City Council · 2025-04-08

Key elements like demand, level of service, and future facilities. And the impact fee analysis brings all that together under the proportion share analysis and calculates the fee itself. All of this needs to comply with statute found in Utah Code 11-36A. The process that we need to go through is identified here. We start the impact fee process with a notice of intent. We then go through the analysis and certification. We review that information with staff and modify the analysis based on input as needed. There's discussions, potential discussions with stakeholders and outreach that can happen. We then typically have a work session like we're having now. That's not required by statute, but typically that's beneficial to have that work session to review the outcomes and discuss strategies moving forward. Then we prepare for the adoption phase, which includes public hearing and specific noticing. We have to fulfill specific noticing requirements. Once that's completed, then the noticing is completed, then we can hold the public hearing, at which time you have the option to adopt, modify, or reject the impact fees. You are not required to assess impact fees, so you can choose to eliminate impact fees altogether. You can modify them below the maximum calculated fee. What we're showing, the intent of the impact fee is to show the maximum justified fee, and you can adopt anything lower than that. And we also need to understand with those decisions come consequences, meaning the impact fees are intended to maintain a certain level of service, your level of service. If you choose not to adopt impact fees or to reduce those impact fees, then that level of service either needs to change or you need to mitigate that through some other funding mechanism because the cost doesn't go away, meaning that infrastructure necessary for your system remains. We need to just find maybe an alternative mechanism, which is some of the discussion we had in the previous work session that I attended with you, which is rates and other revenue sources to help ensure that we can fund all of the infrastructure in your master plan and capital facility plan. Following the public hearing, or at the public hearing, again, you take action to modify, adopt, modify, reject. And then the legislation requires that for any change to the impact fee, there's a 90-day waiting period. The statute actually refers to a change to the fee. So you could view that as if you change it at all, positive or negative. The reality is typically that 90-day wait period is implemented for an increase to the fee. If we show a decrease to the fee, then that would be effective immediately because we're essentially providing the evidence for an alternative fee. And so most entities will adopt that effective immediately. Any increase, there's that 90-day wait period before it is effective. Alrighty, so when we're going through this process, really, I boil it down to these 6 steps for all fees that— all impact fees that we look at. Now, how we apply them will be different. The data that we collect and the methodology that is utilized to calculate the fee will be unique to the service that we evaluate. But all impact fees are governed by these 6 steps. We have to look at demand. We have to look at your existing facilities and inventory those assets. We have to establish an existing and future or proposed level of service and ensure that those 2 line up. Or if they don't line up, we have to illustrate why and the funding mechanisms to mitigate that gap. We then have to identify both existing and future facilities necessary to serve growth. So you may have buy-in, what's called buy-in to your system, where you've built capacity in your system and new development can pay for that. Where that's not sufficient, then you look to the new facilities and bring in those costs to ensure that we're maintaining the level of service. Then we move to step 5, which is consideration of all revenue resources to finance or fund those improvements, both past and present and future. So how have we built that infrastructure? Is the debt outstanding? How are we planning to build infrastructure? Is there alternative funding sources like state dollars coming in to offset some of that cost, which would remove some of that from the equation. But looking all of that— looking at all of that funding level and where it needs to be applied in the calculation. And then that leads to the 6th step, which is the proportionate share analysis and the calculation fee itself. Proportionality is really just division. We're essentially saying Here's all those variables. Here are all the variables associated with the impact fee, and let's ensure that it's divided appropriately. All those costs are divided between existing and future development appropriately to ensure that there's equity within the system. And that really is the basis for an impact fee. The essence of the statute is to ensure that there's an equitable allocation of fee calculation when determining these variables. As Chris indicated, we are looking at a fairly comprehensive list. We're looking at parks and recreation, public safety, transportation, culinary, wastewater, and stormwater. This process took a little bit of time. We— the city was engaged in some master planning and capital facility planning efforts on your water-related infrastructure, and that That can take some time to get all of the information associated with those complex models, the travel demand models, your water system modeling, and all of that. And then to make sure that with that substantial amount of infrastructure that there's buy-in to that list, ensuring that there's commitments and the ability to fund that infrastructure and make it work. So all of that effort was part of this, this process. And so that, that's one of the reasons why the impact fee process took a little bit longer, is to ensure that we had all of that information considered from the master planning efforts and making sure that it was vetted and reviewed by you and the other boards associated with that process. So looking at some of the specifics, this is obviously a summary. There's going to be an impact fee facilities plan and impact fee document that will be presented for the public to review, for you to review and provide comment. Staff is reviewing that as well. And again, there may be recommendations in that process that may cause some of these numbers to to fluctuate. But this gives you an idea of where we're headed relative to impact fees. We're looking at a citywide service area and the Southwest annexation area, which you considered in your previous study, which was completed in 2018. The demand variable that we look at for, for each of the services is specific to that service. So for parks and recreation, we're looking at population and your existing inventory, what What land and amenities are there? For storm, we're looking at the acreage and runoff of the system. For water and wastewater, we're looking at equivalent residential units as a standard of demand. For public safety, we look at calls for service and the application of those calls for service to the different land uses within the city. And for transportation, we look at an estimate of trips on the road system and making projections of future trips. Levels of service are defined again for each service. For your water-based services, that's typically water usage within the system expressed as actual water consumption or waste production, storage, impacts on the distribution system, looking at trips per land use type and the grading of your road system. We also look at the officers and square footage of public safety space per call to ensure that we replicate and maintain that level of service. And then looking at parks acreage per capita, and evaluating what you currently provide to your residents relative to that service. Again, for each of the impact fee areas, we look at the specific demand, the services provided, and calculate the level of service for that impact fee service that we're evaluating. We also— we did look at the buy-in component and ensuring that we included the appropriate buy-in calculation for for infrastructure that's been oversized to handle additional capacity, or in the case of a system where there's a backbone infrastructure that benefits both existing and future residents, like a transportation network, we evaluate that on a holistic approach saying, okay, that's going to benefit everybody, and then we have some infrastructure that's specific. But we did contemplate buy-in for transportation, water, wastewater, and stormwater, and evaluated those also as part of the master plan. So the water, wastewater, and stormwater, there was a specific evaluation using the water-related models and the master planning effort. The primary driver really of the impact fees, however, is new capital investment. So this slide shows the projected capital investment for each of the services that we're looking at. For Parks and Recreation, $25.6 million of future investment based on population growth and the current level of service. For police, we're looking at renovation and utilization of existing building space. So making sure that we're maximizing the space that's available now and using that to handle the impacts from growth. On the fire side, we are looking at new building square footage as well as training facility. The training facility is assumed to be allocated to all development, so only a small portion of that is included in the impact fee equation because that's a An element that will benefit existing and future development equally. For transportation, the primary driver of this is signalization improvements and infrastructure. There's some minor roadway capacity improvements, but this is primarily intersection capacity and providing additional capacity for growth on that front. And then water, wastewater, and stormwater. Again, these were driven by the master plans. There's substantial investment here on the water side, $30 million plus, and they— as it relates to growth-related infrastructure. Now, as we talked about on the rate side, there's a lot more infrastructure that needs to be funded. This is just isolating the growth-related portions that we're including in the IFFP and then allocating to the proportionate share evaluation. So, um, for example, you know, the wastewater side, we're showing that $14.6 million and $7.9 million for the city area in the annexation area. There's a lot more in the, in the, uh, utility analysis. Again, this is just the, uh, attributed to growth portion when we isolate the new demand that we're projecting in, uh, the master plan. So this shows the, again, the future facility cost to growth and is one of the primary drivers of the impact fee calculation. And I'll show on the next slide the reason, one of the primary reasons for the substantial change in the impact fee itself. Again, it's just the growth-related portion of those projects. Any projects that were not considered growth-related or deficiency were not included in these numbers, but they'll We'll show them in this, the IFFP and IFA document itself. The final numbers will isolate just the growth-related portions or the growth-eligible portions. So even in this, there are percentages that are allocated to existing versus future, but some projects aren't even related to growth. It's purely curing deficiencies within the system or repair and replacement of the system, which is not impact fee eligible. Alrighty, the next couple of slides are going to show the outcome of this analysis. So we're now just getting to the findings and illustrating percentage change in the fee itself. So Parks and Recreation, your existing fee— this is for single family. So this table is for a typical single family development or illustrating it on a per ERU basis. So For stormwater, wastewater, and water. And the single-family and multifamily just shows the fee per ERU because the actual ERU calculation will happen at building permit or based on the specific development. But here we're showing parks and recreation going from $3,000 to a little over $8,000. The primary driver of that is the assumption relative to land value. We're assuming a land value of about— well, our assumption is $575,000 per acre of land. That's assuming essentially raw, undeveloped land. The data relative to recent appraisals that has been provided to us show developed property is much more expensive on a per-acre basis. But for the purpose of the Parks and Recreation impact fee, we're assuming raw, undeveloped land, and then we layer on onto that, the value of improvements to that land, your amenities, the sod and irrigation. If you turn it into a baseball field, or if you had a pickleball court, all of that value there is added. Yes, Brent. Brent, by way of comparison, do you know off the top of your head what the land value was for the existing impact fee calculation? I don't. I'll have to go back and check that. I think it was I seem to remember around $190,000. Yes, I was gonna say $200,000 was about— yes. So, and that was 2018. So we're, we're 7 years forward now. And yeah, things have gotten more expensive. So it's $575,000. What's that? Yes, the assumption. And that, that is also based on an appraisal document received that showed valuation of, again, raw, raw land. There's a lot of variables that, you know, a lot of elements that go into land valuation, location, obviously, and the type of land. But that is a primary driver of that. And understanding that helps, may help you as you grapple with the percentage changes in some of these categories and say, okay, what do we want to assess as a community? What are we willing to assess? There are other factors that influence the discussion of impact fees, economies, affordability. There's just other variables outside of the impact fee bubble that often influence this discussion and the resulting adopted impact fee. Again, what we're showing, what we're presenting is the calculated fee. As a legislative body, you have the option to again adopt something lower than that or not have no impact fees at all. So again, to reemphasize, this is the maximum allowed calculation that the city could legally, defensively charge. Yes. But what's your experience with cities generally? Yeah, Brandon, my, my recollection is when we did this 2018, even before you gave us our maximum calculation, and we came back off of it. Yes. Yes, exactly. Great point. Because I'm showing you on this table what you assessed, but it wasn't what was calculated at the time the study was completed in 2018. I, my understanding is there was a reduction. I don't know the exact percentage. I'd have to go back and look at that for each fee. But You did not adopt the maximum allowable impact fee. And what we're proposing here is the draft maximum, right? The intent is, once input is provided from stakeholders, staff, and you as the legislative body, we consider that in the evaluation. And the outcome is a maximum allowable fee. So when we get to public hearing, that is the maximum. That's the ceiling that is set for impact fees. And yes, you can adopt something lower than that ceiling. Can you speak to how common it is for cities to even phase across multiple years? Is that really— Yeah, so I've seen several approaches to impact fees. And again, that has— some of that has to do with local economy or the neighboring communities. As you look at a comparison of communities and trying to look at the economies of that. Whether we're in a recession or not, looking at affordability. So many entities are looking at strategies to ensure that you can build infrastructure while addressing some of these other considerations as it relates to your community as a whole. So some entities will phase in an impact fee and say, okay, these percentages are high, and we're not willing to implement those type of uh, percentage increases on year 1. We're going to phase that over a 2-year period and say we'll do half of the increase now and implement the, the next half of that increase in the second year to allow it to phase in over a longer period of time. And, and the justification remains the original study. We still show the maximum, and our ordinance allows for that phased-in approach. Um, so I have seen entities do that. Uh, some will choose a longer period of time. Others say no, we're We're willing to adopt half of that, and we recognize that we have to bridge the funding gap with some other mechanism. And they choose to adopt a 75% policy. If we're going to take 75% of the maximum, that's what we're going to adopt as an impact fee. And the rest needs to come— again, the delta between the maximum and what you adopt would come from the general fund or your utility rates. Others are choosing to adopt the maximum and say, you know what, this is the cost. to maintain the level of service, and we do not want to subsidize new growth by reducing the impact fees. And so they adopt the maximum impact fee and put that in place. So it depends on the community on how you approach impact fees, what your objectives are. Again, because there's a lot of— there are many other elements to consider when we're talking about growth and its impact on the community. both positive and maybe some of the harder elements relative to growth and handling growth. Because there are other considerations that— I do a lot of economic development studies, and rooftops are the key driver. One of the key drivers of economic prosperity is having the demand there and building that demand. And so impact fees can be perceived as a hindrance in some ways to that. that economic engine. You also note that the strategies relative to the moderate income housing plan and your moderate income housing element of the general plan discuss strategies related to impact fees and considering modifications to impact fees to promote more affordable housing and how you might use that. So, again, I'm just highlighting that because there are Alternative considerations when looking at impact fees.

So there's— have you seen examples of— I want to call stable communities, meaning they're built out, they're not reliant, because it sounds like, you know, impact fees for the last 40 years, because of 40, 50 years, because of the growth on the Wasatch Front, that's kind of been the revenue generator, right? We've kind of been catching up, kind of been relying on that. So, what do you have examples? I don't know about Utah, but, you know, how does that work? How does that— when you get to where you are, who you are? Yeah, you know, then do you shift your finance mod plan?

How do you—

Yeah, Ogden City is an example. They do not assess impact fees. They're primarily built out. They do have redevelopment in their communities, so they're experiencing growth. They have commercial redevelopment that's happening as well as residential redevelopment. They do not assess impact fee because of the— where they're at on that build-out curve. And they're looking at, you know, we're at the tail end. Do we want to have impact fees in place? Or do we let other funding mechanisms address the infrastructure needs? Because— yeah, go ahead.

Well, I was just gonna say, so is that to incentivize the redevelopment?

I would say in Ogden's situation, yes, they are looking to try to incentivize growth and encourage that development on both a residential and commercial perspective. And so that has outweighed the desire for the impact fee funding tool.

And just to make sure we're saying the same, have the same definition for this word. So redevelopment, when I hear that from a residential standpoint, I think of An old house, someone is going in and either knocking it down and rebuilding on the land, or they're remodeling.

Yeah, what do you— it would be more taking maybe larger tracts of land and either density, so changing the nature of that, that area. So you can— where there were 100 units, you're now putting in 500 units.

So we're back to rooftops again.

Yes, exactly.

So that's been the driver for 40, 50 years is rooftops.

Yes.

Has anybody gone away from rooftops?

I mean, there are communities that benefit from adjacent rooftop demand. So take Riverdale, for example. Their daytime population is different from their nighttime population. The people that live there are a segment of their demand from an economic perspective, but the economic driver for Riverdale is everybody who passes through that community. And so they, they benefit from that, but that demand comes from somewhere, from rooftops from somewhere, right? It's not—

But that community doesn't necessarily need to. I mean, I've seen it in California, right? I live in California and they identify who they are and they're a stable community and they don't add rooftops in order to, you know, have their budgets. They have other means to do that.

Yeah. So, yeah, what you're describing is very critical. is much bigger than the impact fee discussion. But, you know, what, what is our objective as a community relative to growth? And what funding tools do we want to utilize to either help with that, that strategy, or may not be necessary because we have a different strategy and still promote renewal? Yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

Maybe I could just point out that when you have redevelopment, if you're not increasing the density, You don't charge an impact fee. So if somebody knocks down an old house, builds a new one in its place, you don't charge an impact fee. If somebody knocks down a commercial building, builds back the same square footage, typically they're not going to charge impact fees. It's only if they're expanding square footage or number of units. Okay.

Okay. So now that ties in.

Yeah, there are a lot of variables. Chris highlighted an element that will influence that. It depends on levels of service and other variables, but Fundamentally, yes, you could even change the nature of that development, go from residential to commercial. And if the demand isn't different, the overall demand isn't different, then you would not have an impact fee. It's unlikely if you switch in that instance, it would most likely produce some additional demand because the nature of the different land uses. But at its core, that is what you have to evaluate is When redevelopment is considered, what demand is being produced now? Post redevelopment, what is the new demand? If there is a difference, meaning increase, then there would be an impact fee assessment. If there's no increase in demand from that change, then there would not be an impact fee assessment. And even then, you're only— you only charge the net increase. Yes. Yeah, exactly. So if, you know, at a simplified level, if we said this is producing 10 ERUs of demand and now it's 11, that's 1 ERU difference, they pay 1 ERU of an impact fee because the other impact was already accounted for in the previous payment of impact.

So you just have to take all that into account for your future decisions, projections.

So this, so this is mostly if you're building in a new area and you got to put all this infrastructure in, then you cover it. But if you're— I mean, most recent example would be Canyon Park. So that would be a neighborhood within a How would you calculate something like that? Yeah, so you're talking about system improvements and project improvements at some level. So there will be project improvements that happen to handle the impacts of a neighborhood and the project itself. And often, in most cases, the developer funds that project improvement to connect to the system and mitigate the the individual neighborhood impacts, but the impact fee addresses the impact of that unit or multiple units on the system as a whole. And there's averaging that has to happen. It's impossible to calculate a specific impact fee for— that is perfectly equitable for each individual development or unit of development because we have to look at the system as a whole, the land uses across the system, the average levels of service and demand generated from those land uses. So, for example, in the master plan, uh, relates to water, sewer, and storm, they'll look at the entire system and the annexation area and apply assumptions to those areas relative to the number of units, the land uses, and calculate level of service and produce demand variable. a total demand variable from the system, and that's what gets fed into the impact fee calculation. Then in its application, so when you adopt an impact fee, it's applied on a case-by-case basis. So a developer comes in and says, okay, here's the number of units, or here's my development. We apply that schedule to the developer on a case-by-case basis because there's that disconnect between a system and the averaging versus a case-by-case approach. Your ordinance, you're required to have in your ordinance certain considerations to allow them to present you information that may suggest an alternative fee, to allow for a review of that information, and you're required to essentially make adjustments if that data is deemed valid. So if you say, yeah, this— We see there's some merit here. Let's make an adjustment to the fee because we recognize that this is a Is an average calculation of an impact fee across the system as a whole. And that specific information may help us refine that for this type of development. So, so, like that single-family house, if you have that house, for example, right? So if you're just going and building a house out in undeveloped area tomorrow, That they would hit full tilt, the impact fees, probably. Yeah, if you're, if you're doing an infill project like Canyon Parks, then you have to go through all these calculations and— Yeah, look at the specifics of that. So that's probably a— obviously the builder of the city as far as development. Yes, we do have staff and community development folks at the application and have to go through the process And often we, we go back and we call up the consultant to help make sure and double-check us doing it according to state code. But also, I'll make a note too, Mayor, that annexation versus city areas, sometimes it's either or, or isn't it always either or? It is an either or in some cases. So we don't just sum this up. And I'll note, like, for example, in the stormwater, that's per acre. So you would have A tip, a single-family residential may be a quarter of that. You know, it'll depend on the lot size of the actual unit itself, or if you've got a large lot, you can pay more than this. So, yeah, you're not going to pay the sum of all of this here when you look at what a single-family unit will pay. So there's both that and they would look at what, what the existing proposed development, like with Canyon Park, it would be what demand did it already have on our system, and they would get credit for that. It would then be applied across all of the single-family units. So that's probably why we never buy from people like that in Saratoga. What they're building out entirely is something which is like brand new area. They won't have credit. So you can see percentage-wise, again, a lot of those are going up when you look at comparisons to your current fees. It's the same on our multifamily. I will point out again, we did not make an assumption relative to a multifamily ERU that's going to be different for each development. These are still per ERU, so we wouldn't— this wouldn't— we wouldn't sum this up and say, here's the total for each multifamily unit. It would depend on their ERU variable for that specific development. But you see, like parks and recreation, there's an adjustment down 1. Typically, a multifamily unit does not have The same persons per household as a single-family unit. The demand for police and fire on a per-unit basis is also usually lower. Transportation, the trips are usually lower per unit. And I would make the— again, the generalization that it would be the same on the water, sewer, and storm side on a per-unit basis. The demand is typically lower per unit than a single-family. Now, when you add up all the units, The development will be paying more in impact fees because there's just a whole lot more units per acre, for example, or more units in that development. But on a per-unit basis, the level of service in most cases is usually lower, meaning they have less impact per unit than a typical single-family development. One house would pay like $50,000 in impact fees? Again, it depends. This is on a per-ERU basis. So let's say a house is a A single unit? Yes. And they pay for stormwater and for police and for fire and for parks and for all those, right? Yeah, I would, I would probably take your, your typical single-family home is probably built on less than a quarter of acre now, a quarter-acre lot. So you would— yeah, it will depend. Let's say it's already— humor me, if it's an R-8 home, it's 2/10, it's 1/5 of an acre. Yes, you'd pay 1/5 of that variable there. Oh, that's per acre? Yes. Okay, so that's per acre. And so per year, you typically—

your—

and you wouldn't pay the annexation area. So you're not paying both for stormwater. You're not paying both. You're either in the city area or the annexation area.

Gotcha.

So I'll put in our— and when we go to public hearing, we'll look at a typical single-family within the city service area and annexation area and say, okay, this is what you would pay. Because that's at the end of the day, that's what it's going to come down to when you look at an economic comparison is if I build in Vineyard versus Vineyard. Yes, if I build in Vineyard, what is my impact fee going to be in total? Yeah, we look at all the individual services and there's going to be differences, but what in total do I pay here versus what do I pay in total here? And what is the difference? I just— I will caution that, again, that does not— an economic comparison, just a pure dollar-to-dollar comparison, does not consider levels of service and the differences in levels of service between communities. For example, parks and recreation is typically the easiest fee to understand. The variables are pretty straightforward. One community can have a very high level of service, meaning we provide quite a bit of park facilities and amenities per capita versus another community that does not have a high level of service, you compare those dollars, they should be different, right? Because our levels of service are different, and the value of land in those areas are going to be different.

So, okay, I guess I'm confused. What are you saying, level of service? There's some— I mean, what was that?

For a park 10 miles away instead of a park a mile away?

Yes.

Can I give you—

what am I feeling, less water pressure? What are you saying?

Well, there are communities that, yes, the level of service, the There could be different variables relative to indoor versus outdoor use, for example, and that isn't necessarily reflected in when you compare dollars to dollars. The actual water utilization is different between communities. It's less pronounced in your water and sewer system because we typically use the same amount of water and sewer just as human beings, right? That's going to be standard, but That does change when you, when you account for outdoor water use and how that outdoor water use is mitigated by the system or applied. So, for example, I live in Bountiful. My culinary water is managed by the city, but I have Weber water that is managed by the irrigation district. That those would be, you know, separate levels of service for which I may pay an impact fee here, but no impact fee over here. Because they're different providers. And I can use— now that's going to change, unfortunately for my pocketbook, but I understand why. Secondary water is going to be metered, and it's— the state is requiring that all secondary water get metered, and we are going to likely pay per gallon used on that system. But right now, I can turn on my Weber water and let it run all day. All night, and my bill does not change. It stays the same. So those levels of service variables are going to be different again for water, sewer. It's when you talk indoor use, that's— it's pretty standard. But the nature of the system, what infrastructure needs to be funded, the cost of that infrastructure is very different from community to community. Okay, if I guess I was thinking you were just Orem.

Oh, yes, you're spreading this out.

No.

Yeah, this is—

yeah, this is comparing levels of service between communities, large geographies.

That makes sense.

So maybe the easiest level of service to understand might be something like parks, where you might calculate the number of square feet of park land we have per resident. That's a level of service. Yes. And so as your population increases, your level of service goes down, right? Because your average part goes down. So to keep the level of service the same, you have to add additional parts on it. That comes at a cost, and that's what we would pay for the benches as an example. You were right too. The more people that are tapping onto a line, pressure reduces. The more people that go through a signalized intersection, the more delays you have. All of those are a reduction in level of service. If you have too many people flushing their toilet, down the line, it could back up. That's a bad level of service. They want to maintain a standard or basic level of service for everybody, so they have to pay a proportionate share based on their relative impacts, proportionate impacts across the board for all the different utilities and services that we're talking about. And the general comment, though, is accurate in that there should, there should be consistent consistency at a high level, right, relative to water utilization or how many times I flush the toilet. That's a human— it's not necessarily Orem is different than Bennington, for example, but the nature of the infrastructure itself is different. For example, you could be a community that has— you built infrastructure in 1900 and have been sitting on that infrastructure for a very long time. You just built a whole bunch of excess capacity in the system. Well, the impact fees require us to look at that, and we're required to look at the original cost of that binding. Well, that $1,900 is going to be a whole lot cheaper than building new infrastructure, right? So an impact fee that is built on $1,900 is going to be less than an impact fee that is built on $2,026 or $2,030. So communities that have a whole lot of buy-in, often their impact fees are averaged lower. When a community transitions and says, and we see that that excess capacity is utilized, and we now need to build new infrastructure. Often the impact fee skyrockets because we're now accounting for that time value of money and the change in the infrastructure value. So here, that is essentially one of the elements that's happening relative to Orem's impact fee is we have a whole lot of capital infrastructure investment. and it's all future dollar-based, not a lot of buy-in value, your impact fees are going to average on the high end and not the low end because of that relationship. It just depends on where you're at in that curve, just like the development curve. If you're towards build-out, that, that causes us to look at impact fees differently. Our infrastructure curve also changes the averaging of the impact fee on the higher, lower ends. So, So, in summary, I guess that when we look at the impacts of these changes, it's inflation, it's the needed capital investment, and just updating the impact fee based on the demand variables from 2018 to now. So we've made adjustments, refinements to the impact fees. For example, when you look at— let's go to the commercial category. Here, this shows the police impact fee. Here, industrial is actually— there's not a huge increase on the industrial police impact fee on a per 1,000 square foot basis. And that's because in your previous study, industrial was probably included in commercial. There wasn't a specific category for industrial development. It's the same on the fire side. We're actually showing a decrease to the fire impact fee per 1,000 square foot for industrial development, because in your current study, they were just lumped into commercial. When you actually look at the different calls for service, generally industrial has a lower call ratio per 1,000 square foot because they're so much larger, right? They still generate calls, but there's just a huge footprint. So the call per 1,000 square foot is lower. than a gas station, for example. Low footprint, high volume of calls. So their level of service is usually very high because of the nature of that business. So that refinement is also producing some changes. We also isolated some specific groups that you may or may not choose to assess. So your hospital group care, we've isolated that as a specific Type of development specific for public safety. Because, as you can see, they often— whoops— they often generate a very high call volume per 1,000 square feet or per unit. Some entities choose to, again, choose to adopt an impact fee specific to this type of land use. Others say no, that we're just going to keep that in the commercial category. be addressed as a typical commercial property might. But those are some of the other reasons why the impact fee is changing from the 2018 study is refinements like that and expanding some of those categories to account for the different land uses. Overall, however, you'll note in all of these slides, most of the fees are going up, and not just by a little bit, but a fairly hefty percentage. Going back again to that relationship of your level of service and the needed capital infrastructure for growth. Again, our IFFP and IFA will have quite a bit more detail associated with fees, and we'll make sure that's available for review. We're required to have, as a part of this process, as we approach public hearing, There's a 10-day notice requirement that we have to have all documents, the IFFP, IFA, as well as the city's draft impact fee ordinance available to the public for review in that 10-day noticing period. And then we can hold a public hearing. Some entities choose to hold a public hearing and then wait to take action. So you say, okay, let's have the public hearing, take comment, but we're not going to take action that night of the public hearing. That's not defined in statutes. That's up to you to decide on how you address that. But next steps again will be finalization and then preparation for public hearing. And then we go through that fun exercise of public hearing. Just a couple quick questions. Yeah. So as far as impact fees, do they get affected by RDAs at all? Do RDAs get a different The other RDA is the same with impact. No, the RDA, the governing body does not influence the impact calculation. It's dependent on growth and levels of service, and that would be applied to growth within the RDA or outside the RDA. So it's neutral? Yes. Okay. The RDA, because it has a unique funding mechanism relative to infrastructure, that may influence how you apply that tool. in the RDA, meaning some entities will look at it and say, hey, we'll use— we may reduce impact fees for redevelopment area and look at an alternative way to fund that infrastructure. Or their impact— That would be an RDA-by-RDA decision. Yes, that's a case-by-case evaluation. So that's by policy, not by analysis. Another thing that would be really useful as far as For when you present this to us later. Um, it's just if you could break it down more specifically, you know, as far as like you were talking about, like R-8.

Oh, yes.

And the different— so this is what this house would cost, so we can compare. And then also give us some examples of different areas and how much they would be different.

Because what we—

I mean, at the end of the day, the way we need to make our decision is what this is actually going to cost. new residents or current residents.

Yes.

So we need to get down to that, those numbers, I think. For sure.

Yep.

I will look at, uh, yeah, the actual total by, uh, single-family residential unit and, um, whether it's in the annexation area, outside the annexation area. And then we can provide some comparisons between your neighbors of what the same, same product would pay. And, and there, there are— there is some of that information the state collected information. I know the Home Builders Association often collects information by impact fees by community. Um, so we'll, we'll like make sure we, we also present just to compare with other communities.

Yeah, and I'm— I don't know if this is you or Chris, you know, who would prepare this component, but I would like to see that component of, you know, 5th grade level. You, you're going to do the dollar figure for for R-8, you know. So let's see what the benefit is. You know, we talk about our parks impact, our level of service from our water and our sewer. You know, as a resident, why do I want to get on board with this?

What's the— As an existing resident?

Yeah.

What's going—

Because you don't want to subsidize new development.

Yeah. So I mean, I, I'm saying when you present that to us, let's have that as part of the presentation so we're informing our public. And really helping them understand this isn't just about, you know, we have to do this every 5 years and reassess our fees. And this is about maintaining our— where we are.

Right.

And what— and this is what you have. This is where we are. You know, this is what you're benefiting from right now. Yeah, that's what— Worms is a great place to live.

Yes, I will add those elements to that discussion.

Sounds good. Any other questions?

Okay, I think we're good. Appreciate that. So, so how long did you say? Okay, let's move on to— let's move on to item 1.2. So let's give you a presentation on the idea of the fleet budget by Brandon. Brandon, if you'd like to— Thanks, Mayor. As part of our ongoing budget, uh, presentations and information, uh, we touched, uh, what we call our last council meeting Work session, we touched on personnel and revenues. And a couple of our other, whether it be large or whether it be some things that are important in nature, our fleet, which qualifies as both, and our IT, which qualifies as both. And so we specifically addressed Those areas for you so that you have an idea of the magnitude in many cases, as well as the complexities in many cases. So we specifically focus on these 2 areas so that you're well aware of things that we are trying to take care of as part of our budget process. So we'll have— please go first, and then follow that up with our IT folks. Time over to Thane and then Carl. Okay, thank you. Um, got some— we've been analyzing fleet replacement since late November, uh, with looking into everything we asked, uh, talking about our leases, the leasing programs, and, uh, gathering everything together. So anyway, here it goes. Feel free to, uh, Jump in with any questions. In the past, I shared a spreadsheet I had here to hand out, but this time I was included in the packet. If you reviewed that, that's great. It's there to review also later. Anyway, so the procurement types that are very common that we participate are in new leases. You'll see in this presentation that's vehicles that we're now going to lease instead of purchasing like we have in the past. External leases, we commonly use a company named Bancorp for that. That's similar to like if you go to a dealership and lease a vehicle. Internal leases, and that's where we purchase the vehicle and then we use it for 2 years, maybe 3 or 4 years, and then we sell that And so we're taking kind of the finance option out of it and also taking the benefits of the incentives we have. Purchasing, and that's the traditional procurement type that we've used for years. We just purchase outright, generally using state contract pricing. Sinking funds or savings funds works well for large apparatus, especially like big sewer trucks or Camera inspection vans helps us not have that full cost up front, and we can just save, put a chunk in the bank or in a sinking fund. So we'll start in with the leases and go through this. For the task force, we, we are going to lease 2 vehicles for $20,000. Those are undercover vehicles. And then we have some Bancorp leases that we feel it'd be best that we purchase rather than re-lease. Main reasoning behind that is that the different variables that are in the resale market right now. So we have— you'll see here on the list, 2 vehicles for fire department administration, 1 for fire medical services. And 2 for investigation services in the police department. 5 vehicles total, and that would cost us around $230,000. Um, we also looking to extend the lease for 1 more year on 8 of our vehicles that are with Bain Ford. And you'll see there the breakdown between, uh, fire department with 1 vehicle, 6 vehicles for the police department, and 1 for public works. And that's, uh, budgeted at $93,000. What's your plan at the end of the 1-year lease? We're extending 1 year, so— I know. What's your plan at the end of that 1-year extension? Well, um, we'll back up a little bit. So we met with Bancorp in, uh, late September, and they, um, had the resale value for those vehicles was less than anticipated. So we're extending the lease 1 year, and at this point we're not sure what the plan is until we reconvene, probably in September, October. Are we responsible for the difference? Yes, that's part of why— that's why we're extending.

Thank you. Thanks.

Thank you for that question. Um, and then the annual lease payment here is just the, the second year Or third year, mostly the second year of the lease through Bancorp that we are committed to. And you'll see there the breakdown. These are in the police department between their different subdivisions there, 16 total vehicles coming in just over $150,000 there. So, oh, and one more, we, we're going to lease one new vehicle for the fire department.

That's $16,000.

We also are taking into effect the surplus funds that we received from leases or anticipate receive from selling those vehicles back to the market. And that's bringing in $145,000, which then will offset our total request. So for our leasing program for FY 2026, We're looking around $336,000, uh, and you'll see there the police department, uh, we're looking at $336,000, fire department $165,000, about $10,000 for public works, and then we subtract off the $145,000 from the surplus funds, which is getting us there around $336,000.

$366,000, right?

Pardon? $366,000. 336. Oh, the bottom line says 366 on mine in yellow. Am I reading that wrong?

Okay.

70. Yep. But my math is wrong.

You're right.

Math is right on the sheet you sent us. You're good.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, now to move into purchasing for general fund. Um, we have 3 vehicles here. Uh, you might be excited about the great price we have there for $14,000, but these are repurposed vehicles, uh, coming from, from general fund. Uh, one for facilities, one for building safety, and, and one for the finance department. The, the Parks Department, uh, will be purchasing 6 vehicles. Uh, couple of these are repurposed vehicles and a couple of them are not. We have a 1-ton dump, 2 riding lawn mowers, a half-ton pickup, and then 2 utility vehicles. Coming in at $150,000 for those. The Police Department, 14 vehicles total. At $912,000. And you'll see the breakdown there. Patrol and alcohol enforcement, we have 9 vehicles there. 2 of those are canine pickups that definitely have a lot more upfit and cost to those. Support services, there's 3 medium sport utility vehicles. And investigation services, 2 medium sport utility vehicles that—

Great.

We also are going to finance 2 vehicles for the fire department, uh, a pumper and a 1-ton or 2-ton brush trucks. The annual cost for that would be $190,000, uh, for the next 10 years. So total, uh, for the general fund purchases, this coming scope, $1.2 million And, and there's the breakdown that we've discussed with each department there. One more thing to talk about here. So there's the total of $1,266,000 for general fund purchases. Then we have $366,000 for general fund leasing. Now we also have $600,000 in sinking funds that we had— we saved up last year. So that's going to offset that total to bring us to just over $1 million, $1,032,350 for the general fund. If there— is there any questions there? If not, we'll move on to enterprise funds. Okay. Enterprise funds, we'll start with stormwater. We have 6 vehicles there that we're budgeting for. We have the buyback program, the back over there. That's most of our yellow iron, our construction equipment. We've been doing a 3-year buyback program that's been very effective. So that is just to continue to fund that program. We have a street sweeper here that we're funding the 3rd year of the CP funds. We'll be purchasing that this coming year. A jet rotter, a big sewer truck. For the stormwater drains that we're in year 2 of 4 for seeking funds, a riding lawnmower for their catch basins. We're also saving for a camera inspection van and purchasing a sport utility vehicle at $451,000. Moving on to Straits, they have 2 backhoes and a loader in the buyback program.

They also have—

we have a 1-ton utility truck that we'll be buying this year, the second year of the sinking fund, a large dump trailer, a half-ton pickup, a 2-ton plow truck, the sander and a plow on it, dump bed. The request there is for $373,000.

Water Reclamation.

a backhoe and a loader in the buyback program, a jet rotter that we're the first year of a sinking fund on, a 1-ton utility truck and a 1 utility vehicle. And requesting $394,000 for water reclamation.

I think we should do a Ford instead of a Chevy.

You want Ford? No, there's too many Fords on there. No, no brand specific in this. I expected those comments out of him.

I was just talking to him. He's sleeping over here, so I'm not—

no, I got him.

I pulled out, sell the Ford to many. How many did he make?

I didn't hear the Chevy comment, so there we go.

We had a couple before we started. Just to get away from that conversation, we're done. So many— I mean, we look at a lot of big numbers. How does this compare to prior years? Can you give us a sanity check on that? In one slide, we'll have—

thank you.

I'm sorry.

Thank you.

You're doing good. Uh, for the water fund, we're requesting funds for 12 different vehicles, 3 backhoes, a loader, an excavator, and the buyback program. And then we're, uh, the leasing price to lease our Mini X and a skid steer is almost doubling. And so we are now, uh, requesting to bring those into the buyback program too, where we would purchase those Outright, and then on a 3-year rotation, we would rotate those out. A medium trailer that hauls the Mini-X and the excavator, we'd be purchasing a 2-ton truck that they go out and repair lines on. This would be the second year of a sinking fund purchase. That hydro excavator they use very often to go out and clear the way to repair pipes. And we are now requesting a 4th-year fund. That's the 4th-year amount to proceed.

So is 3-year— what's the life of those?

Which one?

The loader and the excavator. I mean, 3 years for a car, right? Are those—

is it—

you know what I'm trying to say here?

Yes.

So on those, um, just a background, we had, uh, a lease. For example, the backhoes we were leasing for around $10,000, and we got to a point where they were now doubling that lease, $20,000. Yet we found if we purchase them outright and then every 3 years we would flip them, we're down still around about the $10,000 mark per year. So we are now on the backhoes, we are now in our 3rd cycle on year 7 of that program.

I guess my point is, do you see an increase in maintenance 3 years versus 5 years? What if you waited till 5 years to do the—

We do start seeing an increase in maintenance, and then also the cost, the curve of the resale value decreases.

So that was strategic for this particular machinery too?

Yes, mainly through Caterpillars that we've been working with.

Good.

our normal vehicles, primarily lease vehicles, for instance, those take into account much more the mileage, the heavy use, the maintenance component. It's each one of those vehicles. So when they come up, it's not just a year-based— we evaluate all of those things based on indicators that FAME provides to identify whether or not a specific vehicle should be replaced, even if it's at year 6.

Okay.

Maybe, maybe it still does have another year in it because it's still maintained well, still operating well. So we would potentially push that off for one more year. These— most of these vehicles are unique in nature. And so to be down any one of these, an excavator or whatever, is problematic. So most of those, we don't want to be into that point of we're out of service with that particular piece of equipment, which now means someone— we have to either borrow it from someone else if we have another one, or we just have to not do certain things in the meantime while we then have to go figure out where are we going to go, how we can buy it, how we can pay for it. One big thing I want to point out, every single one of these vehicles is not A new— we already have that vehicle. They're all replacements. None of them are new as far as we didn't have it before and now we're going to have it. So that's an important thing to realize from Thayne's presentation. We'll have another presentation if we have what we refer to as expansions, such as when we got Hillcrest Park. We had to expand, we had to buy a new truck, we had to buy a new mower. Those things are done, or will be come to you separately in our operating—

we have our operations presentation.

So that's an important element to keep in mind. There's nothing new here. Okay, you're welcome. Uh, see, down to the last couple on the list. Um, we have a generator that, uh, is there for emergencies to power the wells. And then a half-ton pickup for the water department, and their request there is coming in at $619,000. So here's the summary slide, um, for, uh, this year for general fund. Um, you'll see there that, uh, between police, fire, code enforcement, development services, parks, we're coming in, uh, initially at $1.7 million, but then with the lease surplus funds and the sinking funds for just over $1 million, $1,032,350. That includes the leasing and the purchasing. And then the enterprise funds, you'll see there, uh, the 4 different enterprise funds listed: stormwater, streets water, rec and water, $1,837,000. And then, um, All funds total between enterprise funds and general fund is $2.8 million. Now here's the slide. I hope we can view this. Uh, this is the general fund, uh, replacement history. It is a little different this year, and you'll see the bottom 3 columns on the right there, the bottom 3 figures, and that's again taking in place the lease fund surplus, uh, CE funds The lease surplus funds and the sinking funds, which is bringing us to just over $1 million. Last year, you see, we're at $1.9 million. Year before, about $1.3 million. That's kind of how we compare for the general funds. And then the enterprise funds, going backwards again, uh, $1.8 million. See that we fluctuated up and down a little bit last year. We're about $1.5 million, but then the year before we're $1,650,000. So do you have any more? No, thank you. That's what I wanted to see.

Thank you.

So, and here's the final slide with the breakdown again of what the request is for fleet replacement. I don't know if I should say this or not, but I don't know what tariffs will bring. So any, any more questions?

Okay.

Thank you.

All right.

All right, um, thank you, Mayor and Council.

Thank you.

Um, since you last—

the president last year, um, IT's only gone a little bit of changes. We've kind of divided up responsibilities in the IT team into 3 different kind of groups. And so one unit, the operations side of the house, you know, keep the lights on stuff, your PCs, your servers, workstations, network, that kind of thing. So it rolls up under myself. And we've taken the policy and the compliance part and divvied that at Steve Cannon's role. And then Software development side of the house, give that to McKay. So we're gonna keep this one easy this year because we're not actually asking for any budget expansions this year. So we didn't do much of a presentation on what we're going to ask for budget. We asked for a lot last year with the new building. So we, we had a lot happen and still happening in regard to that. We still got a backlog of a few things to get through.

So.

pretty much funded for this next year with just our operating budget. So, so no new stuff. So we're excited to just go over kind of what we've done with your money and what we have planned.

So, um, I think it starts in the middle.

So, uh, this last year we accomplished quite a bit. Network team, we were out, out and about, a network engineer last year, and that kind of set them on fire. We got, we got a lot of backlog stuff completed there. that had been long overdue. We got the parks Wi-Fi projects completed. Um, we rebuilt the public works network. Um, should have brought some before and after pictures for that because that was, that was quite a dramatic change. Um, we got 61 network switches throughout the city that all got replaced. Um, so that was colossal. And then the rest of this list all has to do with the new building, uh, which— The move to City Center, since it's kind of the heart of the city, is kind of like taking your brain out and trying to make it work. by moving it somewhere else while still attached to the body somewhere else. So you can say that's kind of a colossal effort to do. So we've been working on that project basically a year. We ordered equipment last April, came in in the summer. We started configuring it as soon as it came in. We've been working in that building since September, started moving systems over since late November, and now we're finally transitioning. And I don't know, comments from everybody hopefully is that transition's actually been pretty smooth, which is what we hoped by, by doing these upgrades the way we did them. Of course, with the ability to take your brain out and start over, it's kind of nice to rebuild from scratch. It's a rare opportunity that we have by changing facilities. We can take some of our old infrastructure that had to get replaced in order to move it smoothly and modernize it along with just replacing So we modernized a lot of stuff. We, we changed the access— the Wi-Fi access controllers to be redundant, which they weren't redundant before. We had to do 64 access point upgrades just to keep them into a non-end-of-life status. So we had to do those along with adding all the new ones to the new facility. We changed the firewalls. to be clusters instead of single points of failure. So there's, there's a lot beefier, meatier firewalls that are doing a lot more for us, and redundancy along with that. And then we moved to a completely new network architecture. Without getting too much in the weeds, let's suffice it to say it's pretty bold. So we did, we did a lot of upgrades and improvements there. So network team's been really busy. On the system side of the house, Well, Microsoft's always changing, changing things on us, and in order to stay compliant with security patching and the like, we have to upgrade as they upgrade. So moving now to Windows Server 2025, the hypervisors, which is the core of our systems that run all of our virtualized environment, all have been upgraded to 2025. Of course, with the new facility, those are all now on new equipment. So a new storage server and new hypervisor for those. Um, earlier in the year, in preparation for the building move, in case we got a backhoe tracked through something that they shouldn't have, uh, we anticipated there may be disruptions to this building. So we beefed up our Tonic Point resources, which are— this is the data center down in St. George that we use as our backup facility. Um, we put resources down there that could actually cover the city systems in its entirety. Um, Last year we moved the database down there as a backup. This year, preparation for the construction, we moved all the rest of the systems down there. So we have a complete backup of all of our systems here in Tonawanda now.

You even tested it.

And we've even tested it. We've run live on those systems for a complete day and everything worked fine.

So they went back just as well.

So we also have been rolling out SentinelOne, which is endpoint management. software solution that the state's providing to us. So it's a pretty, um, pretty costly product that states rolled up into the grant money that they're getting from the federal government that, uh, we benefit from. So the same with Delta 4, which is our training modules that, um, you've probably all seen as well if you're in that group, I think, where, uh, once a month we send out training, uh, for security, uh, training to keep people Surprised at what's going on. And those have worked really well, actually. If you look at our statistics for our phish tests, which is probably the number one entry point for any malware into our systems— so if we ever get compromised, it's probably going to be from phishing attack— our numbers were pretty bad. Probably 50% of everyone clicked on phishing emails on the first attempt when we first did this, and we're down to like less than 10%. So— We're in that, we're in that margin of error to where it's about what most people in our sector do, if not actually about 5% better, actually. So, so doing well, it's actually improving quite a bit.

Yeah.

We also put in a new security camera server to add some public works resources and then cover the new cameras for the new building. We also moved to a new access control. system. The one we were using to control the doors was basically first-generation technology. There's about 20 generations since then that we didn't follow suit with. So we've gone to a much more state-of-the-art technology for our badging system, which necessitated moving systems for that. So we'll be on the latest and greatest in the new building. And then along with that, we Are leaving our old analog phone system behind as we move buildings, switching over to GoTo as our new internet-based service provider for phone systems. Hopefully that happens tomorrow. Haven't said no yet, so knock on wood, that'll go smooth. If not, probably the week after. And then I talked to Provo about 2 years ago now about just strategizing since they're a sister city, right? And leveraging resources that we both have and how we could kind of best serve each other. And, uh, that kind of got him thinking about it. He talked to Salt Lake. It kind of spawned off this whole thing that's, um, kind of taken on a whole new set of legs since then. But it's, um, it's gotten probably, I'd say, 50 cities together to all-in-one sites run. Um, maybe not quite, at least 30, 30 to 50. Have now joined into that where we're all meeting once a quarter together. And there's actually an agreement that's in LELO right now to leverage an interlocal agreement. So just kind of like PD does and fire does with leveraging resources from other cities in an emergency. If we have a cyber event or something where we need extra resources, we can call on other cities to help us out. They would just do it at either free or just their cost. So it's a, it's a, it's a great thing. I love to see that coming together. And we'll leverage that more this coming year. And then finally, our help desk is knocking that park there. We switched to a new ticketing system a little over a year ago. So in our first year of tickets, they've completed 3,258 tickets, and we have surveys we have everyone take at the end of those tickets, and right now we're at 4.96.

So.

Kudos to my help desk team for all the hard work.

Not out of 100, 496 out of 5. 496 out of 5, yes.

So almost a total 5-star rating. So this, this year focus, we've got, we've got SentinelOne rollout started, but it's not to everyone's computer yet. We're going to continue that rollout to make sure that we're leveraging that resource completely. The state is also adding another service to that this year. It's not available to us yet, but we've been beta testing with them different solutions, and they've agreed that they want to go with ActionOne as a patch management service, which is something we greatly need on our own as well. So luckily for us, they're going to provide that service to us, just as other services, up to their cost. So we'll be rolling that out when it's made available to us. And then next big thing for us to do that we funded last year, but we just haven't got to it with the backlog of things, is network access control. And the best way to think of that is traditionally our network has been kind of like an egg. We've had a really, really hard shell and kind of soft gooey inside. We're moving more to like a honeycomb where you've got, you know, very defined walls and everyone's in their own space. And that will facilitate— that will help facilitate that firewall.

upgrades we just did.

Um, our backup systems are kind of getting old, and they've been on the docket for a couple years to be replaced. We're going to get to them this year finally. Um, so that's still out there. Windows 12 is also coming out, so we'll move into that as it comes out, um, continuing along with the 2025 server upgrades. And then mobile device management is something that we're needing to do as well. It's kind of a costly initiative, but it's a CTAS requirement that we're going to We just have to have the beer. And then we'll leverage our interlocal agreements. If you've toured the new facility, you've seen we've built a pretty nice data center downstairs. And my intent is to take our unused space that we're not currently using and offer that up to other cities in exchange for something they might be able to offer us or some compensation.

So we'll be able to make back our costs there.

And then we want to focus on dashboards so we can provide more visibility into IT as to what we're doing, so everyone can kind of have an easy glance into what's going on, as well as help our own people to know, you know, system statuses and project statuses and clients.

So we're looking at the folks for that. So, right. So information security, data privacy. So finished grad school this last year, and it has been absolutely wonderful. that the city has been willing to double down on cybersecurity and data privacy as well. So, the coalescence of those 2 items has been awesome for me. So thank you very much. We have done incredible things, I think, over this last year where we had mostly greenfield and a whole lot of opportunity. We have brought structure and value, I think, to the organization. We began a citywide cybersecurity governance risk and compliance framework. Think of this as like the Dewey Decimal System, how we organize our data. And then we brought a citywide cybersecurity framework. Again, thank you, city leadership and city council. These are like the building codes for good cybersecurity, good safe building of our data and infrastructure. And then we have been hitting hard over the last year our policy and our procedure. This is the governance side of GRC. So let's see, we've, we've the state mandated data privacy statement. I want to talk about the unidentified network device policy in just a little while. So if we can hold off on that one. But then we do also have a citywide artificial intelligence policy as well. And we are working on— so there's the policy, right? There's the behavioral control. And we are also working on the technical controls that reinforce our behavioral controls right now. So that's where we're at on that one. We've— again, we've got a number of great policies in place. These I want you to think of as the hygiene, the cybersecurity hygiene of how we operate. Do we brush our teeth? Do we wash our clothes? Do we clean our rooms, right? Do we exercise regularly? These policies reinforce our cybersecurity framework. And see, can we talk about it? I'll talk about it in the next slide. And then some new procedures that we put in place. We are doing a cybersecurity and data privacy assessment for all third parties that we are onboarding. So the data privacy side is a requirement from the House Bill 4042. And we have bolted on top of that a cybersecurity assessment as well. The data flow documentation formalized process. So this is, again, a requirement from House Bill 491. Where does citizen data come into the city? How is it stored? How is it used? Who is it shared with? And what is its retention policy? And we're documenting all of those now. And then we are also documenting policy exceptions. Right? And then tracking and auditing both for those places, those edge cases in our business where a policy really begins to hinder us rather than enable our business.

Questions there?

Sweet. Moving on. In the adopted— let's see. And we— so in the coming year, we have a state mandate for a Citywide privacy program that we're going to be rolling out. Looking back in our cybersecurity framework, there are 18 controls. We've been focusing on control number 1 now for years. And that is, what do we have? What are our assets? What should be here? What should not be here? And I believe that in this coming year, we're going to be bringing that to a close. Which is super awesome. But it will mean that we'll be opening up control number 2, which is what software do we have? What software do we run? For what business purpose does this software have a place in our organization? So that's the next kind of portion of this. I did say that I was going to come back to the unknown device policy. That policy will be the technical under foundation for control number 1, right? So we talked about our policies as our behavioral controls, and then we have technical controls that reinforce our policies. That unidentified network policy ends up being foundation for technical controls that will keep our cyber— forgive me, I know that's a long, deep rabbit hole, right? But it keeps Cyber hygiene at control number 1, in a good place moving forward. That's everything. So I'll turn it over to software development. Yes, great. All right, so with software development over the past year, we have completed— the biggest project we completed is a rewrite of the new hire onboarding for our HR team. This allows any new hires for the city be onboarded and get the information they need to be a good employee of the city much faster, much more efficiently, and much more consistent. So there's a lot less error, a lot less uncertainty going into that. It's a huge multi-year project that we've wrapped up. Most recently, we rewrote the boards and commissions website in a way that allows any citizen to apply more cleanly with a forced requirement to upload any resumes. And then the user, the employee user side of that, which affects many people in this room, has been simplified and moved into a different location. This allows us to have both systems running at the same time, but they don't impact one another. So one service goes down, we aren't limited to taking down the other.

So, okay, do you mind if I just say something to that? We will bring that to the next council meeting. Not the one that the open house, but the one after that, so that you guys can see the changes. This was something that you brought to us several months ago, and they've rewritten with the changes that you guys requested. I think you'll be really excited to see what they've done. So I was just on there today. The calendar is still a work in progress, I think.

Correct. So the site that you go to today, we have not touched at all. What's going to happen when that cuts over is we're going to take it, put it in the garbage, so to speak. We're going to give you a brand new application.

You haven't seen it. Oh, okay, because I thought there's also some— okay, great.

Yeah, this will be a completely new application, but it will feel very similar. The amount of friction between the old and the new is going to be very similar. So when that is released, it'll feel similar, but so much more user-friendly. Great. We are continuing the migration of our websites from .org to .gov domain. We are going to be continuing that this local year. in addition to the progress we've already made on that. Most recently, we have divided the software development teams into 2. We have a legacy team in charge of most of the applications that you find on the ORM toolbar. These are the applications that run on your machine directly. And then a web development team. That team is in charge of things like the boards and commissions website, the HR portal, and an upcoming project for a citizen portal. We have also updated our software architecture in a way that allows us to keep the lights on far more efficiently. Some very common saying in the software field is that software ages like milk, not wine. And so by doing this, we have found a way to make sure that milk gets maintained at a cool temperature consistently. So we won't have as many issues in maintaining it as we had. Going forward, the main focus of our upcoming year is primarily the creation of a central forum portal for citizens and customers to interact with the city. Right now, as a citizen, if I wanted to interact with the city, pay my utilities and my fitness center subscription, I have to go to 2 separate applications, log in 2 separate times to do it, enter my financial information 2 separate times. They're completely divided. The information can get stored in a similar place. We can tie down individual citizens to a single account. But from a user experience, those are 2 completely separate entities. This project seeks to eliminate that complexity, meaning if I want to go in and sign up for a business license, I can do that and pay my utilities at the exact same time.

Thank you.

The first 2 applications that are going to be joining that roster are going to be a rewrite of the business licensing and utility billing sites. These are being rewritten from the ground up using the new architecture that we have set up and are going to be a seamless experience for any foreign citizens that want to use these utilities. We are going to continue and ensure a complete analysis of all the existing software. This is software that we have written in-house, not necessarily software that we use such as Google Workspace or things like that. So things that we have written specifically for the intensive facilities. So we're going to make sure that we know exactly everything that we have. Give you an idea, we are currently sitting around 200 disparate programs that we have written for city functions. So we make sure we have working inventory of that developed software and make sure we establish a lifecycle for each of those software applications. And then from an internal perspective, we have reorganized how we do our work into a Scrum methodology that is much more rigid than has been practiced originally. And this should allow us to deliver more consistent code and products to you in a way that is much easier for us to communicate to you. So with that, any questions for the 3 of us?

You guys have done a job. You've kept our city going, and every time I get an email from you, especially recently. I'm like, that guy's been so busy with this new migration to the building. So thanks for all that you're doing, all 3 of you.

All the equipment's safely over there, right?

Yes, except the PAWS system, which is supposed to stay here.

Yeah, if I could also just emphasize, as much as I wholeheartedly hope for the best. One of the areas where I sometimes wake up in a cold sweat at night thinking about worst-case scenario is related to IT, cybersecurity, our network, providing, you know, good up-to-date software. And so I can I guess, easily report at this point. I am sleeping much better based off of the wonderful things that we've been doing and plan to do as we're installed. Thank you.

Hello.

Is it Jeff? I think it's Jeff. Are any of you mayor pro tem?

I'm mayor pro tem.

Oh, we're wondering which to go forward with. I don't think the mayor wants to miss short-term rentals. I'm wondering about flip-flopping the next 2. I think mayor's doing a little video for City Hall. He should be back soon.

That's where I don't see a problem flipping.

Gary, are you okay flipping? Yeah, mine is really brief. So thank you.

Any questions?

So, uh, go ahead with the, uh, stationary plans. So it says on the agenda SAPs, that's for station area plans. It's just to give you a reminder that under state law, a municipality that has a transit center in its community, and we have 4, and those count as Frontrunner. So the Frontrunner station down by UVU, and if you have bus rapid transit, so we have UVX. So when UVX leaves the transit center, it goes up the parkway and it stops at the Lakeview, the one over by Honey Bay Camp. That's one transit center area. Then as you go to find Main Street, and then you keep heading east over by the malls. So we have to do a station area plan. for all 4 stations, and those need to be adopted by the end of this year. But state law also requires that we submit our plans to our local metropolitan planning organization. In this case, it's Mountainlands and UTA to take a look at. And, and so we're working on all 4 plans. We're almost done. The plans for bus rapid transit is we are proposing that they will be a resolution of impracticability in that we're already all developed around there, and there's really nothing else for us to do in those areas. And so we've got the history of the zoning in the area and the things that have been done. We're working on the transit center a little more. We've hired a consultant. There's some things that we need to refine on. And then as we go along in this process, we'll eventually go to MAG sometime this year before the end of the year. They, under state law, they have to look at it, send it back to us and say, yep, you meet— you've covered all of the state law requirements. When you say year, are you talking fiscal or calendar?

Calendar.

Sorry. Yeah, we've been talking budgets. That's a really good clarification. So it's calendar year this year. And we've been communicating with MAG. I'm not concerned that we won't meet the timelines if we don't adopt the station area plan. Then there is an impact to us for CD&B road funds and things like that. But I think we're in a good trajectory. I don't see a problem with it. Just wanted to give you an update on, on where we were with the station area plans. So any questions? Okay, that was pretty, pretty short.

And I get paid by the word, so you better be a little more verbose then.

Well, in light of economic times, I'm giving the city a break on the budget for Brandon.

Conscience is there.

All right, before we go into the stationary plan Um, go ahead and grab the food. Have a blessing. Grab food, back. Um, yeah, just, just come back in 5 minutes. We have a volunteer for a prayer? No, we do.

I'll pray.

I'm already—

Our beloved Father in heaven, we're so grateful for the opportunity we have to be here today to discuss the needs of our residents of our city. We pray for thy continued blessings upon us to be cognizant of their lives and their needs, and to bless those who are presenting to us that we can understand their work and why they put into this. We're grateful, Father, for this food. Pray for a blessing to be upon it, that it may give us nourishment and strength, and we can use that strength and serve thee and those around us. These favors and blessings we pray for in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ. Amen.

Amen.

Let me know if it turns out to be a problem.

That's awesome.

Well, that's the problem, isn't it?

Won't be me that does it.

So if you run into an issue, let me know. All right, everybody, let's come back. I'm back. You found me. You're always ready. I went a long way. All right, we're going to talk about short-term rentals with Sue Summers. Continuation on of our last presentation. Okay, well, I was somewhat counting on the, you know, impact fee discussion and the budget discussion to put people to sleep, but now I have to rely on, on the food coma after eating dinner. So, um, but where we ended our discussion a month ago was on talking about occupancy limitations. I'm not going to revisit that unless there are questions. Um, but again, I guess before I begin the discussion is really I want to remind the group that this is a, a proposed, uh, ordinance. This is really the framework for which the council can then pull levers, either make it more restrictive or more relaxed. Um, at this point, this isn't perfection. This is about getting something to start the conversation. Are you suggesting we have an occupancy limit? I am. And what do you think about a big house? Well, so actually, let me exit out of the presentation and kind of— I tried to give kind of a comparison of what our proposed ordinance looks like compared to some sister cities. And so if we look here, maximum occupancy, and you made it small enough that none of us can see it very well, I will Do my best to— let's make it a little bit bigger. I have a neighbor with a 12-bedroom home that they Airbnb. 8 occupancy doesn't work for them.

They should sell that to a big family.

Yeah, so if really big family like So if we look at row A here, I'm going to highlight it. So our— the proposed ordinance that's before the group today proposes a maximum occupancy of 8 persons. If we were to look to Provo, their maximum occupancy for any short-term rental is 10. Sandy does not contain a maximum occupancy limit.

That's the one where they had the shootout.

Yeah, and they also have other requirements, but Lehigh has a maximum occupancy of 10, and then Ogden, Logan do not. So tents, pretty familiar with other cities. Others haven't adopted them. But again, as I've tried to prepare a proposal for the, for the council is again weighing the balances of these are short-term rentals that are operating a lodging unit within a residential zone. So how do we maintain the character of a neighborhood? And how do we balance that with operating a business, a lodging business within a residential zone? So that is why I'm proposing a maximum occupancy. But again, this is really a lever that's available to the council to pull and say, yes, we wanted 8, we wanted 12, or we don't want one at all. It's a lever. It's a tool that the council— I'm okay with an 8, let's say, but they could apply— you talked about different levels. They could apply to be a super duper Airbnb vacation rental. True. And then you— not to argue against you, Councilmember McDonald, but then you open up potentials of maybe the goat house again, where you have the super duper short-term rental, and they're using it for more than just overnight accommodations. They're really using it to hold events. And again, part of the reason that I've proposed the maximum occupancy is it's easy. for NIT or our police department to go out and enforce. Because again, we're not looking at are they unrelated, are they related. It's how many people are at the STR, how many people are here. Does it exceed that limit? It makes it something that is enforceable as opposed to putting a requirement that becomes unenforceable. Well, that ties to parking too. you got to be parking all of this street. That is correct. Another, another factor as far as the number is, let's say you have a single-family home, it's got 8 people living there, or 6 children, 2— so 8 people, 9 people. But most of those houses have kids, right? They have 9 people, and as those kids grow up, they move away, and there's less people there. So there's kind of a difference between 8 adults or 10 adults and a family with smaller kids as far as impact. Okay, any other conversation on occupancy before I move to the next?

When do you want feedback? Like, how do you want feedback? As you go now, or are you going to get—

As we go.

Yes. Yeah, so I, I, I think I'm a little bit with Tom. I think 8 is too few to be considering, and I think that has made an impact the property owner, but also the families that want to stay there. So is there a way to balance the neighborhood concerns? Obviously, they're the most important, but is there a way to also protect property rights and make it so that families can stay? Like, my family couldn't stay in a place with 9, or would they?

But I'm thinking too, this is the anomaly of the huge house. Yeah. What about the house in my neighborhood? The police were called because they had 8 or 10 people in there, and it's not that big.

Yeah.

So you got to, you know, I think you need to set the standard at 8. You know, you can't say this size of the house you can have— well, but it does, it does tie to parking. Yeah, I mean, ultimately parking is the big deal.

But if you've got kids, this big home has street parking for everybody.

What's that? It's a powerful— but I'm, but I'm saying as far as impact on the neighborhood, if you have 8 cars out there versus— they have all street parking.

Yeah, but that's, that's a anomaly.

But also I think you can make a parking— say like you can only have X number of parking spaces, whatever your parking spaces are. But this many people, they can park off in the neighborhood.

So we do, and we can speak to parking here in a minute. There's also a parking plan requirement that's tied to the number of bedrooms in the home. They need to have X amount of parking spaces based on the number of bedrooms that are a part of the STR.

Well, and I just want to clarify, they don't have property rights to rent in a residential neighborhood. Right now we're trying to extend a little bit of a right to them, you know, to do this unique, you know, short-term rental thing that never existed 20, 30 years ago, or did— it was very not used very much. So I don't want people emailing me. I mean, they have and told me, well, I have this— I have this right to use my property how I want. No, you really don't. We have ordinances, we have codes in our city to actually give you rights and give your neighbors rights. So we need to help you guys dwell together nicely, and that's why we have some of these guidelines to kind of keep everybody happy neighbors, right?

Correct.

So I guess that's my take on this is I'm like, you know, it really comes from house, maybe, right? But at the same time, my overreaching, my over, you know, my, what I'm, my take is How is this going to impact the residential use that is already established in that neighborhood? How is this going to affect the neighbors?

One thing I was thinking about to help that is if we each envision, you know, that this house is on both sides of us. Yeah.

Yeah.

Would we care?

Would it bother us? Would it make a difference? Are we okay with it? And so just, you know, it's not some random house out there. If this house was an excess, what are we okay with? And that's what we should wind up with.

If you say you can have 12 and it's a 1,600-square-foot home, there's 12 people in there, that's not safe.

Yeah, so I get the balance there. I understand the— yeah, I don't know.

And to that point, Councilmember Spencer, in the proposed draft ordinance is in a bedroom that is 100 square feet or bigger, You can have 2 individuals in that bedroom. If the bedroom is 70 to 99 square feet, you can have 1 individual. You cannot identify a room that's less than 70 square feet as a bedroom to house people. Nobody's allowed there. So if you have a 2-bedroom apartment, you are capped at 4 people based on a bedroom calculation. But at no point can you exceed the 8. is currently how the ordinance is. So if the lever was to be pushed to 10 or to 12, you're still capped by a calculation of bedrooms, and you're also capped at the maximum units. Does that make sense? I'll just explain that. Okay.

So can I also ask, because I noticed that in here, can we— and I know there is, uh, I just want to make sure we have things defined, like a bedroom has to have a window. I mean, is that, is that listed somewhere, or can someone count, you know, retrofit some little closet and call that a bed? We need to define that in the code.

The building code does require a window.

Okay, so we can fall back to that. We have something we can fall back to that defines— okay.

And we require the property window and closet. Okay. And the code does require inspections for both building code And fire code. So, so they would have to abide by the building code.

And if they have to have a permit, is somebody inspecting that before they get the permit and say, okay, yes, this is your—

That's part of the application process. Okay, so Jake, how do you see— just to begin with the end in mind, as far as going through this presentation, we're talking about different things and then we're moving on. Ultimately, I mean, we want to bring this to a resolution, obviously.

Yes.

Um, and so it seems like if we had, you know, all the key issues, and then we were able to vote to prioritize them, and then we were able to vote to decide what we want them to look like— I mean, almost like a grid on a spreadsheet, right? And it seems like we could work through this And come to a resolution just by some of the things. Okay, so we can work off of the comparison grid that I have here.

Okay.

Um, so you'd allow to live— and uniformly everybody defines a short-term rental as transient lodging, which is less than 30 days. And, um, we would require a business license, um, application to obtain a short-term rental, um, use. We would allow the, um, owner to live on-site. It would not be a requirement that it is owner-occupied, but it could be.

Um, how many other cities have that owner—

so Sandy requires owner occupancy, and same with Lehigh. Ogden separates— Ogden and Logan both allow For owner occupancy and non-owner occupancy. So what— and I'm okay either way, but I think what owner occupancy does is it puts a governor on how many of these houses a person could do, right? So if you're trying to not make Guam the place where everybody buys a house and does a short-term rental, You either do it like that, or you come up with some number, some total cap of what we're going to allow in a neighborhood. So, well, the proposed ordinance does— where we're not requiring owner occupancy is the ordinance has, in its current fashion, limits an owner to 1 short-term rental within the city. Oh, and why stop that investor-driven That would be the reason, is to, to stop the invest— investment-driven housing and to try to save the inventory for owner occupancy. But I, I would like to interject that although we would do our best to enforce that, it might not be too difficult for people to try and get around that by putting ownership in the name of LLCs, corporations, things that are hard to track.

And my friend, that's why I written this Wrote this down here. I would like to require— in order to avoid that, I would like to require transparency on the part of the homeowner. So if they have an LLC, they can't just put the LLC name. They need to have an individual's name. And I'm not sure how to do that. I'm not sure how to make sure that all of the names of the people who are in the LLC— that's what you'd have to do, right? So they could just use a name different. Yeah, they'd have to Whatever the principals are, the owners, the ones that have the— so they couldn't on one property put one name from the LLC and another property put another name. So it looks like they're different people. Do you know what I mean? So all of them.

I think you could ask for that, whether people would be honest about it, you know, short of us looking at all their founding documents, you know, for the application to see who the actual owners are. I mean, we could require for them to provide us with those documents and just keep them on file. They're out of dates. Yeah, we could. You know, when you're dealing with hundreds of these things, and you know, they can also be amended over time too, sell interest in them, you know, might be hard to keep track of. Theoretically possible.

If they're relicensing every year, I mean, it's just like I'm going to the doctor, I have to make sure all my information is still the same.

So we can continue to work on the language. Part of, part of what's drafted in the ordinance is that the individual shall prove ownership of the property as evidenced by a copy of the transfer deed listing the applicant as the fee title owner. So we can, we can continue to add language to that to try to ferret out ways that people will create a shell LLC to then have other short-term rentals. Again, this is a work in progress, but then I guess we can continue to try to work on this language. Um, um, so fire code may also cap hosts on short-term rentals at 10, as long as— just kind of let me know that the fire code seems to indicate that it may be 10, and that's why St. George has a 10 cap. Lehi has a 10, so we would probably want to look at that code and make sure that we're following. Yeah, you shouldn't, you shouldn't see over that based on fire code. I do know that like a lot of the southern Utah rentals, you'll see signs that say max occupancy 10. I do think that's the reason, it's fire code. And, and many times even then, depending on when they're built, they require any fire sprinkler system as well. Yep. So my plan—

So I have a question. Yes, as it relates to owner occupancy, I think somewhere in there you said that they couldn't use ADUs as rentals.

That is correct.

So how does that look like? If the owner's going upstairs, they can't rent the ADU?

Correct. Uh, the, the purpose for that would be is we specifically created the ADU to allow a single-family home or single-family dwellings, we wouldn't want to create the ADU to then allow for short-term rentals. That was the reason why I placed that in. So, in essence, if you were— if you had an ADU, you basically have to give up your ADU registration to then operate a short-term rental. You couldn't have both. You didn't have an ADU and a short-term rental.

But doesn't that make a lot of sense to have a person living there? They have guests in the basement.

They could still do that. They could do that, but they wouldn't be able to qualify for any— they just can't say that they have a legal accessory apartment. But if functionally the house is built that way, yes, either or. They could live in the basement and they'll get rent.

Yeah.

So then either or. Yeah.

That affects their ability if they want to sell it. They can't say they have a unit.

Okay, application fees. The application fees, when we look at other cities, are kind of— they vary greatly. Provo's is $25, Lehigh's $50. Sandy, depending— Sandy actually requires you to provide your gross receipts for your income. And based on if you're over $15,000 in income in a year, then the higher fee applies to you. If you're less than the $15,000, the lower fee applies to you. Ogden's is a flat $266. I'm not sure how they came up with $266. Should just make it $66. Yeah. Logan has a very different setup. For Logan, before you actually apply for your short-term rental application, you apply for a conditional use permit. And you go through a conditional use permitting process, and you pay $500 for your conditional use permit process. And then once approved, then you apply for your business license, and that's $75. So Logan is by far the most expensive to operate and the most arduous to get. And so just comparison, that's what the fees look like and cost.

But does that pay for staff to go out and inspect? that doesn't— that's to cover our costs, right, to license them?

Yeah, I bet that odd dollar amount, they set it at $250, did an inflationary increase, something like that, about 5%. So that's just a weird—

that makes sense.

Um, we've already kind of talked about this occupancy limited to 2 per bedroom with a square foot requirement. So there's that step down. If it's a bedroom of 100 square feet or more, it's 2. If it's 70 to 99 square feet, it's 1. If it's anything less than 70, it's 0. And then your max occupancy is currently in the ordinance is set at 8. Again, I have no strong opinions one way or the other on these. If the group feels that it should be higher, we should go up to the 10 under the fire code. I have no objection to changing that. That maximum occupancy. I think we should go ahead. Or you make a stipulation the size of the home.

Can you do both?

I think we could. We'd have to rework some of the language to talk about square footage. I mean, it doesn't make sense. You put 10 people in a— talk about square footage or number of bedrooms. Well, I mean, as Councilmember Spencer said, you know, depending on the square footage of the home, if it's a bigger home, then the occupancy would be a different occupancy. I think if we were to go that route, I would probably write it as a square footage separation as opposed to a bedroom separation. But I mean, in my neighborhood, 10 people in a home, that's just ridiculous. You have some vacation homes that we've rented that have like lofts with bunk beds, which wouldn't be a bedroom by our standards we just laid out because it may not have a after the war, it may not have a window, but they loft up there and they can put more bodies in there.

Correct.

But if it's square footage, you know, under 3,000, number 8 makes a lot of sense. If it's over 10,000, maybe that's a different deal, but I don't know. I think a lot of the ones you're talking about, Tom, we run those too in Lake Bear Lake. Yeah, or St. George. St. George, a ton. But they've got They'll have a whole area. That's all they are. Yeah, right. That's a specific zone.

They do this. St. George, you said it was 10?

No.

Was St. George on that list?

St. George is not on this comparison list, but it is 10.

How do they do it at 10? Because I know there's Tom down there.

I think it's one of those things that it says 10. But they have a whole deal. Maybe it's a whole different zoning where you're— I mean, they're building houses. Yes, there are specific zones for short-term That's something that if you follow the news, it's been throughout Washington County. So there may be distinctions from St. George versus Washington versus Ivanhoe. So, so yeah, so you probably get increased amount of occupancy in their nightly rental zone versus a single-family home in a single-family presidential. Do you know if this is on the agenda at Utah League of Cities and Towns? It's one of their breakout sessions.

Question.

Happy to— I haven't— no, I haven't looked.

So I think they do legislation last session to kind of—

they do. So House Bill 256 basically authorized cities to really put in these requirements. It also took away the prohibition of cities to use the online advertisements as a way to enforce. So really gave us better teeth to put in restrictions and regulations.

So I think they feel like it's done now, Tom. I don't know if there's more tweaks. I think they felt like they did the legislation, didn't they? Or do they still look at it improving?

So there may be like an educational session that educates on it or trains on it or shows here's what happens.

I thought you were talking about new legislation.

Yeah, yes. But yeah, I don't know. How are you— I haven't heard of any— I haven't heard— helpful. Yeah, I haven't heard of any suggestions or recommendations from ULCT to continue to improve the law. And House Bill 256 didn't provide any specifics as to cities can make X regulation. It was more of cities may adopt regulations And they also took away the prohibition on using the online advertisement enforcement tools.

So I don't have a problem with both of these, right? If we have a limit on based on square footage, you know, or you go up to 10 for a bigger house, you know, I don't— that's my—

yeah. And what Tom was talking about, 25 people, I mean, that, that would be a specific zone. Yeah, it's approved for that. And that has a license of its own, because you wouldn't take those great big ones and stick them in neighborhoods, right? It would be disruptive. But in a zone, it'd be fine. And St. George has been— and Bear Lake had built out for those types of zones, because they, they know it's a second or third home. And it's big.

What's our— what's our failsafe if we do the 10 and we get a situation, another goat house? So are there other things in here that we can, you know, I mean, I read the noise, the, you know, that's how we can shut them down.

Correct.

Okay.

Yep. Okay, so moving beyond occupancy is we've also proposed a limitation on the number of nights to be rented. Now, this is a requirement that I have borrowed from Sandy, who requires owner occupancy, they require that it be the primary residence of the owner as well as being owner occupied. So to make it the primary residence, they can't rent the home out for more than 183 days. Again, this is just trying to provide a tool or a lever to the— If you want to adopt a limit on number of nights to be rented as a way to limit the impact on neighborhood. That's why it's safe. We had a lot of people speak to that very subject 2 weeks ago, right? I'm, and I'm not convinced that limiting the number of nights is helpful to the neighborhood. I mean, actually, if you have somebody that they run up for 2 months, they're gonna be pretty low impact. They're just coming and going, doing whatever they're doing in the city, and that's 6 months, you know what I mean? So to that point, uh, Jake, have you ever seen where There you have for each new person that rents it, that there's a minimum of days. Oh yeah. So there's less impact of people coming in and out. Yes. So there's, there is a, you know, you have to— there's not a maximum, maybe there's a minimum. You have to rent for a minimum number of nights. And then I've also seen ordinances that require a dead period after as well. So there'd be at least a 24 or 48-hour period in between rentals as well. So how would you, how would you enforce that? That becomes something you, you enforce on the application side when they come up for renewal, is you require a number of nights rented, what nights were rented, and you use it on the renewal of the application. That's that improvement.

They have to provide that documentation.

Correct.

Yep, they provide like a report from Airbnb or VRBO. Correct. So again, I don't know if that moves the needle for anybody, but it's in the—

Well, and it just helps from an enforcement standpoint. If there's an abusive rental, then that gives us more things to say, well, you know, this is having impact, that's having impact. I don't know about the number of days, but I feel like the dead date— I think the regulation— the additional regulation, having to get— especially when we're the only city, as I understand, which has a very specific reason for requiring that 183 days. I'd probably rather not put a limit on the number of days, and if we have a problem with it, then go and address it. Again, I think there's enough things in the ordinance that lets us get a goat house or lets us get— look, there's too many cars, there's too many noise, there's too much whatever that we problems that way. But I think there's a whole population of, you know, renters that— or property owners that have been renting their units out that have been really good. They've been good to the neighbors, and they've gone out of their way to make sure that they're doing things right. And I don't want to penalize them necessarily for the one goat house that's been terrible. So if we have things in place that let us go after those goat houses, then that lets the other owners, you know, continue doing what they've been doing. It would be best. Yeah.

Let me offer one comment on that. You know, right now our ordinance says that in a residential zone, you can only have 1 family that occupies a dwelling, right? We define family as any number of people who are all related by blood or marriage, or no more than 3 individuals who are not all related to each other. So we're saying under the short-term rental ordinance that you could rent up to 10 people or 8 people, whatever it is. is, and we haven't really talked about whether we're requiring them to all be related, but if our assumption is they don't necessarily all have to be related, then it sort of gives people an avenue to get around that 1 family requirement because they could rent to 8 unrelated adults, for example, and they call it a short-term rental, and then they can rent it for an unlimited period of time.

So, who had something to think about renting to this many unrelated people or a family, like it specified in the PowerPoint, in the slides.

And I've since taken that out because we, we changed— because we had as an occupancy 8 unrelated, 8 unrelated, or sorry, 8 related, 4 unrelated. And then we simplified the ordinance. And I just hadn't updated the slides. So the slides now reflect that it is—

So this is a, this is a, this is a safeguard to stop someone from circumventing our code enforcement.

Could be. Yeah. I mean, so Jake, to clarify, were you— you're suggesting that that 8 occupancy doesn't require them to all be related? Yes, for enforcement mechanisms. Right. So if you don't have a limit on how long they can stay there, then it is— then it becomes an avenue for people to get around that.

That's a good point. So there's a problem we're trying to solve then to not let them get around the ordinance. What's the best— what's the best and least restrictive way to do it?

Or the other way we could approach the problem, and this was in an earlier draft that none of you have seen, is short-term rentals. I had a line in our definition that said a short-term rental is for a rental of 1 day up to 29 days and not allowing rentals to extend over 29.

That's fair.

I can't imagine that impacting many of the people who consider it short-term rentals.

Correct. And that's something too. So how do you, how do you then prevent, you know, the 10 roommates from just putting the rental in the next person's name for the next 29 days?

So when you rent it for 29 days, I do it for the next 20 days. Dave does it for the next 29. Yeah, you're right.

I mean, ideally, the reason that wouldn't work is because the short-term rentals are going to cost more than going out and renting. But we don't know, well, that that's going to be the environment. But also, I think you have property— or the owners of these STRs are going to be really motivated to keep the rules because they don't want to lose their license. And if they have a situation, they risk losing their license.

I think that would be motivation. But I think we're suggesting that that's a loophole.

That's a loophole.

It keeps them within technical Compliance.

Yeah, but if you—

but it gets around—

but what we're saying is that what if, what if it's one roommate and then they put it the next roommate?

Yeah, so I would think the owner would be not motivated to do that, but they're giving you revenue.

Yeah, it's all, it's all money, right?

That's what it is.

We can't stop them if they're—

I mean, one other option to deal with this, and it becomes more restrictive, is that you could say that you could only rent Short-term rental to 1 family at a time. So whether that's 8 or 10 people, if they're all related, that's great. But you can't have more than 3 unrelated people. But that's another way to get together and rent a place, right? I don't, I don't think that's— I think we have trouble. I'm just saying that's another, that's another option.

So my, my problem with—

No, we're good on that. We're good on that.

It comes with our— once again, I think that could fly and go— could go into the loophole. The concern that I have is I don't want a long-term residency situation of unrelated people. The guy who came to City Council and said we should be able to rent out every room—

Yeah, yeah.

Never will I allow that to happen. I'm sorry, I saw that in East LA, and there is so much abuse to women and children in that environment that I'm— that's, you know, not on my watch. I'm not voting for anything like that. So to me, this is a— we're trying to create a product that is helping families and groups and friends, you know, enjoy a vacation. So— And be by their family.

Yeah.

Or just to visit Utah. Yeah.

And less— More cost effective.

Yeah. So I fear— I just want to make sure we're not doing a loophole that the presents that opportunity for unrelated people, for the guy to rent out the rooms like he wanted to.

There, there is, um, as far as loopholes go, this is off topic, on the number of people, right? So if it's 8, if it's 10, or whatever. Have any of you ever experienced like going to a hotel and you can only have 2 people there and you see like 6 people with sleeping bags all wanting to get in? It's called baseball tournaments. So anyway, that—

it's gonna happen.

Yeah, I'm saying that's gonna happen. And I anticipate that we will have situations where that does happen. But again, where we do get a call, and officers or NIT officers respond, having a cap that is numerically easy to calculate without getting into weird issues, I think, aids the enforcement mechanism. Actually, what a nightmare to be throwing somebody out. Just came in, they just drove from California, and they're just doing their thing, and they're over something, and we got 3 police cars there. That doesn't sound like family city, you know what I'm saying? And one TV camera. Yeah. So, um, that's why I would just suggest we go after the property owner, and what's done is done that day, and then we document that's what's happened. That's true. There's renters there, and then at what point are they staying there? Are they staying there for the pizza party and then 8 of them stay to sleep there, but during the pizza party there's 14? Is that against— is that against the code, or is it just staying there are those who are sleeping, and then I have to go in and count heads? But your noise ordinance and your parking rules can really drive a lot of that, right? Correct. You drive up there and there's supposed to be 3 cars and there's like 8. Yeah, got a problem. Having been part of the baseball thing, um, you drop the kids off, they have their pizza party at the common area or whatever that is, but only a small portion of them are actually staying there at the place. And then 9, 10 o'clock, parents come back, pick them up, leave. So that's still in compliance, but they'll have to be clear that that's they can't really do that.

Well, I think we specify no events at those, right?

No events, but, but the noise ordinance and parking drive a lot of that. Yeah, the parking is difficult though because there's nothing that says you can't have 20 cars parked on the street. No, it's public street, park on it. There's nothing that says you can't do that. Yeah, they're going to park there. Within the STR though, the way that we would try to mitigate the parking issue is that when they apply for a short-term rental license, they have to submit a parking plan. And they have to show that they have enough off-street parking to fit— they have to have one car parking spot for every bedroom that they're going to be renting out. Now, can we really keep control somebody from parking on the street? No, we can't. But what we can try to do is to mitigate that by having a parking plan be submitted with the application to show That this property can hold the number of people that will be renting. So how do, how do we enforce that? To me, that's, that's a really important thing, because if you can control the parking, you eliminate most of these problems. And so we— I get you can go park on the streets, whatever, but we just need to have some, something with teeth that allows us to control that parking, because at least then we can control it.

Even though they have the right do it, they're signing something with us that says their tenants will not be parking on the street. So they're in violation.

So as also part of the requirements that we do is we, we require in the ordinance that they have a basically like a mandate or a notice that they're providing to their renters. And part of that is that we've provided offsite parking parking for your vehicles. The property owner is requiring or requesting that they park on the, on the property itself. Now, if we have a lot of cars parking on the off-street and it's affecting the neighborhood, we get a call.

One of the—

again, one of the other safety valves here is that we have— we require the owners to provide a 24/7 representative that will respond to the property within 1 hour of being called. So our NRT officer, our police officer that's on site fielding the complaint, says, we have a complaint. Look at all the cars that are parked on the street. You were required to provide off-street parking. You were required to inform your, your renters to park off-street. Would you please have your renters park off-street? So Again, there's no violation that we could necessarily fine somebody for, but there's a mechanism to try to mitigate that effect. Yeah, could we, could we, as far as require the owners of Airbnb to put on the website wherever they're running these, and hopefully we could boil it down to like 5 or 6 key issues and make sure that they have to post that with the postings? Yes. And we do have a requirement that on any advertisement that they indicate that they, they have obtained a business license. So we can expand that language to say you're expected to follow any parking requirements, uh, you're capped at 10 people at this, and you can't have events at the location, etc.

Additional cars could be towed.

Yeah, so are there other parts— are they capped as far as cars? I mean, they are by default. By the parking plan, yes. Because if we can make it clear that you can only have 3 cars at this place on your own property— Okay, we can work on that language. Because to me, the parking is a huge issue for the neighborhood. That's where it goes sideways. You have to start— most neighbors don't care unless all of a sudden you've got like 50 cars in front of your house. I, I do want the neighbors not to care. We want it to be kind of invisible to the neighbors, right? It's when the neighbors care, they'll be hear about it. That's exactly right. I mean, yeah, maintaining the integrity of the family neighborhood. That's what we're trying to do. I do think it's a little bit questionable whether we can truly limit the number of cars they can have at that residence at any given time. Because again, you're basically saying that you can't park on the street and the ability to park on a public street is a right, you know, if you will. I mean, unless we have somehow done a a neighborhood parking permit program or something like that. So I just think that that's really tricky. I think we'll have to try and control that through other means, either by, you know, again, limiting the number of occupants, requiring a certain number of parking spaces off street, you know, so that they naturally would want to use that and not go on street parking. But I think that just saying you can't have more than 3 vehicles, I mean, number one, very difficult to enforce or figure that out, right? But also not sure about— I think the way I would approach it in my mind right now, Steve, is that we would work on language that requires renters to ensure that they're— the owner requires the renters to use the offsite off-street And then we try to use it to put it on the— again, the owner of the property to then get compliance from their renters, as opposed to having officers side or toe, but put the leverage— put leverage on the owner to get compliance from the renter. So I'm really primarily proposing preventative actions as opposed to immediately correcting Because ultimately, if the scenario comes up, then we would be going— we'd be reaching out to the landowner, and the landowner would be then accountable and correct them by process of having a permit to direct charging. Yeah, I really think this is a key to getting this part figured out, dialed down, because every time I get pictures from somebody who's complaining about charging rental, that's the picture. They're in the street and they're picking up all these cars. Yeah. Um, I know that we're running on time. Um, if so, again, as part of that parking time requirement was one off-street, uh, parking per bedroom. Um, also having an urgent response requirement, meaning that they have a designated individual that if we have a complaint, that we can call them 24/7 and that they will respond to the property within 1 hour and that we can then resolve the complaint with the property owner present.

And can I just— one thing, um, I want to somehow— and I think you've got it in here— but clarify that they— their, their, um, conversion to a short-term rental, if they— for the parking, they still have to honor our landscape code, correct? In our city, they can't just pave the front yard, correct? You know, right?

That's exactly right.

I was thinking the same So yeah, make sure that that's clear. Yeah, yeah, and they can't do that, right?

So yeah, and that goes to the next point of the property maintenance requirements, is that we have a requirement they maintain the property in compliance with all of our code. So a general maintenance requirement, also snow removal, that they comply with all noise and nuisance control issues, um, that they create a quiet hour and a noise management plan, um, that would basically limit use of certain facilities that might be at a home— a pool, a hot tub, or spa— during certain hours, so you don't have a pool party going till 1 o'clock in the morning disrupting neighbors. Maybe no homeowner can hold more than 2 cars at their house, and if they have more than 2, they have to be Fords. Okay, something like that.

Hey, I want you to do, um, 8, um, 8I4. Can we add something? You've got security lighting. Can we have something down about that the lighting points solely on their property, the light path there at the property? So like if people come to check in at 1 in the morning, walking down the little side of the garage, they don't just shine the light in their neighbor's room. bedroom. I don't know.

We, we have some lighting standards like in our commercial, uh, ordinances. We could borrow some language from that. Justice— yeah.

And then noise control, that's in your fines.

Okay, right.

Noise control you've got in your fines.

Yep.

Just handle that. Okay.

Okay, the next, um, Big point would be a geographical spacing requirement. So, as it currently is proposed, is that you cannot have one short-term resident— short-term rental within 1,000 feet of another short-term rental. Now, as we look at sister cities, Provo does not have that requirement. Their only requirement about spacing is if it's in a multifamily building, uh, no more than 10% of a multifamily building could be used as a short-term rental. And short-term rental being defined as less than— Less than 30 days. 30 days. Thank you. Um, then really beyond that, um, Santee uses neighborhoods and they cap A number within neighborhoods, but they don't have a spacing requirement. Lehigh spacing requirement is only limited to elementary, middle, middle, and junior high schools. You cannot operate a short-term rental within 600 feet of those schools. Ogden has a zoning restriction that you can only have owner-occupied within R-1. And if it's non-owner occupied, it can go into other R zones, but limited to 1 per block. And then what's a block? They don't define it. So, yeah, that's interesting. Brent and I both buy a new home in a new warm development. We both plan to do it as short-term rentals. He gets his finished 10 days before me, registers. I know you're out of luck. You're out of luck. Well, yeah, that's a problem. There's going to be vandalism on your home once you— so that I'd be— And then when it comes to Logan, uh, the owner occupancy, um, is exempted from any sort of spacing limitation. Um, for non-owner occupied, it's, um, a 750-foot, um, spacing requirement. Where does the council feel on spacing requirements.

You— actually, more like area limitation would be—

so like neighborhood?

Yeah, so one area like Southwest Dorm doesn't become all the Airbnbs. No, you protect them by having a limit. Maybe you do both, a combination of both.

You could set up quadrants. We could use existing neighborhoods. On our, on our neighborhood map. How many neighborhoods do we have right now? Those are pretty good quadrants.

They're big chunks.

So you have 2 each neighborhood, so you have 18. Right now we've been told we have 1% of our households, right?

Roughly.

That are short-term rentals. About 250, give or take. Correct.

Is that— are those ones we know about?

Those are ones basically trying to scrape data off the internet.

So really, we don't know.

Correct.

To keep the—

to a neighborhood, it's pretty long. To keep the discussion going forward, I'll look at providing language based on neighborhood rather than a strict 1,000-foot geographical limitation. Neighborhood.

Neighborhood.

I think the question is what is our goal with this? Again, what, what's the number that we want to wind up? How— The reason I proposed the 1,000-foot spacing is so you don't end up with a cluster in one section of a neighborhood. So one neighborhood doesn't feel like they've just now been inundated with, you know, I have 5 short-term rentals and I'm the only family that's living in the circle now because everybody else around me is a short-term Yeah, that's a good point. That's a really good point. I mean, then 1,000-foot rule would spread them out. It would. And so again, it would— without going into a neighborhood system, is you're still requiring spacing across the city, but you're not limiting. So correct.

Can I just ask a question? So I own a short-term rental, I sell it, somebody wants to buy it because it's a short-term rental they can't assume that they're going to drop at the end of the list and whoever's up next to get one, if there are limits.

That is correct, because also in our proposed ordinances, a short-term rental license is not transferable. That's really interesting because a lot of times people increase the value of those homes just by selling it as a short-term rental. You're saying put it back on the list, you lose the rent. Yeah, if you lose it, that's tough. Do you want to put a limit? The way they'll get around that, I think, is they'll put it into an LLC and I'll sell you the LLC. So it is transfer ownership of the home. It still belongs to XYZ LLC, but I'm no longer the shareholder. You are.

That's why we're going to have the names.

Well, you'll get the name. No, we haven't changed the ownership of the LLC. Really?

Would you keep that though? Would you keep your name on an LLC for some You don't put names on them, right? So if they change the names, then they're bumped out?

No, it's still XYZ LLC. As long as I didn't make it Tom's LLC, if it's—

right, but I'm—

Warm House LLC, you don't care.

I'm saying our records at the city, we are making them put the names for the LLC to get the short-term rental list here. So if they try to sell the LLC, they— and they change off the names, that's going to come up the next time they relicense. And we will say, was there a change of ownership?

That gets tricky because you might just change the names anyway, whether you're selling or relinquishing. Yeah, but you know, so would you write it in there?

They can't sell the LLC.

Yeah, no, seriously.

I mean, if it's a loophole, why are we allowing it to happen? I don't know.

I think, I think we should cap it. Capped by square footage or total in the neighborhood or town or in the city?

What is the section?

Capping. So you had in your presentation capped at 100, correct? How did you come to that number?

Getting to that number was based on I know I've said this before, but I think there's some advantage in starting low. You can always increase that number. But if you start high and you find out there are problems and you've issued that number of higher licenses, difficult to rescind that check back.

Yeah, that's like the 180-day thing. That's just safe.

Well, we don't know if there really are. And some of those may only be doing it part-time, or, you know, we just don't know. And so if you started at, say, 100, and then those fill up immediately, then you can say, okay, we need to raise that up. So I think they might go— the people in that group might go, not simply— they think that they're having a gold rush in the city of college. Yeah, it is kind of a land rush. So here's how I reached the hundreds. Is based off of 2020 census numbers, based on what's presented on our website, is that we have 29,593 households and 98,000 residents. So if we were to take 3— issue 3 STR licenses per 1,000 households, that's roughly 89 STRs. If we were to do 3 STRs per 1,000 residents, that's 293 If you were to do 1% of the household, that's 295. Again, trying to start at a conservative number where you could expand rather than opening it and then trying to then somehow unwind because we decided we didn't want that many out there. I picked the number of 100 based off of 3 per 1,000. And then it's just the first guys to get their license in, like the story I just used. Yep, for options.

And then we can—

and then if there's a demand, they can increase it.

I think it has to go— I mean, what are we? What, what, what is our city? What, what is our goal here? Are we trying to provide housing for families in our city, or are we trying to provide short-term rental opportunities for investors?

They would argue— they argued pretty eloquently that they're providing family opportunities to come to town.

I didn't think it was—

they argue that. You don't, you don't need to agree with it, but that's their argument.

Well, I think the other part of it too is we have a bunch of people in the city who have been doing these responsibly and working really hard to make sure it works with our neighbors. I don't want to penalize them either. So where's the balance?

And I think it is a really beneficial thing potentially. I mean, for visitors coming in from outside the area, I mean, I think the last place where we do short-term rentals. We usually go there instead of a hotel if we have our family over.

So, but look at Hawaii, and that's the problem with Hawaii. Their residents can't buy homes because there's so many VRBOs, and they've limited it to 30 days minimum rental.

Oh, I don't know, on, on, on the island of Oahu, they've limited, but there's workarounds.

Yeah, but they also have a much different real estate market and very unique challenges that we don't have. Right. But just here's an example for you.

Part of the issue— real estate politics. Yeah, great. So that's why they have all these problems. Part of the issue, the reason why there's a conservative proposal here is that we don't know what we don't know. If you set it at 100 and people come in, it's maxed out, and then there's a waitlist of 200. Okay, we have 200 in, in Orem that say okay. Why do we not say a number and we just have a list who shows up and signs up? Well, I think that, that would get them in. I think the low number is going to make them come faster. I would. Then you know how many you have. Then you know how many you have. Then you have a true picture.

That's true. Then they'll come and do it so, so they don't get caught having an illegal one.

Yeah, that's right. It's not set in stone. I don't know, we can talk more about the number.

I just think the number So Logan—

Is there demand right now in Orem for more? That's the question.

That's what we don't know. So just as, as I look at other caps, Logan has 2 per 1,000 of their population. So right now their cap is at approximately 108. Um, then if you look at Sandy, I don't have their number because they don't publish their number, but it's 2 STRs plus, um, plus 1 permit for every 100 single-family detached dwellings. Um, so again, I, I, I erred on the conservative side. How many numbers again?

Where's your chart again? 100,000 was 100. Yeah, right there.

Maybe you start at 150.

Always a negotiation.

I'm happy to put whatever number the council wants. I'm just providing the information.

What's a— what's a household? Residential buildings?

Yep.

Okay.

I think if you start with at least the number that we think is out there as a starting point, then we'll tap it. Well, at least we won't have some big drama. So If so, I just want to clarify, so that'd be about approximately 250? Yeah, I mean, otherwise let's say we do it 100, we have 150 people automatically illegal, they can't get a permit. But it's, it's to get them in, see how many we really have, then you can adjust. Yeah, I just, I just think if you put a low number, it's going to make more people all talking.

I think we may create—

did you see how organized they got?

That's that fast. That was the reason. That wasn't everyone.

There wasn't people from Orem. The lady was from Draper and the others were realtors. There were 2 people from Orem.

Yeah, maybe we could develop like an opt-in process and see how many people— you put in an application and we review it. We can sell permits for $2,000 each.

Keep our fees.

Like gold cards for all those vehicles we just talked about. Okay, if it's okay, I'll run through the last couple of things real quick. We're gonna have to wrap up. We got 8 minutes. No. So it'll be— we do inspections, there's a process to deny, suspend, revoke STR licenses, and enforcement mechanisms, being that if they're in violation, the first fine is $500, the second $750. The third is $1,000. This would be higher than what we would normally do for an NIT violation. And the reason for that is this is a monetary process. And then upon the third violation, we would revoke their license. And if they violate after the revocation, they would be banned for a period of 5 years.

Sounds great.

That comes back to having the names on the LLCs.

And again, how we correct when there's violations of parking or noise or irresponsible owners.

Well, I appreciate the feedback, and I will try to incorporate that into a draft that we can present that can be voted upon. I could just say Jake and legal are doing a phenomenal job. We have a wide spectrum that I realize you're getting— being held accountable for the Full spectrum possibilities. But we are making progress. We'll continue to refine and bring it back to you. If I could maybe put an additional plug, we can share this information, of course, provide feedback as we're going along as well, so that we can continue to make progress in narrowing down what we need to do.

I just like the cautious approach. I like— think of all the loopholes. So we can plug them and be flexible for future changes if we need to. That would be my thoughts.

Okay, thank you, Jake.

Thank you.

All right, let's go through this real quick. Um, you, you picked how long? I picked a 2-minute one. You want that?

Yeah.

So I have responsibility for the Public Works Advisory Commission. We talked about that. They do a great job. I'm on the Euphelia group. We've met once. They need a park supporter. I appreciate that. I'm with them. I'm on the IHC Outreach Committee, which is the Oregon Community Hospital. It's interesting to get there. They bring us people in and talk about various events. We sometimes— well, we have a Gina from the senior center come On the CBD— CDBG, sorry, I got the outfit mixed up. And there's a meeting tomorrow that I won't be at because of the event we have tomorrow. I'm on the I Committee, which is a once-a-year thing for city mayors. I'm on the Utah League of City and Town Council and Utah League of City and Town Governor Subcommittee, which is pretty much at rest. We go very busy until legislative session starts. they take our information and kind of on hold until— so those are the committees that I'm in. Everything good in those committees? Sure. I mean, yeah, I think you get reports periodically, and the CDBG comes like every week to— so we see them regularly. Okay, sounds good. Thank you, Tom. We are working on a Utopia-specific presentation from Roger Timberman next time.

So the AI— one more thing— AI is not quite there on the January event, so I think we're going to need to present.

Is that in here? Okay, let's race through this real quick. Um, item 4, call to order. Item 5, invocation. Who's front of these? Fire boots. Oh, the Pledge of Allegiance has a fire. I don't know who marked— who— a whole bunch of them. Okay, but who— which council member recommended these?

Who got prayer pledge? Dave, maybe?

Or maybe, uh, maybe Jim? Or maybe the missing— Okay, well, I'll just, just welcome to come today. Okay, um, and then we've got International Firefighter presentation, Utah Assembly of Her Gold Star Memorials presentation, Rotary Club presentation, Utah Recreation Parks Association awards, Arbor Day presentation, Kindness Week Presentation. We got a lot. 7.7, city open house, uh, presentation, how that's going to go. Then we got personal appearances, item 8. And then you said approval of meeting minutes is not ready yet. Didn't I just say that? That's what she said. I read through them again, but she didn't like some of them. By the way, Mayor, we have a 15-minute personal appearance limit in theory. My guess is there were whales not looking at 2 people signing up. How long do you want to put a limit on this? I mean, we say 15 minutes. I don't know. Yeah, we never really enforced it, but we don't want it to go an extremely long period of time. I don't know how to do that. That's why you got the center seat, boss. Yeah. How do you propose we get into that if it gets in there? Well, let's just see how people signed up and then limit them to 1 minute or 2 minutes or something.

Yeah, 2 minutes.

One thing about limiting them is a lot of people like spend the day preparing. Yeah, that's true. You know, they can buy what? They can buy permission to go. You talked about that. Okay, so we'll, we'll see how that goes. As far as the approval meeting minutes, I thought I heard the name— she said something about the January one, but I don't know.

She was still going through.

She didn't like what— So if she votes to to continue this, then we'll just continue. Uh, 9.2, City Council meeting schedule, just changing that next time to 5. Is that the only change? Yeah. Yes. Um, and then we got here, yeah, people, CDBG publication coming to talk to us. And then Tech 2 is deferred again. Tech 2 was deferred again? Yes. Ken Garth is continuing to work with us in regards to Tech the, the details of the potential development. So they requested continuance. Do we make a motion? Do we vote? Do we make a motion to continue to the first meeting in May? I believe that's what they asked. Yeah, because— yeah, because next week we're going to have a pretty short city council meeting, right? Yeah. Okay, so I'll just introduce 10.2, and somebody wanted to pipe up and say— see if council moves. I'll say they requested continuance, and I'll just say we move to continue this item until May 13th. No, 13th. Thank you. Yes, the invisible monthly financial statement as well. City manager information items. And we're going to close meeting. Yes. Oh, we do? Yes. Okay. I don't recall what we're going to do.

Secrets.

Yeah, I don't know what it is. I know, but you got to have 4 of us to say if you don't give it, so at some point you got to tell us when it's time. Yes, but not in a public meeting. So, okay, any questions? No, we're good to go.

Thank you.

Is that allowed? Oh, look at these desserts. Oh, are these— these are niggers.

We'd like to welcome you to our city council meeting tonight, and we appreciate all of you coming. We'll start off with an invocation by Annika Boyak. And Jen, if you'd like to introduce her.

I would be happy to. Annika is a great member of our community. She works at an elementary school and she coaches the mountain bike team and spends tons of hours doing that. And I'm really grateful that she could come tonight. Dear Heavenly Father, we thank thee for the opportunity to be here tonight. We have to meet today, and we are grateful for all who have come here to share their voices and to counsel, uh, for the planning and future of the city. We would ask thee to help us have a spirit of peacemaking and of understanding, and that we and the councilors and all who have come here to speak will be able to communicate effectively and listen to what's being shared. And we would ask that thou wouldst help, um, help the city council to be able to come to decisions that will be beneficial and helpful for the city, and that those who have come here today to speak or to listen will be able to, um, leave feeling satisfied with what is planned and what will come about. And say this in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

Thank you. We'd like to have an invocation— I'm sorry, a— the Pledge of Allegiance by our Forum Fire Honor Guard. Would the audience please rise?

Honor Guard, attention! Prepare to carry colors. Carry colors. Forward march! Prepare to post.

Post goes.

Recover. Adjust. Present arms. Would the audience please join me saying the Pledge of Allegiance? I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under Of God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Order arms. Ready, face. Forward march. Forward.

Thank you, we appreciate that. We'll start out with item number 7, 7.1, presentation for International Firefighter Day from Division Chief Ben Williams.

Mayor, Council, community, thank you so much for this honor. Chief Sanderson couldn't be here today and asked that I represent our team. International Firefighters Day is a day of remembrance, recognition, support, and celebration where current and past firefighters are recognized, especially those who have fallen in the line of duty. This day of tradition began in 1999, almost 26 years ago, after 5 Australian firefighters were killed during their attempt to battle a wildfire on the outskirts of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. After their deaths, J.J. Edmondson, a volunteer lieutenant and firefighter in Victoria, Australia, rallied to coordinate this day as a national and international day of recognition and remembrance. The date is May 4th, was chosen as it is linked to the feast day of Saint Florian, the patron saint of all firefighters. Saint Florian, if you haven't heard, it was First known commander of firefighter operations in the Roman Empire who ultimately lost his life serving other people. Saint Florian is a widely recognized symbol in the fire service. International Firefighters Day is observed in many ways. It represented— it is represented by a blue and red ribbon, which symbolically links the main elements firefighters work with, red for the fire and blue for the water.

Thank you.

water.

These colors are also internationally recognized as representing emergency services. Orem Fire Department will be recognizing our firefighters on each platoon the first week of May. We invite the Mayor and Council and any other city administrators to attend if you are available. We will get you the dates and the times. The Orem Fire Department would also like to publicly thank the Mayor and Council, as well as the city leadership, for their continued support for our fire department. We pride ourselves on being the best and couldn't do The amazing things without your support. As you know, we have a state-of-the-art fire training facility which should open later this year, which we really appreciate the support we've gotten. It's like nothing else in the state and probably this side of the country, and we're super excited for this opportunity to have a training facility where the guys can go daily and practice and train on the skills which they— we can do now, but more with that facility. Additionally, we have 4 advanced life support ambulances, 5 heavy rescue ALS trucks and ambulances with paramedics. And as you know, our city is unique and we provide an advanced critical care paramedic squad, which is unique to not only our county, but as far as I know, to our state, where we have promoted critical care certified paramedics who operate the entire city and community covering all the more serious Charlie Delta Echo calls. and they provide additional skills that aren't normally offered by your normal paramedic certification. And this was approved by our city administration as well as you guys and our fire department. And it's really cool to watch the extra steps that we can do. We offer additional skills and medications that just— treatments and other things that just aren't offered in other parts of the county, and we're very proud of that. We also want to thank the community we serve for the continued support they offer us. We really enjoy interacting with the citizens citizens in the community on a daily basis. On behalf of Chief Sanderson and our administrative team and the members of our Fire Department, we'd like to again thank you, Mayor and Council, and show our appreciation with a gift bag that we have prepared for you.

So Thank you.

Thank you, Chief Williams, and thank you, Fire Department, for all that you do.

Hey, Mayor, I think, uh, We should give them a round of applause for our first responders.

Thank you. Mayor and council, while we have some of— so much of our fire department team, maybe we could have them come up and for a quick photo op.

Absolutely.

Can I ask our firefighters come up for a photo op?

Thanks for keeping us safe, I tell you.

All right.

1, 2, 3.

Thank you, and thank you to our fire department. We truly have the best fire department in the state, and we're really lucky to have that for our citizens here.

Thank you.

Next up is 7.2, and this is the Utah Central Association of Realtors, uh, with the Gold Star Monument, uh, donation. Peter Christiansen, if you'd like to come up.

Okay, what do we have to—

didn't prepare a speech, but, uh, we're just grateful to be able to contribute our, our Our headquarters are here in Orem. I grew up in Orem. Dan grew up in Orem, our president, and Christy, our president-elect, lives in Orem. So we have strong ties to this community and are grateful for all you guys do and happy to contribute to this wonderful memorial. Tell a little bit about it because we'll have 2 of these today before you sit down.

Yeah, for those that are unaware, unaware. Um, with, uh, the building that's going on in our city center here, uh, our mayor and council unanimously approved the building of a Freedom Plaza, and the key, uh, aspect of that plaza will be a Gold Star Family Memorial Monument. And a Gold Star Family is the family that's left behind who had a, uh, a family relative, close family relative, who died in the line of duty, uh, defending our country.

You want a picture with their big check then?

Please, let's do it.

Should we bring both groups up maybe?

Yeah, yeah, why don't we do, uh, both? So if you'll just kind of stand to the side, and then we want to have you come and do a photo along with our other donor here next.

Yeah, next up we've got, uh, the Orem-Linden Rotary Club.

Hello, I'm Mike Rich, the president of the Orem-Linden Rotary Club. Just a couple of words about Rotary. Rotary is an amazing organization worldwide. There's over 1.6 million members. There's around 32,000 clubs just like our club, and we do service in the communities all around the world. Around here, a lot of the trees that are in some of the parks, you know, we've planted. We planted tulips down in Nelson's Grove not too long ago, and we do various other projects. We join with the international clubs and some of the local clubs to expand our reach. We're currently working with Spanish Fork Club and a few others in the county to support a water project for the Armenian people where there's villages that don't have water, and the men are leaving and going into Russia to work, and they might spend years working because they don't have resources there. So by piping water in, you know, they can plant, they can grow things, they have resources that they can, they can do things. So we do a lot of Wonderful things with all the resources that are available internationally. And I just wanted to mention that to you. I'll give some time here to Debbie.

Thank you for the opportunity to come tonight.

We're making a $1,000 donation from the Orm Linden Club, and then there was a Turn It On bike race from the American Fork Pleasant Grove that had extra funds, an additional $1,000. So we're giving you $2,000 this evening. And we know that this is going to be a wonderful addition to our community, and we are very pleased to make this donation on behalf of Rotary.

Thank you.

Thank you. Let's take a picture.

All right, here we go.

1, 2, 3.

Thank you. And we, we really appreciate that. And just to give a little bit more on what Bren was saying, So a few years ago, we decided that with Orem, we wanted to make our identity God, family, country. And so we have a slogan, In God We Trust. And you've seen what's happened with Family City USA. It's blown up through our city and it's our identity. And with our country, we've got up at the cemetery, we've got a really good patriotic exhibit. And we want right here at our city center to have a really patriotic exhibit. So these are things you can be proud of and excited about. And for anyone who might be listening or anyone who's here, we've still got to raise some more money to make this happen. And anything you can do is appreciated and helpful. So thank you to those 2 groups that came tonight.

Thank you.

Okay, next up, item 7.4, Utah Recreation Parks Association and Sports Field Management Association Awards. And this is Leanne Powell and Dan Fairness.

Good evening.

Thank you so much for having us. Um, as you mentioned, my name is Leanne Powell. I'm the executive director of the Utah Recreational Parks Association. This is Cole Walker. He is actually president-elect of the Intermountain Sports Field Management Association, and we really appreciate you giving us a couple of minutes to come and, and celebrate your parks and recreation departments and some of the great work that's happening in your city. Uh, URPAR Association represents about 2,000 parks and recreation director— or parks and recreation professionals throughout the state of Utah. Many of them are here tonight that are part of our association and very active statewide leadership doing a great job. And I, I would challenge you, I guess, for a minute just to think about a community like yours that is so focused on family and to think about if you didn't have parks, if you didn't have trails, if you didn't have pavilions and meeting spaces and you didn't have a recreation center and you didn't have pools to teach lifelong lessons, uh, life-saving skills. All of those things happen because of great parks and recreation professionals throughout the state and here in Orem. So I think a little bit of tonight is about celebrating the great work that they're doing. Parks recreation, we're kind of, um, we work on 3 pillars. One is health and wellness. So everything that we're doing is not about just playing games and having fun, although we do a lot of that. It's about the health and wellness of a community. So that's kind of one of the major pillars. The other one, another one is environmental stewardship. So taking open spaces and parks and taking care of those and teaching our kids the importance of having these types of assets in our communities so that they don't go away in the future. So environmental stewardship, very important. And then Parks and Recreation for All, kind of that social equity piece where we want to try to reach out to every citizen in our communities and provide great opportunities for everyone. And your folks here in Orem are doing such a great job. Each year as we get ready for our conference, we take nominations for several awards and Uh, we had over 100 nominations this year. We get our— all of our past presidents together and they choose who is going to win the awards each year. And so fortunately, we're here to present 2 different awards tonight. Um, the first one is going to be for Outstanding Facility. And, you know, when you talk about facilities statewide, all of the different things that a facility could be— could be a park facility, it could be a recreation center, Lots of different things that kind of fall into a facility. And I think when, when our past presidents get together and look at all these different facilities, there's, there's lots of great conversation, right? And the facility that we're honoring tonight is your Hillcrest Park Center. And we often get asked, you know, what is it about a particular facility that becomes the outstanding facility for that year? And I think really, truly, it was the vision of the entire community to take a school that was now closed, to take maybe an underused park, and have the vision to figure out a way to make that a year-round indoor-outdoor gem for the community. And, and it takes a lot of people to do that, right? It's, it's not just Parks and Recreation Department saying, Um, these are some things we need, and these are some— it takes the leadership, the administration, and the council to say this is important for our community. And when you invest in Parks and Recreation, I truly believe you're investing in the heart and soul of your community. So, um, and it, and it, again, it takes a village. I think some of the, um, the architect is here, so Blue Line Design, WPA Architecture, Bud Mahos construction. It takes a whole village to take a vision like this Hillcrest Park Center and make it a reality. So on behalf of our 2,000 parks and recreation professionals throughout the state and our past presidents that select this award, we are honored to award the Outstanding Facility, URPA 2025 Outstanding Facility, to the Hillcrest Park Center and your Orem Parks and Recreation departments. And I think we'll do both awards and then maybe, you know, you'll want a picture of the Parks and Recreation departments up here or something.

So.

All right, happy to be here representing, uh, the Intermountain chapter of SFMA, or the Sports Field Managers Association. Uh, this is our first year having this award. But we had multiple different, uh, nominees submit in, and this is for Sporting Grounds of the Year. This award really was designed to, to be awarded to a department or multiple departments that really showed an added investment in tourism, sporting, growing different sports in their own community. And, uh, this year Lakeside Park really represented what that means for us. So we wanted to— I mean, I think I'd be remiss if I didn't take a special moment to, uh, specifically, uh, recognize the maintenance, since I'm from the Sports Field Managers Association, uh, the maintenance side. Uh, it's great to have these sites to be able to program on and to be able to bring in that added revenue and, and, and have all of that for our communities. But a lot of that's not possible if we don't have those who are on the ground who are sacrificing their time in order to make some of these things possible, um, by, by performing the work internally and, uh, then of course taking care of them once they're ready. So, uh, the Intermountain chapter of the Sports Field Managers Association is, is more than happy to award this Sporting Grounds of the Year to Lakeside Park and the Orem Parks and Recreation departments.

Thank you.

Mayor and Council, we'll have them come up for a photo opportunity, but if I can also just say that this is independent third-party evidence that our Parks and Recreation departments are also heeding and listening and implementing the call to be the best. So really appreciate that. And so we have a bunch of employees from those departments who we will ask to come up and be embarrassed and recognized and have a picture taken.

Oh, this is absolutely great as far as the Be the Best. And, and like, like you say, you're an independent organization. You look through the entire state. We're very proud and, and grateful to receive these awards. So if you'd like to come up for a picture.

I don't need a message. Probably somebody else. Raise your hand. All right, here we go. 1, 2, 3.

That was nice.

Thank you. Next up, item 7.5, an Arbor Day proclamation, the state of the city, uh, with Public Works and Josh Torrey, the group. Chris?

Yes, thank you, Mayor and Council. We're grateful to be here tonight before you. As you know, Arbor Day is coming up soon. And we have an Arbor Day proclamation that you have before you that you'll hopefully be signing tonight in support of our Tree City USA program and our Arbor Day and urban forestry efforts. Just wanted to give you a brief background. Arbor Day was actually— it was created, I guess, back in Nebraska, back in 1872 on April 10th, and it was recognized ever since at a tree planting at that location. And so, We've been celebrating Arbor Day since that time, since our organization has been here since 1919. But I wanted to mention a couple of things from the proclamation specifically to bring to your attention. Every year, Arbor Day is celebrated each year on the last Friday in April in the state of Utah, and our trees in the city of Orem beautify the landscape, enhance our property values, moderate temperature, clean the air, reduce erosion. And provide habitat for wildlife. We have been a part of the Tree City USA program now for 32 years, along with 3,400 other cities in our nation. And so not only are we Family City USA, but we are Tree City USA. So, Mayor and Council, we appreciate your support. We have some, some information we'd like to share with you regarding our urban forestry. I failed to mention those that on my side. Uh, so Josh Storey is our urban forester. He's been here for, I'm going to say, almost 20 years.

21.

That was a good guess.

Okay.

And Tyler Pay is my assistant public works director. We are missing Jim Orr, who was our division manager over parks, but we're here to present just a couple bits of information for you that you might want to— you might find useful.

I'll take a minute and speak.

First of all, I just want to express my gratitude to—

Sorry about that.

Um, he does a phenomenal job maintaining our urban forest, and I got looking at some of this data this morning and quite frankly was shocked at how big these numbers are. It's really impressive. Um, right now our current urban forest is, uh, 6,638 trees strong. Uh, Josh diligently maintains all of those trees with a few seasonal staff and does a fantastic job with what he has. Uh, another interesting fact, uh, Chris mentioned how it improves property values. Uh, that urban forestry, if anyone wants to take a guess as to how much that's valued at today—

$20.3 million.

$20.3 million in trees in our city. So we've got a large valuable asset there that, uh, Josh diligently maintains and takes care of. Um, other than that, we, we appreciate your, your support, and we are going to be spending a little bit of time this, this year in the next coming months building an internal master plan. We realize how valuable this asset is, and we want to make sure that we're putting forth, uh, a correct level of service to maintain those trees and make sure that they're safe. We need to make sure that they're pruned annually and that we don't have any worry about risk with with deadfall and things falling in our parks. So we're going to be working diligently with Josh and our innovation team to build a master plan to analyze that and make sure that we're right-sized to continue to provide the beautiful forests that we have. So thank you for your support. And, and again, I just want to thank Josh for, for his good work in this program. Josh, over the years you've made a few reports to the City Council. Thank you very much. I know we relied on you heavily when we were going to build the new City Council. We had trees that had become part of the folklore almost of Orem that we didn't want to take down, and you, you educated me and perhaps others on the fact that a tree in the city doesn't live as long as a tree up in the hills because of pollutants and bumps and other things. So I really appreciate you being wise steward over the— over something I know nothing about. I wish you were my neighbor and I could utilize your services at my home.

Thank you.

But thank you very much for my Orem home that you help us with.

Yep.

We also offer services to Orem residents.

Oh, good.

For any questions. Do you mow my lawn too, or just— I'll happily come by and— no, that's out of my realm.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Consulting services.

Yes.

Thank you.

So I'll stay in line.

Thank you.

I will say that he's been in my backyard personally and checked out my silver leaf maples and said, you got a problem here. You got to throw this down on— I don't even know what it was. What was it?

Iron chlorosis.

Iron chlorosis. Thank you. And I still need to apply that. My trees are doing much better as a result of your advice. So Josh is available at the request of the citizens if they have any concerns with the health of their trees, and perhaps even regarding pruning fruit trees or otherwise. So just for your information, here on this campus, I think we removed around 40 trees. Recently, because of what's happening here with the city center and so forth, we're pleased to report we're going to replace that with over 100 trees. So we're going to more than double what was here before. I mean, and, uh, from with respect to what was removed. So, um, yeah, thank you, Josh, for all that you do. We have a, we have a great history here in the city of Orem with a great urban forestry program, and we look to continue to do that, and we'll be presenting more information. you in the future. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up, we have item 7.6, Kindness Week and City Birthday of Service. Debbie D'Amico.

Hi, good evening. Thank you for having me.

We are pleased to invite all of you to join in our Kindness which will kick off on Monday, May 5th, which also happens to coincide with Orem City's 106th birthday. We will have social media posts each day with a kindness activity suggestion, and kindness yard signs will be available to pick up at the Recreation Center for residents. There will also be kindness citations provided to our school resource officers to give out at schools to children they witness doing a kind act, which will include a free treat from a local business. On Saturday, May 10th, we will hold a service project and birthday celebration starting at 10 AM with a word from Mayor Young. This event has been added to your calendars, and we would love to see you all there. We would like to give a special thanks to Council Member Millett for her efforts along with One Kind Act a Day in collaborating on this project.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next item, 7.7, a presentation on our City Hall open house that's coming up. This be Kanish Whitaker.

Plug in here.

Yes.

Yes.

Okay, perfect. Oh good, and it's showing up here too.

Okay. Hang on, it was there when I said yes.

Okay, it's back. Okay, you got it.

All right, that's great. Well, I'm excited to present to you about our Orem City Hall's grand opening, which has been a long-anticipated event here. We're excited to be able to offer Some tours for our public on the 21st, 22nd, and 23rd from 5 to 8 PM. So those will be available to the, the community to come in and have some tours. We'll have on Tuesday a grand opening ceremony at 6 o'clock, and I'll tell you a little bit more about that. These City Hall tours will include Miro as well as our Orym royalty. both our Golden Royalty as well as our Miss Orem, and department representatives who will be stationed at each area to be able to give highlights of their area as well as answer questions from the public. Videos and TVs will be on displays highlighting our city as well as the construction of the building, and there will also be handouts available. We have a tour So, here's the flow mapped out. We'll start at the very top, highlighting some stops along the way with human resources, as well as kind of the innards of the clock there on the side, seeing how that clock works. Conference rooms, break rooms, the balcony, the legal offices and management services. The public will have an opportunity to go into the city manager's office, as well as the mayor's office and the balcony there. And then we'll go down to the 2nd floor. And be able to exit through one of my favorite rooms, administrator office, which will eventually house this beautiful Orem seal from this building. We'll go down the grand staircase and see the community development conference rooms there on the second floor, as well as the fire department administrative areas, and see the emergency operations center, which is quite impressive. We'll go down again to the first floor where we'll be able to see the 3 311 location, the employee gym, and the Freedom Gallery, as well as the conference rooms that are located on this floor. We'll end with seeing the city— City Council's conference room, as well as the City Council chambers, and then exit through the lobby and back out through the doors on Center Street. Along the route, we'll have some fun and engaging activities such as scavenger hunt where you're trying to find little images of Miro along the way that will have a hidden message that can be unscrambled to give the secret word to earn a prize at the end. There will also be a 9-hole mini putt-putt along the way with— throughout the tour, ending with a custom Aurum City Council in the City Council Chambers. Forum Custom Hall.

On—

for this ribbon-cutting ceremony on Tuesday at 6 o'clock, we'll have some lovely prelude music followed by some words from our mayor, Mayor Young, and our city manager, Brent Bybee. We'll also hear from our capital project manager, Lane Gray, as well as some representatives from Lane Construction and Method Studio. We'll end with the ribbon cutting and a balloon drop and then have refreshments and resume our tours again. So the public is invited to this, and if anyone here would like to sign up for an event ticket, please feel free to scan the QR code here provided and sign up for your tours today. I'll leave this here for another minute.

Okay, well, thank you. We're excited.

I do my glasses.

Okay, next up we've got item 8, personal appearances. Time has been set aside for the public to express their ideas, concerns, and comments on On items not scheduled as public hearings on the agenda. Those wishing to speak are encouraged to show respect for those who serve the city. Comments should focus on issues concerning the city. Those wishing to speak should have signed in before the beginning of the meeting, and please limit your comments to 3 minutes or less. And first on the list, we've got Al Switzer. Switzer— Switzer— Al Switzer.

Good evening, my name is Al Switzer and I'm the owner of Candy Charitable Enterprises, which owns 14 acres in South Orem that is frequently referred to as Wilkerson Farm. I would like to share my perspective that maybe would help balance a a lot of the counterarguments and misinformation that's being circulated. I have 4 brief points. Number 1, I want to share what the purpose of buying that property was. Mike Carter and I founded Tabitha's Way— co-founded Tabitha's Way Local Food Pantry in American Fork, now in Pleasant Grove. Its only purpose was to help fight hunger and food insecurity. The purpose of that was to raise vegetables and produce to help the nutrition of the clients we serve. Parenthetically, we serve now 11,000— more than 11,000 individuals a month, and the city that has the most clients coming is Orem. Number 2, the arrangements we made with Wilkerson have not been working. They didn't work. We tried very hard for 6 years with multiple strategies to make it work. The agreement was they would raise— they would farm it to make a living and pay their rent in vegetables. It had— it didn't work. There was a lot of financial loss and debt, and I subsidized it, supported it, and gifted monies to try to make it work. We gave them 1 year to get their act together and be more financially, you know, let them be financial. And that didn't work. They had 1 more year to do a summer and a spring fair, a fall and a summer fair. That didn't work. So they have been informed they need to vacate by May 31st, and there will be no farmer fair on the property. Point number 3. Neither I nor any of my family members will financially benefit from the sale of this property. This is owned by a charitable organization inside a donor advised fund managed by the Community Foundation of Utah. All proceeds will help to go to Mind Made Mission, which is to help fight hunger and food insecurity in Utah County. And number 4, we are proposing a development on those 14 acres that is not high density. It's an R-8, quarter-acre lots, which is equal to or better than any adjacent or surrounding neighborhoods. And one final comment, uh, prior to this zoning request, I have never met, do not know, or interacted with any members of the council or the mayor. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Next we've got— well, the first word is whistle. Does it say Whistleblower Ron? Okay, Whistleblower Ron. And what, what's your last name?

Pajork.

Pajork. Okay.

Yes.

Thanks.

Uh, I come here to speak on, um, I've been, uh, telling all, you know, commissioners, but, uh, this stalking and organized crime, um, that, uh, is being done to me, which I have proof, will be rested in your hands lawfully. I'm giving you due process by coming here to speak to you tonight. Um, and, uh, everything you guys talk about with disasters, I have a resolution for. And you guys will not blame the, uh, Spanish or illegal aliens as you're trying to do and cover up for sex offenders, because it's all coming out. And, uh, if you— you know, if I get organized or if I get stalked again, which I have proof, um, then, you know, law will be— have to be served on your side. And, uh, I don't think you know law or any of your attorneys. And, uh, did you get, uh, lawful advice back in that other room? Oh, you don't want to speak?

I don't— I don't know what you're talking about.

Oh, you got legal advice. That's not right.

My attorney.

Legal advice?

Yeah.

About what? Yeah, yeah, there's a city attorney that's always in our meetings.

Yeah, they're not supposed— or did you hire them?

Obviously, they don't work for free.

Well, I need an audit on everything.

Well, there's a whole process you need to go through.

Oh no.

And then, uh, who's your auditor? I want to find out who's the auditor.

We don't— the auditor is an outside firm, and I don't think—

Oh, it's outside firm?

Okay.

I don't think you know what you're talking about. Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, next we've got Romaine Allen.

Hi everybody, um, I love Orem and I think you can see why. Tonight was filled with the spirit and with love. We have amazing people in Orem. First, I'd like to thank all of those on the city council who have been really responsive to residents over the years. I— they've taken time to speak to me about my concerns, especially the mayor, Linnea Millett, David Spencer. You have all been amazing over the years. Thank you for taking the time with me. I'd also like to appreciate Jen Gale for answering my email questions. We went back and forth a few times, and I— it really makes a big difference to know that we're heard and that our concerns are valid. Um, I have 2 big concerns tonight. Um, well, first of all, let me thank Al— I don't know your last name. Thank you for making the property available for Wilkerson Farms. It's been priceless. Um, 2 of my great-nephews wanted to come to the meetings. with me because they love the farm. They've loved the family time there, and they want to see it saved. Um, and thank you for also saying that, that you didn't have any personal interactions or relationships with anybody on the council. That means a lot. Um, my 2 concerns are I would like to know how the zoning, um, rezoning vote that was scheduled for tonight, how that got postponed. Um, I know a lot of money was put into sending out mailers and flyers and, and postcards, and a lot of time was spent notifying people of the vote for tonight. So how did that happen? Who called for the postponement and why? I, I would love to have that be public if somebody can look into that. Second, one of my biggest concerns during the previous election was seeing potential conflicts of interest. I know Chris Kilpatrick is not here tonight, but his was one thing I was concerned about. He owns property on State Street, and with certain projects, if they get approved, he stands to make millions of dollars. He promised during the election campaign, during the cycle, that he, if the situation arose like that, he would abstain from voting on projects that would benefit him. That's the right thing to do.

Thank you.

Tom McDonald works at UVU. There's potentially lots of conflicts there where projects get proposed that would benefit his employer. He also runs his own consulting firm and invests in real estate and brokering deals.

I—

my current concern is I've heard from multiple sources that Chris Kilpack is friends with the developer, as well as that Tom McDonald is working behind the scenes to make sure that this deal goes through.

Thank you.

I don't know if that's true, but I sure would like to know if it's true. If an investigation were made, would we find personal phone calls and communications between Tom and Chris and the developer promoting that, or would we see that they're actually representing us as a people— as the people? I would like to call for the city to create a policy on conflicts of interest, that if there are personal relationships or financial benefits Um, for anybody on the city council that they say what their— what the conflict would be in a public meeting and that they recuse themselves and not vote on anything that would benefit them or, or people that they know. Thank you. You want me to—

I'll, I'll just be really short on this. I have no financial interest in this part of town, and I own I only told the developer that I didn't think multifamily housing is what you citizens wanted. I said I thought single-family housing would be there. I didn't broker a deal. I didn't call for any delay of meetings. I just, I tried to represent the citizens by saying I thought single-family housing would be more better received by the community.

And I can address your question about how the meeting got, or this subject got postponed. We got, I got a call last week from, um, our city staff that just said the applicant has asked if we delay the meeting because they would like to be heard by a full council. How do you feel about that? And I said I'm fine with that because I think any applicant that comes before the city council ought to have the privilege of hearing— being heard by the whole council if that's what they desire.

So I said yes.

I didn't talk to any other council members. We didn't have any conversations about it. Nobody spearheaded it. It was just a, how do you guys feel about this, yes or no?

Sure.

Um, and I, I don't even know what the vote was, and I didn't even know what— how it had gone until I showed up to see the agenda on whatever day it was, Monday. So, um, there was no conspiracy. There was no desire to push this to any particular date for any particular reason other than, for me, anyone that wants to be heard by the full council ought to have the privilege. Yeah, I'll comment on that too, because there was an email sent out that there were 4 city council members who agreed to postpone this meeting. I did not agree to that. I don't feel like we should have developers control our agenda. That, um, if something was scheduled, you know, the citizens were told after the Planning Commission that it would be heard on April 8th, and I felt like we should have stood by that. And you don't get to shop what council members are here and which ones are on vacation and can't be here. So that's— there was an email that said there were 4 that voted in favor of the postponement sent to all of us.

Yeah, and I think what kind of becomes a bit of a problem is, you know, as was said, there was a meeting scheduled for tonight, and then the developer requested to change that meeting, and there should be more to a process of how that happens. Um, it shouldn't be decided by you know, a group of the city council or whatever to postpone that. There should be a process. And I think that's, that's where most of the feedback I've gotten has been, that it just seemed kind of willy-nilly. It's like all of a sudden it was on, uh, groups were, you know, talking to all their friends, neighbors to come into this meeting tonight, and then lo and behold, it's canceled and moved because the right city council members aren't going to be here that night. And so we just need a more solid process.

Point of order. I don't know that that's a fair assertion to say that it was because the right or wrong city council members were going to be here.

But why else would you cancel it?

I, I, I don't know. That's the— I, I mean, for all I knew, they had other things going tonight, or they had a family emergency. I have no idea. But I think it is fair to say that if an applicant is going to invest in our city, whether that be building homes or building buildings or helping neighbors if they want to be heard by a full council. I don't think that's unreasonable. And I don't think it's unfair to say that they picked the— they changed the meeting because of who was present. We have a quorum here. When you have a quorum, you can vote. So I don't know why we're, um, bumping items that are supposed to be on our agenda. That's not fair to our residents.

Well, we're bumping item 10.2 a little bit later.

I don't know what that means, Tom. What does that mean?

We're going to continue it.

And we've done that, right? But, but this was at the request of a developer.

And, and so, is the difference.

And there's even, there's even, okay, so item 10.2 that will be continued. So that's where we go back to the process right now, because I mean, the way this kind of went down was very willy-nilly. The right process would not be dependent on the developer having the right people. Now, this developer that has canceled their meeting for tonight on item 10.2, they canceled it because they're not ready to present it to us. This was obviously ready to be presented. It went to the Planning Commission and it was scheduled to come here. There's nothing in this process that needs to be upgraded, changed, fixed, except having the right city council members here to vote that way.

Look in the audience. The developer is here and the representatives are here. So, so I don't know why What? Why was this not on our agenda? I can see you guys, right?

You're here. Yeah.

So at any rate, let's continue. But, but to my mind, we— and this would be a good thing for us to talk about in a work meeting and work through— is what is the process? How does it work? What are the roles? And I think if that's all defined, then we won't have this sort of problem again.

Right.

It just really shouldn't be, you know, 4 of the council can split things. You know, I think we need to work together more. We need to take into consideration everybody's preparation— the developers, the residents, the staff. We just need a best practices policy here to where we can create— not have this type of situation. It's just— I've been on the resident side, and there is, you know, developer exhaustion. Developer fatigue is real. You know, I feel like this area of Orem has been through a lot, so I was a little frustrated when I saw that. You can tell, probably. I was frustrated when I saw that we weren't finishing this tonight, so I apologize to our residents who are here.

Okay, next up we have Aldine Jones.

Mayor, we can look at our council meeting policies and procedures and agenda-making policies and procedures and even look at a comparative analysis with sister cities and see if there's some, you know, options and considerations that we can bring back to you in a future work session.

That'd be great. Thank you, Brent. Aldine Jones.

Hi, I have family members that live up in Daybreak, which is a 15-minute city, and those are just homes. They're not like tall rises, but The reason I'm involved in this is I have been watching. I'm from New York, Central Park and all that. And I, I'm watching in 20 years, where are we going to be 20 years from now? And if there was any way to keep that farm, my gosh, even, even if they— the farm hasn't been successful, it's not making enough money. They're having all kinds of issues, which all the farmers in America are, which is why all of our, our food is coming from China and Mexico, which some people don't think is to our best interests. So I'm thinking if there was any way to keep that, even though it's not right now working effectively, if the time ever came, just like remember during World War II when everyone had the victory gardens in their backyard, if the time ever came, it would just— I'm looking at like 20, 30 years. What— why wouldn't we want to have something like that if it was possible? Because that would be city planning. Like, Central Park was planned.

It wasn't just—

it didn't just happen where somebody donated all that land. And all of you who have been to Central Park, you know it's a good feeling.

You've got oxygen in the air when you have a farm.

And Utah and all the other places, whenever they build, they always kill all the trees. But here in Utah, in Utah County, right here in Orem, The arbor— I mean, trees are really important here. That's all I was going to say. If there was any way to keep it, that'd be nice.

Vance Law.

Good evening. Um, much of what I have to say has been discussed, uh, regarding the change of the vote, uh, date. It's, uh, concerning to me that a developer, um, his opinion can convince the council to change, change the agenda. Um, but I won't continue. We've already discussed that. I'll simply state that I believe that, um, that area for single-family homes even is not a very prudent idea. If there were a derailment in that area, sure, the chances are slim, but if there were a derailment there and there were homes there, that would be a catastrophic event. I also believe that single-family homes cannot be the developer's final goal. In order to be able to make a profit, multi or high-density homes and residences is the way to make good money. I live in the area. I live in Northwest. Provo, so I am not an Orem citizen. But if that turns into a high density, a lot of that travel for cars would be going through my neighborhood. I have driven Geneva Road, as I'm sure some of you have, and notice how many cars are parked alongside both sides of Geneva as residences in that high-density complex that is there. I believe that that's what eventually is going to take place, and they're not going to be 92 or 96 individual homes of families. I believe that there's going to be 4 to 6 students that occupy those residences who attend UVU or BYU, and eventually there's going to be 4 to 6 cars per residence, and there's already traffic backing up on Geneva Road and Sand Hill Road, uh, even as we speak. So I, I would hope that, uh, I would hope that we as a— or that you as a city council will consider the— your constituencies, that, uh, the neighborhood is not going to, uh, enjoy that. We need all the open land that we can keep, and, uh, I would hope that, uh, you would listen to the citizens who live in the area and, and stop entertaining this potential fiasco that has taken place so far. Thank you very much for your time.

Benjamin Nightingale.

Good evening, distinguished members of the City Council. It's an honor and a privilege to be part of the democratic process in the city, a city that I've come to love after graduating from college and as I've looked to set down my own roots to start a family for myself. Uh, part of what drew me to setting down in Orem as opposed to other cities in Utah County was your commitment to family, not in words but in how you carry it out. We've heard already tonight from the Parks Department, from other fire departments, how we keep safe and how we entertain ourselves, and the activities and enrichment opportunities provided. And I think what sets it apart, not just from the government perspective of what programs to provide for families, but from entrepreneurs and small businesses in entertainment and enrichment— and it's why I'm here on behalf of Wilkerson Farms myself, as having many memories there with myself, dates I've taken over the years, and now with my wife as I've started a family, and with our nieces and nephews. I think that turning this into residential homes is a mistake. I think we need more areas that celebrate the family, not as homes, but as a place for people to gather, to enjoy themselves, and to celebrate the season. And I think that if the land were to sell, turning it into residential zoning is a mistake, and it should be put to other use in some entertainment or enrichment capacity.

Thank you. James Brown.

Thanks for taking time to listen to all of the citizens. It's a, it's a crowded room tonight, so you, you may have bitten off more than you can chew here. With the number of people that are here to speak. Um, I appreciate the opportunity to address you. Um, I want to go back to, uh, the, the earlier comments about, uh, a vote being taken and all that. And so I, I'm going to kind of turn and look at Steve Earl here for a minute and ask if there's some sort of an investigation.

I don't know, between kind of Steve and the mayor here, if there was a vote taken. That would require a quorum.

If there was a quorum and something was discussed and voted on, that seems like the OPMA would apply. Am I wrong about that, Steve? Would OPMA apply if there was a quorum and a vote was taken?

I mean, you don't have to answer right now, but—

Yeah, I'm not going to answer your question unless the mayor wants me to answer that question. Typically, I advise the council and not to give— Yeah, absolutely. It was more of a rhetorical question. But if that happened, it seems like that perhaps there were misdemeanors committed, because I've contacted the city and asked them for the minutes of that meeting or anything else, and I've been told repeatedly that there was no meeting.

No one's aware of any meeting. No vote occurred. Nothing happened.

So I'm a little curious about what went on here. So I'm requesting formally to whomever that needs to go to, that there be a formal investigation and we find out whether a vote was taken. And if it was, I'm going to argue that OPMA was not followed and someone needs to be prosecuted.

Thank you.

Troy Kushner. I'm sorry, Tony. I didn't put my glasses on.

Hi, Orem City Council. You may remember me from exactly 1 year ago tomorrow where I stood in front of you and explained that my wife and I chose to move to Orem, Utah over 30 years ago. To raise our family. We were blessed with 8 kids, and I wanted them to be raised in the same type of city that my wife grew up in. And I explained at the time that the Alpine School District had grown too big to accommodate that. They weren't representing us. Interesting enough, my in-laws bought their house on Sand Hill Road In 1973, you want to talk about changes. Back in 1973, Sand Hill Road was a country lane with nary a car going up or down. Well, now it has become a major thoroughfare for all of the developments in South Orem and North Provo, to the point that my 90-year-old father-in-law. Is afraid to pull out of his own driveway to make a left on Sand Hill Road. Coincidentally, he's been a crossing guard here in the city of Orem for 15 years, so he understands the importance of slowing down and making sure people are aware. My wife grew up picking and thinning peaches In the orchards across where Costco is now for this, for the stake where those 2 stake centers are. That was an orchard where my wife used to thin the fruit of peaches. They used to go down the street of Sand Hill Road where Nelson's Grove is, and they used to pick cattails. Those orchards no longer exist.

Thank goodness.

This city saw fit to preserve open space as Nelson's Grove. Now let's get to Wilkinson's Farm. My understanding is it is zoned as an OS-5. Is that correct? Does OS mean open space? Agricultural? Let's explain something really easy. Can anyone here deny the fact That Orem City is 95% built out, excluding the parks. Can we agree that 95% of the land in Orem has buildings on it? Which means we have a very small percentage of open space left. Wilkinson Farm is one of those spaces. Well, let me explain something to you. Open space means no buildings. Any development on open space is density. It doesn't matter if it's zoned R-8 or, you know, high density. That doesn't matter. We're taking what little space we have left. That's open and developing it, which means more density. I shudder to think, as some mentioned, some people have mentioned earlier, if we turn these houses and the people turn around and rent them to UVU or BYU students, the amount of cars and traffic that is going to go up Sand Hill Road. where it's already so busy, my 90-year-old father-in-law is afraid to pull out of his own driveway. I shudder to think what that will do to the city. Let us preserve the open land we have. Thank you.

Helena Kleinlein.

I'm actually really glad that Al is here tonight because I personally would like to thank him for his generosity and recognize everything he does. In Utah County, we saw the opening of his Tabitha's Way in Spanish Fork, and it is an admirable cause that he is doing. Right now I'm going to, I'm going to do something that probably hasn't been done before. I'm going to ask you to open your scriptures. So open them up on your phone. That is to the council, that is to Al, and that is to the audience. And I would like you to turn to Isaiah 5. And I'm 100% serious.

Isaiah 5.

I will wait while you open them. And when you get there, I want you to go to verse 8. Because Isaiah is talking about the Wilkerson farmland, and I will read it to you. Woe unto them that join house to house, that lay field to field till there be no place. Now, I would like you to open footnote C. Because footnote C tells us what is going on here. This is when wealthy landowners Absorb the land of poor farmers. Wilkersons are poor farmers. All farmers are poor. But if I can point out the word woe, I'm hoping everyone in this community understands the word woe. It is a covenant curse. So this is a very serious issue. So I would ask Al, please ponder very carefully Whether you desire to bring a covenant curse upon Orem. And to the council members, you swore to uphold your duty of office with fidelity. Protect us. Farms are blessings, not curses. Protect us.

Truman Van Cutt.

There's a lot of tough acts to follow tonight for sure, but, um, I just want to say first off, thank you to those of you on the council who have listened to the residents and who have actually made the effort Um, I think we're seeing what's happening when we push people past a breaking point. We're pushing them and we're pushing high density on their neighborhoods. And it's hard because every single time that we get a developer to come in, they pull these games.

And as we pointed out earlier, they're here tonight.

We could have had this vote. Um, I've talked with Jen Gill. She, she reached out to me about Kind of how that went down. And Jen does have a lot of good points. I would just say the main point is that your power as a council, as a city government, it comes from the people. And those people, unfortunately, at times, Tom in specific, you may view as trash. You may call them that behind their backs, but we're not trash. And we really, really, really want to be heard.

Thank you.

So thank you.

John Chaney.

Thank you, members of the City Council, uh, for hearing me. Um, you, you've heard a lot of, uh, statements about, um, uh, opposition to woke Kristen Farm, and I'm going to also voice my opposition to rezoning that. I do understand, I appreciate the owner appearing tonight and also the efforts that he's done for this land, and I can understand the strains that he has, but there is something very valuable in having this land, having this open space. This has been As we talked about before, perfect farmland. It has been something that I benefited personally with doing community-supported agriculture. It is fantastic vegetables and fruit that you can get from there. And then I've attended for the past 10 years the, the fall fair, which it is the only one now still existing in the Orem-Provo area. Again, this, this space is just built out. I've also been stuck on traffic jams in just the last few months on Geneva Road to see how quickly this is built out. This is not a great idea to continue building more, especially when we look at— there's, you know, the 2 railroad lines right next to it, as well as the freeway. That's not going to be a good quality of life for people to live right next to that with the noise, the vibrations. Again, as was pointed out in the Planning Commission, that if there was a an accident, that would be a pretty horrific thing. And as small the chances, it still is something to consider that wouldn't be an issue right now with the open space. So, again, I ask you, you know, consider the great recommendation of the Planning Commission that they voted 5 to 1 against moving ahead with this. And as was also talked about in the Planning Commission, the idea of what does it mean to be a family city? What do we value as a community and what do we stand for? That's a very important decision concerning this land, because once something happens to develop it, you can't, you can't turn that back to farmland. So, please bear that in mind as you make your decision. I do ask you to reject the rezoning of this property.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you. That's all the public comment. We'll go to item number 9, the consent items.

I'm—

I just heard somebody say something about comment. As far as the public comment, the way it works is you have to sign up before the meeting. I'm sorry. That's, that's the rules, and we can't change the rules.

Well, if you're going to reschedule a meeting, you need to do it in ample time for everyone to understand the meeting and what's at stake. And developers, you're going to play behind your back like this and rob people of free space. That needs to, that needs to be taken into account. And, you know, for those who are going to make money off this, they should be Thinking twice about it, because there can be a lot of lawsuits brought over this.

That's not a joke.

Okay, moving on. Item number 9, consent items. Uh, we've got item 9.1, approval of meeting minutes, and item 9 for January 14th and March 11th.

Yeah, Mayor, we need to— I want to ask if we can move the January 14th minutes from the consent item, consent agenda.

Yeah, that's fine.

I mean, maybe, maybe a way to do it would be to make a motion to approve the consent items except for the January 14th minutes, and we'll bring those back another time. Okay, I'll so second. Renee, can we vote?

Yeah, yeah.

I mean, we've— the other thing that we've got on there is item 9.2, an update to the city council meeting schedule.

So she moved to approve them with the exception of—

okay, I just hadn't read it.

Yeah, that's okay.

Sorry.

So are you okay with the first and the second?

I am fine.

So, aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Okay, consent items pass. Next up, we've got item 10, the scheduled items. We've got a presentation, item 10.1, Debbie D'Amico, um, and Heather Cox and Taylor Draney to go through the CDBG update.

Good evening again.

Okay, we are here to present a A slightly updated version of the CDBG fiscal year '26-'27— or sorry, '25-'26 funding recommendations. So we have Taylor here with Mag, and we're going to go through our regional recommendations, our Orem City recommendations. And after this, I believe we will have a 30-day public comment period, and then we'll have a resolution for you to vote on in 30 days. So just wanted to give you an update.

Thank you.

All right.

Hi.

So these funding recommendations we're about to present were made by the CDBG Advisory Commission in collaboration with staff. A quick breakdown. We do have about $846,494 this year between the allocation we're going to get for '25-'26 and rollover funding. And then, as with every year, we have 15% of that is just public service, and the rest of it is for non-public service funding. And then every year as well, it's split between regional projects, which is in collaboration with Provo City and Utah County, and then just Orem City projects. So the regional committee met to make these recommendations. Just so you can quickly see the split between Utah County, Provo City, and Orem City. Novo and Orem, but we'll look at that in more detail in a second. As far as non-public service funding goes, there is one joint, uh, funding recommendation, and that's for the Fuller Center for Housing for $17,000. That's single-family home rehab.

The next recommendation is for MAG and Orem City Administration, which is $126,529. Then we have the Section 108 loan repayment, $101,369. ORM code enforcement, $161,500. ORM critical home repair, $57,000. ORM LMI parks playground equipment replacement, $289,422, which would total $752,820.

Okay, great.

And then for public service, these top 3 in gray are regional recommendations for Rocky Mountain University Foundation, Utah Tax Help Services, and Big Brothers Big Sisters.

Who funds the one in gray? Who funds those ones?

So there's a percentage of the Orem CDBG allocation taken, and then that's combined with the percentage of Provo and the Utah County, and they present those to the regional committee, which is made up of some of the CDBG advisory And then representatives from Utah County and Provo as well.

Thank you.

Can I go back a question, a slide for the Section 108 loan repayment? Can you just tell it, let us and the public know what that is? Do you want to?

Yes, this Section 108 loan payment, and I can ask Brandon Nelson. I believe that was for a car dealership. Is that right, Brandon?

Car dealership incentive, and that's the last payment.

This is our last payment. So we will have that $100,000 freed up next year.

Then we move along, um, the Orem Police Department for Victim Services at $30,000, uh, Orem City Police Department Homeless Services for $1,896.90, and then the Orem Neighborhood Preservation, which would include neighborhood and homeless camp cleanup, of $1,827.70.

And I wanted to bring up a little bit this neighborhood revitalization shift. Previously, we had $30,000 allocated to that. However, we came across a code issue with HUD where that would have put our public services spending over the 15% we're allowed. So we've moved that to $20,000. Thank you. And so we actually had to take— that would have put us $30,000 over. So what we did was we shifted most of that to the, the Cherry Hill project, the Cherry Hill playground project. And so that's why the Cherry Hill one will be about $280,000. And I talked to Tyler today and Bryce, and they said they could use every penny of that, so that's totally fine. Another thing to point out with that is that, um, this particular code under HUD really has that money tied down to mostly just dumpsters and that kind of thing. We only spent about $3,500 of that last year out of the $30,000, so, um, so we really don't need $30,000 for that, and it's better used in Cherry Hill. So if you have any questions about that, please let Let me know. Oh, and, and one other thing that Taylor and I were discussing. The original intent of the neighborhood revitalization was to perhaps clean up these neighborhoods more than we anticipated with the current code that we have. So going forward, especially as we have that Section 108 payment money available for us to spend, what we want to do is potentially in the future, in include non-public service matrix codes that could better serve us in these areas of street improvements, sidewalks, and tree planting. As you can see there, that is non-public service funding, so we can spend as much money as we want in those categories. So that may be better useful for us in future years.

Okay, awesome. So next step with this, like Heather said, we're going to have a 30-day comment period starting today, and then after that we'll reconvene to get a council vote on those funding recommendations. And then Mag is working on the annual action plan to post that budget, and we'll receive our funding allocation by July 1st. So—

And, and Stephen, to be sure, that's probably 5 weeks from today, the second meeting, because I don't think that— wait a minute, this is what date? The 6th. I guess the first meeting in, in May would be 30 days. No, it'd only be 28 days from now. No, there's a 5th week. Sorry, it'd be 35 days.

So is—

do we need to say anything about moving it to that date or just accept the information and wait for them to propose it to us? Yeah, I think, I think just accept the information.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, any other questions? I just have one. If the public did want to make a comment, what format would that, would that come in? Yeah, so, um, you can send it to my email. I believe that's what's in the public notice, unless there's another email in there as well. Yeah, just my email.

Okay, thank you for that update.

Thank you.

Okay, getting to the end here. We've got item 10.2, and this was an ordinance for Ken Garf. Amending Article 22-5-3A and the zoning map of the City of Warm by rezoning the properties generally located at 134 East 1200 South and 110 East 1200 South from single-family residential to commercial, approximately 1.05 acres. Uh, Ken Garf has requested a continuance of this item since they weren't ready to present it, and they wanted to They request that it be moved to the May 13th, 2025 City Council meeting. Somebody like to make—

Mr. Mayor, I move that we continue this item, item 10.2, till May 13th.

Second.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

The resolution passes, or the ordinance passes, or the continuation passes. Okay, it all passed. All right, um, next up we've got item number 12. Uh, any information from our city manager? I just skipped 11 because it's not anything.

Um, well, the monthly financial information is just always in the packet.

It's in the packet.

Um, yeah, just a few quick items. Uh, again, just a reminder, send any names to for invitations to our City Hall grand opening. Um, we're already in the process of moving in, and we already do have a certificate of occupancy. So if during the workday any of you want to, you know, come by and take a look at things and get sort of a— obviously you've had tours, you know, kind of as we've been going along, but if there's any desire for that, please feel free.

If I may on that issue, Mayor, uh, Bren, when we did the groundbreaking, there were some Former council members or mayors or some that, that somehow inadvertently got left off the list. Would you make a list, check it twice, kind of like Santa's list, and make sure they're all invited?

I think I've checked that list 3 to 4 to 5 times since, but yes.

Okay, well, twice, twice.

Thank you.

Yes, no, uh, we have— we definitely want to make sure that we've got everyone on there. Um, also just While we're still going through the process of doing the parking and the Freedom Plaza and everything, just a heads up, getting into the new building for the next few months, the best place to park will actually be over in front of our public safety building. And then next week we got our ULCT conference, and of course we've had them come and present already you know, kind of high level talking about the work that we've done with them. I'll just say that publicly that I look forward to, you know, being with you down there at that conference to continue to learn. But also, I think it has been effective, and we've seen kind of building momentum in terms of our voice, the voice of the City of Orem being heard amongst other cities and with the state. And again, I think we've even seen that as we've had more more interactions with our state legislators. And then finally, library remodel is going to be starting soon, and so I— and we'll get this public word out as it happens, but in order to accommodate ongoing library programming and operations, we are going to be adding a north entrance that'll face out onto 100 North. So just making you aware Just like we always do, even though there's a little bit of inconvenience and what Pete calls pixie dust, not construction dust. We are, we are coming up proactively with plans to continue to provide our awesome services, even when, you know, there's construction improvements going on. So just want you to be aware of that. That's all I have.

Thank you, Brent. I think we're done. That takes us to item number 13, to adjourn to a closed session in Room 107, and that's to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation, the character, professional competence of an individual, or the purchase or lease of real property. Would someone like to make that motion?

I motion that we adjourn to a closed session in Room 107.

Second.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

We'll adjourn to a closed