your time.

Thank you. Do we need a vote? Do we need a vote on J&A?

We have a mover and a seconder.

Yes, we need a motion, a second, and then we'll need to do roll call because everybody's electronically participating.

I think we've lost some, but I'll make the motion and the second, didn't we?

Dave, I think you seconded it. So yes, just roll call, Mayor.

I just— each council member.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Yeah, I think we're good. And you've got— Thank you. Okay, alrighty, with that, we'll adjourn. Thank you.